Court Dismisses Libel Claim by Ex-Hunter-Biden Business Partner Tony Bobulinski Against Ex-Trump-White-House-Aide Cassidy Hutchinson

From Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (D.D.C.) today in Bobulinski v. Hutchinson:

The following facts are taken from the allegations in the Complaint, which the Court assumes are true for the purposes of deciding this motion and construes in Mr. Bobulinski’s favor. Mr. Bobulinski is a “decorated Navy veteran and successful businessman.” After his military service, Mr. Bobulinski joined Hunter Biden in or around 2017 as a business partner serving as CEO of SinoHawk Holdings, “a company designed to find investments in the United States.” Mr. Bobulinski subsequently “confirmed to the United States Senate the veracity of [] emails [indicating] that Joe Biden was involved with his son’s business dealings with foreign nations, and that the Biden family accepted money from foreign nations.”

“On November 1, 2020, Mr. Bobulinski attended one of President Trump[‘s] campaign rallies in Rome, Georgia, and briefly met with Mark Meadows, President Trump’s Chief of Staff, during the rally.” Ms. Hutchinson served as principal assistant to Mr. Meadows; and in September 2023 published a book entitled, Enough. In the book, Ms. Hutchinson describes the meeting between Mr. Bobulinski and Mr. Meadows at the campaign rally as follows:

In the shadows of the bleachers, I observed Mark and Tony Bobulinski’s interaction through a gap in the vehicles. When they said their goodbyes, I saw Mark hand Tony what appeared to be a folded sheet of paper or a small envelope.

Bobulinski alleges that Ms. Cassidy’s statement is false: “at no point did Mr. Meadows hand Mr. Bobulinski any sheet of paper or envelope.”

Mr. Bobulinski alleges that Ms. Hutchinson “made this accusation to imply that Mr. Bobulinski was involved with some sort of shady business dealing with Mr. Meadows,” and that her commentary and juxtaposition of other facts creates a “defamatory implication.” In support, he quotes the following text:

I didn’t know much about Tony Bobulinski, just that he was a former business associate of Hunter Biden’s and had something to do with the laptop controversy. Trump had brought him as a guest to the presidential debate in Nashville on October 22. I wasn’t tracking the story closely enough to know more. But as Mark approached, I had a weird feeling that we were in danger. I couldn’t explain it, but the feeling was real. “Mark shouldn’t do this,” I said to Tony [sic]. “He’s being set up.” Tony shrugged. “Don’t overthink things. It’s not a big deal. Chief knows what he’s doing. Bobulinski came with us to Nashville, remember? Don’t worry, kid.” He patted my shoulder and walked away as Mark approached me.

“You’re not meeting Tony Bobulinski here, Mark. We can send someone from the campaign.”

I heard my voice whine with childlike desperation. “Please, Mark. This isn’t a good idea. Just trust me.” Mark looked at his Secret Service agent, then back at me. “Just go find him, and work with Secret Service to find a hidden spot. Come get me once you have him there.” …

“This is really stupid of you, Mark. I don’t know what’s going on, but it’s really stupid,” I said. He didn’t have time to respond as I ushered him into the makeshift area, away from cameras, as requested, but not from watchful Secret Service eyes….

I had done what they had asked of me, not questioning it, but now I started to put together all the moments like this one that didn’t add up. I could not shake the feeling that I had been entangled in something far more complex and secretive than I had initially realized.

Mr. Bobulinski does not dispute that he and Mr. Meadows met that day, but states that while it was “an innocent meeting,” Ms. Hutchinson’s description “provided the false implication” that the two “were involved in some sort of nefarious dealings, and painted Mr. Bobulinski in a false and negative light.” He states that the meeting between himself and Mr. Meadows was “simply an exchange of pleasantries” and that Mr. Meadows wanted to check on “the well-being of Mr. Bobulinski and his family” after being thrust into the public spotlight “for simplytelling his firsthand account of the truth about the Biden family.”

Bobulinski sued for defamation and related torts, but the court dismissed the claims; here’s an excerpt from the defamation analysis:

“A statement is defamatory ‘if it tends to injure the plaintiff in his trade, profession or community standing, or lower him in the estimation of the community.'” “[A]n allegedly defamatory remark must be more than unpleasant or offensive; the language must make the plaintiffs appear ‘odious, infamous, or ridiculous.'” …

Mr. Bobulinski agrees that while the statement that Mr. Meadows handed Mr. Bobulinski a sheet of paper or envelope “by itself may not be defamatory,” it becomes defamatory “when considered in the inflammatory context as was intended.” Mr. Bobulinski argues that the “statements occurred in the context of her book,” which “tells Ms. Hutchinson’s story about what supposedly led her to testify about January 6, 2021, and its aftermath,” and “her description of the subject meeting.” Mr. Bobulinski argues that this context “plausibly implies Mr. Bobulinski’s meeting with Mr. Meadows had something to do with the leadup to the events on January 6, 2021, and why [Ms. Hutchinson] testified. Accusing Mr. Bobulinski of involvement with the events of January 6, 2021, is defamatory as it implies potential criminal conduct and is likely to subject him to contempt from the community at large.”

Mr. Bobulinski also points to Ms. Hutchinson’s “grim rhetoric” about the meeting. Specifically, he points to Ms. Hutchinson’s statements that “she ‘had a weird feeling that [she] was in danger,’ and the feeling ‘was real'”; that “[s]he whined ‘with childlike desperation’ to Mr. Meadows that the meeting was not a good idea, was ‘really stupid’ and that she ‘could not shake the feeling that [she] had been entangled in something far more complex and secretive than [she] had initially realized'”; that she had “a ‘pit in [her] stomach’ after the meeting and feeling ‘shame’ and that she had ‘betrayed the world.'” Mr. Bobulinski concludes that “the reasoning for why [Ms. Hutchinson] wrote the book, and her surrounding statements about the meeting, provide sufficient context to give a defamatory meaning to [Ms. Hutchinson’s] statement that Mr. Meadows secretly handed Mr. Bobulinski ‘what appeared to be a folded sheet of paper or a small envelope.'”

The Court concludes, as a matter of law, that the statement and the context in which it was made—both the reason Ms. Hutchinson wrote the book and her “grim rhetoric”—are not reasonably susceptible of the defamatory meaning Mr. Bobulinski suggests. The statement coupled with reason Ms. Hutchinson wrote the book does not reasonably imply that the meeting had something to do with January 6, 2021 and the reason Ms. Hutchinson chose to testify about it. The meeting between Mr. Bobulinski and Mr. Meadows occurred on November 1, 2020, prior to the 2020 presidential election and nearly two months before January 6, 2021. Furthermore, Mr. Bobulinski does not point to any specific language in the book that would support this connection.

The “grim rhetoric” Mr. Bobulinski points to consists of Ms. Hutchinson’s feelings about the meeting. “[I]f it is plain that a speaker is expressing a subjective view, an interpretation, a theory, conjecture, or surmise, rather than claiming to be in possession of objectively verifiable facts, the statement is not actionable.” In other words, “a statement of opinion is actionable if—but only if—it has an explicit or implicit factual foundation and is therefore objectively verifiable.”

Mr. Bobulinski argues that Ms. Hutchinson’s “factual descriptions imply something illicit, immoral, or illegal was occurring” and that because this is “provably false,” her statements are actionable. However, Ms. Hutchinson does not claim in the statements Mr. Bobulinski cites “to be in possession of objectively verifiable facts.” Nor do the statements imply that there is a factual foundation for them. Rather, Ms. Hutchinson discusses her feelings about the meeting. Finally, the statements Mr. Bobulinski points to cannot be proven false. It cannot be proven false that Ms. Hutchinson had the various feelings she described having about the meeting….