re: #24 HappyWarrior

Kinda hard to sue for defamation when someone wasn’t even named let alone called a Russian asset but you be you Glenn.

Eh, if it’s clear that listeners knew who Clinton was talking about, then she needn’t say her name for it to be defamation. And Clinton did say that Stein “is also a Russian asset” so that sort of implies that Gabbard is a Russian asset.

The problem Gabbard has is that she is a public figure and thus must meet the standard of actual malice. In this case, Clinton can argue that she was merely stating a political opinion about a politician. And that’s likely protected speech under the first amendment. She can also raise truth as a defense, and Gabbard does have a history of saying shit that sounds a lot like the Russian or Syrian talking points.

As the old legal adage goes, “discovery’s a bitch” and that’s most certainly true in defamation cases.