Gabbard v. Clinton


Folks, I have quite a bit of experience being a defendant in vexatious nuisance lawsuits alleging defamation (four LOLsuits each from Brett Kimberlin and Bill Schmalfeldt). Of course, I won all those suits. Seven were dismissed for various reasons. One went to trial, and my codefendants and I won when the judge stopped the trial after Kimberlin rested case because the plaintiff hadn’t shown that we had made any false statements about him and granted a directed verdict in our favor. I tend to have a bias in favor of defendants in defamation suits, but in this case … not so much.

IANAL, but my initial sense of Tulsi Gabbard’s suit against Hillary Clinton alleging defamation is that it’s interesting.

The complaint specifically quotes Clinton’s allegedly false and defamatory remarks, cites when and how they were published. As I understand it, the complaint claims that falsely stating that an Army National Guard officer is the asset of foreign power is defamatory per se because if that were true, the officer would be unfit for his or her professional duties as a soldier. Tulsi Gabbard is a major in the Hawaii National Guard. She’s also a member of the House Armed Services Committee, an assignment that requires access to classified defense information. Being a Russia asset should be similarly disqualifying in that professional role.

Congresswoman Gabbard’s case appears to be much stronger than anything her colleagues are presenting to the Senate. But being based on actual facts tends to make a case stronger. I don’t know how far her suit will go in court, but I’m ordering more popcorn.

An Unintended Consequence


Hillary Clinton carried Colorado during the 2016 election, but when the state’s electors met to vote, one of them refused to vote for her. The Colorado Secretary of State replaced that elector with one who would vote for Clinton. The original elector sued the Secretary of State, claiming that his removal was illegal and that the State could not bind him to vote in a particular way. Yesterday, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the elector’s favor.

One consequence of a state’s inability to bind electors to vote a particular way is that the states who are members of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact cannot legally require their electors to cast their votes in any particular way.

The Democrats’ plan to sabotage the Electoral College may have been stopped by the action of a Democrat elector.

Money Laundering and Dirty Politics


My friend and former codefendant Dan Backer has an article over at Investor’s Business Daily titled The Anatomy Of Hillary Clinton’s $84 Million Money-Laundering Scheme. (Ironically, Dan and I were among a couple of dozen codefendants accused of money laundering as a predicate crime in a civil RICO suit filed by Democrat party operative Brett Kimberlin.)

Democratic donors, knowing the funds would end up with Clinton’s campaign, wrote six-figure checks to influence the election — 100 times larger than allowed.

HVF bundled these megagifts and, on a single day, reported transferring money to all participating state parties, some of which would then show up on FEC reports filed by the DNC as transferring the exact same dollar amount on the exact same day to the DNC. Yet not all the state parties reported either receiving or transferring those sums.

Did any of these transfers actually happen? Or were they just paper entries to mask direct transfers to the DNC?

For perspective, conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza was prosecuted and convicted in 2012 for giving a handful of associates money they then contributed to a candidate of his preference — in other words, straw  man contributions. He was sentenced to eight months in a community confinement center and five years of probation. How much money was involved? Only $20,000. HVF weighs in at $84 million — more than 4,000 times larger!

So who should be worried? Everyone involved — from the donors themselves to Democratic fundraisers to party officials who filed false reports and, ultimately, to Clinton campaign and HVF officials looking at significant legal jeopardy.

The Federal Election Commission has failed to act on a complaint filed in 2017, so a never-before-used option in the law is being used to file a private lawsuit, placing the matter in Dan’s hands as lawyer for his client, the Committee to Defend the President. As the plaintiff’s counsel, he’ll have the tools of discovery—including subpoena power to go after bank accounts and other DNC records and to question party officials and bundlers. Every big-shot donor participating the scheme could be exposed to criminal prosecution based on evidence turned up in the civil matter.

Meanwhile, the Press is excited over $130,000 in non-campaign hush money paid to a porn star.

Another Excuse


The Washington Examiner reports that Hillary Clinton has added one more item to the list of reasons she failed to win in 2016: Identifying as a capitalist probably hurt her in 2016. She’s quoted as saying,

“It’s hard to know, but if you’re in the Iowa caucuses and 41 percent of Democrats are socialists or self-described socialists, and I’m asked are you a capitalist, and I say yes, but with appropriate regulation and appropriate accountability, that probably gets lost in the ‘Oh my gosh, she’s a capitalist,'”

Capitalist?

The Gentle Reader may remember that Mrs. Clinton’s husband once claimed he didn’t inhale. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton does.