{"id":1555921,"date":"2022-07-15T08:05:08","date_gmt":"2022-07-15T12:05:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1555921"},"modified":"2022-07-15T08:05:56","modified_gmt":"2022-07-15T12:05:56","slug":"why-a-federal-judge-shouldnt-toss-the-case-enabling-stefan-halper-to-pretend-russia-collusion-was-real","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/why-a-federal-judge-shouldnt-toss-the-case-enabling-stefan-halper-to-pretend-russia-collusion-was-real\/","title":{"rendered":"Why A Federal Judge Shouldn\u2019t Toss The Case Enabling Stefan Halper To Pretend Russia Collusion Was Real"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">34<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fwhy-a-federal-judge-shouldnt-toss-the-case-enabling-stefan-halper-to-pretend-russia-collusion-was-real%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1555921&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/Screen-Shot-2022-07-15-at-5.53.27-AM.png\" class=\"ff-og-image-inserted\" alt=\"image\" \/><\/div>\n<p>Hiding behind his lawyers and hoping to avoid questioning about his role in SpyGate, former confidential human source Stefan Halper implies in his most recent court filing that the Russia collusion story peddled during the 2016 election and after was \u201csubstantially truth.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Later this morning, a federal judge in Virginia will consider Halper\u2019s latest attempt to toss the lawsuit Svetlana Lokhova filed against him in December of 2020, which claims that the former confidential human source defamed her and alleges tortiously interference with a book contract she had. <\/p>\n<p>This lawsuit represents the second case Lokhova filed against Halper, with her earlier defamation case against Halper and numerous media outlets dismissed because she waited too long to sue the majority of the defendants; the two timely claims failed because one isolated article was not defamatory and the final defendant was not responsible for a non-employee\u2019s tweets.<\/p>\n<p>After the district court dismissed her first lawsuit, Lokhova filed a second complaint in December 2020 against only Halper. In her second case, branded <em>Lokhova II<\/em>, the Russian-born British citizen, author, and academic again alleged defamation and tortious interference with contract claims. <\/p>\n<p>Specifically, Lokhova\u2019s second lawsuit <a href=\"https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/lokhova-v-halper-3\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">alleged<\/a> that \u201cin March 2020, when Halper learned of the book\u201d Lokhova was writing about Halper, \u201che directed his counsel, Terry Reed, to contact Post Hill Press and Simon &#038; Schuster solely for the purposes of \u2018quash[ing] publication and cancel[ling] the Book Contract.\u2019\u201d Reed then allegedly \u201ccontacted [Simon &#038; Schuster] and [Post Hill Press] and falsely accused [them] of defaming Halper in the marketing materials.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The complaint further alleged that through the letters, Halper \u201cdefamed and disparaged\u201d Lokhova to the publishers and falsely accused her of \u201cknowingly publishing\u201d statements that were \u201cfalse.\u201d Additionally, it alleged that \u201cHalper escalated the threats and intimidation to [Simon &#038; Schuster\u2019s] parent company, CBS Corporation.\u201d The complaint in <em>Lokhova II<\/em> concluded that Halper\u2019s accusations were untrue and that \u201c[t]he sole purpose of Halper\u2019s actions was to interfere with [Lokhova\u2019s] Book Contract and induce [Post Hill Press] to terminate the Contract,\u201d which it ultimately did after facing irresistible pressure from Simon &#038; Schuster.<\/p>\n<p>Halper responded to Lokhova\u2019s second lawsuit by filing a motion for sanctions, arguing her new lawsuit was \u201cfrivolous\u201d under Virginia law because, according to Halper, he had an \u201cabsolute litigation privilege\u201d to send letters to the publishers of Lokhova\u2019s upcoming book. Judge Leonie Brinkema, who had dismissed the complaint in <em>Lokhova I<\/em>, agreed, sanctioned both Lokhova and her attorney, and dismissed her second lawsuit against Halper. Lokhova appealed that dismissal, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed both the award of sanctions and the dismissal of her lawsuit.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>In reversing Judge Brinkema\u2019s dismissal of Lokhova\u2019s second lawsuit and the court\u2019s award of sanctions, the Fourth Circuit stressed that Lokhova\u2019s second case relied on facts that occurred subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier litigation. The federal appellate court then held that Brinkema had abused her discretion in finding <em>Lokhova II <\/em>\u201cfrivolous and without merit.\u201d In reaching this decision, the Fourth Circuit first noted that it \u201cis not disputed that the complaint adequately stated claims under Virginia law for defamation and tortious interference with contract.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The appellate court then addressed Halper\u2019s claim that the letters he sent to Simon &#038; Schuster and Post Hill Press \u201cwere protected by the absolute litigation privilege.\u201d Initially, the Fourth Circuit held that that privilege, even if applicable to a defamation claim, did not bar Lokhova\u2019s \u201ctortious interference with contract\u201d claim. The court then concluded that whether the absolute privilege barred Lokhova\u2019s defamation claim rested on several factors, yet unknown, such as why Halper sent the letters. Because \u201cHalper\u2019s intent in sending the letters is ultimately a question of fact\u201d and one that can only be resolved \u201cafter discovery and the development of a fuller record,\u201d the Fourth Circuit also reversed the dismissal of Lokhova\u2019s second lawsuit against Halper, remanding the case to the lower court.<\/p>\n<p>After Lokhova\u2019s victory on appeal in <em>Lokhova II,<\/em> and notwithstanding the Fourth Circuit\u2019s analysis, Halper filed a Motion to Dismiss, framing the appellate court\u2019s decision in <em>Lokhova II<\/em> as limited to the question of sanctions. Halper then argued that as a matter of law, Lokhova\u2019s defamation and tortious interference with contract claims should be dismissed. <\/p>\n<p>Soon after, D.C. lawyer Leslie McAdoo Gordon filed an appearance in the case and filed an amended complaint against Halper. The amended complaint presented the same claims but provided a more complete summary of the factual basis of Lokhova\u2019s claims. Halper pushed forward nonetheless with his Motion to Dismiss.<\/p>\n<p>In his Motion to Dismiss, Halper presents numerous frivolous arguments, including that Lokhova\u2019s second lawsuit merely regurgitates the allegations she made in <em>Lokhova I<\/em> that were rejected by the appellate court in the original appeal. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that spin, however, in the second appeal brought by Lokhova, when the appellate court ruled that Lokhova\u2019s second lawsuit concerned new conduct\u2014conduct that had occurred after the lower court had dismissed her first defamation and tortious interference claims.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Halper also argues at length that Lokhova failed to properly allege the requisite elements to state defamation and tortious interference with contract claims. Again, the Fourth Circuit\u2019s decision appears to dispose of that argument, with the court having said that it \u201cis not disputed that the complaint adequately stated claims under Virginia law for defamation and tortious interference with contract.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The trial court may believe, however, that because the Fourth Circuit\u2019s decision focused on the issue of sanctions and Halper\u2019s claim of \u201cabsolute litigation privilege,\u201d whether Lokhova\u2019s allegations were sufficient to state defamation and tortious interference with contract claims remains to be decided. But even if Judge Brinkema takes that tack, she should nonetheless deny Halper\u2019s Motion to Dismiss because it is impossible at this stage of the litigation to know precisely what Halper said about Lokhova to succeed in having Post Hill Press cancel her book contract.<\/p>\n<p>While in his response to Lokhova\u2019s complaint, Halper filed with the court copies of the letters he sent to Post Hill Press and Simon &#038; Schuster, Lokhova also alleged that Halper made threats to CBS Corporation, the parent company of Simon &#038; Schuster. What Halper said to CBS Corporation, and what else, beyond the letters, his attorneys said to Post Hill Press and Simon &#038; Schuster is unknown at this time. Under these circumstances, and given the other allegations in the complaint, Judge Brinkema should deny Halper\u2019s Motion to Dismiss and allow the case to proceed to discovery.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cShould,\u201d however, is the operative word.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>To date, Halper appears to have succeeded in sidestepping any inquiry into his role in the SpyGate scandal, which included him serving as a confidential human source to question three individuals connected to the Trump campaign, <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2022\/03\/21\/stefan-halper-was-just-another-hack-who-helped-peddle-the-russia-collusion-hoax\/\">namely<\/a> Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and Sam Clovis. Halper also allegedly spread the rumor of an intrigue between Michael Flynn and Lokhova, which formed the basis of Lokhova\u2019s original lawsuit. <\/p>\n<p>On October 5, 2020, the Senate Homeland Security Committee subpoenaed Halper to testify before the Senate \u201con October 14, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. at its committee room,\u201d and to \u201cproduce all records related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation\u2019s Crossfire Hurricane investigation; the Department of Justice Inspector General\u2019s review of that investigation; and the \u2018unmasking\u2019 of U.S. persons or entities affiliated, formally or informally, with the Trump campaign, Trump transition, or Trump administration.\u201d Halper never showed and to this date appears to have avoided any questioning by Congress.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Yet in arguing that the court should dismiss Lokhova\u2019s lawsuit against him, Halper pretends the Inspector General report refuted the claims Lokhova made about him in the book he succeeded in having canceled, \u201cThe Spider: Stefan A. Halper and the Dark Web of a Coup,\u201d implying that the story of Russia collusion peddled during the 2016 election and after was \u201csubstantially truth.\u201d But the Inspector General also never questioned Halper, and the IG report did not address Halper\u2019s alleged misconduct toward Lokhova.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The question, now, is whether Judge Brinkema will allow Lokhova\u2019s case to proceed and Halper to finally be subjected to questioning about his role in SpyGate\u2014public questioning, that is, as it may well be that Special Counsel John Durham has already hauled Halper in front of a grand jury. If not, then Halper isn\u2019t the only one who owes Americans some answers.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\" \/>\n<p>\n  Margot Cleveland is The Federalist&#8217;s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. <\/p>\n<p>Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize\u2014the law school\u2019s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. <\/p>\n<p>As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Hiding behind his lawyers and hoping to avoid questioning about his role in SpyGate, former confidential human source Stefan Halper implies in his most recent court filing that the Russia<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":2315279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1555921","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1555921","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1555921"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1555921\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1555921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1555921"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1555921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}