Jury finds leading proponent of 'The Big Lie' defamed former voting equipment employee
What happened?
The jury found that Lindell made two defamatory statements about Eric Coomer, the former product strategy and security director for Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems. On May 9, 2021, Lindell attacked voting machine companies and then said Coomer was a traitor.
That statement came a day after Newsmax apologized to Coomer for airing false allegations against him. Lindell testified that he was upset because he thought Coomer had made a deal to prevent him from appearing on Newsmax to talk about voting machines. However, ahead of the trial, lawyers for both sides agreed that the settlement agreement between Coomer and Newsmax did not mention Lindell.
The other statement came on April 6, 2022, a day after Lindell was served with Coomer's lawsuit as he was about to appear at an event at the Colorado state Capitol. Lindell accused Coomer of being 'part of the biggest crime this world has ever seen.'
The jury also found Lindell's online media platform, Frankspeech, had defamed Coomer because of comments made by someone appearing at an election fraud symposium streamed on Frankspeech in 2021.
The jury cleared Lindell of defaming Coomer eight other times for statements made by both himself and others who appeared on Frankspeech.
What has been the reaction?
In an appearance on his new online media platform, Lindell TV, on a show hosted by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani right after the verdict, Lindell stressed that MyPillow, which promoted the 2021 symposium, was not found liable for any of the defamatory statements. Later Lindell told reporters that he would continue to speak out about voting machines.
On Tuesday, Lindell's legal defense told supporters in an email that he had stood up for the First Amendment — echoing his defense team's approach — and was 'largely victorious' in the case.
'Mike Lindell stood alone — refusing to pay hush money and refusing to apologize for voicing concerns shared by millions of Americans,' it said.
One of Coomer's attorneys, David Beller, said Lindell hurt not only Coomer but the democratic process. He thinks the jury's decision will help repair that damage.
'This verdict allows the county to heal, though undoubtedly with scars money cannot hide,' he said.
What is defamation?
Defamatory statements are comments that harm someone's reputation. Because Lindell's statements involved a matter of public concern — elections — jurors had to find that Lindell knew they were false or didn't bother to check out whether they were true or not. A 1964 ruling known as New York Times v. Sullivan and related cases set that higher legal bar for things said about public figures or matters.
Truth is a defense against defamation. Lindell could have offered proof of his claims in order to defend himself at the trial but didn't.
'We met the highest constitutional standard under the First Amendment and that occurred in large part because Mr. Lindell claimed he had evidence of voter fraud by Dr. Coomer when he had none," said Charles Cain, another lawyer who represented Coomer.
Other cases and an apology
Coomer has another lawsuit pending in Colorado involving a podcaster who said he had heard Coomer promise to rig the 2020 election in an alleged antifa conference call, an account that was also later shared at Lindell's symposium. He also is suing former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne in Florida.
Salem Media Group, a Christian and conservative media company whose hosts had interviewed the podcaster about his account, said in statement on its website that it apologizes for the harm caused to Coomer and his family and that all statements about the allegations have been removed from its website. The company did not immediately respond to questions about when the apology was posted and why.
'The Big Lie' has taken hold of a chunk of the country
Lindell has become one of the most enthusiastic proponents of what has been dubbed 'The Big Lie'— the idea that fraud cost Trump the 2020 election.
The reason this has taken hold of a significant chunk of the country, despite being repeatedly disproved, is that its main proponent is the president himself. Trump has continued to insist that a murky conspiracy deprived him of a victory in 2020, even after he won an election with the same procedures this past November.
There is no evidence of anything amiss with the 2020 election. Trump's then- attorney general said there was no indication of wide-scale fraud. That is the same conclusion of numerous recounts, audits andinvestigations — includingmultiple onesrun by Republicans. Trump and his allies lost more than 50 court cases trying to overturn the election.
Still, Trump famously never likes to admit he lost even when he did. In 2016, Trump claimed that fraud was why he lost the Iowa caucuses. Despite winning the 2016 presidential election in the Electoral College, Trump claimed fraud cost him the popular vote in that election.
And he has embraced those who helped spread his lies about 2020 — Trump pardoned more than 1,000 people convicted of their role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol to keep Trump in office. He has met with Lindell in the Oval Office.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More Americans are driving to Canada than Canadians to the U.S., report finds
More American travellers drove to Canada in July than Canadians did to the United States, according to a new report by Statistics Canada. This is the first time such a reversal has taken place since before the COVID-19 pandemic. The dramatic decline of Canadians travelling to the U.S. was sparked last year, with U.S. President Donald Trump's heated rhetoric about Canada becoming the 51st state that led to an ongoing trade war and lingering tension between the two countries. The data for last month shows that 1.8 million American residents drove to Canada, compared to the 1.7 million Canadian residents who made a return trip from the U.S. by car. Canadian road trips to U.S. plunge for seventh month as boycott continues Both countries saw a decline at land border crossings last month. For Americans driving to Canada, there was a slight dip of 7.4 per cent compared to the same month last year. It was also the sixth consecutive month of year-over-year declines. However, the decline was much steeper for Canadians returning from the U.S. this July compared to the previous year, at nearly 37 per cent. Last month marked the seventh consecutive month of year-over-year declines, StatCan said. 'In 2024, Canadian-resident trips to the United States totalled 39 million, representing 75 per cent of all Canadian-resident travel abroad,' according to another StatCan report published earlier this summer about travel to the U.S. 'However, recent data on foreign travel suggest that Canadians' travel sentiment toward their southern neighbour has been shifting in early 2025.' Although the data reflects a 'notable change in travel patterns,' StatCan said it is 'unclear whether the change is temporary or part of a more permanent shift.' As for air travel, the number of non-resident visitors who flew to Canada increased in July. There were 1.4 million of them — up by just over 3 per cent since the same time last year. While the bump was largely due to residents who came from overseas (up 5.6 per cent this year), American travellers were also up by just under 1 per cent. The highest number of U.S.-resident arrivals by air was 31,600 Americans on July 3, before the Independence Day long weekend in the U.S. Meanwhile, the number of Canadians returning home from abroad by air last month was down by 5.3 per cent compared to the previous year. In particular, Canadians flying back from the U.S. also decreased by nearly 26 per cent since the same time last year. Canadian permanent residents will now have to pay 'visa integrity fee' to enter U.S. Here's what it is An American sent to Canada was shocked by how furious Canadians are at the U.S. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
How Trump's tariffs could actually work
Economists prefer free trade because it is the best policy for global welfare. But what the debate around tariffs often fails to recognize is that there is an economic rationale for U.S. tariffs of 15 to 20 percent. Large countries like the U.S. have market power, which means U.S. demand affects global prices. Tariffs depress U.S. demand, pushing global prices down. As a result of tariffs, the U.S. imports goods at lower prices and also obtains revenue in the process. Most economists estimate that the optimal tariff for the U.S. is between 15 and 20 percent but could be as high as 60 percent. The major problem with imposing high tariffs is that if our trade partners retaliate with similarly high tariffs on imports from the U.S., the U.S. will be worse off. So, the U.S. wants a tariff if it can act alone, but cooperation on low tariffs is the best policy for all — and better for the U.S. — if the alternative is a trade war. To get a sense of the magnitudes, a recent study estimates that 19 percent tariffs could expand U.S. income by roughly 2 percent and boost employment if other countries don't retaliate. However, the effects on income and employment become negative when other countries also impose tariffs. The basic intuition for the tariff is that foreign sellers want access to the huge U.S. market and are willing to pay a fee for that access. Consider a German auto firm, say BMW, that sells lots of cars in the U.S. If the U.S. places a tariff on German cars, Americans will shift to buying more GMs and fewer BMWs. But the U.S. consumer is hard to replace, so BMW will lower the pre-tariff price of its cars to maintain competitiveness. U.S. consumers face somewhat higher prices on BMWs with the tariff, but the tariff revenue that the U.S. government collects more than compensates for the consumer loss, so the U.S. as a country is better off. Put differently, because the U.S. is large, some of the tariff is paid by BMW. The ability to pressure BMW and other German producers to lower prices only works because of the extraordinary buying power of the U.S. consumer. If, for example, a small country, say Ghana, puts a tariff on BMWs, it would negligibly affect total sales, so this effect would be absent. This market power is similar to the leverage that companies like Amazon and Walmart have to push down the prices of their suppliers because they control such a large share of the market. The problem with using market size to push down import prices is that the U.S. is not the only large country. If other large markets, like the European Union and China, also raise tariffs then everyone is worse off. In a trade war, U.S. exporters will also have a hard time selling abroad, while U.S. consumers will have fewer varieties to choose from and face higher prices. The biggest risk Trump took when he reversed decades of low, predictable tariffs was starting a trade war with tariffs spiraling out of control around the world. Given the recent news of U.S. bilateral trade deals with the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Korea and the EU, as well as a preliminary accord with China, the gamble may have paid off. One after another, our most important trade partners are accepting significantly higher U.S. tariffs without raising their own tariffs on imports from the U.S. Moreover, in addition to accepting higher tariffs on their exports to the U.S., Europe, Japan and Korea are committing to increased investment in the United States. Why are countries caving? The large market is part of it, but the gaping U.S. trade deficit with these markets also matters. It gives the U.S. additional leverage since American consumers are needed to buy foreign goods to a greater extent than American businesses need foreigners to buy U.S. goods. The U.S. military might also factor in, as many of the countries making deals depend on the U.S. for security. The unpredictability introduced may already be depressing investment and hiring, as investors and firms have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Similarly, companies that rely heavily on imported parts and components may be unable to survive in the U.S., leading to job loss in import-dependent industries. Already high, U.S. inequality could get worse if care is not taken since low-income families spend more of their income on goods, making them more vulnerable to price increases. There are also major global threats. The bullying that was part of achieving these trade deals could lead to backlash against the U.S. and its brand with real consequences of sustained loss of U.S. leadership and power in all global matters. The unpredictability introduced may depress investment, as investors have no idea what policy will be tomorrow. Domestic political blowback in our trade partners against the U.S. could ultimately create pressure for higher tariffs on imports from the U.S., resulting in a trade war. Variable U.S. tariffs across trade partners — already ranging from 15 to 55 percent — will create trade diversion and administrative costs. Countries could look to other markets and make deals that exclude the U.S., reducing our global leverage. And the list goes on. But if the U.S. government moves on from these trade wins, facilitating a return to predictable policy, and shows more openness to global cooperation in other critical areas, Trump's trade policy could boost U.S. income without major damage to our global standing or global investment. Perhaps this is the hope that has been driving the stock market up. The risks are many and great. But given the (surprisingly) flexible response abroad to date, the policy is not guaranteed to fail as many assumed. One big bullet may have been dodged. .
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court declines to block Mississippi social media age-verification law
The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to block Mississippi from enforcing its social media age-verification law against nine major platforms, for now. In an emergency ruling, the justices denied an internet trade group NetChoice's request to reinstate a lower court's order protecting social media giants like Meta, X and YouTube from the new requirements. The Supreme Court did not explain its order or disclose the vote count, as is typical in emergency cases. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, however, wrote a solo opinion cautioning that NetChoice is likely to ultimately succeed on its First Amendment claims even though he was siding against the group at this stage. 'In short, under this Court's case law as it currently stands, the Mississippi law is likely unconstitutional,' Kavanaugh's brief opinion reads. 'Nonetheless, because NetChoice has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time, I concur in the Court's denial of the application for interim relief,' the conservative justice continued. NetChoice had asked the court to intervene after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit lifted the district judge's decision shielding the platforms from the 2024 law without explanation. 'Neither NetChoice nor this Court can know why the Fifth Circuit believed this law satisfies the First Amendment's stringent demands or deviated from the seven other decisions enjoining similar laws,' NetChoice wrote in its request, contending it would face 'immediate, irreparable' injury should the law be allowed to go into effect. Mississippi's law establishes requirements for social media companies to confirm their users' ages. Minors must have express consent from a parent or guardian to use the platform, and covered websites must strive to eliminate their exposure to harmful material or face a $10,000 fine. U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden found the law unconstitutional as applied to NetChoice members YouTube, X, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, Nextdoor, Dreamwidth and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram. In its Supreme Court papers, NetChoice argued that the law upended Mississippi citizens' right to access protected speech across social media, contending the 5th Circuit's lack of explanation is reason enough for the high court to step in. The state claimed the law targets predators by imposing 'modest duties' on the platforms and urged the justices to reject the application. 'NetChoice satisfies none of the vacatur criteria,' the state wrote. 'It has not shown that the stay order is demonstrably wrong, that this Court would likely review a Fifth Circuit decision rejecting the injunction, or that the equities support its extraordinary request. Tech and free speech groups submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in support of NetChoice's application, contending that the law puts an unfair bar on minors and burden on adults looking to engage in protected online expression. A group aimed at stopping child predators wrote in another amicus brief that the law fails to achieve its intended purpose of protecting children. NetChoice does not argue the law is unconstitutional in all circumstances, as it did in its challenge to Florida and Texas laws aimed at barring social media companies from banning users based on their political views, which was resolved by the Supreme Court last year. The Mississippi law was set to go into effect on the same day the justices handed NetChoice a win in those cases, sending them back to lower courts to analyze the Florida and Texas laws with new guidance.
