Does Lindell have hard evidence to back his claims? I hope so.
Defamation is hard to prove in a court. Aside from saying something false, there has to be some kind of intent to damage the other party. Since he apparently made the claim repeatedly, he can’t just say he ‘misspoke’.
The MSM repeatedly made claims about Trump without evidence, (even "won" Pulitzer Prizes,) and they just fall back on freedom of speech.
This will be a difficult case for Dominion to prove, but they will do damage with lawfare.
“Defamation is hard to prove in a court. Aside from saying something false, there has to be some kind of intent to damage the other party.
Hard to prove? That sentiment is a complete fiction devised by lawyers and it did not fly back in the day when dueling was legal.
Intent to damage???? The sense of the words will expose what the intent was. The duelers did not have to have lawyers and psychologists to explain it to them.
IDIOT! Is DU missing you?
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. Source.
So there is no requirement of intent to damage the other party. There is an exception where the other party is a public figure. In that case, actual malice must also be shown. Dominion is not a public figure.
You don’t know how fortunate you are as an American. In Canada it is much easier to sue for defamation. Something can be true but if the lawyer can argue saying the truth is of vicious intent then one can lose.