Posted on 01/22/2020 6:13:04 AM PST by yesthatjallen
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.”
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Nothing Burger
Imagine the discovery when everyone gets a look underneath Hillary’s big tent.
Can you explain that case?
(ELI5 is fine!)
Thanks, I just had a visual that will give me night meres for weeks.
I saw your name last week :-)
Surfing the swamp, beachgirl?
“Hope she sues her pant suits off.”
Please, be careful what you wish for.
Hillary! was saddened to hear of the untimely suicide of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, next Thursday.
“Nuisance lawsuit given that Rep. Gabbard is a public figure.”
You can’t smear someone with lies even if he or she is a public figure.
Going nowhere. The “public figure” nonsense factor will end this quickly.
Yeah! I was about to post something to that effect.
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court recognized that the strict liability rules in defamation cases would lead to undesirable results when members of the press report on the activities of public officials. Under the strict liability rules of common law, a public official would not have to prove that a reporter was aware that a particular statement about the official was false in order to recover from the reporter. This could have the effect of deterring members of the press from commenting on the activities of a public official.
Under the rules set forth in Sullivan, a public official cannot recover from a person who publishes a communication about a public official’s conduct or fitness unless the defendant knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of the statements truth or falsity. This standard is referred to as “actual malice,” although malice in this sense does not mean ill-will. Instead, the actual malice standard refers to the defendant’s knowledge of the truth or falsity of the statement. Public officials generally include employees of the government who have responsibility over affairs of the government. In order for the First Amendment rule to apply to the public official, the communication must concern a matter related directly to the office.
Later cases expanded the rule to apply to public figures. A public figure is someone who has gained a significant degree of fame or notoriety in general or in the context of a particular issue or controversy. Even though these figures have no official role in government affairs, they often hold considerable influence over decisions made by the government or by the public. Examples of public figures are numerous and could include, for instance, celebrities, prominent athletes, or advocates who involve themselves in a public debate.
....rather, she was an unwitting tool on the “plus” side of the Russian agitation ledger.
So, just another typical liberal.
Ha—because Gabbarb, like Mayor Pete, is obviously a CIA asset...
“Hillary! was saddened to hear of the untimely suicide of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, next Thursday.”
LOL!
Sorry. There is a much higher legal threshhold for slander and libel with public figures, as it should be.
Would you like JimRob to be sued everytime a Democrat gets slammed on this website? We can slam them because they are public figures who open themselves to ridicule and parody by choosing to make their names and faces known. It’s why the media can say so many horrible and untrue things about Trump and Republicans, true, but it is a part of having a robust First Amendment.
That’s where the media got it wrong with Nicholas Sandmann. The media attacked him when he was not seeking individual attention or putting his name out in public and was, in addition, under 18. That’s why he could win huge judgements in court where someone like David Hogg or Greta Thunberg would not. That’s why CNN settled with Sandmann and the other media hit crews will likely settle also.
Exactly. She didn't say Tulsi was knowingly an asset.
Now that is 100 percent funny as hell!
Yeah and maybe hold off on surfing for a while. Watch out for sharks or Orca Rodham Clinton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.