Conservative Blogger
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Hillary Clinton ‘intimidated’ by Tulsi Gabbard's $50M lawsuit, won’t accept legal documents, lawyer claims: report
Hillary Clinton or her representatives have, on at least two occasions, declined to accept legal papers delivered in connection with Tulsi Gabbard’s lawsuit against her, Gabbard’s attorney claims.
Gabbard, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who is seeking the party's 2020 presidential nomination, filed a $50 million lawsuit against Clinton last week over the former secretary of state’s insinuation that Gabbard was a “Russian asset.”
Brian Dunne, an attorney representing Gabbard, told the New York Post that Secret Service agents turned away a process server Tuesday when the server tried to deliver the lawsuit to Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., north of New York City.
Dunne said the server was instructed instead to deliver the papers to the Washington office of Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, but Kendall’s firm, Williams & Connolly, also declined to accept the legal papers, according to the Post.
“I find it rather unbelievable that Hillary Clinton is so intimidated by Tulsi Gabbard that she won’t accept service of process,” Dunne told the newspaper. “But I guess here we are.”
During a Jan. 23 appearance on "Fox & Friends," Gabbard accused Clinton of using “smear tactics” against her in an attempt to suppress her freedom of speech.
“I have dedicated my entire adult life to serving our country,” said Gabbard, 38, a member of the Hawaii Army National Guard who served in Iraq before being elected to Congress in 2012, “and for Hillary Clinton and her powerful allies to attempt to smear me and accuse me -- really implying that I'm a traitor to the country that I love -- is something that I cannot allow to go unchecked."
Clinton had said in an October 2019 interview that one of the Democratic presidential candidates was “the favorite of the Russians” and was being groomed as a third-party candidate for the 2020 general election in November.
Clinton never mentioned Gabbard by name, but when asked to confirm whether the former first lady was referring to Gabbard, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill responded, “If the nesting doll fits … ” a reference to popular Russian dolls.
The remarks from Clinton drew immediate pushback from Gabbard on Oct. 18.
“Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and the personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a … concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know – it was always you, through your proxies and … powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
Gabbard’s camp announced the lawsuit soon after the congresswoman’s Jan. 21 remarks, in which she criticized Clinton for claiming about Sen. Bernie Sanders that “nobody likes him” and that “he got nothing done” as a lawmaker.
“It’s time to grow up, you know? This isn’t high school,” Gabbard told WMUR-TV in Manchester, N.H., referring to the Clinton comments.
Gabbard had supported Sanders in the 2016 race, and visited a Sanders campaign office in Plymouth, N.H., earlier this week in what was being viewed as a sign of dealmaking among Democratic candidates as the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary draw closer, The Washington Post reported.
Fox News’ Julia Musto contributed to this story.
Gabbard, a Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii who is seeking the party's 2020 presidential nomination, filed a $50 million lawsuit against Clinton last week over the former secretary of state’s insinuation that Gabbard was a “Russian asset.”
Brian Dunne, an attorney representing Gabbard, told the New York Post that Secret Service agents turned away a process server Tuesday when the server tried to deliver the lawsuit to Clinton’s home in Chappaqua, N.Y., north of New York City.
Dunne said the server was instructed instead to deliver the papers to the Washington office of Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, but Kendall’s firm, Williams & Connolly, also declined to accept the legal papers, according to the Post.
“I find it rather unbelievable that Hillary Clinton is so intimidated by Tulsi Gabbard that she won’t accept service of process,” Dunne told the newspaper. “But I guess here we are.”
“I find it rather unbelievable that Hillary Clinton is so intimidated by Tulsi Gabbard that she won’t accept service of process. But I guess here we are.”Dunne told the paper his team is considering what steps to take next.
— Brian Dunne, attorney for Tulsi Gabbard
During a Jan. 23 appearance on "Fox & Friends," Gabbard accused Clinton of using “smear tactics” against her in an attempt to suppress her freedom of speech.
“I have dedicated my entire adult life to serving our country,” said Gabbard, 38, a member of the Hawaii Army National Guard who served in Iraq before being elected to Congress in 2012, “and for Hillary Clinton and her powerful allies to attempt to smear me and accuse me -- really implying that I'm a traitor to the country that I love -- is something that I cannot allow to go unchecked."
Clinton had said in an October 2019 interview that one of the Democratic presidential candidates was “the favorite of the Russians” and was being groomed as a third-party candidate for the 2020 general election in November.
Clinton never mentioned Gabbard by name, but when asked to confirm whether the former first lady was referring to Gabbard, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill responded, “If the nesting doll fits … ” a reference to popular Russian dolls.
The remarks from Clinton drew immediate pushback from Gabbard on Oct. 18.
“Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and the personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a … concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know – it was always you, through your proxies and … powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
Gabbard’s camp announced the lawsuit soon after the congresswoman’s Jan. 21 remarks, in which she criticized Clinton for claiming about Sen. Bernie Sanders that “nobody likes him” and that “he got nothing done” as a lawmaker.
“It’s time to grow up, you know? This isn’t high school,” Gabbard told WMUR-TV in Manchester, N.H., referring to the Clinton comments.
Gabbard had supported Sanders in the 2016 race, and visited a Sanders campaign office in Plymouth, N.H., earlier this week in what was being viewed as a sign of dealmaking among Democratic candidates as the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary draw closer, The Washington Post reported.
Fox News’ Julia Musto contributed to this story.
Joe Biden's candidacy justifies Trump wanting to investigate his son, Alan Dershowitz says
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a member of President’s Trump's impeachment defense team, argued Wednesday that former Vice President Joe Biden’s
presidential candidacy justifies the president wanting to investigate
his son Hunter's involvement with a Ukrainian oil company.
“The fact that he’s announced his candidacy is a very good reason for upping the interest in his son,” Dershowitz said, adding that the House managers would agree that Trump running for re-election is the only reason it could be an impeachable offense.
Dershowitz asserted that, hypothetically, if Trump wanted Hunter Biden investigated for alleged corruption in his second term it wouldn't be impeachable.
“The difference, the House managers would make, is whether he’s in his first term or his second term, whether he’s running for re-election or not running for re-election," he said. "If he’s running for re-election suddenly that turns it into an impeachable offense."
Dershowitz added that even if there was a quid pro quo by withholding $391 million in military aid to Ukraine it wouldn’t matter because “if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
He suggested Trump’s alleged request for investigations during the July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was a “mixed motive,” meaning Trump believed it would benefit both the country and incidentally himself.
The House managers have argued that Trump abused his power in asking Ukraine to meddle in a U.S. election by investigating the son of his political rival.
"If you say you can’t hold a president accountable in an election year where they are trying to cheat in that election, then you are giving them carte blanche,” House manager Adam Schiff responded. “So all quid pro quos are not the same. Some are legitimate, and some are corrupt and you don’t need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which.”
Democrats have also said that if Trump was legitimately concerned about corruption involving Hunter Biden, he should have called for the Justice Department to launch an official investigation.
“The fact that he’s announced his candidacy is a very good reason for upping the interest in his son,” Dershowitz said, adding that the House managers would agree that Trump running for re-election is the only reason it could be an impeachable offense.
Dershowitz asserted that, hypothetically, if Trump wanted Hunter Biden investigated for alleged corruption in his second term it wouldn't be impeachable.
“The difference, the House managers would make, is whether he’s in his first term or his second term, whether he’s running for re-election or not running for re-election," he said. "If he’s running for re-election suddenly that turns it into an impeachable offense."
Dershowitz added that even if there was a quid pro quo by withholding $391 million in military aid to Ukraine it wouldn’t matter because “if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
He suggested Trump’s alleged request for investigations during the July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was a “mixed motive,” meaning Trump believed it would benefit both the country and incidentally himself.
The House managers have argued that Trump abused his power in asking Ukraine to meddle in a U.S. election by investigating the son of his political rival.
"If you say you can’t hold a president accountable in an election year where they are trying to cheat in that election, then you are giving them carte blanche,” House manager Adam Schiff responded. “So all quid pro quos are not the same. Some are legitimate, and some are corrupt and you don’t need to be a mind reader to figure out which is which.”
Democrats have also said that if Trump was legitimately concerned about corruption involving Hunter Biden, he should have called for the Justice Department to launch an official investigation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
-
How many times do we need to say this? If you’re here illegally and get caught, you’re going back. It’s the la...
-
The problem with the courts is the same as the problem with many of our other institutions. Called the Skins...
-
CNN’s Scott Jennings once again took liberals to the cleaners on the Abrego Garcia case, the ‘Maryland man...
