Happy Monday! Dominion Voting Systems is suing Rudy Giuliani for $1.3 billion.

As Akiva notes, the legal question is going to boil down to something known as "actual malice."

That's a tricky concept for nonlawyers (and often for lawyers) so an explainer might help.

What I'm going to do with this thread is a bit different from normal - I'm going to start by explaining the underlying law so that you can see why lawyers are a little skeptical of the odds of success, and only look at the complaint after that.
So let's start with the most basic basics:
If you want to win a defamation case, you have to prove:
(1) that defendant made a false and defamatory statement about you;
(2) to a third party without privilege;
(3) with the required degree of fault;
(4) causing you to suffer damage.
For Dominion's defamation cases, proving 1 and 4 is easy. 2 is, in the case of the lawyers they're suing, slightly more complex but not hard. And 3 - degree of fault - is really really hard to prove.
A false statement of fact that is defamatory is a slam dunk element here - all the fraud allegations against dominion are totally banana-pants. They are also allegations which are clearly going to harm Dominion's reputation.
Damages are also going to be simple - Dominion relies on a certain degree of public trust; without that they die. And the defendants have made them toxic to about a third of America.
Publication to another is easy - Rudy (and Sidney) told the world as loudly and often as they could that Dominion is corrupt. "Without privilege" is a bit more complex because statements made in litigation are privileged. You can't sue someone for stuff said in a different case.
But it's only just a tiny bit more complex here because Rudy and Sidney are both loudmouths and made lots of out-of-court statements. The plaintiffs just need to be sure they're relying only on those and that element is fine.
That leaves degree of fault. If a private individual accuses someone of defamation, all they have to prove is negligence. But if a public figure accuses someone of defamation, negligence isn't enough. They have to prove what's known as "actual malice."
And it's very very likely that Dominion is a public figure. In fact, when @jbarro and @Popehat interviewed their lawyer before the cases were filed, he said that while he wasn't going to concede the point, he was planning on having to prove actual malice.
So let's talk about actual malice. The first thing you need to know is that in the defamation context, "actual malice" has nothing to do with ill-will or the normal meaning of the word "malice." (Sorry, I know that's confusing. It's not my fault. Blame SCOTUS.)
To prove "actual malice" in a defamation case, you need to show either that the defendant knowingly lied or that the defendant made the statements with "reckless disregard" of the truth. And "reckless disregard" is *also* a term of art here.
You can't prove "reckless disregard" by showing that there wasn't an investigation or that there was a lot of evidence that it wasn't true. You have to show that the defendant actually had serious doubts about the truth of the statement and made them anyway.
That's something that's hard to prove unless you can climb into the defendant's head. And it's really hard to do that, especially before discovery.
And when I say "really hard," here's what I mean:

I've been flipping through defamation cases from the court where this case was filed. I'm finding lots of cases that were dismissed because actual malice wasn't adequately pled. I've not yet found one where a case survived.
That's not to say there aren't any - I've only looked at 10 or 15 - but it's a very big lift.

OK - just found a case where a defamation claim survived a motion to dismiss in D. DC. Let's take a look at what that required.
In this case, Zimmerman v Al Jazeera, 246 F Supp 3d 257, 281-86 (D DC 2017), one claim survived a motion to dismiss. That survival seemed to be based on the fact that the media organization had obvious reasons to doubt their only source's veracity and still didn't investigate.
The court noted that just reasons to doubt alone wasn't enough, that failure to investigate also was often not enough, but that all of that, in combination with the source's recantation, could show reckless disregard.

And even there, the court called it a "close question."
That's a single surviving claim in an ocean of "failed to show actual malice" cases.

So I hope you can see why, even though the claims are insane and it's clear that Rudy at least should have known they were false, a lot of lawyers are still skeptical of Dominion's chances.
I've got stuff that I have to take care of right now, but I'll do another thread after lunch (linking back to this) where we'll look at the complaint and see where things stand. I will say that I'm a bit more hopeful than @AkivaMCohen seems to be, but maybe only a bit.

More from Mike Dunford

Yes, I have seen the thing about Texas suing other states over the election. Yes, the US Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between states.

No, this is not a thing that will change the election. At all.

If this is real - and I do emphasize the if - it is posturing by the elected Republican "leadership" of Texas in an attempt to pander to a base that has degraded from merely deplorable to utterly despicable.

Apparently, it is real. For a given definition of real, anyway. As Steve notes, the Texas Solicitor General - that's the lawyer who is supposed to represent the state in cases like this - has noped out and the AG is counsel of


Although - again - I'm curious as to the source. I'm seeing no press release on the Texas AG's site; I'm wondering if this might not be a document released by whoever the "special counsel" to the AG is - strange situation.

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court is Supremely Unlikely to take this case - their jurisdiction is exclusive, but it's also discretionary.

Meaning, for nonlawyers:
SCOTUS is the only place where one state can sue another, but SCOTUS can and often does decline to take the case.
Election Litigation Update: DC - the "let's sue the Electoral College" case.

This is a bit surprising, given that as of last time I checked nobody had been served and no appearance had been entered. I suspect it's an effort to make sure the case isn't "pending" on the 6th.


And, sure enough, still no proof of service on ANY defendant, still no appearance from defense counsel. And this is denying the motion for preliminary injunction but does NOT dismiss the case - which is potentially ominous for plaintiff's counsel.


This isn't a "happy judge" kind of first paragraph. Not even a little bit. Nope.


Y'all, this isn't even directed within a few hundred miles of my direction and I sill just instinctively checked to make sure that there's room for me to hide under my desk if I have to - this is a very not happy, very federal, very judge tone.


Also - the judge just outright said there's a bunch of reasons for dismissal. And not in "might be" terms. In definite fact ones. But the case isn't dismissed yet.

If I was plaintiffs counsel, I'd definitely be clearing under my desk right now, and possibly also my underwear.
I went over the dismissal on my stream, but a few thoughts on where things are at:

1: The Notice of Appeal doesn't shock me; I figured Louie would be this dumb.
2: As was the case with the case at the District Court, it doesn't really matter how vigorously Pence defends this.


3: The lack of standing is so spectacularly, glaringly obvious that it doesn't really matter whether Pence raised certain arguments; they will get noticed by the court.
4: That's because federal courts have an independent duty to ensure they have jurisdiction.

5: Standing is a jurisdictional requirement; no standing means no case.
6: The rules for standing are clear and nothing in the opinion dismissing the case was the least bit controversial in any universe except the alternate one inhabited by Louie and the Arizonan cosplayers.

7: "But it's the 5th Circuit" will be raised both by Trumpistians and those who are exceptionally nervous. There is exactly as much reason to be concerned about the 5th as there was the trial court: ie none at all.

So - my expectations:
Given the timeline, I suspect that Louie will be granted an expedited appeal and will lose on an expedited basis. I also expect that he will appeal to SCOTUS and the appeal there will not be expedited.

More from Politics

You May Also Like

I'm going to do two history threads on Ethiopia, one on its ancient history, one on its modern story (1800 to today). 🇪🇹

I'll begin with the ancient history ... and it goes way back. Because modern humans - and before that, the ancestors of humans - almost certainly originated in Ethiopia. 🇪🇹 (sub-thread):


The first likely historical reference to Ethiopia is ancient Egyptian records of trade expeditions to the "Land of Punt" in search of gold, ebony, ivory, incense, and wild animals, starting in c 2500 BC 🇪🇹


Ethiopians themselves believe that the Queen of Sheba, who visited Israel's King Solomon in the Bible (c 950 BC), came from Ethiopia (not Yemen, as others believe). Here she is meeting Solomon in a stain-glassed window in Addis Ababa's Holy Trinity Church. 🇪🇹


References to the Queen of Sheba are everywhere in Ethiopia. The national airline's frequent flier miles are even called "ShebaMiles". 🇪🇹
1/12

RT-PCR corona (test) scam

Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


2/12

It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


3/12

The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu


4/12

Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID


5/12

Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as