Gabbard suing Clinton for defamation over 'Russian asset' comments
By: BY REBECCA KLAR
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is suing Hillary Clinton for defamation over the former secretary of state's remarks on a podcast characterizing the Democratic presidential candidate as a Russian asset.
Gabbard filed the defamation lawsuit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Gabbard’s lawyers allege that Clinton’s comments have “smeared” Gabbard’s “political and personal reputation.”
“Tulsi Gabbard is a loyal American civil servant who has also dedicated her life to protecting the safety of all Americans,” Gabbard’s lawyer Brian Dunne said in a statement.
“Rep. Gabbard’s presidential campaign continues to gain momentum, but she has seen her political and personal reputation smeared and her candidacy intentionally damaged by Clinton’s malicious and demonstrably false remarks.”
In a podcast recorded in October but released in November, Clinton said she thought Republicans were "grooming" a Democratic presidential candidate for a third-party bid. She also described the candidate as a favorite of the Russians.
Clinton did not name the candidate but it was clear she was speaking about Gabbard.
"They're also going to do third party. I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate," Clinton said.
"She's the favorite of the Russians, they have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, and that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not, because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset, I mean totally. They know they can't win without a third party candidate," Clinton said.
Stein was the Green Party candidate in the 2016 presidential election. Stein said the idea she is a Russian asset is an unhinged conspiracy theory in an op-ed for the Guardian.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
53 visitors
Finally people are being held accountable for smearing others
Rules of civility apply
Trump is completely off topic
Hilarious. As if any judge wouldn't throw this thing out on the face of it. I'm no fan of Hillary and personally think she should go hide in a closet for a few years, but this is just stupid.
"Clinton did not name the candidate"
Yeah, that's kind of key when claiming "defamation".
To claim that it was "clear" who she was talking about is a bunch of malarkey. This is beyond spurious. As if Tulsi could win some damages, which she can't actually prove, on what amounts to someone skirting the CoC. It's ridiculous. Anyone thinking this will lead to some sort of accountability are delusional. This is just a desperate attempt for Tulsi to rally centrist Republicans who hate Hillary but dislike Trump as well but can't see themselves voting for a Bernie or Warren.
Who was she talking about?
Didn't they say the same of Nick Sandman?
Well, from a legal perspective, it could have been any of the women still running at that time.
Can you prove it was Tulsi she was referencing? Because her lawyer is going to have to do that if they have even a smidgen of chance of not getting thrown out on their ear. Jill Stein actually has a better case than Tulsi which is why this is even more hilarious.
I have no clue who "they" are or who Nick Sandman is, I guess I'll have to look him up.
Looked him up. Nick Sandmann, the student the Covington case. Obviously, that case was fairly clear since CNN went too far before getting all the facts and were using his name and image. That's quite far from the Tulsi lawsuit.
Well I guess they can bring Hillary in and ask her, should clear things up.
True, she will say it was herself.
They don’t seem to be denying it real hard. Hillary’s spokesman confirmed it at the time.
Tulsi Gabbard files $50 million defamation suit against Hillary Clinton over "Russian asset" comment
So neither Hillary or her spokesman actually used her name, but we're to "assume" that's who she meant?
Besides, Tulsi has as much evidence that she was damaged by Hillary's 'skirting of the CoC' as we have the Russian propaganda effected the 2016 election. While some may say "Well just look at the numbers that dropped right after Russia released all those stolen emails", but that's not enough to actually conclusively prove causality. I do believe Russian meddling had an effect, but I know I can't prove it without being able to bring in tens of thousands of witnesses who absolutely confirm they were for Hillary until they saw the leaked emails or some Russian bot ads. Same with Tulsi, she's going to have to prove in court that she was actually politically, financially, emotionally or physically harmed by Hillary's non-specific comments that did not actually name her. That is going to be an impossible lift, which is why it's obvious this is just a grab for attention. Even the amount they are suing for makes it clear this is nothing but an appeal to Hillary haters. I have to give her credit though, it obviously worked. Look at how many of you are jumping to her defense, it's hilarious.
It's really sad to see some are still so delusional. I have to assume you're still waiting for them to excavate under the pizza parlor because you just "know!" there's a sex dungeon down there, right? But all that's really off topic isn't it, just more deflect and distract.
What the right wants from Tulsi Gabbard is that she run for president as an independent. That is where their interest in her begins and ends.
Hilarious. So a MotherJones story a week before the election that doesn't actually release the Steele dossier, just hints of it's existence. It said "A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump". That's all you've got? That's why you believe Hillary worked with the Russians? Wow, that's pretty sad. I almost feel sorry for you.
It's funny to see some cling to this as some evidence that Hillary tried to sway the election with the Steele dossier which wasn't actually made public till January 2017, long after the election, while they completely ignore, deflect and distract from the actual known campaign by the Russians to get dishonest Donald elected. Russia illegally hacked US voter databased in 22 States, they hacked private US citizens and stole emails and released them publicly with the intent of hurting the party they didn't want to win the 2016 election because they believed it would be to their benefit to get Trump elected. They spent $1.25 million a month in fake ads that looked like they were domestic social media but were just regurgitating Russian State media propaganda. Putin himself admitted he used Russian government assets to assist dirty Donald in the campaign.
“President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?”
“Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.” - slimy piece of shit murderer Vladimir Putin July 18, 2018
To continue to deny the facts and evidence of obvious Russian aid to dirty Donald while clinging to some thread of conspiracy so that you can continue your hate for "the left" is just sad and borders on insanity.
More nonsensical bullshit. Steele was paid, initially by Republicans and later by the Clinton campaign, to gather intel on the Russians and their numerous contacts and connections to the Trump campaign. The fact that you're trying to twist and distort this is proof your claims are nothing but hilariously unfounded fantasy conspiracy theories most likely provided to you through dishonest right wing media who got it from their surreptitious masters at RT and Sputnik. You're still swimming in Putin's manufactured delusion and it's really getting sad to watch.
You mean like a reset button? Or ignoring the invasion of Crimea or refusing to arm the Ukraine because Russia was needed for an Iran deal?
He was never paid by Republicans!
Prove it!
You made the claim - BACK IT UP!
This is a good example of how pervasive fake news is among progressives. That Steele was hired by the DNC/Clinton's through Fusion GPS in June of 2016 has been proven countless times on this site. A two second Google search will confirm that from mainstream liberal sources. But some dishonest progressives liked the talking point that Steele was hired by Republicans so much they conflated two projects and ignored the inconvenient fact that Steele wasn't hired until June, after the Republican project ended. They rightly trusted their gullible readers wouldn't look at the underlying facts and a lie was born. It's kept alive on trashy far left sites to be repeated ad nauseam by people who get their news from left wing clickbait. The lie is so pervasive that it's reached the tipping point where the devoted progressives simply parrot it without thinking about it. They think it must be true because so many progressives believe it to be.
You can prove he wasn't paid by Republicans today and tomorrow someone here will claim he was. The truth is really irrelevant to them.
They conflated two seperate things and they did that long ago. They just latch onto a talking point and they keep repeating it over & over.
Listen to yourself
"If the nesting doll fits" is a clearly Russian spin on "if the shoe fits."
You don't understand that idiom, eh? OK, back to school time, I guess. From Merriam-Webster (famous publisher of dictionaries . . . you do know what a dictionary, is, I hope)
She better get her kit ready to defend herself and i'm not talking about in court
No one cares about these two except Russian bots and propaganda mongers.
You obviously care because you are emulating Clinton and smearing all of us.
No, just looking to see which propaganda monger is busy today. Two faced muckrakers keep saying they want Clinton to go away, but then keep bringing her up every time she farts. It's sad.
Boom chakalaka!
I think Clinton would probably win this suit, although I personally couldnt care less.
Tulsi Gabbard is an interesting personality. She is said to be very ambitious, and has a background that includes being a member in what is described as a religious cult .
I think she falls into that part of the political spectrum occupied by people like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Glenn Greenwald. In other words , anti-establishment , but neither strictly speaking liberal or conservative. It is the politics of personal ego.
Don't forget CNN settled with Sandman.
I think she falls into that part of the political spectrum occupied by people like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Glenn Greenwald. In other words , anti-establishment , but neither strictly speaking liberal or conservative.
I'd call her a moderate.
Obviously, Clinton was petrified of Gabbard running as an independent.
Of course, you can't defend that slur
Yes, you’d call her whatever Hillary told you call her. Clearly.
Tulsi Gabbard is a member of a religious cult, JR? She is a Hindu. Hinduism is one of the dominant religions in the world.
Uh. So?
Boy you will say anything about someone who's not 100% on board with you politically, huh? Religious cult?
John is referring to her early childhood upbringing in the Science of Identity Foundation. He omitted that Tulsi Gabbard has been a Hindu since she was a teenager.
How is any of that either 1) her fault or 2) relevant to her deserving respect today?
Hillary is starting to get more vocal about the "candidates" - she doesn't "trust" Sanders - Gabbard is a Russian asset.
Her house is going to start falling with her open mouth and closed mind over just the elections. Wonder why? Could it be that she's trying to prove that she's still relevant in the political world?
Lady, you've not got it anymore - learn from that.
It’s about time someone started pushing back on this crap. Gabbard has done nothing to deserve that kind of accusation. If the other candidates had a little more integrity, they would have said something.
So taking a play from Nunes...
Funny that the right wing use to be for tort reform and tamping down on frivolous lawsuits. Now they cheer on any, everyone suing.
The most interesting thing about being a 'Russian Asset' is the fact that many are unaware of being used. Not always though, ask the Kurds and how a Russian asset was used on them.
I'm not fan of Clinton but support protecting freedom of speech. I don't like the idea that one can be sued for speaking their mind.
Agree. Unless the 'speaker' is fomenting lies or untruths knowingly. Can not accept that lie speech is free speech.
Very true. Not only would Tulsi have to prove Hillary meant her when she made her comment, and that she was personally, provably damaged by the comments, she'd also have to prove Hillary knowingly made false statements against her. The entire civil claim is ridiculous and completely without merit, intended only for half wits and morons who foam at the mouth with hatred toward Hillary and believe every lie they've ever heard about her. Tulsi is just making a grab for those centrist Republicans who hate Hillary with a passion but can also no longer stomach dishonest Donald, but can't see themselves voting for a Bernie or Warren.
Agreed.
Ok, third time this month I voted up a conservative. Haha
It is starting to seem like people that willingly want to be in the public eye think they should be shielded from criticism.
That horse left the barn long long ago.
Tort reform is needed very badly in the US but as long as congress if full of lawyers, it ain't gonna happen.
And that's all she wrote .....
Straight to dead last or next to last in almost every poll. Hovered between 1 and 2% now 0% on many polls.
She had her shot on the big stage and failed to rally Democrats or even Republicans
with her comments. But.....Hillary!!!
What does Gabbard's poll numbers have to do with the article?
It has everything to do with it. She is clearly blaming Hillary for her polling numbers and whatever else she can throw out there.
Gabbard’s lawyers allege that Clinton’s comments have “smeared” Gabbard’s “political and personal reputation.”
Oh, is that what it is? Then she must think that the Clinton statement had a retroactive effect since her polling numbers have been like that for a while.
Gabbard’s lawyers allege that Clinton’s comments have “smeared” Gabbard’s “political and personal reputation.”
Being called a "Russian asset" would have that effect
Then it seems a little silly to sue since her numbers had nowhere to go but up.
Yep, she needed any attention, good or bad. But she couldn't turn a pig's ear into a silk purse, eh?
Instead she files a lawsuit ala Devin Nunes.
Good grief man, were you this sympathetic when Mr. Trump attacked one GOP primary candidate after another
with insults. Were you supportive of Mr trump attacking Ted Cruz's father and Mrs. Cruz let alone attacking Ted personally?
Eventually Ted & Donald made up, wrote it all off to nasty politics.
Then maybe your theory doesn't make sense.
Well Bernie Sanders doesn't need any attention - he's a contender and what did Hillary recently say about him?
"You know, basically, [the Russians] were like, hey, let's do everything we can to elect Donald Trump," Hillary explained to Stern. "Those are words. And they also said Bernie Sanders, but, you know, that's for another day."
"He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him," Clinton said in the four-part documentary, according to The Hollywood Reporter. "Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It's all just baloney, and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it."
Any theories on that?
You may not want to tout those figures very much as, if her true conviction is to become POTUS is there, she just may well run as an Indie. I suggest the left pay attention to that fact. They may drive her inadvertently into doing just that.
And that, friend Just Jim, is exactly what Clinton predicted would happen, isn't it?
3rd parties bled off 6% of the electorate, over 7 million votes and 7 EC votes in 2016.
Gabbard recently announced she would not seek a 5th term in the House in order to focus on the primary race
( or a 3rd party run )
Oh, what a genius? She must be...to walk away from so many scandals unscathed!
Too bad the genius called half the country "deplorable"
Wrong again. I guess that's what "identity politics" is all about, friend Vic,
So, no, not half of the country, probably not even half of a half of the country did she besmirch,
but it appears that many more were butthurt by the politically inept comments.
Present company excluded, of course.
Unfortunately her supporters picked up the whole stupid "deplorables" comment and used it to describe anyone that supported Trump. She did nothing to correct them; or stop it.
So yes, she did, and does believe that 1/2 the country are "deplorables".
I wish Hillary had just kept it zipped, but she is free to say what she wants. I look forward to the lawsuit, getting Tulsi's Russian connections and their fondness for her out there is important for Americans to know about . Russia likes her for a reason whether she knows about it or not. The more we all know about it the less likely it is their interference will be effective. Such as putting their bots on top of her defense on social media. And into gop talking points. Exhibit 1: this seed
Look here, Tulsi has same policies preferences as Putin and Trump. No wonder they keep pushing her.
We have so many striving to protect us from Russia. One question: How did John Brennan know that Putin wanted Trump to win? How did he know what was in Putin's mind?
They have people assigned at every intelligence bureau to watch RT and NTV media.
It seems that every few months, Hillary needs to insert herself into the headlines, because she still hasn't gotten over the fact that she's a loser.
In 2008, Obama took her out.
In the 2016 race she, along with her complicit DNC (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile) and left-wing media, were successful in destroying Bernie's chances, but she still couldn't win the presidency.
In the 2020 race, Hillary's trying to destroy not only Tulsi Gabbard but (again) Bernie Sanders. She even had to walk back her most recent attack on Bernie. What a stupid woman.
The ONLY reason any conservative or Republican is interested in Tulsi Gabbard is in the hope that she will run for president as an independent and suck a percentage or two of votes away from the Democratic candidate.
Other than that, they couldnt care less about her.
That's a fear of Hillary Clinton and establishment democrats. However it is extremely unlikely that Gabbard would run as an independent. I thought she was seeking VP status but I don't think she will be chosen by anyone other than Mike Bloomberg.
I kind of see her becoming a cable news political analyst after all this is all over.
I don't see her ever being elected in Hawaii again.
Elected? I thought I heard her say she wouldn't run again. I think she knows what she wants to do should she not get a shot at the bottom of the ticket.
Heard that before, the I am not going to run again. Especially when they know their meal ticket has expired.
Haha
Maybe they got a whiff of all the republican support she is getting and dropped her like a hot potato.
I am sure you all will embrace her into your fold...
I wouldn't say all are.
Imo her suing just puts her in a class with Nunes.