Presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard is suing Hillary Clinton for calling her a "Russian asset"

Originally published at:


Good thing truth is a defence against libel suits… :thinking:


right? She would essentially have to prove she isn’t what she’s been accused of right? OR just she has to say “I know you are but what am I”?? Can a legal mumbo jumbo expert weigh in?

Public figures have a tough time proving defamation.


If Tulsi weren’t so bonkers maybe she’d just say she’s surprised Clinton was able to take time away from ignoring her husband’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein to question someone’s politics rather than try to erode free speech.

Calling someone an asset is a statement of opinion IMHO. (And opinions can’t be libel)

Asset doesn’t mean agent, it has a very specific meaning in intel circles. You can be an unknowing/unwitting asset

I don’t like that language though since it goes down a McCarthyist road quick.

(Ex: Am I an Iranian asset for opposing a war with Iran and recognizing I’d probably want a nuke too if I followed a treaty and had it ripped up by an insane fascist for zero reason?)


I say whatever she posts on Twitter, everyone reply with a simple, “OK, Comrade.”


Christ, what an asset.


As a reminder, here’s what Clinton actually said:

“They know [Trump] can’t win without a third-party candidate. I’m not making any predictions but I think they have 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.”

In other words, she didn’t identify any of the candidates by name of being a Russian asset. Tulsi basically just said, “yes, that was totally referring to me”. I’m not sure you can sue someone for that.

My take-away from this suit is that Chris Butler (her “guru”) needs some pin money.


All I can say is thank god that HRC has injected herself so helpfully into the process by giving a turd like Gabbard the extra exposure AND offering such constructive commentary about Sanders. Heaven fucking forbid that the Democratic party move forward without a Clinton being front and center reminding voters they still exist.

I suggest we arrange a meeting between Gabbard and HRC (and their respective staffs) on neutral ground, something like, oh, I don’t know, a cruise ship parked off the coast of Florida. Then when they’re all aboard, it sets sail for goddamn Antarctica for a couple of years.


I’m not a lawyer, but I used to work with a bunch.

Opinions can’t be libel. “Opera sucks” is not able to be sued over.

I think she’s conflating “asset” with “agent”

There are different categories of assets, including people who… Do not even know they are being used (so called “useful idiots”). Assets can be loyal to their country, but may still provide a foreign agent with information through failures in information safety, such as using insecure computers or not following proper OPSEC procedures during day-to-day chatting.

The useful idiot wikipedia article is very useful IMO for understanding Tulsi :slight_smile:


I’m waffling on that.

I don’t think “there’s a technical jargon in which it means this” is a valid defense. Like if you develop a technical jargon in which “murdered a seven-year-old in Boston apartment on April 17, 1987” means “has blue eyes” you are still going to get sued for saying “Mitch McConnell murdered a seven-year-old in a Boston apartment on April 17, 1987.” I know that’s an extreme example, but I think you have to answer for how a reasonable person would interpret your words, not necessarily for how you meant them.

I think a common understanding of “asset” implies something you have direct ownership/control over, not merely something that is usable by you. A house or a car is my asset, a subway that I ride to work is not.

Not that I’m saying this lawsuit has any chance of success, I just don’t think that the intelligence community definition of the word “asset” ought to factor into it (which is different than whether I think it will factor into it, since once lawyers start making arguments in front of a judge nearly anything can happen).



At the time, Tulsi Gabbard had received an amazing number of followers and retweets on Twitter and Facebook. It looked like someone had purchased fake followers to build up her apparent support base. It led to reactions from Facebook or Twitter.


I am soooo sorry to hear about Tulsi Gabbard’s accident. :frowning:

Seriously though, between this and her comments about Bernie and others, she isn’t helping her party out much.


Wow, Russian Assets are a lot more cranky than they used to be.


Perish the thought…


Truth being an absolute defense against libel is uniquely American and one of the few tools we have in our fight against the elites.

I think that words have meaning, and if we go down the road of libel being what people perceive rather than the factual meaning of your words, that could be abused. And it will be rich people with money for lawyers who abuse it, to silence righteous criticism.

I get the sense you have good intentions. Maybe check out people’s reactions to Lessig’s recent lawsuit to see why this is a dangerous road to go down? I think you might change your mind :slight_smile:


interesting. I’ve heard this before and I believe you but the nerd in me wants to know “why”, if you know any good resources?

Gabbard is a wackamole and a half, and don’t get me started on HRC’s Bernie bashing…


Yeah… it’s not a good look.

1 Like