His huge MyPilla!
Lindell and his MyPillow company were facing trial after being sued for defamation by former voting machine executive Eric Coomer, whom he called “disgusting” and a “traitor.”
“Lindell testifies he has called 50-100 people a traitor, including journalists,” Clark noted. “Now to his ‘crimes against humanity’ claim about Coomer. Says it also applies to two journalists in the room,” Clark noted.
Ah, the classic “avoid a defamation judgement by defaming more people” gambit.
So, the “hey, I talk all sort of s#!t about everyone, you should not make a big deal of this one” defense, I see…
Guilty.
He’s civilly liable.
Guilty is only for criminal cases.
To misquote Marvelous Mark Slackmeyer, “That’s guilty, guilty, guilty!”
Yeah, but it costs him money, probably more hurtful than a prison sentence would be.
Lawyers fined for using AI / citing cases that don’t exist:
Brian
An AP link on the ruling, which shouldn’t be behind a paywall:
To paraphrase one of comedian Ron White’s routines, Lindell “had the right to remain silent, but he didn’t have the ability”:
And, in further demonstration of how loosely-wound he is these days:
Lindell’s defense seems to be, “I really really REALLY believe everything I’ve said about these voting machine companies!” And that belief is immune to actual facts.
From @kenobi_65 's post.
The judge said there are “genuine fact disputes” as to whether Lindell’s statements were made “with knowledge that they were false or made with reckless disregard to their falsity.” He noted that the defense says Lindell has an “unwavering belief” that his statements were truthful.
So, the George Costanza defense? It’s not a lie if you believe it!
Sadly, that does seem to be a legitimate defense when it comes to such and similar cases, the whole “actual malice” being harder to prove when 100% of Lindell’s behavior seems to speak instead to batshit crazy.
Speaking ONLY to defamation and related cases - note that it isn’t a defense for his multiple efforts to simply not pay his creditors or those he enters into contracts with.
I don’t think his defense is that airtight though. “Actual malice” isn’t solely established by demonstrating that the defendant knew that what they were saying is false. It can also be demonstrated that the defendant showed “reckless disregard” as to whether or not something is false. And I do think that Smartmatic’s lawyers can achieve that.
New York Times Company v. Sullivan (1964)
In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Brennan, the Court ruled for the Times . When a statement concerns a public figure, the Court held, it is not enough to show that it is false for the press to be liable for libel. Instead, the target of the statement must show that it was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity.
Oh, no disagreement. I said it’s a legitimate defense, I am of many minds about whether it’ll be a successful defense.