Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton for defamation over Russia remarks

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

She did all of that (and more) and still lost and her silly followers screamed at the sky for a full minute.

The more time goes on the more I am convinced that the world dodged a major bullet when the US failed to send another Clinton back to the White House.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Most liberal Democrats, who voted for and still support Hillary Clinton as an icon and a hero, don't read your posts, here on ATS. They read, post and make threads of appreciation to her on liberal web sites and Reddit.

That's fine. I know a lot of conservatives myself included who have written posts in appreciation of her as well, albeit of her losing to Trump.
Her biggest campaign platform seemed to be strictly devoted to defaming others, even those in her own camp like Tulsi.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hillary failed as a presidential candidate twice and probably can't even make a good sandwich.

Her sandwiches are probably really dry.

But, Democrats still hold her as a beloved hero, even though none of them/us want her to run again.

This is what I don't understand. Everyone alive knows she's an evil, vindictive, vengeful, hate-filled monster and yet some still love her? I don't get it. Everyone that's been in her circle are scared to death of her and no one in the legal system will convict her of acts that were bordering on treason because they don't want to get suicided. And there she is, still in the news.

This is one of life's mysteries that will never be solved.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

If by Russian asset you mean a "useful idiot" that benefits Putin, the answer is yes.

As opposed to being one of Russia's "useless idiots" ?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

This is why the Democrats can't have nice moderate things. As soon as they get them, their core tears them to shreds.

They been eating their own for the last few years.

I look forward to see what they will be doing for the next 5 years

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hillary failed as a presidential candidate twice and probably can't even make a good sandwich.

Her sandwiches are probably really dry.

But, Democrats still hold her as a beloved hero, even though none of them/us want her to run again.

This is what I don't understand. Everyone alive knows she's an evil, vindictive, vengeful, hate-filled monster and yet some still love her? I don't get it. Everyone that's been in her circle are scared to death of her and no one in the legal system will convict her of acts that were bordering on treason because they don't want to get suicided. And there she is, still in the news.

This is one of life's mysteries that will never be solved.

My forecast is that Jezebel is going down hard, and most of her followers will be soon hating her

originally posted by: visitedbythem

I look forward to see what they will be doing for the next 5 years

Look at @metoo, BLM, Guilty until proven innocent etc it all comes back on them 10 fold.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

If by Russian asset you mean a "useful idiot" that benefits Putin, the answer is yes.

That's delusional.

I guarantee you that the average Democrat doesn't hate Hillary. She's still admired and respected, and will always be remembered as the first women nominated to run for president, and the first women who actually won the popular vote.

Democrats don't like it when you trash their heroes, and Hillary is a hero to many Democrats. Tulsi? Not so much.

In my world, most Democrats I know either abstained from voting for POTUS in 2016 or voted for Hillary and felt sick over doing so. Only the tesl political windbags fawn over her as a Dem superstar.

IMO, nobody in their right mind would ever want another Clinton or Bush to be president.

a reply to: Waterglass

Its a pretty lively Wednesday here in the USA

Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton for defamation over Russia remarks

Good at least someone in this country finally takes her on. I just hope Tulsi doesn't disappear or get some strange illness but maybe the white hats in INTEL have her back. I can only hope so. Seems like just the day Epstein died Hillary and Team Clinton began their march to where ever. She trashed Tulsi and many others the most recent being Sanders.

Ha!

Why should she be different?

I mean, it's the American way, n'est pas?

If you can't beat 'em, sue their panties off!

Go team!!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

If by Russian asset you mean a "useful idiot" that benefits Putin, the answer is yes.

How dare you speak about a woman of color, like that. Call her an idiot, falsly claim she's a russian asset...

Go put you MAGA hat on you sexist pig!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Hillary is a hero

some warning next time perhaps? i just finished eating and crap like that makes me wanna vomit.

a reply to: seagull

Thanks I agree with your view. At least she didn't declare war on Russia like Adam Schiff and his Ukraine Buds.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sounds kinda Russian asset-y to me.

Whatchamacallit? I must really have a good Thread as you showed up. Thank you for blessing my Thread Sookie. Have an excellent Thursday!

a reply to: irgust

Well you have Schiff saying that were at war with Russia in the Ukraine. Nuts

a reply to: Gothmog

You know, you can't really sue someone for pointing out that garbage people love you. Too bad you and Tulsi don't know the difference between an asset and an agent. Maybe you could ask Donald Trump and company to explain the difference between the two for you.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

She can sue Hillary under the guise that Hillary's defamatory comments were made with malice. Hillary isn't the media per say but shes a popular public figure. Here two comment on how politicians can deal with defamation.

In contrast, to win their libel suit, a public figure has to prove that the publisher of the false statements acted with “actual malice.” Actual malice means that the publisher either knew that the statements were false, or acted with reckless disregard for whether they were true or false. This is a lot harder to prove than negligence.

Here's another article from 2016:

Can presidential candidates sue media outlets for defamation?

a reply to: Waterglass

Maybe, but Tulsi can't show that the allegation is likely untrue, or that Hillary was certainly talking about her, before she stepped up to assume the moniker, raised her hand and said "HERE!"

There are plenty of examples of Tulsi playing Putin's useful idiot.

Defamation is only the case if the allegations can be shown to be likely untrue, even if they were made in malice. Malice, in and of itself isn't illegal either. If it were, Donald Trump would be in jail.

originally posted by: Athetos
According to Hillary everyone is Russia’s favourite.
I wonder who Hillary is the favourite of, I bet it’s not America.

Sanders the old Moscow mule on the other hand should be Russia’s favourite.
a reply to: Waterglass

Not a snowballs chance in hell..!!

Russia has been through the whole Communist/Socialist thing..

They know first hand what life is like under that kind of ideology and will likely never willingly seek to return to that way of life.

I also highly doubt that Putin would want a bunch of Bats#@t Crazy reds in charge of the largest nuclear stockpile on the planet..!!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Gothmog

You know, you can't really sue someone for pointing out that garbage people love you. Too bad you and Tulsi don't know the difference between an asset and an agent. Maybe you could ask Donald Trump and company to explain the difference between the two for you.

Oh , I know of at least one....

what did she say?