Greetings:
For those whose hatred for Hillary is not so strong as to affect your ability to take in information and learn, I direct you to New York Times vs. Sullivan. The legal term of art you'll need to get familiar with is "actual malice", an element which would be required for Ms. Gabbard to succeed in this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
There are good jumping off points at the wiki entry,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice and this bit quoted in below covers it.
"
Actual malice is different from
common law malice, a term that indicates spite or ill will. It may also differ from malice as defined in state libel law, as reflected in the 1983 case of
Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc., although states may not define a lower threshold for defamation claims than that required by the First Amendment.
[5]
The existence of actual malice may be shown in many ways, as long as the claim is properly supported by admissible evidence.
[6] Malice may be proved through any competent evidence, either direct or circumstantial. All of the relevant circumstances surrounding the transaction may be shown, provided they are not too remote, including threats, other defamatory statements, subsequent statements made by the defendant, any circumstances that indicate the existence of rivalry, ill will, or hostility between the parties, and facts that tend to show a reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights on the part of the defendant.
[6]"
So, Gabbard's case will go no where. You can reach that conclusion yourself by clicking through to the wiki piece and following the references.
That brings us to the why. Why is Ms. Gabbard doing this, likely being very well aware this will go nowhere?
Easy. She needs to increase her "surface area" a bit so that she can mount a third party campaign for President.
I hope this helps.
