So... This is NOT actually a crazy defamation suit. It's filled by Stephen Biss, so of course it's filed in the wrong jurisdiction (EDTX, where NBCU isn't subject to jurisdiction and has no connection to the events). But (and I can't believe I'm saying this) the core is viable
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1422729247601348608
*filed, swype. Come on.
The core allegation is simple: Maddow reported that I accepted a package from Andriy Derkach, a Russian agent, refused to turn it over to the FBI, and refuse to tell anyone what was in it. I actually never accepted it & turned it over to the FBI unopened
The core allegation is simple: Maddow reported that I accepted a package from Andriy Derkach, a Russian agent, refused to turn it over to the FBI, and refuse to tell anyone what was in it. I actually never accepted it & turned it over to the FBI unopened
Those are specific statements of fact by Maddow, which he alleges are false. That clears the first hurdle: he's actually suing about statements of fact, not opinion, which means it's legally possible for them to be defamatory
That, of course, leaves actual malice: he has to plausibly allege Maddow either knew the claims were false when she reported them or thought they probably were false and reported them anyway. Here's how he does that 
Of course, he's mostly citing right-wing news sources and has no evidence that Maddow actually knew or believed any of that. But for Twiqbal purposes, and especially when the element being questioned is the state of a defendant's knowledge, "this was publicly reported earlier"...
has got to be enough to get him into discovery about what she knew when she made her report. And it is going to be her burden to show that she had a source that was telling her something different
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
