Hillary Clinton refuses to be served Tulsi Gabbard’s defamation lawsuit

Tony Stark · Jan 30, 2020

If Tulsi wins this case Trump should win billions from all the people who said he colluded/was an agent for/conspired etc with Russia.Hillary didn't even say Tulsi worked / conspired with Russia so Trump should have a much stronger case.

Tony Stark · Jan 30, 2020

jem said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice

In this case... proving actual malice should not be a challenge.
Hillary was obviously trying to damage Gabbard's campaign when she created that lie.

Hillary is probably going to need to have steele create a dossier.

Hillary didnt accuse Tulsi of doing anything with Russia.Hillary stated her opinion so that is not a lie

Snarkhund · Jan 30, 2020

Stating that Tulsi is "a Russian asset" is clear defamation. She has a case.

The damage to her reputation will be hard to quantify but there certainly is defamation here.

RedDuke · Jan 30, 2020

In US anyone can sue for any reason.

TreeFrogTrader · Jan 30, 2020

Snarkhund said:
Stating that Tulsi is "a Russian asset" is clear defamation. She has a case.

The damage to her reputation will be hard to quantify but there certainly is defamation here.

Maybe Tulsi can subpoena Hillary's emails to see if she colluded with anyone else to defame her.

What could go wrong there?

El OchoCinco · Jan 30, 2020

jem said:
In your opinion what amount would be appropriate for a complaint and what amount would be just compensation?

Calling a politician who served in the military a Russian asset is pretty damn defamatory in my view.

Look what happened to Trump when the Clinton machine decided to call him a Russian collaborator?

There is no valid opinion on damages. $50 million though for someone calling you a Russian asset in the political arena is not a valid libel suit. How was she injured by this? her campaign was in the toilet anyway so you cannot claim she was about to win the nomination and then suddenly HRC speaks and she tanks hard and loses out on millions.

Most people believe HRC was a crackpot for saying it and just like Trump she can say she never say that, the media misconstrued what she meant. HRC will eventually be served but the case will go no where....

Trump called all people names in the political arena and people call Trump names. ANyone who is going to sue when they get called names should get out of politics.

Spike Trader · Jan 30, 2020

RedDuke said:
In US anyone can sue for any reason.

lol .

Devin Nunes is still suing an imaginary cow, and still subpoenaing people who might know the cow

Cuddles · Jan 30, 2020

El OchoCinco said:
There is no valid opinion on damages. $50 million though for someone calling you a Russian asset in the political arena is not a valid libel suit. How was she injured by this? her campaign was in the toilet anyway so you cannot claim she was about to win the nomination and then suddenly HRC speaks and she tanks hard and loses out on millions.

Most people believe HRC was a crackpot for saying it and just like Trump she can say she never say that, the media misconstrued what she meant. HRC will eventually be served but the case will go no where....

Trump called all people names in the political arena and people call Trump names. ANyone who is going to sue when they get called names should get out of politics.

And she didn't even call her that. She called Stein an asset, she said Tulsi was being groomed

Spike Trader · Jan 30, 2020

IN 2016 , accusations of Hillary selling babies from a pizza parlor was OK ,

it didn't damage her campaign.

Bugenhagen · Feb 1, 2020

Snarkhund said:
Stating that Tulsi is "a Russian asset" is clear defamation. She has a case.

The damage to her reputation will be hard to quantify but there certainly is defamation here.

She did not refer to her by name of I recall. Why you guys never fucking recall anything accurately, repeat obvious propoganda and make shit up justifying that as its "as good as true" like a daft evangelist is another matter.

"Though Clinton did not directly name Gabbard at the time, when her team was later asked about it, Clinton's spokesperson Nick Merril said, "“If the nesting doll fits."" but he not Clinton said this.

Way too much wiggle room for an effective defamation case involving two public people, it is just opinion and we get nothing but uninformed opinion from the Cons. It is just a stunt.