Breaking News Tulsi Gabbard is Suing Hillary Clinton for Defamation over 'Russian Asset' Remark

Hilary should have just stayed out of this match.

There was no need to interject herself into this primary and while I doubt she will lose it would have been better for Hillary to simply apologize.
 
Cherico said:
Hilary should have just stayed out of this match.

There was no need to interject herself into this primary and while I doubt she will lose it would have been better for Hillary to simply apologize.
Click to expand...

Hillary might still think she has another shot. We all know she's unethical enough to try to take control of the convention if there isn't a clear winner at that point, and seize the nomination for herself.
 
Legally, Gabbard doesn't have much of a shot, as she is a public figure, and in America, lying about public figures is hard to sue successfully. But politically, it looks good.
 
Spartan303 said:
While I disagree with Tulsi on some of her policies, ultimately I believe she's in the right to fight this. Even if it doesn't go anywhere legally, by fighting it she shows she's made of sterner stuff.
Click to expand...
I'm generally happy when a politician shows guts, but I honestly hope Hillary wins this (never thought I'd say that). If Gabbard wins, that is an awful precedent that will be exploited to the hilt by the powerful against the powerless. Hillary would love for Gabbard to win this battle if Hillary wasn't on the other side. But ultimately, Gabbard needs to stay relevant, and sadly this is the only way she can. It's too bad, as I would vote for Gabbard in a primary if I was a Democrat.
 
Bacle said:
Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton for $50M over 'Russian asset' remark

Well, glad someone's finally standing up to that bint Shillary, and might make the hag-bag bleed a little with legal fees and damages.

Or she could just end up another person added to the 'Clinton Body Count' tally.

I give it 50/50 odds.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't think Hillary can add tallies to that count; people are just paying too much attention for her to get away with that sort of thing anymore.
 
Bacle said:
That's what we thought about Epstein and the Clintons, and well...
Click to expand...
That wasn't Hillary; or at least, odds are that it wasn't. Epstein had dirt on a lot of powerful people; including members of the British royal family. There are literally hundreds of suspects when it comes to the question of who ordered him taken out, most of whom aren't under the same level of scrutiny that Hillary is (or have as many enemies as she does).
 
The lawsuit isn't going to go anywhere--the bar for defamation, especially on public officials, is extremely high in the US, and I'd err on the side of 'rightly so' because of the openness it gives to speech. Barring this kind of stuff would bar a great deal of commentary and rhetoric that, while eye-rolling and/or overblown much of the time, should still get to be said. Even when it's Hillary Clinton making swipes at others because she's a failure (the court documents, it should be said, have some half-amusing phrasing in them).

The lawsuits rather blatantly something of a public-relations stunt than anything, and that's a bit objectionable on a stolid 'don't waste the court's time' standpoint...But civil courts get used for time-wastes all the time, and in a way there being something of a threat, especially towards those in power, that what libel/defamation laws are on the books might still go after them is something of a benefit of its own...I dunnow. US court system is a cluster for a variety of reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top