HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Rep. Tulsi Gabbard sues H...

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 09:55 AM

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton for alleged 'Russian asset' smear

Source: CNBC

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard sued former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday for allegedly defaming her by suggesting the Hawaii congresswoman is a “Russian asset.”

“Clinton’s false assertions were made in a deliberate attempt to derail Tulsi’s campaign,” says the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

The suit claims that Gabbard has suffered “actual damages” of ”$50 million — and counting” from Clinton’s comments.

Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, in October said in an interview that an unnamed Democratic presidential candidate was “the favorite of the Russians.”


Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/22/tulsi-gabbard-sues-hillary-clinton-for-alleged-russian-smear.html

85 replies, 4255 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 85 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rep. Tulsi Gabbard sues Hillary Clinton for alleged 'Russian asset' smear (Original post)
brooklynite Jan 22 OP
catrose Jan 22 #1
samnsara Jan 22 #4
certainot Jan 22 #47
dewsgirl Jan 22 #2
samnsara Jan 22 #3
Odoreida Jan 22 #49
jberryhill Jan 22 #52
lastlib Jan 22 #70
Squinch Jan 22 #60
MontanaMama Jan 22 #5
Me. Jan 22 #6
50 Shades Of Blue Jan 22 #7
hamsterjill Jan 22 #15
Javaman Jan 22 #8
sarcasmo Jan 22 #9
seta1950 Jan 22 #10
2naSalit Jan 22 #11
Dopers_Greed Jan 22 #12
lagomorph777 Jan 22 #13
rsdsharp Jan 22 #16
jberryhill Jan 22 #54
paleotn Jan 22 #14
Rebl2 Jan 22 #23
onetexan Jan 22 #71
chowder66 Jan 22 #17
aggiesal Jan 22 #18
Blue_Tires Jan 22 #26
Raster Jan 22 #34
at140 Jan 22 #58
TygrBright Jan 22 #19
Wuddles440 Jan 22 #20
solara Jan 22 #21
christx30 Jan 22 #69
BannonsLiver Jan 22 #22
BlueIdaho Jan 22 #24
still_one Jan 22 #25
DinahMoeHum Jan 22 #27
MarianJack Jan 22 #28
delisen Jan 22 #29
stillcool Jan 22 #30
Rorey Jan 22 #31
calguy Jan 22 #32
Gothmog Jan 22 #33
mr_lebowski Jan 22 #36
Stryst Jan 22 #35
mr_lebowski Jan 22 #37
underpants Jan 22 #38
Midnight Writer Jan 22 #39
Grokenstein Jan 22 #40
Devil Child Jan 22 #41
pnwmom Jan 22 #44
ET Awful Jan 22 #48
jberryhill Jan 22 #55
pnwmom Jan 22 #59
jberryhill Jan 22 #61
pnwmom Jan 22 #63
onenote Jan 22 #68
JonLP24 Jan 25 #83
pnwmom Jan 25 #84
JonLP24 Jan 25 #85
onenote Jan 22 #76
JonLP24 Jan 25 #82
Hekate Jan 22 #45
Devil Child Jan 22 #46
Hekate Jan 22 #56
Devil Child Jan 22 #64
BuddhaGirl Jan 22 #50
iluvtennis Jan 22 #42
Hekate Jan 22 #43
guillaumeb Jan 22 #51
Wawannabe Jan 23 #79
guillaumeb Jan 23 #81
treestar Jan 22 #53
mahina Jan 22 #57
jberryhill Jan 22 #62
treestar Jan 22 #65
Eugene Jan 22 #66
orangecrush Jan 22 #67
mdbl Jan 22 #72
enid602 Jan 22 #73
truthisfreedom Jan 22 #74
geralmar Jan 22 #75
Gore1FL Jan 22 #77
Wawannabe Jan 23 #78
Yeehah Jan 23 #80

Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 09:57 AM

1. Secretary Clinton does not need $, but I would still donate to her legal fund, if she had one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catrose (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 09:59 AM

4. me too!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catrose (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 04:32 PM

47. here's a donation. limbaugh praised gabbard with a caller, a gabbard fan claiming to be a

liberal/progressive

the caller was very lucid and erudite (while bullshitting about gabbard with lmbaaugh agreeing) proving the caller had to be a troll, and probably not American!

just find out where the call came from! aaltho just getting lmbaugh's endorsement means she's a russian tool too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 09:58 AM

2. I'm pretty sure, I saw where she meant the GOP was grooming her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 09:59 AM

3. oh boo hoo someones feefees got hurted..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samnsara (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 04:52 PM

49. So you're OK with slander if your idol does it? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odoreida (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 05:27 PM

52. Tulsi is a public figure


Sorry, but in the context of a national political figure commenting about other national political figures, the courts are not going to weigh in heavily on the entire point of the First Amendment - i.e. the maximum possible protection of political speech - nor are the courts going to become arbiters of political disputes.

The case is a turkey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #52)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 07:20 PM

70. Not a "public figure" in the context of libel/slander law, but a "public official".

Gabbard holds a public office. So the bar is higher than that for a "public figure" (e.g. an actor or other person generally known to the public). On that basis alone, Gabbard has virtually no case.

Plus, there is the truth defense, which makes Gabbard a loser. But discovery would be interesting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odoreida (Reply #49)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 05:43 PM

60. Hillary never mentioned Gabbard by name. And Gabbard is a public figure running for President.

So how, exactly, is what Hillary said "slander?"

Or was that meant to be just a baseless dig at the other poster?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 10:04 AM

5. Sounds like Tulski is

having a big sad. Po widdle Tulski...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 10:05 AM

6. Seriously? This Again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 10:09 AM

7. Wonder who is behind this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 50 Shades Of Blue (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 10:43 AM

15. I am wondering the same thing.

Puttie sure hates Hillary, doesn't he?

Good grief. Ridiculous waste of everyone's time and being done only to get Gabbard some attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 10:10 AM

8. the desperate flailings of someone flaming out. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 10:14 AM

9. Vlad sues Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarcasmo (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 10:17 AM

10. Exactly

vlad is mad and one of his minions sues HILLARY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 10:21 AM

11. Woo! Talk about some major butthurt!

Poor little wannabe princess. I hope she ends up with a defamation suit against her for all the truly nasty shit she's accused HRC of doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 10:25 AM

12. Is it really defamation

If you don't even mention the person's name?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dopers_Greed (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 10:28 AM

13. Also, truth is a valid defense in defamation cases

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dopers_Greed (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 10:59 AM

16. Especially when she said it was the REPUBLICANS who were grooming someone

currently in the Democratic primary race to be a third party candidate. She did say that person was a favorite of the Russians who would support her with bots, etc. if Jill Stein was willing to give up the position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dopers_Greed (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 05:28 PM

54. Public figure / political speech....


This suit will go nowhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 10:40 AM

14. Good luck with that, Tulsi...

also, do us all a favor switch to the R's in a huff over this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paleotn (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 12:44 PM

23. I agree

Better yet, just go away please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rebl2 (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 07:41 PM

71. +1 K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 11:25 AM

17. 50 million? That's some serious grifting. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 11:31 AM

18. I don't believe Hillary mentioned Tulsi by name ...

She implied, but of course Tulsi knew it was about herself.

Hillary's actual quote.
"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," Clinton said, "She's the favorite of the Russians."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/hillary-clinton-tulsi-gabbard/index.html

Clinton never names Gabbard, but there are only five women running for President -- Gabbard, California Sen. Kamala Harris, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and author Marianne Williamson -- and none of the other woman have been accused of being boosted by Russia.

Gabbard is going to have a hard time claiming injury since her name was not actually mentioned.
The only public that really know are those of us that follow politics very closely.
The rest of the voting public only understand 3 word bumper stickers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 01:39 PM

26. Even Tulsi knows the case is bullshit

This is just a half-assed way for her to stay in the news cycle...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 01:56 PM

34. Ding! Ding! Ding! Winnah!!!

And that is EXACTLY what Tulsi* wants... to stay in the news cycle and appear relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 05:37 PM

58. Hillary used "her" to describe...which could mean

either Amy or Elizabeth or Tulsi or Kamala. So no specific name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 11:38 AM

19. Oh, boy!! Can I help with the discovery request by the Clinton legal team?

I have some ideas...

anticipatorially,
Bright

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 11:54 AM

20. Why on earth is she...

upset about being called a "Russian asset"??!! Hell, it worked for the vermin currently infesting our White House! She should embrace it because the Republican (aka Trump) party just loves those who worship at the alter of Putin and authoritarians of his ilk. Plus her "courageous" votes on impeachment really establishes her street creed with the deplorables. Time for her to come clean and switch parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 12:05 PM

21. Maybe this is a "WWTD" kinda thang

What would trumpy do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to solara (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 06:35 PM

69. That makes sense. They are pretty much cut

from the same cloth. If you can’t beat ’em, sue ’em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 12:58 PM

24. Maybe she could get a few notes from Devin Nunez.

What a pair of litigious crybabies...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 01:35 PM

25. Wonder which right winger is financing this bullshit. While Clinton didn't expliciting mention

Gabbard by name, Gabbard appears to be outing herself

I wonder which campaigns will come out supporting this bullshit




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 01:39 PM

27. Fortunately, the good folks in Hawaii's 2nd CD. . .

. . .have the opportunity to put a real Democrat in office this November:


https://www.kaikahele.com/

https://www.facebook.com/KaiKahele/

https://twitter.com/kaikahele


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 01:40 PM

28. Tulsi Gabbard...

...is an asshole.

RESIST!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 01:42 PM

29. Maybe Gabbard needs to sue NBC which reported on Russia's interest in her

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/russia-s-propaganda-machine-discovers-2020-democratic-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-n964261


The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 U.S. election is now promoting the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat who earlier this month declared her intention to run for president in 2020.

An NBC News analysis of the main English-language news sites employed by Russia in its 2016 election meddling shows Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is set to make her formal announcement Saturday, has become a favorite of the sites Moscow used when it interfered in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 01:49 PM

30. trying to stay relevant...

when you never were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 01:51 PM

31. Gabbard is a tool

In more ways than one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 01:52 PM

32. She's following the Devin Nunes playbook

 

Suing anyone who tells the truth about her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 01:55 PM

33. from the Hoarse Whisperer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 02:01 PM

36. That's a good one!

What a freaking joke Tulski is (great nickname, whoever came up with that one).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 02:00 PM

35. So... her argument is tht Sec. Clinton prevented her from cashing in?

A) How exactly was she going to make $50M that Sec. Clinton prevented her from making?

B) Is she actually insane enough to sue over money that, at best, would be suspect? Call the cops and tell them someone stole your drugs and see how that goes.

C) Does she understand that she basically has NO public credit left, and that this might be putting the last nail in the coffin of her political career?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stryst (Reply #35)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 02:07 PM

37. Seems her lawyers have no idea what the term 'actual damages' actually means ...

That means, like, you crashed into my car worth $50K on the open market, it was paid for already, therefore I suffered $50K in 'actual damages'.

I believe there are other slightly more tenuous examples that can be called 'actual' like if you were hurt in the accident and lost money cause you couldn't work.

I doubt Tulski can show 'actual damages' to the tune of even $500 due to what Clinton said, let alone $50M.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 02:14 PM

38. How much is $50 M in rubles?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 02:16 PM

39. My guess is that some Conservative organization or person is backing this. Recall Paula Jones?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 02:31 PM

40. Maybe all the folks pushing the "Dems were unified until she raised her hand" BS

could join the suit? /snark

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 02:40 PM

41. I'm ok with Rep. Gabbard taking steps to defend herself and respond to defamation

Gabbard 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Devil Child (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 03:05 PM

44. Hillary didn't use her name. And Tulsi is a public figure -- the bar is set very high for

public figures.

Tulsi's just looking for some free publicity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 04:48 PM

48. Bingo - been trying to explain that to people. . .

Public figures have a much different standard than your average person when it comes to libel, slander, or defamation because "They also are considered to have significant ability to defend themselves regarding such public scrutiny and therefore cannot claim defamation unless the statement is not only proven to be false, but the defamer is proven to have shown reckless disregard for that falsity."


"If a public official or public figure believes that he or she has been defamed, he or she must prove with convincing evidence that the statement is false. The public official also must prove that the defamer showed reckless disregard for that falsity, either because the defamer knew the statement was false or should have known. "

So, unlike other areas of law, the onus is on the Plaintiff must prove that the statement was false, not on the defendant to prove that it was true.

See: https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-defamation/defamation-public-official-vs-private-person/?fbclid=IwAR0w3gh0Cw3vzse7A0-YYIF8Kg6_gUsX3AYOE5kUsLeUAyVcdL1XoPbd87o

So unlike many areas of law, there would need to be proof that the statement was false, but that there was a reckless disregard for the fact that it was false. Since nothing in the statement identified Gabbard by name, it was not made as a statement of fact, but rather as an opinion (thus the "I think" portion of the statement), there is little to support a claim for defamation or slander. This will likely be thrown out on a Motion for Summary Judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #44)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 05:33 PM

55. The "didn't use her name" part is not relevant


Aside from the public figure and political speech issues, it is clearly a statement of opinion, and not an assertion of fact in the first place.

At a minimum this suit will be tossed on preliminary motions.

What I would want to research is whether Gabbard's status as an applicant for the ballot makes her a suitable party for NY's Anti-SLAPP law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 05:38 PM

59. There is also the fact that newspaper issued a correction on the initial report.

Hillary didn't say this unnamed person was being groomed by the Russians; she said the candidate was being groomed by the REPUBLICANS. And there's no question of what she said, because the reporter had the tape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #59)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 05:44 PM

61. The Complaint is a joke

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

14.Motivated by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Tulsi made the decision to dedicate her life to protect the safety, security, and freedom of the American people. She enlisted in the Hawaii Army National Guard.In 2004, as Tulsi was campaigning for reelection to the State House, the Hawaii National Guard’s 29th Brigade Combat Teamwas called up to deploy to Iraq. Tulsi’sname was not on the mandatory deployment roster, but she knew there was no way she could stay behind as her brothers and sisters-in-arms were sent off to war, possibly to never return.So Tulsi left an easy reelection campaign and volunteered to deploy—the first of two deployments to the Middle East as a soldier.

----------------

I know that there is a contingent on DU that doesn't seem to believe me on stuff like this, but that's not the kind of bullshit nonsense one puts in a civil complaint if one is doing it for purposes other than using the filing itself as a grandstanding opportunity.

Civil complaints are simply a short and plain statement of facts which, if true, entitle the plaintiff to relief. They are not works of literature. Narrative complaints with lots of adjectives and adverbs are simply silly and childish.

When it reads like a cheap novel or a PR blurb, I usually quit reading them, since complaints in this style are nearly always bullshit in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #61)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 05:49 PM

63. Yeah, that complaint was just a big P.R. job. I wonder who's paying for it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #61)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 06:33 PM

68. I know. It was weird enough when the hack Nunes hired did it

Even weirder that this multi-city firm that actually has some real clients (even if they also happen to have some serious issues being raised about their practices) would do that.

I've been practicing for more than 40 years and I cannot imagine filing a complaint with a federal court that contained such crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #59)

Sat Jan 25, 2020, 06:41 AM

83. Her spokesperson said if the nesting doll fits

Hillary Clinton wasn't that clever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLP24 (Reply #83)

Sat Jan 25, 2020, 12:36 PM

84. Big deal. Tulsi Gabbard is a public figure and the bar is set very high. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #84)

Sat Jan 25, 2020, 01:55 PM

85. I said so myself

That is why she will have a hard time in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 11:25 PM

76. My quick research indicated that NY has a narrow and weak anti-SLAPP law.

Someone might know more, but it didn't look like it would be very helpful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #44)

Sat Jan 25, 2020, 06:40 AM

82. The fact that she is a public figure is why she has a hard case

The didn't mention her by name is a weak copout because anyone with a half a brain including her lawyers can tie the statement to her because her spokesperson said if the nesting doll fits.

I don't care who wins or loses the lawsuit as I can't stand either of them but Tulsi Gabbard also isn't President so therefore she can be indicted if she was really a Russian asset.

I wish people would STFU and let law enforcement do its job. Clinton should have gone to the FBI if she was serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Devil Child (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 03:07 PM

45. Of course you are. Nice avatar you have there, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #45)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 04:30 PM

46. Thanks!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Devil Child (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 05:34 PM

56. Forgot my sarcasm smiley

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #56)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 06:01 PM

64. It's all good, I forgive you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Devil Child (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 05:24 PM

50. How was she defamed?

I don't see any name mentioned

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 02:49 PM

42. Seriously...don't think this will go anywhere. Tulsi need to grow the f up. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 02:59 PM

43. Interesting. KnR

3rd Rec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 05:26 PM

51. There is/was a campaign?

Where is it? Who supports it?

Asking for millions of voters all across the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 23, 2020, 12:36 AM

79. Apparently one member in this thread

 

Supports Gabbard.
See post 41.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wawannabe (Reply #79)

Thu Jan 23, 2020, 12:40 PM

81. I saw that.

But there is a difference between someone declaring a candidacy, and significant numbers of people supporting that candidacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 05:28 PM

53. That should be dismissed immediately

what BS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 05:36 PM

57. What lawyer would take this nonsense accusation?

Jesus Tulsi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahina (Reply #57)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 05:46 PM

62. One who has received an adequate retainer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #62)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 06:08 PM

65. And who sees a chance to get some publicity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 06:14 PM

66. Obvious desperation. Hillary didn't even say that.

Of course, Republicans vs Russians is increasingly becoming a distinction without difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 06:23 PM

67. Please go away, Tulsi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 08:56 PM

72. Seriously Tulsi just admit you're a republican

and shut up and march in lock step with them with no guilt, just like they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 09:16 PM

73. representing

Which one of Trump's lawyers will be representing Tulsi?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 10:35 PM

74. Yawn.

Who cares? She was a useless candidate. Hillary was right. Case closed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Wed Jan 22, 2020, 11:41 PM

77. Neither of them will be president.

News about them detracts from the presidential contest and the impeachment. We have enough side shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Thu Jan 23, 2020, 12:26 AM

78. Moo!

 

Anyone say Noooooones? Moo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Thu Jan 23, 2020, 08:43 AM

80. Gabbard merely proves her incompetence and stupidity

with this idiotic lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread