Background: Tony Bobulinski testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability (LiveNow from Fox/YouTube). Inset: Jessica Tarlov (Fox News/YouTube).
A $30 million defamation lawsuit brought by former Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski against Fox News and “The Five” co–host Jessica Tarlov — which accused her of “deliberately besmirching” Bobulinski’s character with claims about a “Trump Super PAC” allegedly footing his legal bills — was tossed out this week by a federal judge in New York.
Bobulinski, a self-described Navy veteran and “successful businessman” who has publicly accused the Biden family of shady business dealings, claimed in his suit that Tarlov damaged his credibility with a claim she made on “The Five” in March, saying: “Tony Bobulinski’s lawyers’ fees have been paid by a Trump Super PAC.”
Bobulinski sent a letter the following day, demanding a retraction and apology, to which Tarlov obliged — minus the apology.
“I would like to clarify a comment I made yesterday during our discussion of Tony Bobulinski’s appearance at the congressional hearing,” Tarlov said on “The Five” the following day, according to Bobulinski’s suit. “During an exchange with my colleagues about the hearing, I said that Mr. Bobulinski’s lawyer’s fees have been paid for by a Trump Super PAC as recently as January. What was actually said at the hearing was that the law firm representing Mr. Bobulinski was paid by a Trump PAC. 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 Tuesday, U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken approved a motion from Tarlov to dismiss Bobulinski’s defamation case, calling it “meritless” and awarding her attorney’s fees under New York’s anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (anti-SLAPP) law.
“Accusing Bobulinski of accepting third-party payment hardly subjects him to public disgrace,” Oetken, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote in his ruling. “At the outset, the Complaint does not even specify what defamatory implication Plaintiffs believe Tarlov intended her viewers to draw, alleging only that her statement ’caused … viewers not to trust or find credibility with Plaintiffs.””
Oetken pointed out how New York’s Court of Appeals has held that for a statement to qualify as defamation under the professional conduct exception — as Bobulinski alleged about Tarlov’s comments — it must “specifically reference” conduct that is “incompatible” with a person’s profession, rather than a “more general reflection upon the plaintiff’s character or qualities,” the judge said. In Bobulinski’s case, Oetken viewed his claims as being a “strained or artificial construction” of how the law works.
“Stating that a congressional witness’s legal fees are paid by a PAC may imply nothing more than that the witness shares or sympathizes with the beliefs of that PAC,” Oetken explained. “Tarlov might have said such a thing to emphasize the fact that Bobulinski was invited by House Republicans as a majority witness. Or she might have been pointing out that there are two sides to every story, and presenting only Bobulinski’s side during the on-air discussion was not painting the full picture. But it is a ‘strained or artificial construction’ to interpret Tarlov’s statement as accusing Bobulinski of lying to Congress.”
In his complaint, Bobulinski outlined his alleged relationship with Hunter Biden and denied having any involvement with the Trump Super PAC that he’s been linked to. He said that after his military service, he met President Joe Biden in May 2017.
“Hunter Biden subsequently engaged Mr. Bobulinski as his business partner to serve as the CEO of SinoHawk Holdings, a company designed to find investments in the United States,” the complaint said. “Ultimately, a partnership was formed between the Chinese Communist Party/Chairman Ye through their surrogate, China Energy Company Limited (CEFC), a CCP-linked Chinese energy conglomerate, and the Biden family.”
Bobulinski claimed that since 2020, he’s spent “over $500,000 of his own money on legal fees” as a result of speaking out against the Biden family.
In March, Bobulinski was called on to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability about the alleged Biden business dealings. The hearing — dubbed “Influence Peddling: Examining Joe Biden’s Abuse of Public Office” by House Republicans — featured a heated verbal skirmish between Bobulinski and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. House Democrats called the hearing a “spectacular failure” and described Bobulinski as a “disgruntled want-to-be business partner of Hunter Biden who is aligned with the Trump campaign.”
Speaking in a statement to Law&Crime on Wednesday, Fox News said it was happy to be part of “preserving press freedoms” with the Oetken dismissal, adding that it was the “first federal court decision to award attorney’s fees under New York’s anti-SLAPP statute.”
“Fox News is pleased with the court’s landmark decision,” the network said.
