Weissman was a part of the Mueller probe. That means he leads to discovery wherein the DOJ maliciously prosecuted him with several instances of wrongdoing. Plus Weissman presumably profits from the podcast he hosts with Wallace. For sure he should be named. There's a strong case against him and once serious damages are on the line he just might cooperate.
One reason defamation is hard to prove is opinions can't libel. You can say Mike Flynn is a crook or CNN are commies and that's protected speech.
If you say something specific like Mike Flynn was behind the Anthrax mailings (saw a good documentary on this) or the head of CNN joined the Communist Part on his 21st birthday, that's less likely to be considered opinions, but statements of fact.
Not a lawyer, but before discovery, you would first have to establish the statements are potentially libelous.
Weissman's statements read as they happened but they ignore the whole context...but I don't think that's enough. It's hard to win a libel suit. The 1st Amendment gives you some latitude over what is protected speech and what is not.
Complaint is here.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/flynn-msnbc-complaint.pdf
I'm not lawyer, but I think the complaint against Wallace is stronger than the one against Weissman.
This is the Wallace statement Flynn is suing over
Weissman was a part of the Mueller probe. That means he leads to discovery wherein the DOJ maliciously prosecuted him with several instances of wrongdoing. Plus Weissman presumably profits from the podcast he hosts with Wallace. For sure he should be named. There's a strong case against him and once serious damages are on the line he just might cooperate.
This is mentioned in Flynn's complaint.
Flynn is suing for libel. That's not easy to prove as part of US law. It's harder still if you're a public figure like Flynn.
There's an example from Flynn's family. His sister in law sued CNN but it was dismissed,haven't read why, just that it was.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flmd.398562/gov.uscourts.flmd.398562.55.0.pdf
One reason defamation is hard to prove is opinions can't libel. You can say Mike Flynn is a crook or CNN are commies and that's protected speech.
If you say something specific like Mike Flynn was behind the Anthrax mailings (saw a good documentary on this) or the head of CNN joined the Communist Part on his 21st birthday, that's less likely to be considered opinions, but statements of fact.
Not a lawyer, but before discovery, you would first have to establish the statements are potentially libelous.
Weissman's statements read as they happened but they ignore the whole context...but I don't think that's enough. It's hard to win a libel suit. The 1st Amendment gives you some latitude over what is protected speech and what is not.