On January 23, the lawsuit Tulsi Gabbard v Hillary Clinton was assigned to a judge, Valerie Caproni. Judge Caproni is an Obama appointee and before her service as a judge of the U.S. District Court in the southern district of New York, she was General Counsel to the FBI. The lawsuit charges that Hillary Clinton slandered Tulsi Gabbard last October, when Clinton said on television that Gabbard is a Russian agent. Clinton implied the same for Jill Stein.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton
How much RED communist stuff in the life history of HC – starting in 1960s [or before] ???
Hillary, the 1964 Goldwater Girl, has even less “RED Commie” background than in the history of Demo Rep. Just when somebody congratulates you Friday for writing a halfway sensical comment with no all-caps spelling? To quote Reagan: “There you go again.”
HOW ABOUT HC AFTER 1964 ???
ALL CAPS FOR HISTORY MORONS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis
AFTER 1964 – HC in college — on the RED road to 1993-2001 and 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
see DEAD Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc, etc due to RED communism — Alinsky-HC stuff at work.
What specific damages are Rep. Gabbard’s objective?
Her suit claims that it has cost her $50M, and mounting.
HC plotting to be the ***middle*** candidate at the 2020 Donkey convention ???
There are multiple reports that Hillary Clinton’s smears against Tulsi made it a lot harder for people who were gathering petition signatures to place Tulsi on the primary ballot in places where that was required caused less people to sign the petition than would have signed otherwise.
I bet Hillary’s lies have also cost Tulsi donations, and will probably end up costing her votes as well. It could have also cost her access to some debates and interviews.
Regarding Clinton and Gabbard, what is the evidence that Clinton lied about Gabbard? It’s possible she was unintentionally mistaken, or that she is correct. As for Rodham’s (later Clinton’s) thesis, there was nothing “red” about it; she criticized Alinsky for being too radical. Having spoken with some of her law students from the 1970s, she retained elements of her Goldwater era ideology at that time. Her views have always been heavy on realpolitik. She is also known to be an astute investor. I don’t consider her to be a top notch political candidate, and the Democrats have at least a dozen better choices for their nomination. Even if all of them were to suddenly die, they have many other better people to recruit for their nomination than Hillary Clinton. Gabbard is not among those. I don’t know for sure, but it’s plausible Clinton was correct about her.
Yeah, like Gary Johnson and Bill Wrld told us, “Hillary Clinton is a wonderful public servant.” The Libertarian Party should offer Hillary Clinton its presidential nomination. Just think of the increase in votes and media attention this would bring to the LP.
(Sarcasm intended.)
Reading is fundamental. I said she isn’t even among the dozen or several dozen best choices for the Democratic nomination, much less the Libertarian nomination (which she wouldn’t want anyway). I also said she may be right about Gabbard and even if not she was not necessarily intentionally lying. Perhaps there are no ways to characterize someone as something between wonderful public servant and Donald Trump in your world, but there are many steps in between in mine.
How many domestic and foreign D-E-A-D due to HC as 1993-2001 first lady and as Obama’s USA Sec State in 2009-2013 ???
First ladies have little or nothing to do with policy, so that’s not particularly relevant. Obama’s administration was, relatively speaking, not particularly deadly compared to other recent US juntas, and it’s questionable how much influence the Secretary of State had, so it’s impossible to calculate that number. Had Obama had a different Secretary of State how different would the administration’s policies and actions have been? Probably not very.
It’s also worthwhile to note that the Bush administration launched two major new wars and made torture and domestic espionage legal. Obama disappointed many by not ending those wars or policies, but he had congress to contend with, and at least did not start any major new wars. Trump, hailed incorrectly by some as a peace president, has not started any new major wars yet either, but he’s only three years in. He’s ratcheted up tensions with Iran considerably (whereas Obama decreased them), increased troop levels and drone strikes in the middle east, has said waterboarding doesn’t go far enough – in every aspect, he has moved the country closer to war and dictatorship than before.
Contrary to the popular rhetoric, Trump has also expanded debt faster than Obama or Clinton, despite relative prosperity. In fact, since at least Reagan if not before, Republican administrations have expanded debt faster than Democratic ones.
EG-
like writing that Nancy Reagan and her occult bizarro stuff had nothing to do with the death and destruction of the 1981-1989 senile Reagan regime.
Clinton’s presidency wasn’t particularly deadly either. His wars were relatively minor compared to the presidents right before and after him. So even if you take the position that HRC was just as guilty as Bill of the wars he perpetrated, it still makes her less culpable than, say, Barbara or Laura Bush. In any case, that’s not very relevant here. Even if she had killed more people than Mao, she could still be right about Gabbard, or unintentionally wrong.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-refuses-served-tulsi-gabbard-140252865.html
Law abiding HC at work as usual.
Yeah, who are you arguing against? Clinton can be the worst person in the history of the world and still be right about gabbard. She could be a chairman Mao, pol pot, Adolph Hitler or a Donald trump and still be inadvertently wrong about gabbard. She may have also been intentionally maliciously lying about gabbard but I see no reason to assume that just because she’s a less than ideal person herself. Those are two separate questions.