NEW YORK CITY - Jessica Tarlov of “The Five” on Fox didn’t defame Hunter Biden’s former partner Anthony Bobulinski in March, U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken ruled on Nov. 26.
Oetken dismissed a $30 million damage claim of Bobulinski and lawyer Stefan Passantino who represented Bobulinski when he testified for the House Oversight Committee.
Bobulinski and Passantino didn’t help their case by complaining of the effect of Tarlov’s words on persons living in “alternate reality.”
“If this moniker is shorthand for those who cannot discern fact from fiction, defamation law cannot coherently be built on the views of the average person who cannot tell truth from falsity," Oetken wrote.
He found Tarlov made a false statement but not every false statement is defamatory.
He found her statement wasn’t defamatory because it did not tend to expose Bobulinski or Passantino to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion or disgrace.
Oversight Committee members called Bobulinski and other former associates of Hunter Biden including Eric Schwerin and Devon Archer.
They did not call Jeffrey Cooper of Edwardsville, who flew to Mexico City with Vice President Biden and Hunter on Air Force Two in 2016.
Committee lawyers who questioned Schwerin and Archer wouldn’t or couldn’t pursue questions about Cooper.
Schwerin testified about a meeting at Biden’s official residence and said he thought Cooper was probably there.
The committee’s lawyer changed the subject.
When a lawyer asked Archer who Cooper was he said Cooper was founder of Eudora Global, a firm Hunter Biden had equity in.
The lawyer asked Archer when he last talked with Cooper and Archer said, “Jeffrey Cooper is a dear friend of mine.”
The lawyer changed the subject.
The Daily Mail stated, “The apparent lack of probing of Cooper’s links to Joe is surprising given his friendship with the President and central role in Hunter’s affairs.”
Bobulinski appeared before the Oversight Committee on March 20.
In conversation about him on The Five, Tarlov said, “Tony Bobulinski’s lawyers’ fees have been paid by a Trump super PAC.”
“That’s as recent as January," Tarlov said.
Bobulinski and Passantino demanded retraction and apology on March 21.
Tarlov didn’t retract or apologize but she told viewers she’d like to clarify.
“What was actually said at the hearing was that the law firm representing Mr. Bobulinski was paid by a Trump PAC,” she said.
“I have seen no indication that those payments were made in connection to Mr. Bobulinski’s legal fees and he denies that they were.”
On March 22 Bobulinski and Passantino notified Tarlov that her statement was half hearted, incomplete and unacceptable.
They waited six days and sued Tarlov.
Their counsel Jesse Brinnall of Virginia claimed she maliciously attempted to discredit Bobulinski’s testimony and besmirch the character of both.
Brinnall claimed she lied to achieve headlines and ratings and to serve her political agenda.
He claimed that by saying, “What was actually said at the hearing,” Tarlov intentionally left a wrong impression with viewers.
Brinnall sought $10 million for defamation of both plaintiffs, $10 million for defamation of both by implication, and $10 million for Passantino for injurious falsehood.
He claimed Bobulinski’s awards and decorations in the Navy included a commendation medal, an achievement medal and a national defense service medal.
He claimed Bobulinski met Joseph Biden in May 2017.
He claimed Hunter Biden subsequently engaged Bobulinski as business partner and chief executive of SinoHawk Holdings, a company designed to find investments in the U.S.
He claimed a partnership was formed between the Chinese Communist Party through China Energy Company Limited and the Biden family.
“Leaked emails eventually raised questions about whether Hunter Biden was profiting off his father’s name when he was Vice President of the United States,” he wrote.
He claimed emails showed Joseph Biden was aware of Hunter’s dealings with foreign nations and personally benefited from them.
He claimed they contradicted Joseph Biden’s assertions that he had no involvement with his son’s dealings.
He claimed email in May 2017 discussed remuneration regarding a deal with a Chinese company proposing an equity split of 20 for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?”
He claimed Bobulinski who donated to members of the Democratic Party decided to put principles above political party.
He claimed Bobulinski confirmed the veracity of the emails to the U. S. Senate and that the Biden family including Joseph accepted money from foreign nations.
“Mr. Bobulinski confirmed that he saw first hand that Hunter Biden would frequently go to his father for his approval or advice for various business deals," he wrote.
He claimed Passantino served as deputy White House counsel in 2017 and 2018 and managed compliance and ethical matters.
He claimed Passantino has had an unblemished and highly distinguished career handling sensitive ethical, political, and legal issues for high profile clients.
He claimed Bobulinski paid Passantino for years of previous representation no differently than for his representation on March 20.
He claimed no third party ever paid any portion of Passantino’s representation of Bobulinski.
He claimed Tarlov is a Democratic strategist who first appeared on Fox News in 2014 and became a host on The Five in 2022.
“The Five is the most watched cable news program, having amassed 2,950,000 views in January 2024,” he wrote.
He claimed since Bobulinski first spoke against the Biden family he has spent more than $500,000 on legal fees.
Tarlov’s counsel Brett Katz of New York State moved in May to dismiss the suit.
Katz claimed Tarlov corrected the statement within hours of receiving a denial.
He claimed Bobulinski and Passantino failed to plausibly suggest that she acted with malice.
He claimed the count of defamation by implication rested on a plain distortion.
“It requires believing that when Tarlov said that she had seen no indication that those payments were made in connection to Mr. Bobulinski’s legal fees she was deliberately implying that the PAC did pay Bobulinski’s fees," he wrote.
“Plaintiffs cannot distort her words like that.”
He claimed their theory was that when Tarlov said she had seen no indication that payments from the PAC were for Bobulinski’s fees, that did nothing to dispel the negative impression left with the viewers that it might in fact be true.
“That is preposterous," he wrote.
Judge Oetken didn’t adopt that term but he granted the motion.
“It is neither uncommon nor contrary to ethical rules for a third party to pay for someone’s legal fees so long as the client provides informed consent and the attorney’s independence is not compromised," Oetken wrote.
“Accusing Bobulinski of accepting third party payment hardly subjects him to public disgrace given the expense of an attorney as qualified and experienced as Passantino.”