Didn't it get proven in court that the videos were real and not defamatory? That's what the case was about wasn't it? If so, there is no standing for the defendant proven right paying for the plaintiff's legal counsel. It's usually the other way around.
Still makes little sense. The case was about defamation, and if the material that was "defamatory" is in fact not, then the case loses merit. That would be so ass backwards for a judge to say "So you brought a claim before me, another judge set precedent that the evidence you say was fake was real, but you should have YOUR fees paid for bringing the suit against someone telling the truth."
Didn't it get proven in court that the videos were real and not defamatory? That's what the case was about wasn't it? If so, there is no standing for the defendant proven right paying for the plaintiff's legal counsel. It's usually the other way around.
Evidence and truth no longer matter
Fifth circuit declared the videos real, but California is under Ninth circuit.
Still makes little sense. The case was about defamation, and if the material that was "defamatory" is in fact not, then the case loses merit. That would be so ass backwards for a judge to say "So you brought a claim before me, another judge set precedent that the evidence you say was fake was real, but you should have YOUR fees paid for bringing the suit against someone telling the truth."
9th circuit needs a cleaning then.
cleaning: i.e. second Trump term to replace the retiring Clinton judges.
Sure.