Wednesday, January 22, 2020
BREAKING: Tulsi Gabbard Sues Hillary Clinton for Defamation
Tulsi Gabbard has filed a defamation suit against Hillary Clinton for calling her a “Russian asset,” according to newly filed court papers, reports The New York Post.
“Tulsi Gabbard is running for President of the United States, a position Clinton has long coveted, but has not been able to attain,” the federal lawsuit reads. “In October 2019 — whether out of personal animus, political enmity, or fear of real change within a political party Clinton and her allies have long dominated — Clinton lied about her perceived rival Tulsi Gabbard. She did so publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent.”
I love a political catfight and this one is especially awesome given Tulsi is pretty good on the foreign wars issue.
-RW
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Costanza! Pass the popcorn!
ReplyDeleteDo you consider Tulsi's reputation to be her intellectual property? She's put in the time to develop a unique presence in the minds of voters and this could have longer term financial ramifications for her. Might be hard to measure but surely it will amount to something...
ReplyDeletePerhaps in addition to that she wants (like a lot of people,) see nutjob Hillary called to task for the kind of damaging impunity she has generated for ohh so long.
DeleteIt's a weak case for defamation, since Hillary's statement named no one in particular as being the Russian asset. Tulsi is just sucking at the last fumes in her gas tank, trying to get a few more miles down the road for her campaign publicity.
ReplyDeleteIt's very very weak since such things have been standard political speech for so very long. Now if HRC just named or implicated someone on the sidelines that might be a case but since Gabbard was in the race then it's pretty much expected these days. It's dirty, it's wrong, but over centuries become more or less acceptable.
DeletePlus, under our defamation laws, there is a higher standard to meet when the plaintiff/victim is a "public figure." As I recall from my law school days, you have to show malicious intent, not merely that they (defendant) was wrong about a fact. Here, with Hillary though, it probably goes without saying that every other utterance out of her mouth is malicious.
Delete