In this defamation case by a real estate developer against a political consultant, the trial court correctly denied the consultant’s Anti-SLAPP motion. While the allegedly defamatory political campaign mailers that the consultant prepared were protected activity, the developer proved a probability of success on his defamation claim. The mailers stated that the developer “wants his money back” directly under factual statements about a fraud and breach of contract lawsuit that Dana Point had filed against him. The mailer could be read as implying that Dana Point had proven its fraud claim, whereas, in fact, the case settled with Dana Point retracting its fraud allegations and without the payment of any money on the fraud claim. The developer adequately proved malice through the consultant’s testimony that he couldn’t remember why he chose the words “wants his money back” and his admission that he read a newspaper article which disclosed the terms of the settlement.