• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton for $50M, claims defamation over 'Russian asset' remark

Chomsky said:
For the good of the party, given that the party is looking to be the only mechanism that can remove the President, and removing the President is required to preserve America as we know her, Hillary needs to get with the program or shut-up. Her arrogance & incompetent got us into this mess, and now she needs to help get us out or stay the hell out of the way. Don't underestimate how critical this juncture is. It is not the time for Clinton entitlement.
Click to expand...

Amen. The Clintons are a train wreck.
 
Chomsky said:
I like Bill much more than her. But it really is time to move on ...
Click to expand...

You mean "forever impeached" Bill Clinton? :2razz:
 
Chomsky said:
I like Bill much more than her. But it really is time to move on ...
Click to expand...

I feel that the Clintons started out with the best of intentions and got caught up with the wrong people. The whole Third Way crowd. In the end, they chased the buck and helped turn the Democratic Party into the cesspool of corporate corruption that allowed Trump — one of the most corrupt people on the planet — to run a campaign against corruption and win. Ugh.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is a graveyard of good intentions twisted by politics and special interests. Unlike the Republican Party, which actively pushes for corruption, bathes in corruption, almost literally picks the pockets of their base and yet how are still more trusted by large swaths of the American people compared to Democrats. It’s quite a thing.
 
zimmer said:
I hope this doesn’t get settled out of court.
Click to expand...

Tulsi doesn't have a prayer. She was hoping this kickstarts her campaign, which has been pretty much non-existent. She won't collect one dime of this ridiculous lawsuit.
 
Dans La Lune said:
I feel that the Clintons started out with the best of intentions and got caught up with the wrong people. The whole Third Way crowd. In the end, they chased the buck and helped turn the Democratic Party into the cesspool of corporate corruption that allowed Trump — one of the most corrupt people on the planet — to run a campaign against corruption and win. Ugh.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is a graveyard of good intentions twisted by politics and special interests. Unlike the Republican Party, which actively pushes for corruption, bathes in corruption, almost literally picks the pockets of their base and yet how are still more trusted by large swaths of the American people compared to Democrats. It’s quite a thing.
Click to expand...
Excellent post. I can't say there's anything I disagree with, here.

I'll leave you with this, in reference to your post's closing:

"Honesty is everything. When you can fake that, you've got it made!"
 
Perotista said:
I agree. This name calling has got way out of hand. It all began with Trump and his name calling and throwing temper tantrums like a five year old kid whose parents forgot to teach him any manners.

As for the lawsuit, I doubt it goes anywhere. You can say things about celebrities and politicians that you can't about a normal person. If our elected officials couldn't lie and accuse their opponents of everything under the sun to include calling others names, Washington D.C. would be deserted.
Click to expand...

The reason why 99.999999999999% of defamation suits go nowhere is that you have to clear an ungodly number of hurdles. A false claim, intent to harm, damages, and knowledge that your claim was false. Most people can prove one or two of those at best. But all four? Yeah, good luck with that.

Gabbard is doing what every famous and political figure does when announcing a defamation suit: attracting attention or giving their base/followers something to feel good about.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
.... Republicans accuse Democrats of literally cheering for terrorists, but if Tulsi gets called a Russian asset she gets 50 million?

Well, okaaaaaaaay.

Tulsi had no plan for winning other than she's beautiful, and she was in Iraq. If she wins this lawsuit, it'll be the only thing she wins during the primaries.








Я Баба Яга [emoji328]
Click to expand...

Present
 
Napoleon said:
A) Hillary Clinton never referred to Tulsi Gabbard as a “Russian agent.” That verbiage is Tulsi Gabbard’s invention.

B) Hillary Clinton did point out that one of the candidates was/is a Russian favorite - which is demonstrably true and if being called out for it is problematic for her then she shouldn’t have been playing kissy face with Russian State owned media and, at best, neutral about the fact that she was being promoted online by Russian troll farms.

C) Tulsi Gabbard self-identified as the person Hillary Clinton was talking about.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

It's like when the teacher yells at the class for doing Something Bad but doesn't say who did it, and one kid stands up and yells, "IT WASN'T ME!" Now who do we all think did it? :lol:
 
j brown's body said:
This seems like quite a stretch since pretty much everyone believes she is a Russian asset. Its too bad that Gabbard, who claims she is running for president, can't claim headlines in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...

No, everyone doesn't think she's a Russian asset. Just a small group of morons or dishonest people do.
 
Cardinal said:
The reason why 99.999999999999% of defamation suits go nowhere is that you have to clear an ungodly number of hurdles. A false claim, intent to harm, damages, and knowledge that your claim was false. Most people can prove one or two of those at best. But all four? Yeah, good luck with that.

Gabbard is doing what every famous and political figure does when announcing a defamation suit: attracting attention or giving their base/followers something to feel good about.
Click to expand...

pretty good return on the nominal cost of filing suit
 
Phys251 said:
Exactly.

It's like when the teacher yells at the class for doing Something Bad but doesn't say who did it, and one kid stands up and yells, "IT WASN'T ME!" Now who do we all think did it? :lol:
Click to expand...

"No Quid Pro Quo!"

kind of like that?
 
Moderate Right said:
Tulsi doesn't have a prayer. She was hoping this kickstarts her campaign, which has been pretty much non-existent. She won't collect one dime of this ridiculous lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Tulsi is more popular among Republicans than Democrats.
 
Chomsky said:
And ditto for Bernie? Why's she now coming after him, of all people?
Click to expand...

She is in the 'blame anybody but herself' mode. Quite the elitist

Oh, what she wrote Bernie earlier

Clinton Letter.jpg
 
Last edited:
bearpoker said:
Tulsi is more popular among Republicans than Democrats.
Click to expand...

I mean... wouldn't that be a good reason to nominate her against Trump? Draw some Republicans and most of the Democrats and anyone who is "any one but Trump" and win? Just a thought...
 
justabubba said:
pretty good return on the nominal cost of filing suit
Click to expand...

That depends on whether you expect to see any fundraising benefits from such a suit. If you don’t then that’s money pissed away for lawyer’s fees.

If she does get an uptick in fundraising (and that’s a Godzilla-sized “if”), then it will come primarily from somewhere in the right wing or foreign interests.
 
CaughtInThe said:
Good God man. you're a Trump fanboy and you don't know what things he's tweeted about people.

That's bizarre .
Click to expand...

Still not addressing the topic as usual you should read the topic.
 
JasperL said:
I skimmed the lawsuit.

https://d3ba7j4nna908t.cloudfront.net/attachments/Tulsi-HRC_2020-01-22_Complaint_filed.pdf

It's a PR stunt. Hillary never mentions Tulsi's name in exchange. She in fact says when talking about a third party run, that she believes will happen, "I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on" presumably Tulsi. That's just opinion. She repeats it later as opinion only. She also says the Russians have bots etc. to support (presumably) Tulsi, who isn't named anywhere, and the lawsuit doesn't address that. There's reporting that the Russians are pushing her, but if false the lawsuit should address it. And then she talks about Jill Stein who she explicitly calls a Russian asset. So in context it's clear she's referring to Jill Stein in that exchange, and if anyone has a basis to sue Hillary on those comments about being a "Russian asset" it's Stein, not Tulsi.

Here's the link if anyone's interested in hearing the comments in question. Start at around 34:00.

Campaign HQ with David Plouffe - Hillary Clinton
Click to expand...

From the interview.

In a recent interview, Clinton didn't mention Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii by name, but said she believes one candidate is "the favorite of the Russians." Asked if the former secretary of state was referring to Gabbard, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said, "If the nesting doll fits..."

Your summary is a bit off.
 
Bullseye said:
Congratulations on breaking the "what about Trump" barrier!!
Click to expand...

i just need clarification. if people can sue others (like in the OP) then our President is gonna get hit by a ton of lawsuits.
 
Chomsky said:
I like Bill much more than her. But it really is time to move on ...
Click to expand...

I give Bill credit for two things. He left the economy alone and let it flower on its own, and he kept his head on straight when they were impeaching him.
 
10$ says that if she doesn't win the lawsuit Tulsi switches parties.



Я Баба Яга [emoji328]
 
CaughtInThe said:
i just need clarification. if people can sue others (like in the OP) then our President is gonna get hit by a ton of lawsuits.
Click to expand...

He can't. The president and congress are protected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom