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

[Worldtraveller]

But, I thought you guys claim the parties switched in the 60's? This would mean the Republicans of the 40's were actually Democrats, since it was before the switch.

You guys can't keep your consistency on anything, can you?

Sure I can. You arguments suck.

Always.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hillary Clinton refuses to be served Tulsi Gabbard’s defamation lawsuit

Dunne said their process server first attempted to effect service at Clinton’s house in Chappaqua on Tuesday afternoon — but was turned away by Secret Service agents.

The agents directed the server to Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, who on Wednesday claimed at his Washington, DC, firm, Williams & Connolly, that he was unable to accept service on Clinton’s behalf, said Dunne.

 

[Derec]

Hillary Clinton refuses to be served Tulsi Gabbard’s defamation lawsuit

Does that mean Tulsi can get a default judgment? Would be ironic if Hillary really became as "dead broke" as she pretended to have been...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No it does not. Service needs to happen, and it will. Theoretically if Tulsi tries enough times or has evidence that Hillary is actively avoiding service (instead of a one time mix up with the lawyer) then Tulsi could bring a motion for substitute service. That still won't allow a default judgment until the specified time to enter a defence ends. Don't know what that time period is in that jurisdiction.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No it does not. Service needs to happen, and it will. Theoretically if Tulsi tries enough times or has evidence that Hillary is actively avoiding service (instead of a one time mix up with the lawyer) then Tulsi could bring a motion for substitute service. That still won't allow a default judgment until the specified time to enter a defence ends. Don't know what that time period is in that jurisdiction.

Not knowing hasn't stopped you before from making judgments.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No it does not. Service needs to happen, and it will. Theoretically if Tulsi tries enough times or has evidence that Hillary is actively avoiding service (instead of a one time mix up with the lawyer) then Tulsi could bring a motion for substitute service. That still won't allow a default judgment until the specified time to enter a defence ends. Don't know what that time period is in that jurisdiction.

Not knowing hasn't stopped you before from making judgments.

I am not a judge in this jurisdiction. Your goading is irrelevant.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hillary Clinton refuses to be served Tulsi Gabbard’s defamation lawsuit

Does that mean Tulsi can get a default judgment? Would be ironic if Hillary really became as "dead broke" as she pretended to have been...

No.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No it does not. Service needs to happen, and it will. Theoretically if Tulsi tries enough times or has evidence that Hillary is actively avoiding service (instead of a one time mix up with the lawyer) then Tulsi could bring a motion for substitute service. That still won't allow a default judgment until the specified time to enter a defence ends. Don't know what that time period is in that jurisdiction.

Not knowing hasn't stopped you before from making judgments.

I am not a judge in this jurisdiction. Your goading is irrelevant.

You poor thing. Am I not being inclusive enough regarding the invitation of your baseless opinions that appear to either ignore history or attempt to incite left-wing discontent?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am not a judge in this jurisdiction. Your goading is irrelevant.

You poor thing. Am I not being inclusive enough regarding the invitation of your baseless opinions that appear to either ignore history or attempt to incite left-wing discontent?

Derec asked a question about legal procedure. I answered it. Your goading and personal attacks and attempts to derail remain irrelevant.

 

[Toni]

I am not a judge in this jurisdiction. Your goading is irrelevant.

You poor thing. Am I not being inclusive enough regarding the invitation of your baseless opinions that appear to either ignore history or attempt to incite left-wing discontent?

Derec asked a question about legal procedure. I answered it. Your goading and personal attacks and attempts to derail remain irrelevant.

I didn't know you were licensed to practice law in the US?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Derec asked a question about legal procedure. I answered it. Your goading and personal attacks and attempts to derail remain irrelevant.

I didn't know you were licensed to practice law in the US?

I am not. But it is similar. We tend to base our laws on such procedural matters on older ones and shape them with each other. Yours are very likely descended from England's. Your revolution didn't rewrite all legal tradition. I expect that the differences will be mostly about timelines etc. Which I don't know for this particular jurisdiction. It probably varies from state to state.

 

[Trausti]

US law allows for substitute service. You can’t hide behind the couch.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

US law allows for substitute service. You can’t hide behind the couch.

Correct.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think that people need to read the actual transcript. Here it is:

"They're also going to do third party again. And I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. 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, 'cause she's also a Russian asset."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...y-clinton-and-whether-she-called-tulsi-gabba/

If you read the entire transcript, the "they" is actually the republicans. She claimed the republicans are grooming her to run third party. And if you watch fox news, I think that this is clear. Tulsi is an empty drama queen.

 

[Copernicus]

I think that people need to read the actual transcript. Here it is:

"They're also going to do third party again. And I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. 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, 'cause she's also a Russian asset."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...y-clinton-and-whether-she-called-tulsi-gabba/

If you read the entire transcript, the "they" is actually the republicans. She claimed the republicans are grooming her to run third party. And if you watch fox news, I think that this is clear. Tulsi is an empty drama queen.

You are right about pronoun anaphora, but Hillary Clinton was calling Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein "Russian assets". She was quite correct about that. They will see any challenger to the Democratic front runner as an "asset", whether knowledgeable or not. Clinton backed up her claim by referring to the behavior of the Russian bot machine. You can also look at Russian news stories to see that they favor Gabbard, as do many Republicans.

But the "Russian asset" claim doesn't even have to be true for Hillary Clinton to defend herself. She was voicing a political opinion that is fully protected by the Constitution. Political opponents say all sorts of false things about their opponents, whether they know them to be false or not, and no court is going to rule that politicians and political commentators can be sued for lying about other candidates. For one thing, it would be almost impossible to prove that it was a lie.

See Here's why Trump can legally get away with saying things that aren't true
Can a Presidential Candidate Get Away With Defamatory Lying?

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think that people need to read the actual transcript. Here it is:

"They're also going to do third party again. And I'm not making any predictions but I think they've got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. 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, 'cause she's also a Russian asset."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...y-clinton-and-whether-she-called-tulsi-gabba/

If you read the entire transcript, the "they" is actually the republicans. She claimed the republicans are grooming her to run third party. And if you watch fox news, I think that this is clear. Tulsi is an empty drama queen.

You are right about pronoun anaphora, but Hillary Clinton was calling Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein "Russian assets". She was quite correct about that. They will see any challenger to the Democratic front runner as an "asset", whether knowledgeable or not. Clinton backed up her claim by referring to the behavior of the Russian bot machine. You can also look at Russian news stories to see that they favor Gabbard, as do many Republicans.

But the "Russian asset" claim doesn't even have to be true for Hillary Clinton to defend herself. She was voicing a political opinion that is fully protected by the Constitution. Political opponents say all sorts of false things about their opponents, whether they know them to be false or not, and no court is going to rule that politicians and political commentators can be sued for lying about other candidates. For one thing, it would be almost impossible to prove that it was a lie.

See Here's why Trump can legally get away with saying things that aren't true
Can a Presidential Candidate Get Away With Defamatory Lying?

Very much agreed. But I just wanted to clarify that HRC was referring to the republicans when she stated that Tulsi was being groomed to be a Russian asset (not agent). Obviously, she was being sardonic. But to the interesting issue here is that either Tulsi is being deliberately dense or just isn't that smart. Not sure which...

 

[laughing dog]

But to the interesting issue here is that either Tulsi is being deliberately dense or just isn't that smart. Not sure which...

Don’t discount that it is both.

 

[Toni]

But to the interesting issue here is that either Tulsi is being deliberately dense or just isn't that smart. Not sure which...

Don’t discount that it is both.

And desperate for attention.

 

[Copernicus]

But to the interesting issue here is that either Tulsi is being deliberately dense or just isn't that smart. Not sure which...

Don’t discount that it is both.

And desperate for attention.

Well, that and a way to use the court system to troll Democrats and stoke up Republicans. It costs Gabbard a lot of money to do something this unlikely to succeed, but maybe the funds aren't coming out of her pocket. Meanwhile, this becomes a Facebook/Twitter meme that goes viral in both left and right echo chambers. The Russian government loves it, because it causes chaos--one of their primary objectives in Western elections.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No it does not. Service needs to happen, and it will. Theoretically if Tulsi tries enough times or has evidence that Hillary is actively avoiding service (instead of a one time mix up with the lawyer) then Tulsi could bring a motion for substitute service. That still won't allow a default judgment until the specified time to enter a defence ends. Don't know what that time period is in that jurisdiction.

Isn't it permissible to serve someone's lawyer when they have a lawyer?