Asking for a deceased friend.
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, citing 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 Russian 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.
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.
Res ipsa loquitur.
The Babylon Bee was in top form yesterday. First, it zinged the Collusion Truthers.Then it zapped a sizable crowd of Trump supporters.Donald Trump is a flawed individual. While the Mueller Report does find that Trump and the people around him did not engage in the “collusion” with a foreign power during 2016 election (or obstruct an investigation into something that didn’t happen), it also reveals some of the tawdry behavior that went on during the election campaign and its aftermath.
OTOH, imagine that Hillary Clinton had won the election. Would the Democrat’s interactions with Ukraine have been investigated? If so, would she have refrained from exercising executive privilege to conceal any special counsel’s report?
I’ll leave it to the Gentle Reader to puzzle through that exercise in alternate history.
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.
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,'”
The Gentle Reader may remember that Mrs. Clinton’s husband once claimed he didn’t inhale. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton does.
Hillary Clinton has a post over at Facebook which begins:
The most important work of my life has been to support and empower women.
Juanita Broderick was unavailable for comment.
Hillary Clinton says she’s going as the President for Halloween.
That’s type casting of an obnoxious blonde from New York.
Heavens, no! It could get subpoenaed. I can’t write anything.
Hillary Clinton still has a security clearance.
The Telegraph reports that Newsweek has had to recall 125,000 copies of their Madame President souvenir issue.
Former President Dewey was unavailable for comment.
In the top race—
The turnout at our precinct in Carroll County was fairly robust when I voted around 8 am. FWIW, voter registration in Carroll County is roughly 2-to-1 Republican.
My drive from the polls to work at Goddard Space Flight Center in Prince George’s County (a deep blue county) took me through the southern part of Carroll County and across Howard County (a bluish purple county) and the northwestern part of PG County. Along the way, I saw 7 Trump yard signs and 2 Clinton yard signs in Carroll County; I saw 31 Trump, 2 Johnson, and 1 Clinton signs in Howard County; and I saw 2 Johnson and no Trump or Clinton signs in PG County. That doesn’t count signs I saw around the entrances to polling places. While I saw Trump and Johnson signs at some of them, I didn’t see a single sign for Hillary.
I still believe that Hillary will carry Maryland, but I doubt that her margin of victory will be as great as the polling suggest.
We’ll see in a few hours.
That’s a safe bet, Aaron.
More Podesta emails have been posted by WikiLeaks.
Hardly anyone believed Richard Nixon when he said, “I am not a crook.” McClatchy reports that most people don’t believe Hillary either.
A total of 83 percent of likely voters believe that Clinton did something wrong – 51 percent saying she did something illegal and 32 percent saying she something unethical but not illegal. Just 14 percent said she’s done nothing wrong.
Read the whole thing. When you do, you’ll see that Trump’s reputation stinks also but not quite as much as hers.
It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
Well, Hillary did serve time in the Senate …
David Mastio has a piece over at USA Today that almost seems like a rational explanation of this year’s presidential election—it’s a conspiracy among Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Islamic State conspiring to place a serially-bankrupt billionaire blowhard (with his own line of neckwear!) into the Oval Office at a key moment in history. But he also notes that Trump seems to be scheming to elect Hillary.
I got an email from HillaryClinton.com in September asking for money. The subject line began, “If I am being honest …” When I saw it, I thought, “Oh for God’s sake, why start now?” If Clinton had started being honest five years ago or even one year ago, the American people would be carrying her to Washington on a flag-draped litter to install her in the White House while they sing old Methodist hymns .
But she didn’t. She won’t or can’t. The only reasonable explanation left is that she will do anything, absolutely anything, to make Donald Trump president. The question is what she and Vladimir Putin have to gain.
Read the whole thing.
The Journal News (a local paper covering Chappaqua, NY) reports that the Clintons are renovating one of their properties there without bothering to get the required permits.
The Hillary Email Story now includes Anthony Weiner.
I’m not going there.
Scott Adams has a blog post up about the bullying that is part of this year’s presidential election.
Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion. But facts don’t matter because facts never matter in politics. What matters is that Clinton’s framing of Trump provides moral cover for any bullying behavior online or in person. No one can be a bad person for opposing Hitler, right?
Adams supports Trump for President. I don’t. (I don’t support any candidate on the ballot here in Maryland.) However, his analysis of the Democrats’ tactics hits the bullseye. I’m not sure about his prediction of the election result.
Read the whole thing.
Paul Sperry reports at the NY Post that one of the servers used for Hillary’s private email system was not destroyed but was “repurposed” as a work station. However, FBI agents were not permitted to seize it. It turns out that some of the “lost” emails may be recoverable.
Also, Andrew McCarthy has a piece up at NRO dealing with an email release through Wikileaks that shows that President Obama was lying when he said that he was unaware of Hillary’s private email until he heard about it through news reports. It seems that he was sending her emails using the private address.
Fox News has uncovered a 2010 video in which Hillary Clinton lectures State Department employees on cybersecurity.
Those of us of a certain age can remember the big to-do over political dirty tricks during the 1972 presidential election. CREEP, Fred LaRue, Donald Segretti, Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy.
This year, it looks as if the dirty tricksters have changed parties, and even the New York Times has had to take notice of the reporting done by my former codefendant James O’Keefe, III.