This is so crucial for the future admissibility of evidence, though i do not know the particulars of the case other than what the video showed. I know that statements made out of court by a party to the suit are sometimes easier to get into evidence than statements by non-parties. I don’t know whether that will matter, but I certainly hope taht there is enough of a factual basis to keep the beast in as a defendant.
What was the lower court’s rationale for not keeping her in as a defendant? Lack of personal involvement, or what?
The trial judges used as rationale California’s “anti-SLAPP” law, the intent of which is to protect politicians from frivolous lawsuits during campaigns. We think the law was improperly applied. The CA appellate court would not allow in the appeal the video evidence that had been withheld by a US Attorney (or an assistant US Attorney). That person may be deposed along with the Clinton-appointed federal judge who ran interference for Hillary during the Rosen trial.