In a 44-page denial of a motion to dismiss defamation suits filed by a trio of election fraud allegers, a federal judge gave a green light to Dominion Voting Machines to continue its lawsuits against Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell.

Using comments such as “This is not a close one,” Judge Carl J. Nichols of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia rejected numerous arguments made by each of the defendants. Using various discredited contentions, each asked the court to forgive and forget their numerous statements to the media that centered on claims that the presidential election was stolen due to fraud by the voting machine manufacturer. He also explained that although the cases were not consolidated, they were related and assigned to his court.

After restating facts related to the election results and the audits, recounts and certifications that followed, the judge provided brief profiles of each defendant. Powell was described as a Texas attorney who had defended Michael Flynn, was the “attorney of record in various election-related lawsuits in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona filed by various parties” and who made “numerous media appearances” about the ongoing cases.

Giuliani was described as the former Mayor of New York City and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York who represented the Trump campaign in Pennsylvania, and who hosts a radio show and has also made numerous media appearances. Lindell, the CEO of My Pillow, hosted rallies and made numerous media appearances related to discredited claims of election fraud.

Calling the alleged defamatory statements “too numerous to summarize,” Nichols next provided a few examples. On the day after the election, Powell told One America News network that “Democrats were trying to “steal the vote” from President Trump and that “they ha[d] developed a computer system to alter votes electronically.” Giuliani told Lou Dobbs Tonight of Fox that “Dominion is owned by a company that was formed “by three Venezuelans”… “in order to fix elections.”

They later claimed that various election officials had received payoffs and that Dominion had “flipped, weighed and injected votes.” After all her election challenge cases were dismissed, Powell still told Rush Limbaugh that the election fraud was “absolutely the most appalling criminal operation in the history of our country.” Lindell told Flashpoint that “Dominion’s involvement in the election was “the biggest crime ever committed in history against our country and the world.” All three claimed to have evidence but failed to provide any.

Dominion sent all defendants retraction demand letters but got no response. Instead, the trio continued to make personal appearances and be interviewed on various radio and television shows. Powell, for example, claimed to have a video in which Dominion’s founder said that “he can change a million votes, no problem at all.”

After six pages of examples such as those cited above, Nichols provided a history of the cases. Dominion sued Powell on January 8, and Lindell and Giuliani a month later for “harm in the form of lost profits and damage to its name, reputation, and goodwill” plus their role in causing Dominion employees to be “stalked…harassed, and to receive death threats that caused their company to expend money to remedy the defamation and to protect the lives of its employees.”

Nichols’ opinion then detailed the various arguments defendants made in their motions to dismiss. Powell disputed the Court’s jurisdiction and claimed that there had been no defamation because all her statements were opinions, not statements of fact. She said, there had been no actual malice, the legal defamation requirement that demands defendants know that their statements were false or were made with reckless disregard for the truth. She also argued that her statements cannot be defamatory because “no reasonable person could conclude that they were statements of fact.”

Lindell also claimed lack of jurisdiction and said his statements were protected as part of “debate on public issues,” and echoed Powell’s claim that actual malice was not present. Giuliani only argued that Dominion could not prove lost profits, which are the type of special damages required in this type of corporate defamation case.

Nichols found all arguments unpersuasive. First, he dismissed all efforts at blanket immunity, stating “the fact that statements were made in a “political ‘context’ does not indiscriminately immunize every statement contained therein.” He concluded, “It is simply not the law that provably false statements cannot be actionable if made in the context of an election.”

Similarly, he discounted Powell’s argument about her statements, particularly those about videos that were not put into evidence. He concluded that “Dominion has adequately alleged that Powell made “a number of statements that are actionable because a reasonable juror could conclude that they were either statements of fact or statements of opinion that implied or relied upon facts that are provably false.” No evidence – no proof.

Next, Nichols turned to the defendants’ claims about Dominion’s failure to prove actual malice. Powell’s defense was that her statements were based on “sworn declarations.” The judge disagreed, listing all Dominion’s arguments about dubious experts, falsified or absent evidence, and the inclusion of many facts that were simply not proven. He found that Dominion had satisfied its claim against Powell. Regarding Lindell, he said, “In totality, it (Dominion) has adequately alleged that Lindell made his claims knowing that they were false or with reckless disregard for the truth.”

Defendants’ claims for deceptive trade practices, lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue also failed. Powell and Lindell wanted the case transferred to Texas and Minnesota respectively. The last two claims failed because both defendants had adequate connections to Washington, D.C.

Finally, the court turned to Giuliani’s motion to dismiss because Dominion, as a corporation, is only entitled to lost profits, which are special damages subject to special pleading rules. Nichols wrote that D.C. law allows actionable defamation irrespective of actual harm, while Giuliani says that law only applies to individuals, not corporations. Nichols again sided with Dominion and concluded that Dominion’s complaints alleged lost profits “with adequate specificity” to survive Giuliani’s challenge.

The court therefore completely denied all motions to dismiss requested by the three defendants. Dominion appears to be playing hardball and the score at this early stage is Dominion - 1, Defendants - 0.