• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Tulsi Gabbards Defamation Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton

Stanyon

WWMRD?
The fish rots from the head down

I an attempt to delegitimize political opponents it seems popular among some democrats to claim that a candidate is a Russian asset, we saw it with Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, and then Bernie Sanders. Even in the aftermath of the collusion delusion that was proven false after a several year investigation we still see some politicians attempting to exploit the lingering Russophobia that was popular among the foolish looking for answers and a strawman to beat for their humiliating loss in 2016. Hillary Clinton decided to tap into this and claim once again that a politician she did not favour was a Russian asset in an attempt to harm their chances and help remove one less obstacle to the establishment democrat candidate. This influence campaign was supported by the respective and supporting corporate media that serves their establishment democrat masters.

"The lawsuit came in response to comments Clinton made during an October podcast when she claimed Gabbard was a "Russian asset" and that the Kremlin was pushing her to run as a third-party candidate to ensure President Trump's reelection by splitting the vote between her and the Democratic nominee.

“They are also going to do third party again, and I’m not making any predictions, but I think they got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” the former presidential candidate said. Clinton also later claimed that 2016 Green Party nominee Jill Stein was "also a Russian asset."
Facing backlash afterward, Clinton claimed she meant that it was Republicans who were "grooming Tulsi, not Russia.""


"2020 presidential long shot Rep. Tulsi Gabbard isn't backing down from her defamation lawsuit against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."

"Gabbard, who is currently running for the Democratic presidential nomination, filed the suit in January, alleging Clinton's insinuation that she is a "Russian asset" harmed her "reputation and ongoing presidential campaign." During a Fox Business interview with Maria Bartiromo on Wednesday morning, Gabbard provided an update on where the suit stands.

"The papers have been served. I think the first court date has been set, and I think it's important to understand that, you know, this is not just another political thing where one person said this — the other person said that," the Hawaii Democrat, who is seeking $50 million in damages, explained."
source:
'Not just another political thing': Tulsi Gabbard stands by defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton


Hillary Clinton has twice refused to see a process server attempting to convey Representative Tulsi Gabbard’s (D., Hawaii) defamation lawsuit against her, Gabbard’s lawyer told the New York Post on Wednesday.
“I find it rather unbelievable that Hillary Clinton is so intimidated by Tulsi Gabbard that she won’t accept service of process,” attorney Brian Dunne said. “But I guess here we are.”

“If Hillary Clinton and her allies can successfully destroy my reputation — even though I’m a war veteran and a sitting member of Congress — then they can do it to anybody,” Gabbard wrote in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “I will not allow this blatant effort to intimidate me and other patriotic Americans into silence go unchallenged.”
source:
Hillary Clinton Refuses to be Served Tulsi Gabbard's Defamation Lawsuit | National Review


 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member

Not really, I think if you say some stupid **** like this you should be ready to break out your wallet. The only thing people like the Clinton's care about is money. She knows it's completely untrue and that amounts to libel/slander.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The fish rots from the head down

I an attempt to delegitimize political opponents it seems popular among some democrats to claim that a candidate is a Russian asset, we saw it with Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, and then Bernie Sanders. Even in the aftermath of the collusion delusion that was proven false after a several year investigation we still see some politicians attempting to exploit the lingering Russophobia that was popular among the foolish looking for answers and a strawman to beat for their humiliating loss in 2016. Hillary Clinton decided to tap into this and claim once again that a politician she did not favour was a Russian asset in an attempt to harm their chances and help remove one less obstacle to the establishment democrat candidate. This influence campaign was supported by the respective and supporting corporate media that serves their establishment democrat masters.

"The lawsuit came in response to comments Clinton made during an October podcast when she claimed Gabbard was a "Russian asset" and that the Kremlin was pushing her to run as a third-party candidate to ensure President Trump's reelection by splitting the vote between her and the Democratic nominee.

“They are also going to do third party again, and I’m not making any predictions, but I think they got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate,” the former presidential candidate said. Clinton also later claimed that 2016 Green Party nominee Jill Stein was "also a Russian asset."
Facing backlash afterward, Clinton claimed she meant that it was Republicans who were "grooming Tulsi, not Russia.""


"2020 presidential long shot Rep. Tulsi Gabbard isn't backing down from her defamation lawsuit against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."

"Gabbard, who is currently running for the Democratic presidential nomination, filed the suit in January, alleging Clinton's insinuation that she is a "Russian asset" harmed her "reputation and ongoing presidential campaign." During a Fox Business interview with Maria Bartiromo on Wednesday morning, Gabbard provided an update on where the suit stands.

"The papers have been served. I think the first court date has been set, and I think it's important to understand that, you know, this is not just another political thing where one person said this — the other person said that," the Hawaii Democrat, who is seeking $50 million in damages, explained."
source:
'Not just another political thing': Tulsi Gabbard stands by defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton


Hillary Clinton has twice refused to see a process server attempting to convey Representative Tulsi Gabbard’s (D., Hawaii) defamation lawsuit against her, Gabbard’s lawyer told the New York Post on Wednesday.
“I find it rather unbelievable that Hillary Clinton is so intimidated by Tulsi Gabbard that she won’t accept service of process,” attorney Brian Dunne said. “But I guess here we are.”

“If Hillary Clinton and her allies can successfully destroy my reputation — even though I’m a war veteran and a sitting member of Congress — then they can do it to anybody,” Gabbard wrote in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “I will not allow this blatant effort to intimidate me and other patriotic Americans into silence go unchallenged.”
source:
Hillary Clinton Refuses to be Served Tulsi Gabbard's Defamation Lawsuit | National Review

At least hillary didn't have her killed, yet.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I think it is an interesting question whether someone can make false accusations against you without consequences.

Media and politicians are granted immunity when it comes to this stuff. Maddow is currently being sued. Her defense is simply put "people shouldn't take her seriously" Think about that, who is saying it and who she works for and where the comments in her case came from. Her defense is that she is literally fake news.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Media and politicians are granted immunity when it comes to this stuff. Maddow is currently being sued. Her defense is simply put "people shouldn't take her seriously" Think about that, who is saying it and who she works for and where the comments in her case came from. Her defense is that she is literally fake news.
That seems to be the go-to argument. Didn't work for Alex Jones.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
That seems to be the go-to argument. Didn't work for Alex Jones.

Alex Jones is an outside of MSM. He has no corporate backers that could look badly if their anchors were held responsible for what they said nor sued for publishing it as News. Jones' broadcaster was YT as a normal user creator/platform relationship not as part of his company. YT can cut ties without major issues. Corporate media would need to explain why they kept a hack on air for years and paid her to do it.

This applies to Fox, or any media, as Fox set the standard for the current media/propaganda outrage industry.
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
Media and politicians are granted immunity when it comes to this stuff. Maddow is currently being sued. Her defense is simply put "people shouldn't take her seriously" Think about that, who is saying it and who she works for and where the comments in her case came from. Her defense is that she is literally fake news.

If she actually said that, that is pure gold. Maddow as we all know spent about two years assuring everyone their was collusion with Russia, each night a new "shoe dropped". After the report came out saying there was no evidence she teared up and still tried to spin it.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I have no idea.
Perhaps you should investigate it, & start a thread about it.
It's not that I care about any of the various lawsuits, per se.

It the political weaponizing of the judiciary that I'm concerned about. Particularly when it's done by a sitting POTUS. Particularly if said president has a history of doing things like this.
Tom
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It's not that I care about any of the various lawsuits, per se.

It the political weaponizing of the judiciary that I'm concerned about. Particularly when it's done by a sitting POTUS. Particularly if said president has a history of doing things like this.
Tom
The courts have always been weaponized for political, religious, & coercive
purposes. It'll never change. Most politicians are lawyers, & they'll prevent
a loser pay system from ever taking hold.
You're concerned cuz Trump does it. You object when it's done to Hillary.
I see a pattern.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
The courts have always been weaponized for political, religious, & coercive
purposes. It'll never change.
This isn't true.
The courts used to be protected from politicization. Not that it didn't ever happen, but it wasn't as blatant as this.
You're concerned cuz Trump does it. You object when it's done to Hillary.
I see a pattern.
Because you're accustomed to seeing patterns even when they're not in evidence.

I don't much care about the Gabbard/Clinton thing. I didn't object to it. The ruling to dismiss was such an obvious slam dunk that I rather assumed that there were other, more subtle, motivations for filing such a ridiculous lawsuit.

But in that case, it was a dispute between private citizens. The Trump case concerns a sitting POTUS attacking a media outlet because Trump doesn't like what they said. That's a whole different level of concern.

If the president could do that with impunity, the way ordinary people do, maybe the judges he nominated need be removed and replaced by people selected by a less overtly partisan method.
Tom

PS ~Your posts are particularly ironic coming from Mr "But, Hillary...." himself.~
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
This isn't true.
The courts used to be protected from politicization. Not that it didn't ever happen, but it wasn't as blatant as this.
We've covered this.
Your total court experience is watching Judge Judy.
Because you're accustomed to seeing patterns even when they're not in evidence.
I've noticed you're accustomed to denying real patterns,
but seeing imaginary ones.
 
Top