Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Major Tulsi Gabbard is my hero

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    It ceases to be victim blamey when Gabbard is suing Clinton for defamation, and thus has to actually present a case, in court, that Clinton was knowingly lying. Keep in mind that the statement being false is a fundamental aspect of defamation cases: you can't defame someone by speaking what you believe is true, or is a matter that can't be adjudicated as true or false (ex: personal opinions).

    Gabbard is actively claiming Clinton lied, and has committed to a process where she has to prove it to a legal standard. This is also a choice by Gabbard, as a civil lawsuit, not a criminal proceeding.

    Clinton doesn't actually have to do more than prove she had a reasonable belief that she was speaking the truth. The extraordinary nature of her claims do not require extraordinary evidence in this case.

    OJ Simpson can't (reasonably) sue people for defamation when they say they believe he killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman despite being acquitted at trial. Because he would have to prove they are lying that they believe the prosecution despite the jury finding in Simpson's favor, which just isn't going to work in a legal context.

    Also, it's worth remembering that Clinton is, at this point, doing Gabbard a huge favor by blowing this off and giving Gabbard something to thump about in public (since campaigning on actual issues that matter to Democrats as a whole seem to be a losing option for her). If Gabbard is super-serious about this lawsuit, and forces Clinton into court, Clinton can easily countersue her into the ground for the claims Gabbard has made about her.
    Well that would be true that they just have to believe that what they are saying is true, except Info Wars and Alex Jones have been sued for defamation for calling the sandy hook victims and parents "crisis actors." now that case was just a cluster from day one with Jones and his legal team being complete morons. Now since Hillary Clinton is a public figure going after another public figure and that people listen and believe that things she says. Gabbard might have a case. There is a major difference between a random schmoe off the street and someone who has a wide audience.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Grimmi05 View Post
      Well that would be true that they just have to believe that what they are saying is true,...
      Ahem:

      "Clinton doesn't actually have to do more than prove she had a reasonable belief that she was speaking the truth."

      I didn't say Clinton has to prove nothing here. The whole bit about Alex Jones? He couldn't demonstrate that he had a reasonable belief that he was relating something true.

      Now since Hillary Clinton is a public figure going after another public figure and that people listen and believe that things she says. Gabbard might have a case. There is a major difference between a random schmoe off the street and someone who has a wide audience.
      This matters to a different aspect of defamation: damage. One of the things to prove in a defamation case is if the statement is damaging. The social standing involved certainly matters to damage in this regard, but the falsehood of the statement overrides this in legal theory.

      Basically this only matters if the statement(s) in question is defamatory on its own. Clinton's social power doesn't make a non-defamatory statement defamatory simply because of her fame.

      Comment


      • #18
        I feel like something that needs to be said hasn't been said considering the fact that one of the major pushes of this argument is a massive hateboner against Clinton, so as someone who's politics are left of American politics and therefore has no love for Democrats either for different reasons:

        No one is saying you have to like Hillary Clinton, or even not want to take her to task for her own bad decisions, policies, and schemes, but

        1) Just because someone is against Clinton does not mean they are a suitable person to support with the power and authority to act in the political sphere, or more somply, "Hates Hillary" is not enough basis for a VP, and
        2) Maybe you should actually know the shit someone you hate has done rather than relying on propoganda machines who are literally trying to just fill the air with enough of their noise that the repetition makes it sound true so that people don't actually research shit that's actually done.

        You can criticize and call for not giving power to Hillary Clinton and still suck at being a beneficial force in society. You need more than enemies.

        (Now Clinton being someone you don't want to give power and authority to is a WHOLE 'NOTHER TOPIC, but it had to be mentioned as the Gabbard train goes.)


        Sean K.I.W./Kelly R.A. Steele, Freelance Writer(Feel free to call me Sean, Kelly, Arcane, or Arc)
        The world is not beautiful, therefore it is.-Keiichi Sigsawa, Kino's Journey
        Feminine pronouns, please.

        Comment


        • #19
          I'm pretty sure Hillary Clinton is going to be just fine. I don't know why she's supposedly dodging service, because that's not really going to help her at all, beyond just grandstanding. Judges have approved granting service through Facebook before when the defendant was difficult to serve notice of the lawsuit. Gabbard is making a claim, and it'll be up for her to prove it in a court. Clinton can make all kinds of defenses, but it actually needs to reach a hearing for that point.

          Thing is, it probably won't. I've no doubt Clinton lives in a State with an anti-SLAPP statute and she'll probably make use of it. I don't really see Gabbard winning anything out of this beyond the pleasure of paying for Clinton's attorney fees.

          Edit: On a side-note, you don't need to specifically name someone in order to defame them. Inferring or insinuating has been deemed enough to be defamation towards someone. Clinton's quotes specifically cite another woman besides Jill Stein. Even still if the court is convinced Clinton was speaking about Gabbard, I'm dubious a claim of being a Russian agent will really reach the point of being considered defamation and that damages occurred.
          Last edited by Paradim; 02-04-2020, 02:48 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Paradim View Post
            I don't know why she's supposedly dodging service, because that's not really going to help her at all, beyond just grandstanding.
            Personal speculation:

            Clinton's doing it because it makes Gabbard look weak. I'm wager that Clinton feels this is just a political stunt by someone that hopes attacking her will boost their political standing; lots of Democratic leaning voters don't like Clinton and maybe this helps Gabbard get some VP cred with someone like Pete (who needs support on the left). But right now, Gabbard looks like she's flailing around as she can't even serve Clinton papers. Sure it's not a good look for Clinton either, but Clinton isn't running for office.

            Defamation lawsuits take time. There's no way this would actually be settled (outside of them cutting a deal) before the Democratic nomination is over. That's probably what Clinton is waiting for. Once there's a Democratic nominee, and a VP pick, then Clinton's going to stop obstructing the case, because by then it loses all political value. Then Gabbard will probably drop it or try to settle out of court instead of actually going to trial; exposing it for the political sham it seems to be. And if Gabbard does pursue it, then it's a sideshow to the election, and Clinton can bring her own legal power to bear on the case and squish it over the course of a year or two.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post

              Personal speculation:

              Clinton's doing it because it makes Gabbard look weak. I'm wager that Clinton feels this is just a political stunt by someone that hopes attacking her will boost their political standing; lots of Democratic leaning voters don't like Clinton and maybe this helps Gabbard get some VP cred with someone like Pete (who needs support on the left). But right now, Gabbard looks like she's flailing around as she can't even serve Clinton papers. Sure it's not a good look for Clinton either, but Clinton isn't running for office.

              Defamation lawsuits take time. There's no way this would actually be settled (outside of them cutting a deal) before the Democratic nomination is over. That's probably what Clinton is waiting for. Once there's a Democratic nominee, and a VP pick, then Clinton's going to stop obstructing the case, because by then it loses all political value. Then Gabbard will probably drop it or try to settle out of court instead of actually going to trial; exposing it for the political sham it seems to be. And if Gabbard does pursue it, then it's a sideshow to the election, and Clinton can bring her own legal power to bear on the case and squish it over the course of a year or two.

              It definitely is a political stunt. The thing is, Gabbard can push on the service of the lawsuit pretty quickly here (well, as quickly as courts allow). Supposedly, she's already got two instances of where Clinton has refused service of the lawsuit, which would probably be enough for Gabbard's attorneys to go to a Judge and request an alternative means of servicing the lawsuit. Judges before have even allowed a newspaper article to serve as notice of a lawsuit.

              Clinton doesn't have much power to obstruct the case here, beyond the initial dodging of service she's alleged (I'm going to keep clarifying "alleged" here, because we've only got Gabbard's attorney's word that this is happening, I think).

              Comment


              • #22
                Quick is a bit relative though. If Clinton's actually drawing this out on purpose, she only needs to keep it up for about a month. Then Super Tuesday hits and if Gabbard still has no traction the months it will take for the lawsuit to do more than be on the schedule means any value as a political stunt is dead. Even after service there's plenty of ways to delay a trial.

                Comment


                • #23
                  This seemed relevant.


                  He/him

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X