oh. weird. I got em to work. both of those articles are just her saying it's not true. they are not evidence she is a Russian asset.
Exactly. If it were libel, she'd sue.
shed sue hilary clinton? the articles you linked are careful not to level the accusation in editorial voice. what makes you think Jill Stein would prevail in a suit against hilary on any grounds?
So now you're lowering the bar? E. Jean Carol successfully sued Donald Trump twice for defamation and is now going for round 3. If you have a case and have proof, then you can easily sue, dingus.
you can't have proof of a negative. you can't prove you're not a Russian asset.
oh. weird. I got em to work. both of those articles are just her saying it's not true. they are not evidence she is a Russian asset.
Exactly. If it were libel, she'd sue.
shed sue hilary clinton? the articles you linked are careful not to level the accusation in editorial voice. what makes you think Jill Stein would prevail in a suit against hilary on any grounds?
So now you're lowering the bar? E. Jean Carol successfully sued Donald Trump twice for defamation and is now going for round 3. If you have a case and have proof, then you can easily sue, dingus.
you can't have proof of a negative. you can't prove you're not a Russian asset.
yawn
public figures have a much harder time, as any libel lawyer will tell you.
Source on that claim? And E. Jean Carol is a public figure the fuck you talking about?
nah . live in ignorance. it's worked out for you so far.
Ah, so you're full of shit. Thanks for letting me know.
think what you want; you were going to anyway
Ironic.
only for definitions of ironic that don't require irony
It's okay to admit that you lost. You can't refute what's been presented, and when asked to source your claim, you punked out.
the only thing I lost was time arguing with a partisan