Law Tulsi drops $50 million lawsuit against clinton

[Quipling]

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16737635/gabbard-v-clinton/

I'll translate the linked docket those of you who are jurisprudentially impaired:

Earlier this year, Tulsi Gabbard - depicted below - filed a defamation lawsuit against Clinton in NYC because of the "Russian asset" comments.

Clinton moved to dismiss - essentially saying "fuck off, that's not defamation"

Tulsi amended her complaint on March 31 to add more details, like Clinton's refusal to apologize.

Clinton moved to dismiss again - "fuck off, still not defamation"

Tulsi withdrew the complaint. But for totally unrelated reasons, like the upcoming election, which must not have been expected less than two months prior. And covid, which wasn't a thing in NYC in late March.

fin

 

[Anung Un Rama]

+1 for including one of her better pictures

 

[Anung Un Rama]

-1 for starting the same thread twice

 

[HereticBD]

It was obviously a stunt for the primaries. She could drag it out for years, or be content that it didn't work, and let it go. The latter was the best option.

 

[Quipling]

-1 for starting the same thread twice

Two different lawsuits by tulsi. I probably should have grouped by plaintiff instead of by subject, but subject matters more to my inner lawyer.

It was obviously a stunt for the primaries. She could drag it out for years, or be content that it didn't work, and let it go. The latter was the best option.

It was unlikely to drag out for more than a few months. She missed the deadline to respond to Clinton's motion to dismiss. Even if she did file everything correctly, it is a simple case (one claim, two parties) that would be resolved in about a year.

 

[skysolo]

Tulsi is holding out hope for a VP spot since Klobuchar is falling in it. The past is coming back to bite her.

Are there any non-incompetent politicians? Incompetent is the wrong word. Are there any politicians who are giant assholes?

 

[Eusung]

Tulsi probably wishes she never resigned and endorsed Bernie in 2016 and is hoping to get back on the party's good side but it's not happening soon.

I totally predicted she'd endorse Biden when it became obvious she and Bernie had some falling out.

Tulsi is holding out hope for a VP spot since Klobuchar is falling in it. The past is coming back to bite her.

Are there any non-incompetent politicians? Incompetent is the wrong word. Are there any politicians who are giant assholes?

No. Especially if we apply the Jimmy Dore type of purity test. One shady move and bam said politician is an evil POS forever.

 

[HereticBD]

It was unlikely to drag out for more than a few months. She missed the deadline to respond to Clinton's motion to dismiss. Even if she did file everything correctly, it is a simple case (one claim, two parties) that would be resolved in about a year.

Either way, it was an obvious stunt. She tried very desperately to get those anti-Hillary votes, and I believe even is quoted as saying the election was now about her vs Hillary, after Hillary started chirping her.

Swing and miss at the end of the day.

 

[ocfightfan]

I'm very disappointed.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

Lionel Hutz promised her a big cash settlement.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

She should have said fuck it and gone all the way. If a top political office isn’t in her future then she should have stuck with the claim for the money.

I’m not particularly familiar with the distinctions between American and Canadian defamation law, but it seemed like defamation to me.

 

[Quipling]

She should have said fuck it and gone all the way. If a top political office isn’t in her future then she should have stuck with the claim for the money.

I’m not particularly familiar with the distinctions between American and Canadian defamation law, but it seemed like defamation to me.

The motion to dismiss is available at docket 20-1 in the link if you want to take a look. Im not a defamation expert but it was consistent with my brushes with defamation lawsuits in the business context. Vague statements (gabbard not addressed by name) of opinion (favorite and asset of Russians) that have an adequate foundation in fact (botnets) about a public figure.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

The motion to dismiss is available at docket 20-1 in the link if you want to take a look. Im not a defamation expert but it was consistent with my brushes with defamation lawsuits in the business context. Vague statements (gabbard not addressed by name) of opinion (favorite and asset of Russians) that have an adequate foundation in fact (botnets) about a public figure.

Must be harder to make out defamation in the US than Canada, because while I’m no defamation expert either, I’m fairly sure that it’s enough to be able to deduce who the statement is about if not named directly, and that opinion isn’t really much of a defence. And basis of fact isn’t enough, the statement actually has to be true.

A colleague of mine represented the mayor of some small town in B.C. a couple of years ago in the defence of a defamation claim brought by some environmentalist. The mayor had made some comment in the newspaper about the environmentalist being a “criminal” and the guy sued. The mayor tried to defend on the basis of truth because the environmentalist had been arrested and charged at some point for blocking an oil tanker truck or something, but he was never convicted. The court sided with the Plaintiff.

 

[Quipling]

Must be harder to make out defamation in the US than Canada, because while I’m no defamation expert either, I’m fairly sure that it’s enough to be able to deduce who the statement is about if not named directly, and that opinion isn’t really much of a defence. And basis of fact isn’t enough, the statement actually has to be true.

A colleague of mine represented the mayor of some small town in B.C. a couple of years ago in the defence of a defamation claim brought by some environmentalist. The mayor had made some comment in the newspaper about the environmentalist being a “criminal” and the guy sued. The mayor tried to defend on the basis of truth because the environmentalist had been arrested and charged at some point for blocking an oil tanker truck or something, but he was never convicted. The court sided with the Plaintiff.

Yeah, that's very different. Truth is a defense, but it's not the only defense. If someone says something and has reason to believe it is true (even if it is not), that's usually enough to toss a defamation claim. And if it's about a public figure the standard is even harder to meet. It's similar to the recent maddow defamation case that got tossed as a SLAPP suit-her statements were wrong, but the facts she was commenting on gave her a sufficient basis to arrive at that conclusion.

As for the ambiguity issue, I think you're right - ny does allow defamation by inference and a jury could easily determine that Clinton was talking about Tulsi. The only other possible subject was Stein, and that's not enough to get a dismissal.