Durham is going public with more details of his investigation into the Russia Collusion Hoax, but will the courts will stop him? //

The details included in the latest filings, when coupled with revelations in earlier court documents, make it politically impossible at this point for Attorney General Merrick Garland to pull the plug on Durham.

The Special Counsel’s office may instead (or may also) be using the speaking court filings to ensure the investigation is not prematurely shut down by the Biden Administration. The details included in the latest filings, when coupled with revelations in earlier court documents, make it politically impossible at this point for Attorney General Merrick Garland to pull the plug on Durham.

Another possibility is that the Special Counsel’s office wants those inside the government rattled. If so, the tactic worked beautifully.... //

Soon after the public filing of the “discovery update,” the OIG’s apparently complained to Durham’s team about the details included in the court document, trying to justify its failure to turn over Baker’s cell phones. But in doing so, the OIG revealed it had other cell phones that might be of interest.

Or maybe Durham is merely attempting to keep the public informed, in a legal way, with the end goal being restoring some semblance of trust in the DOJ,

The jurors “had involuntarily received ‘push notifications’ on their smartphones that contained the bottom-line of the ruling”. //

What the hay are jurors doing with ANY devices during trial proceedings??!!

Set up.

Contrarians can be useful! Yes, we’re very rude people, but sometimes we can help you avoid making a mistake. There’s a reason why the Catholic Church, when considering whether somebody should be made a saint, used to bring in a Devil’s Advocate.

The Catholic Church of liberal wisdom is The New York Times. But if you work at the Times, you probably exist in an epistemological safe space into which no adverse information ever flows. You may never even hear about certain true things; the information doesn’t penetrate the media outlets you read, the dinner parties you attend or the podcasts you listen to at the gym. //

Bennet lives in a world where everyone “knew” Palin’s team had a “clear” link to the shooting. He had probably read so many left-wing columns and blogs blaming Palin that he simply internalized the information and didn’t bother to check it. The fact-checker glossed over the false assertion also, because she was too overworked to do her job. (“I was checking things fast on deadline … my reading of it led me not to have looked at that specifically . . . I did the best of my ability in the time that I had.”) //

Funnily enough, when I worked at People magazine, where a team of hatchet-faced fact-checkers who made IRS auditors look like friendly Labradoodles would spend my Monday nights haranguing me over every adjective and preposition [.... ] anything that had previously been reported in the New York Times was considered a “red check,” i.e., unassailable truth.

At the Times itself? You can call one of the most prominent political figures an accessory to attempted murder, and the only sound you’ll hear is people shrugging.

For all The Times stories bemoaning that Americans increasingly live in “bubbles” of “misinformation,” it never seemed to look at the bubble inside its own newspaper. //

Hey, I just thought of someone who’d be perfect for the job: experienced in daily journalism, familiar with Times protocols, yet disinclined to automatically believe every vicious assertion about anyone on the Right: Her name is Bari Weiss. Maybe give her a call.

In the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case Wilson v. Arkansas, the court recognized that something called the “Castle Doctrine” and the “knock and announce” rule are embedded in the Fourth Amendment. The idea is that our protections from unreasonable search and seizure mean that police must knock, announce themselves, and give residents time to answer before they enter forcibly.

But here’s the hitch. The Wilson ruling allowed that in cases with “exigent circumstances,” police can enter without knocking if it means a suspect might be able to escape or destroy evidence. That exception prompted many police departments to simply declare in all search warrant affidavits that a no-knock raid was justified, citing the danger of a suspect fleeing, destroying evidence, or assaulting the officers serving the warrant.

That in turn lead to another Supreme Court ruling in 1997, Richards v. Wisconsin, which found that blanket exceptions to the “knock and announce” rule were unconstitutional. The ruling, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, found that, “If a per se exception were allowed for each category of criminal investigation that included a considerable — albeit hypothetical — risk of danger to officers or destruction of evidence, the knock-and-announce element of the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement would be meaningless.”

etbass
6 hours ago
Two people drive at the same unlawful speed under identical road conditions. One hits a child; one hits no one. The first is guilty of involuntary manslaughter; the second of a violation of the highway code.
No, one person hits a kills a child. The second one doesn't. The actions are not the same, because they assume that the driver has no control or ability to prevent the hitting of the child. Even at excessive speeds, a person could make evasive maneuvers. A person could wreck themselves to avoid hitting the kid. People have different driving skills, reaction times, eye sight and different vehicles that perform differently under the same speed on the same road. The judge's analogy doesn't actually hold up at all. There is some similarity, but it isn't the same thing.

This guy set a building on fire and killed a man. He took no actions to see that his actions didn't kill someone and he did it - therefore he is responsible. The results of the actions matter because it affects other people. This man is dead because of this guy's actions. You can't wish that away or pretend it didn't happen. To state the obvious, if no one was killed in the arson, it would be a lesser sentence because no one was killed. It is pretty simple. This judge is removing the responsibility of the criminal for the results of his actions. That is non-sensical and not justice.

The judge is also arguing that there is no difference between a murder and at attempted murder. But their is. In one case, the person is dead. In the other, they are not. There also would be no difference in getting into a fight fight and killing someone in a fist fight. The only factors are your strengths and their weaknesses and where you hit them, or "luck" as the judge would say. That is absurd.

These are not merely rhetorical questions. Well over a hundred political prisoners are being held by the Biden Justice Department for their role in the January 6 disturbance at the US Capitol, or, to describe it the way the RNC did on Friday, “persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.” The conditions at the DC jail are squalid and brutal, their ability to consult with attorneys very limited, their accessibility to medical care nearly non-existent. The only reason that retirees are being held in confinement for what are essentially jaywalking tickets is that they committed an act of disrespect toward the liberal-progressive power structure that pointed out its illegitimacy. Keep in mind that Jake Angeli, the so-called “MAGA shaman,” will serve about half as much time in prison for sitting in Nancy Pelosi’s chair as Montez Lee will serve for burning a building and killing a father of three.

The difference is that the Biden Justice Department sees Montez Lee and his friends as allies and is fully in agreement with their goals. The January 6 people, on the other hand, represent the traditional order and are a threat to the norms Biden/Garland are trying to impose upon the rest of the nation.

We can’t exist with a legal system the left is trying to inflict upon us, one that was overthrown by the English barons at Runnymede when they forced King John to sign the Magna Carta. That would be a system where your political affiliation determines your punishment, not the law and not precedent.

“emails between New York Times editors reveal they ignored fact checkers and admitted to ‘sneaking a link’ between Sarah Palin and the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords” //

deltaxray468 | February 6, 2022 at 12:58 am
I think Palin’s goal is go beyond proving “actual malice.” Her goal is to dismantle Sullivan.

Fraud isn’t protected speech. The NYT’s not only libeled Palin, it defrauded the public. Sullivan’s standard allows the news the ability to create fraudulent narratives with very little risk.

SJW Legal Scholars, Funded by Google, Seek to Eviscerate Copyright Protections Through 'Restatement' of Law
By Jennifer Van Laar | Jan 17, 2022 9:30 PM ET

(Stefan Rousseau/PA via AP)
We know that the progressive left engages in Astroturfing. What many are just realizing or admitting is that what you see on the surface when an issue suddenly becomes hot is just that, surface. There are years of effort behind what you see, and it’s not just in organization. Astroturfing even consists of creating the scientific and legal “research” pointing to the desired conclusion. We know that the oil and tobacco industries did this decades ago, but the practice wasn’t limited to that time and those industries. More recently, we’ve seen this happen with regard to gun control (Everytown and Bloomberg-funded “research), criminal justice (Soros-affiliated groups and think tanks fund research that is then used by District Attorney candidates to claim the “science” backs their “reimagining” efforts), and, of course, Critical Race Theory.

Now a massive astroturfing effort is happening in the field of copyright law, and anyone who produces creative content should be paying close attention. As I wrote last week, there are major problems with the American Law Institute’s Restatement project, starting with how the project was initiated (at the request of a Google-funded, anti-copyright law activist professor) and the Lead Reporter’s unacknowledged conflicts of interest. Major flaws in the draft Restatement have been pointed out by other prominent copyright law scholars, a bipartisan group from Congress, the Register of Copyrights (the director of the Copyright Office), and even Advisors to the project. All of these groups essentially claim that the Restatement incorrectly interprets the Copyright Act and the policy preferences of the Reporters are improperly included. A letter to ALI from 10 of the project’s advisors states:

The Draft has a variety of problems including inaccurately summarizing the text of the Copyright Act, confusing explanations of important principles and misleading illustrations. Moreover, as further detailed below, these problems uniformly reflect an unduly restrictive view of copyright law that is not consistent with the robust statutory rights granted by Congress to authors.

Is the problem that the Restatement draft is flawed, or is it that “progressive” forces and their capitalist enablers, such as Google and Spotify, are using the Restatement to create a new legal “gold standard” that their attorneys can use in court to get favorable rulings and set new precedent in the arena – effectively changing the law through judicial activism and not through the legislative branch?

The potential irony of this decision is just too much to contemplate. Activist groups suing Alabama over a 30-year-old district map could potentially destroy the racial gerrymandering grift for the entire country.

Two Christian leaders in Finland stood trial in Helsinki on Jan. 24 for publicly stating the Bible’s teachings on sex and marriage. Longtime Member of Parliament Paivi Rasanen and Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola defended in court their decision to write and publish, respectively, a pamphlet explaining Christian teachings about sex and marriage.

In the trial’s opening arguments, which will resume on Feb. 14, Finnish prosecutors described quotations from the Bible as “hate speech.” Finland’s top prosecutor’s office essentially put the Bible on trial, an unprecedented move for a secular court, said Paul Coleman, a human rights lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom International who is assisting in the Finns’ legal defense and was present during Monday’s trial.

“The prosecutor began the day by trying to explain that this case was not about beliefs and the Bible. She then, and I’m not kidding, she then proceeded to quote Old Testament Bible verses,” Coleman said in a phone interview with The Federalist after the trial concluded for the day. “Trial attorneys, Finnish trial attorneys who have been in and out of court every day for years, said they didn’t think the Bible had ever been read out like that in a prosecution.”

Never before has a Finnish court had to decide whether quoting the Bible is a crime. Human rights observers consider this case an important marker for whether Western governments’ persecution of citizens for their speech and beliefs increases. //

“The majority of the day was about the role of the Bible in society,” said Coleman, an Englishman who listened with the aid of translators. “The prosecutor on more than one occasion questioned whether we in Finland follow Finnish law or the Bible, as if these things are so inherently contradictory that you have to choose one.”

The long day in court concluded with the prosecutor cross-examining Pohjola about his theology, Coleman said, “asking his interpretation of the Bible, just straight-up theology.” The prosecutor even asked the bishop, apparently without awareness of the historical import of this question, “Does he follow God’s law or does he follow Finnish law?” Coleman noted with astonishment.

“I would characterize the day as a modern-day Inquisition or heresy trial,” Coleman concluded. “And the heresy was that Paivi and Bishop Juhana were on trial against the new sexual orthodoxy of the day.”

Bill Cosby had his sexual assault conviction thrown out Wednesday — in a stunning ruling by Pennsylvania’s highest court that found a prosecutor’s decades-old agreement should have shielded him from criminal charges.

The fallen funnyman, 83, is set to walk out of a Philadelphia-area prison a free man after serving more than two years of a three- to 10-year sentence. //

In its 79-page ruling, the State Supreme court found that an agreement with then-Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor Jr. prevented Cosby from being charged for allegedly drugging and molesting Andrea Constand in 2004.

Constand first reported the alleged encounter in 2005 to Castor, who decided not to pursue charges in the case, noting it took her a year to come forward and saying there were inconsistencies in her case.

So Constand sued Cosby in civil court weeks later, and the case was settled for an undisclosed sum.

But as part of that civil case, Castor and Cosby’s camp say they made a behind-the-scenes verbal agreement to have the actor give a deposition on Constand’s allegations in exchange for Cosby never being criminally charged over them.

Cosby had admitted in the deposition that he drugged Constand before performing a sex act on her, although he said it was consensual. //

“When an unconditional charging decision is made publicly and with the intent to induce action and reliance by the defendant, and when the defendant does so to his detriment (and in some instances upon the advice of counsel), denying the defendant the benefit of that decision is an affront to fundamental fairness, particularly when it results in a criminal prosecution that was foregone for more than a decade,” the ruling says.

“For these reasons, Cosby’s convictions and judgment of sentence are vacated, and he is discharged.”

Newly unredacted court filings show that Google may have leveraged its end-to-end control over the auction-driven display advertising market to unfairly funnel revenues away from publishers and competing advertising exchanges, and back to itself, to the tune of $250 million in annual revenue dating back to 2013.

The crux of this alleged manipulation involves Google publicly stating that its auction system used a second-price model, when in fact it may have actually been using a third-price model — at least when it suited Google. //

Many in the publishing and advertising industries have suspected foul play on the part of Google for years, and those suspicions increasingly appear to have been valid.

A federal court refused to grant a request by Marc Elias, the Democrat operative who helped run the Russia collusion hoax, to rescind their sanctions against him for deceiving judges in his attempts to fight Republicans in Texas who pushed back on bad election practices by banning straight-ticket voting in the 2020 election.

Elias, who worked as Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer in 2016 and served as legal counsel to now-Vice President Kamala Harris when she ran for president in 2020, was first sanctioned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in March for deceptively refiling a motion to the court after it was previously denied. Two of the three judges on the panel agreed to sanction Elias and his team for the shady attempt to lie to the court. Elias was quickly scolded by the judges for lacking “candor” in a courtroom setting. //

After legal counsel for Elias demanded that the judges rethink the “unprecedented” penalties and asked for an appeals court hearing to remove the sanctions, the judges unanimously refused.

Republicans are poised to sweep the midterms and wrest back control of both houses of Congress.

But the Democrats’ rulebook was written by Machiavelli, not the Marquess of Queensbury. They are brawlers who use scorched earth tactics to give themselves every electoral advantage. And their principal legal strategist is Marc Elias.

Elias served as general counsel to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and in that role was responsible for the hiring of Fusion GPS, the oppo-research firm that created the infamous “Steele dossier.” The false statements in the dossier were used to smear Donald Trump’s presidential campaign of colluding with the Russian government, and were used to justify the FBI’s spying on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

After Trump was elected, Democrats used the phony collusion narrative – enthusiastically promoted by the Democrats’ media allies – to sabotage the president’s agenda by subjecting him to a two-year investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into the allegations of Russian collusion. Trump, of course, was ultimately exonerated by Mueller of collusion.

Elias next worked with the Democratic Party establishment to exploit the COVID-19 pandemic to change state election rules in the run-up to the 2020 election. He was the driving force behind 32 election-related lawsuits in 19 states that sought to overturn state election laws that protected against voter fraud – namely, Elias sought to expand mail-in voting, dilute signature verification and witness requirements, expand ballot harvesting by third parties, eliminate voter ID, and increase the number of ballot drop-box locations.

This year, following as it does the decennial census, Elias is spearheading dozens of legal challenges to various states’ redistricting efforts in an effort to generate Democrat-friendly maps for the next decade.

But these challenges will take years to sort out, and the Democrats are short on time.

Biden’s botched handling of COVID, the economy, the southern border, and the withdrawal from Afghanistan – not to mention his failure to get his legislative agenda across the finish line – doesn’t give Democrats much to run on in 2022.

Unable to meaningfully address the kitchen table issues concerning most voters, the Democrats instead are making the Jan. 6 riot the centerpiece of their campaign. As CNN put it, they are asking voters “to punish Republicans who have either aided Trump’s anti-Democratic maneuvers or stood idly by as his allies took hold of the party” that day.

And that’s where Elias comes in.

In his “prediction for 2022,” Elias tweeted that “before the midterm election, we will have a serious discussion about whether individual Republican House Members are disqualified by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment from serving in Congress.” //

Marc E. Elias
@marceelias
I am making clear that members of Congress who engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States are not eligible to serve in Congress.

The fact that this is so triggering to the GOP speaks volumes. https://twitter.com/dangainor/status/1473724106260496392
2:03 PM · Dec 22, 2021

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment – also known as the Disqualification Clause – was added to the Fourteenth Amendment to disqualify former government officials who aided the cause of the Confederate states during the Civil War, //

To begin, while Elias’s tweet threatens “litigation” under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, courts don’t have jurisdiction to entertain such challenges. According to legal scholars, that section specifies “qualifications” for Members of Congress and the Senate, but under Article I, section 5, clause 1 of the Constitution, “each House shall be the Judge of the … Qualifications of its own Members.”

As Justice Scalia cogently wrote when he sat on the D.C. Circuit, that provision “states not merely that each House ‘may judge’ these matters, but that each House ‘shall be the Judge.’” Hence, the courts “simply lack jurisdiction” to adjudicate Disqualification Clause contests. //

Non-Justiciable Political Question
Even if courts have the judicial authority to adjudicate Disqualification Clause disputes, however, the question remains whether such power should be exercised.

In Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court held that where the Constitution assigns an issue to the elected, or political, branches to resolve, the courts should not intrude.

This approach – known as the “political question” doctrine – is rooted in the separation of powers and applies here. //

Perhaps most significantly, ambiguities in the text of the Disqualification Clause call into question whether that clause even applies here.

Primary among them is whether the events of Jan. 6 constituted a “rebellion” or “insurrection” – hyperbolic labels that smack more of yellow journalism than legalistic accuracy. Indeed, of the more than 720 people who were arrested for participating in the events of Jan. 6, none were criminally charged with “Rebellion or Insurrection” under the federal criminal code.

Jered Ede (Project Veritas Chief Legal Officer)
@Jtaylorede
·
Dec 24, 2021
BREAKING: NY Supreme Court GRANTS Veritas’ Motion; ORDERS New York Times to destroy attorney-client memos “irregular[ly]” obtained from PV; REJECTS Times’ cries of “prior restraint” while citing case about “‘Hit and run’ journalism”

How did NYT obtain the memos? Poss. "improper means" : "The Times incredibly admitted that here 'no apparent bribery was used to obtain the memoranda.' ... [PV] has met its burden of showing [the memos] were obtained by irregular means, if not both irregular and improper means."

But the memos were public concern because it involved PV, no? No: "[S]ome things are not fodder for public consideration and consumption. These memoranda ... are only between an attorney and a client, and it does not matter one bit who the attorney and client are."

The Times/corp. media argued prior restraint. Wrong. "The Times is perfectly free to investigate, ... publish, opine, expose or ignore whatever aspects of Project Veritas its editors in their sole discretion deem newsworthy, without utilizing [PV's a/c] privileged memoranda."

"[T]he court's protective order does not act as an impermissible prior restraint on the Times. As important as the First Amendment's protection against prior restraints is, on the present facts, the erosion of the attorney-client privilege is a far more imminent concern."
Jered Ede (Project Veritas Chief Legal Officer)
@Jtaylorede
Of the Times' journalism, the court noted: ... "''Hit and run' journalism is no more protected under the First Amendment, than speeding on a crowded sidewalk is permitted under a valid driver's license.'" #ouch.

"[T]his is no defeat for the First Amendment," wrote the Court. "It would indeed be a Pyrrhic victory...if the Amendment's safeguarding of the media... were confused with the attempt to constitutionalize the publication of the private, privileged communication ...presented here."

A hard-fought victory by the indefatigable @libbylocke of @ClareLockeLLP, who frequently reminds the NYT that, contrary to internal belief, they are not the most powerful entity in the State of New York.

Upon determining by clear and convincing evidence that the health of others is or may be endangered by a case, contact or carrier, or suspected case, contact or carrier of a contagious disease that, in the opinion of the governor, after consultation with the commissioner, may pose an imminent and significant threat to the public health resulting in severe morbidity or high mortality, the governor of his or her delegee including, but not limited to the commissioner or heads of local health departments, may order the removal and/or detention of such a person or of a group of such persons by issuing a single order, identifying such persons either by name or by a reasonably specific description of the individuals or group being detained. Such person or group of persons shall be detained by a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises designated by the governor or his delegee.

In addition, reported The National Pulse on Monday:

The bill would “require an individual who has been exposed to or infected by a contagious disease to complete an appropriate, prescribed course of treatment, preventive medication or vaccination,” essentially giving the government the right to detain anyone they want and forcibly vaccinate them. //

While the proposal suggests that no individual or group can be held for more than 60 days, the language allows for court orders to waive the maximum detention time. After 60 days, the court is allowed an additional 90 days to consider detention, a cycle that can last indefinitely per the opinion of the department.

One of the founding ideals of the United States was that the same system of laws would apply to everyone equally. Two people convicted of the same or similar offense, all things being equal, should receive approximately the same punishment. It doesn’t always work that way; wealth and fame do have a way of making crimes, like murder, go away, but those instances are anomalies. Over the last four years, though, things have started to come unglued. The courts willingly cooperated with the obscene persecution of Michael Flynn. Department of Justice functionary Andrew Weissmann was able to weaponize the judicial apparatus to carry out his personal vendetta against Paul Manafort and President Trump.

Since the summer of 2020, though, it has become blatantly obvious that we have a two-tiered justice system in this country, and your personal politics determines how the courts treat you. //

This no longer exists in the United States. People are prosecuted according to their politics, not their crimes. If you set off explosive devices, try to wreck a train, or give a cop a beatdown and you are Antifa or related scum, you probably won’t be arrested. If you are arrested you will be released without bail. If, by some misfortune, you are ever prosecuted, you are looking at the equivalent of a wrist slap.

On the other hand, if you are a rightwing demonstrator, you will be harried to the ends of the earth. You will be held under a hefty bond, assuming one is even permitted. Even if your behavior was lawful and is documented on video, you will be charged with a crime. If you plead guilty, the book will be thrown at you.

This is not right. This is not a sustainable system in any society.

Mississippi Abortion Case – Roe v. Wade’s Flight 93 Oral Argument For Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan

Sotomayor seemed desperate: “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” //

Three questions were presented in the Petition for a Writ of Certriorari, but the court granted review only on the first question:

1. Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.

2. Whether the validity of a pre-viability law that protects women’s health, the dignity of unborn children, and the integrity of the medical profession and society should be analyzed under Casey’s “undue burden” standard or Hellerstedt’s balancing of benefits and burdens.

3. Whether abortion providers have third-party standing to invalidate a law that protects women’s health from the dangers of late-term abortions.

That question, particularly to the exclusion of the others, seemed to be a signal that Roe v. Wade, which rested on viability, was on the table: //

Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?

The problem, of course, is that Roe v. Wade always was an exercise of political compromise, a compromise that never had clear popular support.

And the “stench” of politics has been injected into the system by those who support Roe v. Wade, starting with the disgusting treatment of Republican nominees from Robert Bork to Brett Kavanaugh. Every time a Republican makes a Supreme Court nomination, Democrats demand to know the nominee’s position on Roe v. Wade, it’s the central issue during hearings, media coverage, and protests.

No major reforms have taken place at the Department of Justice or FBI even as its politicized bungling of prosecutions and investigations has made major news. //

Despite Rep. Fortenberry’s efforts to cooperate, when he didn’t recall details the government’s informant had been directed to describe to him nearly a year earlier prosecutors waited until the Biden Administration was in power and then brought multiple charges that had nothing to do with their campaign finance investigation,” said Fortenberry spokesman Chad Kolton. “This set up of a highly effective and well-respected member of Congress is another alarming example of a Justice Department and FBI that are out of control and destroying the lives and reputations of far too many Americans.” ///

It is called "entrapment".

In sum, despite their pro-speech intent, anti-SLAPP laws are typically used by media conglomerates and Big Tech companies to punish individuals who dare to fight back against being libeled or censored. These laws are not narrowly targeted to protect speech, but sloppily drafted so as to place insurmountable burdens on ordinary citizens seeking to fight back against powerful entities.

Libel and deplatforming victims are frequently unemployable and incapable of raising money due to censorship — recall that Rittenhouse was thrown off GoFundMe when he tried to raise money for his legal fees. The threat that a libel victim will have to pay the legal fees of the wealthy corporations that have slandered them is often enough to prevent the victim from bringing suit in the first place.

Overturning Sullivan would be quite difficult, requiring a Supreme Court ruling or constitutional amendment. By contrast, there is nothing stopping states from repealing their anti-SLAPP laws and allowing ordinary citizens a level playing field on which to fight back against Big Media and tech companies in court.