I was able to watch the entire documentary. While portions of the film were repetitive (claims of election irregularities that many of us already were familiar with), it did contain new information on cyberattacks that were quite worthwhile.
The documentary reinforced my belief that the Dominion and Smartmatic lawsuits are not going to accomplish anything. My guess is that these lawsuits were both “slap suits.” The filings were intended to silence critics for fear of litigation costs rather than succeeding on the merits at trial.
Few causes of action are more ridiculous than ”defamation” (it’s actually subsumed under libel). This becomes even more absurd when plaintiff is a public figure. It would be difficult for the Castero-Chavez Voting Machine Company to try to argue that their president has not turned himself into a “public figure” via his own spectacular asininity.
Lawyers seldom take these cases, they’re simply unwinnable. You run into 1A problems, proof of economic damages (*but for* defendant’s false and malicious statements plaintiff would have earned $X from XXX. This info must be specific, and provable).
As a public figure, plaintiff has to prove *actual malice* on top of the elements of libel.
That said, a single libtard judge can cause a lot of trouble.
Plaintiffs are certainly rolling the dice, though. Discovery is not something they should want to experience. Potentially, everything could come in, if it actually goes to trial.
At the very least, there will be depositions.
I really can’t figure out what these lawyers are thinking. They had to know that Rudy would be deliriously happy at being served. If the point is to harass defendants, it’s already an epic fail. Is there some grand strategy at work that I’m not smart enough to understand?
Or are plaintiff’s lawyers just Avanetti Stupid?