Christopher Steele prevails in defense of defamation lawsuit.

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Patribotics
@patribotics
BREAKING: @OrbisBIOfficial *wins* the defamation case brought against Chris Steele by Gubarev in the UK. Gubarev will now have to pay all Steele’s costs.
7:00 AM · Oct 30, 2020

No matter how often @WSJ @FoxNews refer to the Steele Dossier as “discredited” that remains factually false. A crushing win for Orbis and further embarrassment for Steele’s critics on the right like @DavidSatter, @TomRtweets and others. Facts are difficult things to overcome.

Here is the judgement- baseless litigation and Orbis prevails on all counts. https://judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Gubarev-v-Orbis-judgment.pdf…
7:04 AM · Oct 30, 2020

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. An actual person behind a real dossier.

Sorry, Martin Aspen.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

2. "Deeeeeeezhhhpicable!!!" Daffy Giuliani (R-Psycho) nt

[UTUSN]

3. K&R

[lame54]

4. Your turn Rudy

[mr_lebowski]

5. It really is not such a cut and dry 'win' as is being crowed about here ...

The words complained of, in their context, meant that there were good reasons to
suspect the claimants of having, under duress from the Russian Secret Service, taken
part in hacking the computers used by the Democratic Party leadership, and using the
access they unlawfully gained in that way to transmit virus, plant bugs, steal data and
alter files and software. That imputation is defamatory of Mr Gubarev at common law,
and its publication in this jurisdiction and the EU caused serious harm to his reputation.
No substantive defence has been advanced. He would have been entitled to substantial
damages, if he had proved that the defendants are responsible in law for the publication
complained of. But he has failed to prove that. So, Mr Gubarev’s claim must be
dismissed. Webzilla Ltd’s claim must also be dismissed, for the same reason. That
claim would have failed in any event because, although the words complained of are
clearly defamatory of the company at common law, it has failed to establish that their
publication caused it serious financial loss. Its claim therefore falls short of the statutory
threshold set by s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013.

The court is not backing 'the facts', except for the fact that Steele wasn't responsible for the dossier being published and is therefore not responsible for any defamation.

[Duppers]

6. Big K & R

This is a bfd, imo. Final proof the RW lied about Steele.