Image 01 Image 03

Gabbard Sues Hillary for $50 Million Over ‘Russian Asset’ Comments

Gabbard Sues Hillary for $50 Million Over ‘Russian Asset’ Comments

“But Clinton reserves a special hatred and animosity for Tulsi…”

2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard filed a defamation suit against failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Gabbard filed the lawsuit over comments Hillary made in October 2019 on the Campaign HQ With David Plouffe podcast:

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.

The lawsuit pointed out that Hillary doubled down on the remarks the following day. Her spokesman Nick Merrill simply replied, “If the nesting doll fits.” He also insisted Hillary’s remarks were not an “outlandish claim,” but “reality.

The lawsuit claimed Hillary’s remarks hurt Gabbard’s reputation:

Clinton’s Defamatory Statements immediately harmed Tulsi. Despite reprobation of Clinton by several 2020 presidential candidates including Senator Bernie Sanders, Marianne Williamson, and Andrew Yang for her baseless conspiracy-mongering, Clinton’s Defamatory Statements spread like wildfire across the Internet, and took on a life of their own. Millions of Americans heard (or read about) a well-known authority figure, Clinton, stating as fact that Tulsi was a “Russian asset” and “the favorite of the Russians.” Scientifically conducted opinion surveys have shown that Clinton’s false, malicious statements about Tulsi were accepted as true by millions of Americans, including large numbers of voters in battleground Presidential primary states

In short, Clinton got exactly what she wanted by lying about Tulsi—she harmed her political and personal rival’s reputation and ongoing Presidential campaign, and started a damaging whisper campaign based on baseless, but vicious, untruths.

Gabbard alleged that Hillary made the comments “with actual malice.” Hillary “knew that the Defamatory Statements were false” despite having the ability to receive information to prove her point.

Gabbard’s lawyer noted that “no United States law enforcement or intelligence agencies have claimed, much less presented any evidence, that Congresswoman Gabbard is a Russian asset.” Gabbard serves on the House Armed Services Committee, Foreign Affairs Committee, and Homeland Security Committee and no one has questioned her access to classified information.

Other demonstrations of malice include “improbability” of Gabbard serving as a Russian agent since she has sat in Congress for four-terms, a Major in the United States Army National Guard, and “voluntarily deployed to war zones twice to war zones in the Middle East.”

The lawsuit mentioned Hillary’s “ill will against Tulsi,” which stems from Gabbard choosing Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in 2016:

Clinton has not gotten over her loss in that election and still dwells on what happened. Clinton blames many persons for her loss. One of them is Senator Sanders, whom Clinton blames for being late to endorse her during her 2016 campaign. But Clinton reserves a special hatred and animosity for Tulsi—who never endorsed Clinton, did not campaign for her, and to top it off, gave the nomination speech for Senator Sanders at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.

In February 2016, Tulsi was the Vice Chair of the DNC. She publicly backed Senator Sanders (over Clinton) for President, and she was the highest profile Congressperson to do so at the time. Clinton was extremely angry—to put it mildly—that Tulsi endorsed Senator Sanders over her. Clinton’s agents emailed Tulsi to tell her that the Clinton team “no longer trust[s] [Tulsi’s] judgment,” and Tulsi was told that the Clinton team would never forget this slight. Among other things, Clinton’s agents relayed that the Clinton team will refuse to assist Tulsi in any of her campaigns. These agents then forwarded this correspondence to Huma Abedin (Clinton’s closest aide) and John Podesta (chairman of Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign) to gloat about the beatdown they felt they delivered on Tulsi, writing “Hammer dropped!” It has been widely reported by news sources that Clinton is known to keep long-time grudges, even going as far as maintaining “for-me and against-me databases” and scoring degrees of treachery for those that have crossed her.

This is not in the lawsuit, but honestly, it should be:

Tulsi-HRC 2020-01-22 by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | January 22, 2020 at 3:17 pm


Need much more popcorn and butter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this aint going anywhere

    Don’t think like romney. This will be a great battle, and bring more justice against that traitor clinton than the swamp ever would.

    She defamed Gabbard. With malice.

    As part of proving malice, Gabbard can bring in LOTS of evidence that will damage the traitor.

    Gabbard is a liberal, but she is a military officer and very tough (witness kamala harris’ humilation at her hands).

    Watching clinton’s lawyers defend this will be just keep clinton’s scumminess in the news.

    What will her defense be, but clownish?

    probably true … defamation against a nobody and defamation against a very public figure are two different fights entirely.

“No one is actually dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away.”


How is it that the near-monolithic Democrat party has finally succombed to warring factions attacking each other. That is one problem they managed to avoid for so long but now they are a total disaster of a party. They were always full of it but now they can’t even hold themselves together.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to broomhandle. | January 22, 2020 at 3:39 pm

    For one thing, the Democrat money sources are being dried up.

    Guess there is no honor among thieves –
    as we see the Dems fighing over what really boils down to who will be able to “take” the most money.

      I don’t know if they are drying up but Lord are they being spread thin, and just how much of the cash being spent now won’t be available for the big show. My guess is that they are sucking up $200M a quarter for a losing, and internally damaging, end result. Gonna leave a lot of grumpy people out there who will be wishing that they had just blown it all on powerball tickets.

    Give Gabbard credit: she is the only one of them with morals.

    She’s incurruptable, so the swamp won’t embrace her. But she just might do to the corrupt democrat establishment what PDJT has done to the corrupt republican establishment.

SeekingRationalThought | January 22, 2020 at 3:43 pm

Just a case of the dumb eating the dumber.

As Joe says, this ain’t going anywhere. This is yet another lawsuit based on an opinion, not a false statement of fact. The accusation that Gabbard is a Russian asset is not a statement of fact, because how could Clinton possibly know that? Rather it’s a conclusion, based entirely (if bizarrely) on publicly known facts, which makes it an opinion and therefore not actionable.

Had Clinton still been secretary of state, and implied that her accusation was based on intelligence briefings or other secret information she had access to, then it would be actionable. Or even now, if she’d said something like “I still know people in the CIA”, thus implying that she knows something about Gabbard the rest of us don’t, then it would be actionable.

But she didn’t say anything like that. Rather, she jumped from Gabbard’s public actions to a bizarre conclusion, exactly like those who accused John Kerry, Barack 0bama, John McCain, and Donald Trump in turn of being “Manchurian candidates”. Or those who, just as bizarrely, accuse Valerie Jarrett of some sort of affiliation with or loyalty to Iran, just because her mother happened to be there when she gave birth. They don’t have secret facts, the bases of their conclusions are public information, so there’s no actionable defamation.

By way of contrast, had the Swifties been lying about Kerry, he could have sued them, because they made specific factual claims about him, allegedly from their own experience with him. Even as a public figure, had they been lying he could have sued them and won, because they would by definition have known they were lying. He didn’t sue them because he knew they were telling the truth.

    >>”As Joe says, this ain’t going anywhere.”<<

    Is there reason for filing a unwinnable defamation suit? The decision to do so may be political in nature? Perhaps a public relations stunt?

    amatuerwrangler in reply to Milhouse. | January 23, 2020 at 10:49 pm

    I am not a lawyer, but I did read Popehat back when it was an active blog. The statement does not have to be fact. In fact, if it was a fact, which I doubt, that would be a bulletproof defense to the claim.

    It only has to be offered as if it was fact. Clinton was once Sec State and had access to all kinds of intel. She has been supported and defended by former CIA and DSA ever since the election, so potential sources of such data is plausable. It would not be beyond belief that she could know such a thing. Many people would believe it. The fact that she uttered it in a way that harmed Gabbard, or at least the harm is claimed, and knew it was untrue at the time, makes for a decent case.

    Clinton is not running for anything (as of 1923 hr, PST) so “political name calling” defense does not fit. My only question would be how will she establish the $$ value of the claimed damages?

    The case will go somewhere, depending on the vigor with which it is pursued, but not all the way. I predict a drive, marred by a couple penalties, short of the red-zone and capped with a long field goal. Then again, I could be wrong.

      “It would not be beyond belief that she could know such a thing. Many people would believe it. The fact that she uttered it in a way that harmed Gabbard, or at least the harm is claimed, and knew it was untrue at the time, makes for a decent case.”

      Bingo. You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand the law. Those that pretend they know the law and everything is an absolute slam dunk are ignorant of the law and the facts in this situation.

Beauty and the Beast.

EVERY time I see that pic of HRC, I can’t help but think of the scene in Total Recall where Arnie is disguised as a woman and the robot eyes start to bug out and it explodes.

Not that I care if Hillary ends up losing this large amount of money, but how the hell does calling someone a Russian asset – even if it’s on national TV, come to be worth that kind of money?
Tulsi seems to have a very over inflated view of herself if she thinks that because she ran in the clown car that anyone will remember her beyond next year, so damage to her – especially when she isn’t running for anything after this according to her.
I get it, you need the large $$$ for effect, but sorry, Tulsi was never even a wild hair chance at being POTUS, and more than half the country knows Hillary is just insane.
Let them rip at each other, but both sides should be losers in this.

    amatuerwrangler in reply to oldgoat36. | January 25, 2020 at 3:54 pm

    “Tulsi seems to have a very over inflated view of herself …”

    I know that you are aware that she holds a seat in Congress. Such opinions of one’s self are part of that. Pretty much all of them, now that I think about.

Sheesh. No one believes anything that Hillary says. And no one thinks that Tulsi is a Russian asset or whatever the old screech owl called her.

Someone should tell Tulsi that she is not going anywhere, outside of Hawaii.

At a guess, she may have spent too much time around Spartacus Booker and has taken herself much too seriously.

It has been said before, but it is a pity both sides can’t lose.

Good for her. Someone’s got to fight back.

Good. Take her illegally gained millions. Make Hittliary and Billy Bob, the serial rapist and pedophile, the most qualified paupers in history. Maybe they will shut their damn mouths.

Well we need to put her on suicide watch……Too many Clinton adversaries have committed suicide…

Jill Stein should join Tulsi Gabbard’s lawsuit, because Hillary called her a Russian asset too. Some thanks she gets, for calling for recounts only in states Trump won narrowly, and not in states (*cough* Nevada *cough*) Hillary won narrowly.

Too bad it turned out good for Trump, because the only fraud discovered was in Detroit where votes were counted 6 or more times trying to help Hillary win Michigan. But that’s not Stein’s fault.

Anyway Stein seemed like a Hillary ally. Now she’s just trying to avoid being suicided as a friend-of-Hillary?

    amatuerwrangler in reply to artichoke. | January 23, 2020 at 10:11 pm

    If she is going to blame anyone for her loss, Hillary should have Stein at the top of her list. Without Stein on the ballot, those close states would have gone to Clinton. I doubt Stein drew a single vote from the Trump camp.

    As I recall, adding Stein’s vote total to the Hildabeast’s, the beast would have won those states, not Trump. If Trump had a real sense of humor he would have offered Stein some “nowhere” ambassadorship in recognition of her contribution to his win.

      “As I recall…”

      Michigan, Stein got 50K+ and Trump beat Clinton by about 10K, so yea. OTOH, Johnson received 173K, many undoubtedly would have otherwise voted Trump.

      Wisconsin, different numbers, same story, Stein pushes Clinton past Trump but only because Johnson received 3x the votes of Stein.

      Pennsylvania breaks the pattern as Steins votes would not push Clinton past Trump. But the same again with respect to Stein and Johnson.

      Those are the only three really close that Trump won. There are a couple that absent 3rd party Trump might have won, including Minnesota.

Law suit, pants suit, no matter. Most of the dinosaur media, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party, has Tusli’s obit written. Like Ebola, Arkancide is always fatal.