Phil Holloway

But the truth is, that doesn't matter.

There's got to be both tenants there.

The animus needs to be there.

Plus, they're only bringing this because they just don't like them.

And here, whether there's a valid defense or not, there's enough at least to argue that there is enough that he did to justify the charges.

No, we're talking prosecution.

I mean, no, it's got to be prosecutors.

Prosecutors are the ones who bring charges, right?

It's not, well, this politician spoke loudly about this person, and so that's going to carry the day.

Heck no.

It's got to be these prosecutors hold him in the worst regard and they went after him, not because he violated the law, but because they have personal vendetta against him and just can't stand him.

There's no evidence of that.

I don't think that that's there.

Yes, and as we all learned when we went to law school, the First Amendment gives you wide latitude to spew outrageous and offensive speech

The question is whether this is primarily opinion and it looks that way.

There's a few facts that he'll say, well, I said in good conscience, it doesn't mean that they're actually true.

He doesn't have to be truthful.

Again, she has to prove actual malice that he knew it was false or a reckless disregard of the truth.

Very high standard, as you have learned, Megan.

So I don't think this lawsuit goes anywhere against this guy.