DAY 7 OF COOMER V LINDELL
Back in court. Some motions to include Kill Chain clips — TBD. Will post first update on morning break.
Reminder that these posts are summaries from my notes. Please excuse typos & tag for corrections.
Lindell back on the stand this am.
Back in court. Some motions to include Kill Chain clips — TBD. Will post first update on morning break.
Reminder that these posts are summaries from my notes. Please excuse typos & tag for corrections.
Lindell back on the stand this am.
All Rise!
The Court: Video clips are still being reviewed by the parties. Defense to proceed with cross of Lindell that doesn’t require clips. Clips will be dealt with after the parties Defense estimates ~2 hours, proceed in parallel with video evidence being vetted and objections, etc. prepared.
Break to sort exchange of flash drives
The Court: Video clips are still being reviewed by the parties. Defense to proceed with cross of Lindell that doesn’t require clips. Clips will be dealt with after the parties Defense estimates ~2 hours, proceed in parallel with video evidence being vetted and objections, etc. prepared.
Break to sort exchange of flash drives
*after the parties have a chance to review. Sorry 🤦🏼♀️
Mike back on the stand. Questioning about what Mike means about blockers. He is talking about his first hand experience talking with Facebook and Twitter fact checkers.
Lindell Attorney: May 2021 is the first and only time you spoke about Mr. Coomer until you were served?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell Attorney: May 2021 is the first and only time you spoke about Mr. Coomer until you were served?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell Attorney: So almost a year later (April 2022) you were served on the steps of the Capitol. How did you feel being served like that?
Lindell: I was really mad, especially because they were suing MyPillow and that hurts our employees.
Lindell Attorney: Asking about context of statements after he was served. Did you know before you were served that Coomer had expressed an interest in suing you? “Sue that clown.”
Lindell: No I didn’t find that out until this trial.
Lindell: I was really mad, especially because they were suing MyPillow and that hurts our employees.
Lindell Attorney: Asking about context of statements after he was served. Did you know before you were served that Coomer had expressed an interest in suing you? “Sue that clown.”
Lindell: No I didn’t find that out until this trial.
Lindell Attorney: Asked about calling him a traitor.
Lindell: I put “blocker of the week” on my show each night. Alan Duke, etc. I called them all traitors. “We’re trying to save our country… or no one has the American dream!”
Lindell Attorney: What about statements that Coomer should go to prison?
Lindell: For blocking or crimes against humanity. (Lindell goes on about other people he called traitors — anyone suing him.)
Lindell: I put “blocker of the week” on my show each night. Alan Duke, etc. I called them all traitors. “We’re trying to save our country… or no one has the American dream!”
Lindell Attorney: What about statements that Coomer should go to prison?
Lindell: For blocking or crimes against humanity. (Lindell goes on about other people he called traitors — anyone suing him.)
Lindell Attorney: I’m going to ask you to refrain from mentioning others exercising their right to be in court. Let’s focus on Mr. Coomer.
Lindell: Okay.
Lindell Attorney: begins to ask a question…
Objection! Approach!
SIDE BAR
Lindell: Okay.
Lindell Attorney: begins to ask a question…
Objection! Approach!
SIDE BAR
Lindell Attorney: Let’s go back to the beginning. In your testimony, we heard about your thoughts on the 2020 election. What first drew your attention to this?
Lindell: It was a deviation for all the states to stop counting at the same time. That was really strange. The next day we had more deviations.
Lindell Attorney: What do you mean by deviations?
Lindell: Gives examples of mail in margins in Michigan. Pennsylvania had more votes than voters. Nevada voters that didn’t live in the state. Thousands of people voting with the same phone number in WI.
Lindell: It was a deviation for all the states to stop counting at the same time. That was really strange. The next day we had more deviations.
Lindell Attorney: What do you mean by deviations?
Lindell: Gives examples of mail in margins in Michigan. Pennsylvania had more votes than voters. Nevada voters that didn’t live in the state. Thousands of people voting with the same phone number in WI.
Lindell Attorney: Who was the first person you consulted for your analysis?
Lindell: At first it was my own analysis. I took it all with a grain of salt, but the deviations were everywhere. I consulted government officials in Wisconsin and Nevada. It was mostly government officials at that time.
Lindell Attorney begins to ask a question, Mike speaks over him, objection, side bar.
Lindell: At first it was my own analysis. I took it all with a grain of salt, but the deviations were everywhere. I consulted government officials in Wisconsin and Nevada. It was mostly government officials at that time.
Lindell Attorney begins to ask a question, Mike speaks over him, objection, side bar.
Lindell Attorney: Do you remember the name of the person who told you to watch Kill Chain?
Lindell: Sidney Powell.
Lindell Attorney: who is Sidney Powell?
Lindell: She was working with Rudy Giuliani to find out what happened in the election. She was talking about Arizona, and Governor Doug Doocey — who I knew personally — certified the election before they were done with the audit. I called him, he said “I don’t have to answer your questions, and he hung up on me.” The. Sidney told me to watch Kill Chain.
Lindell: Sidney Powell.
Lindell Attorney: who is Sidney Powell?
Lindell: She was working with Rudy Giuliani to find out what happened in the election. She was talking about Arizona, and Governor Doug Doocey — who I knew personally — certified the election before they were done with the audit. I called him, he said “I don’t have to answer your questions, and he hung up on me.” The. Sidney told me to watch Kill Chain.
Lindell Attorney: what did you learn from Kill Chain?
Lindell: (1) It was all democrats. (2) My senator Amy Klobuchar was in there, and that was validating because I know her, and (3) there were experts.
Lindell: (1) It was all democrats. (2) My senator Amy Klobuchar was in there, and that was validating because I know her, and (3) there were experts.
Lindell Attorney: And were these the first experts you encountered?
Mike interrupted him, and the court reporter said “please don’t talk over each other and slow down.” Lindell attorney tells Mike not to interrupt him and apologize to the court reporter.
Mike interrupted him, and the court reporter said “please don’t talk over each other and slow down.” Lindell attorney tells Mike not to interrupt him and apologize to the court reporter.
Lindell: Yes, Harri Hursti and Dr. Haldmeran.
Lindell Attorney: The same Harri Hursti that was a witness in this case?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell Attorney: The same J. Alex Halderman that is in the courtroom today and is set to testify as an expert?
Lindell: Yes.
There was an objection and sidebar.
Lindell Attorney: The same Harri Hursti that was a witness in this case?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell Attorney: The same J. Alex Halderman that is in the courtroom today and is set to testify as an expert?
Lindell: Yes.
There was an objection and sidebar.
Lindell Attorney: At the time you watched Kill Chain, did you know when it was produced?
Lindell: A year or two before. It came out before the 2020 election, and the democrats in it were concerned about the 2020 election.
Lindell Attorney: And you mentioned Amy Klobuchar. What do you remember about her saying?
Lindell: The whole thing was about machines, and she mentioned the companies. Our elections are run by four companies. I believe she mentioned Dominion.
Lindell: A year or two before. It came out before the 2020 election, and the democrats in it were concerned about the 2020 election.
Lindell Attorney: And you mentioned Amy Klobuchar. What do you remember about her saying?
Lindell: The whole thing was about machines, and she mentioned the companies. Our elections are run by four companies. I believe she mentioned Dominion.
Lindell Attorney: Did you do any other due diligence?
Lindell: 12-14 hours every day, even in weekends. Not only own investigations but others as well.
Lindell Attorney: Best estimate of number of experts you consulted?
Lindell: Over 35.
Lindell: 12-14 hours every day, even in weekends. Not only own investigations but others as well.
Lindell Attorney: Best estimate of number of experts you consulted?
Lindell: Over 35.
Lindell Attorney: Did you lose any money?
Lindell: Spent about $40M. Money was spread across all 50 states — of grassroots teams needed help, with canvassing or other things, we helped. It wasn’t about overturning 2020, it was about securing our elections.
Lindell: Spent about $40M. Money was spread across all 50 states — of grassroots teams needed help, with canvassing or other things, we helped. It wasn’t about overturning 2020, it was about securing our elections.
Lindell Attorney: What about your podcasts. Did you ever say no to anyone that wanted to come on?
Lindell: Never said no to anyone. Every show for maybe 2 years was dedicated to securing our elections. They had to be focused on that but otherwise never said no.
Lindell Attorney: Did Dr. Coomer ever ask to be on your show to set the record straight?
Lindell: No.
Lindell: Never said no to anyone. Every show for maybe 2 years was dedicated to securing our elections. They had to be focused on that but otherwise never said no.
Lindell Attorney: Did Dr. Coomer ever ask to be on your show to set the record straight?
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: Did he ever ask for correction or retraction?
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: So the lawsuit was the first time you heard from Dr. Coomer that he took exception with your statements?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: So the lawsuit was the first time you heard from Dr. Coomer that he took exception with your statements?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell Attorney: (several more iterations of the same last question). How about Matt Crane? Did he ever reach out to you and ask you if he could appear on your show to educate the public and set the record straight?
Lindell: No, but we reached out to him several times. Our president of Cause of America has reached out to him several times. He wouldn’t come on.
Lindell Attorney: And if he had accepted the invitation, would he have been on with you?
Lindell: I would have welcomed him.
Lindell: No, but we reached out to him several times. Our president of Cause of America has reached out to him several times. He wouldn’t come on.
Lindell Attorney: And if he had accepted the invitation, would he have been on with you?
Lindell: I would have welcomed him.
Lindell Attorney: Are there others that disagree with you that you engaged with?
Lindell: Talks about Clint Curtis.
Lindell Attorney: Can Dr. Coomer come on your show after the trial is over?
Lindell: I’ll give him a whole day. A whole week.
Lindell: Talks about Clint Curtis.
Lindell Attorney: Can Dr. Coomer come on your show after the trial is over?
Lindell: I’ll give him a whole day. A whole week.
Lindell Attorney: Back to cyber experts that you consulted. Go in order.
Lindell: Russ Ramslund and ASOG; decision on not using Dominion in TX. I donated $100K. They had just done Antrim County, Michigan. There were other experts there — one started with a P.
Lindell Attorney: Who is Mary Fanning?
Lindell: She’s a journalist, runs the America Report.
Lindell: Russ Ramslund and ASOG; decision on not using Dominion in TX. I donated $100K. They had just done Antrim County, Michigan. There were other experts there — one started with a P.
Lindell Attorney: Who is Mary Fanning?
Lindell: She’s a journalist, runs the America Report.
Lindell Attorney: Who introduced you?
Lindell: Brannon Howse. Howse called and I thought it was my House because I spelled his name wrong in my phone so I answered and Brannon said I had to talk to Fanning about Dennis Montgomery.
Lindell: Brannon Howse. Howse called and I thought it was my House because I spelled his name wrong in my phone so I answered and Brannon said I had to talk to Fanning about Dennis Montgomery.
Lindell Attorney: Did Montgomery give you info?
Lindell: I hadn’t met him yet, I had to vet him. I did vet him and he was beyond cyber expert in my mind — worked with DHS and CIA, etc. DNI Ratcliffe had just published an issue with China. So I vetted Montgomery and then he gave me four pages.
Lindell: I hadn’t met him yet, I had to vet him. I did vet him and he was beyond cyber expert in my mind — worked with DHS and CIA, etc. DNI Ratcliffe had just published an issue with China. So I vetted Montgomery and then he gave me four pages.
Lindell Attorney: Who is DNI Ratcliffe?
Lindell: “Department of National Intelligence” (sic)
Lindell Attorney: You mentioned being deplatformed, explain more about that.
Lindell: Parler taken down, MyPillow and Mike being kicked off Twitter. Begins telling stories of what people said on social media —
The Court: Mr. Lindell, stop. Counsel approach.
SIDE BAR
Lindell: “Department of National Intelligence” (sic)
Lindell Attorney: You mentioned being deplatformed, explain more about that.
Lindell: Parler taken down, MyPillow and Mike being kicked off Twitter. Begins telling stories of what people said on social media —
The Court: Mr. Lindell, stop. Counsel approach.
SIDE BAR
Lindell Attorney: I asked you about info and evidence you received from sources in other countries, specific to Dominion. Was there anything specific?
Lindell: Yes, Venezuela. That was the birth of the machines. I hired an investigative firm and a guy in Canada named Brent and found that Dominion was headquartered in Canada, actually in a place where I would go up to the shipping channel. We hired — Kurt Olsen did — a firm and spent $800K on the investigation into dominion.
Lindell: Yes, Venezuela. That was the birth of the machines. I hired an investigative firm and a guy in Canada named Brent and found that Dominion was headquartered in Canada, actually in a place where I would go up to the shipping channel. We hired — Kurt Olsen did — a firm and spent $800K on the investigation into dominion.
Lindell Attorney: Did anyone tell you to stop talking about dominion?
Lindell: I wasn’t talking about Dominion at that time; I was talking about China because of DNI Ratcliffe.
Lindell Attorney: Was Ratcliffe your primary source on China?
Lindell: He was first but there was more coming out on China from other sources, including Dennis Montgomery.
Lindell: I wasn’t talking about Dominion at that time; I was talking about China because of DNI Ratcliffe.
Lindell Attorney: Was Ratcliffe your primary source on China?
Lindell: He was first but there was more coming out on China from other sources, including Dennis Montgomery.
Lindell Attorney: Talk about what you learned from Dennis Montgomery.
Lindell: Massive computer built to steal elections in other countries. Had to get the information to the White House. Tried to get Montgomery to get evidence in but he couldn’t because he is under government protective order — same reason General Flynn couldn’t be here to testify because he is under the same order.
Lindell: Massive computer built to steal elections in other countries. Had to get the information to the White House. Tried to get Montgomery to get evidence in but he couldn’t because he is under government protective order — same reason General Flynn couldn’t be here to testify because he is under the same order.
Lindell Attorney: Did you reach out to the White House?
Lindell: Yes on Jan 15. Robert O’Brien was on my right, and he asked if DNI Ratcliffe knew about Dennis Montgomery. Robert OBrien said —
Objection!
I’ll move on…
Lindell: Yes on Jan 15. Robert O’Brien was on my right, and he asked if DNI Ratcliffe knew about Dennis Montgomery. Robert OBrien said —
Objection!
I’ll move on…
Lindell Attorney: What did you do to corroborate Montgomery? You’re not a cyber expert. Did you vet his credentials or his conclusions?
Lindell: I had a snip of the data so I figured I’d get it to President Trump and get an order signed (so Montgomery could talk), and it wasn’t signed and I was devastated. I was working with Dr. Ben Carson on this.
Lindell: I had a snip of the data so I figured I’d get it to President Trump and get an order signed (so Montgomery could talk), and it wasn’t signed and I was devastated. I was working with Dr. Ben Carson on this.
Lindell Attorney: Revisits the exhibit from yesterday — Zullo / Ty Clevenger / Sheriff Arpario letter. Cites line “Montgomery had convinced Lindell.” Is that true that Montgomery convinced you?
Lindell: No, it’s not true. I had experts for months to validate the data. I went to the White House to verify that Montgomery was real. I saw on Fox News—
Objection! Hearsay and Relevance!
Approach.
SIDE BAR (Long One)
Lindell: No, it’s not true. I had experts for months to validate the data. I went to the White House to verify that Montgomery was real. I saw on Fox News—
Objection! Hearsay and Relevance!
Approach.
SIDE BAR (Long One)
Lindell Attorney: Did the report on Fox News involve Dominion or Coomer?
Lindell: No.
MORNING BREAK
Lindell: No.
MORNING BREAK
Reminder: Posts are summaries of my notes, posted on break. Please tag for corrections.
Lindell Attorney: White House visit — how many people did you speak to that day?
Lindell: 6 or 7 based including the president.
Lindell Attorney: did anyone tell you the info wasn’t good?
Lindell: no
Lindell: 6 or 7 based including the president.
Lindell Attorney: did anyone tell you the info wasn’t good?
Lindell: no
Lindell Attorney: You mentioned a protective order?
Lindell: Yes, States secret privilege.
Lindell Attorney: did you try to get them to lift the stay on the release of this information?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell: Yes, States secret privilege.
Lindell Attorney: did you try to get them to lift the stay on the release of this information?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell Attorney: Did they? Then or now?
Lindell: No, it’s still under seal.
Lindell Attorney: So it’s still protected under national security protection and you couldn’t present the full data at the CS?
Lindell: Yes. Reference Cyber Act of 2015 — would have to be put out anonymously. When I got to Texas with the hard drive, that’s where I met Josh Merritt and Russ Ramslund. First time I met them. Kurt Olsen was with me.
Lindell: No, it’s still under seal.
Lindell Attorney: So it’s still protected under national security protection and you couldn’t present the full data at the CS?
Lindell: Yes. Reference Cyber Act of 2015 — would have to be put out anonymously. When I got to Texas with the hard drive, that’s where I met Josh Merritt and Russ Ramslund. First time I met them. Kurt Olsen was with me.
Lindell Attorney: Same Josh Merritt as witness in this case?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell Attorney: when did you meet him?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell Attorney: when did you meet him?
Lindell: Two days before the CS in Texas. He went up to the chalkboard for 15 mins and said “I vetted Dennis Montgomery’s data and it’s 100%.” Russ was downloading a copy of the drive while Josh was giving his presentation. Download took hours, Kurt Olsen talked to him, and agreed they’d bring the data later. When I got to the plane, Josh Merritt was getting on the plane and I asked Kurt and he said that Josh was going to help us out on the red team. And I found out Josh worked for Sidney Powell so that was another validation.
Lindell Attorney: What do you mean by red team?
Lindell: Narrative about cyber expert, Kurt told me what a red team was. Cyber experts to validate as we go. I had my own expert — Conan Hayes — who was going to do the cyber work, but these guys were another layer. We only had the part of the data that we had put in the Cyber Act, we didn’t have the rest of it. (Discussion about back ups of data.) That’s where I learned about the red team.
Lindell: Narrative about cyber expert, Kurt told me what a red team was. Cyber experts to validate as we go. I had my own expert — Conan Hayes — who was going to do the cyber work, but these guys were another layer. We only had the part of the data that we had put in the Cyber Act, we didn’t have the rest of it. (Discussion about back ups of data.) That’s where I learned about the red team.
Lindell Attorney: who selected the red team?
Lindell: I have no idea?
Lindell Attorney: Were they paid?
Lindell: I asked Kurt and he said $30K a piece would be fair.
Lindell: I have no idea?
Lindell Attorney: Were they paid?
Lindell: I asked Kurt and he said $30K a piece would be fair.
Lindell Attorney: the first time you heard Mr. Merritt speak, you said he gave a presentation. Were you there?
Lindell: Yes. (Recaps who was there.)
Lindell Attorney: was Kurt Olsen the one who hired the members of the red team?
Lindell: I paid them all, but Kurt got them all together.
Lindell: Yes. (Recaps who was there.)
Lindell Attorney: was Kurt Olsen the one who hired the members of the red team?
Lindell: I paid them all, but Kurt got them all together.
Lindell Attorney: Josh Merritt told you the day before the CS that the data was no good. Did anyone else?
Lindell: Mark Cook was there, too, and he had some questions but it was mostly Josh.
Lindell Attorney: before the CS began, did Merritt or anyone present evidence to you that the premise of this evidence might be a fraud?
Lindell: No, and when Conan got there he was going back and forth with him.
Lindell: Mark Cook was there, too, and he had some questions but it was mostly Josh.
Lindell Attorney: before the CS began, did Merritt or anyone present evidence to you that the premise of this evidence might be a fraud?
Lindell: No, and when Conan got there he was going back and forth with him.
Lindell Attorney: At any point before the CS, did anyone give you info that the info was fraud or that you should cancel?
Lindell: No, Josh just kept saying that things were wrong. I was completely baffled after he did the presentation in Texas. Then we got a phone call of him and his wife—
Objection! Sustained.
Lindell: No, Josh just kept saying that things were wrong. I was completely baffled after he did the presentation in Texas. Then we got a phone call of him and his wife—
Objection! Sustained.
Lindell Attorney: Other info from other sources?
Lindell: Talks about a cyber expert from overseas named Martin. Martin validated that the information was raw metadata but that it was definitely from the 2020 election.
Lindell Attorney: So you got conflicting statements on how to proceed…
Lindell: No one said not to proceed.
Lindell: Talks about a cyber expert from overseas named Martin. Martin validated that the information was raw metadata but that it was definitely from the 2020 election.
Lindell Attorney: So you got conflicting statements on how to proceed…
Lindell: No one said not to proceed.
Lindell Attorney: Harri Hursti was there. Was he invited?
Lindell: Yes, he couldn’t get in without credentials.
Lindell Attorney: Did you meet with Mr. Hursti before the conference?
Lindell: No.
Lindell: Yes, he couldn’t get in without credentials.
Lindell Attorney: Did you meet with Mr. Hursti before the conference?
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: how was the $5M challenge supposed to work.
Lindell: At this point we were being blocked by everyone, I needed to get eyes on. The $5M challenge was to get everyone to watch. I spent probably $1M on ads to get people to watch. Challenge was: If the data was not from the 2020 election, and someone proved it, they would get $5M.
Lindell: At this point we were being blocked by everyone, I needed to get eyes on. The $5M challenge was to get everyone to watch. I spent probably $1M on ads to get people to watch. Challenge was: If the data was not from the 2020 election, and someone proved it, they would get $5M.
Lindell Attorney: Did Josh Merritt say anything about the $5M?
Lindell: He was upset because he couldn’t win it, and he said on a recorded phone call—
Objection! Sustained.
Lindell: He was upset because he couldn’t win it, and he said on a recorded phone call—
Objection! Sustained.
Lindell Attorney: did you make decisions about who was speaking or did you delegate it?
Lindell: I didn’t delegate anything. We didn’t have planned who was going to be in there. It was going to be Brannon Howse talking to everyone except when I was on stage, and then that all changed.
Lindell: I didn’t delegate anything. We didn’t have planned who was going to be in there. It was going to be Brannon Howse talking to everyone except when I was on stage, and then that all changed.
Lindell Attorney: Did you ever get angry and yell at Josh Merritt?
Lindell: When I learned that he was talking to reporters and I saw the article, I asked him if he was sabotaging. I didn’t yell at him.
Lindell Attorney: Question about who was running things on the screens.
Lindell: The only person I authorized to do that was Conan, from the drive we had. Then I found out there were two drives and Josh gave drives to Harri and I don’t know what Josh gave him, and that’s why we went after Josh in court was to get the drives.
Lindell: When I learned that he was talking to reporters and I saw the article, I asked him if he was sabotaging. I didn’t yell at him.
Lindell Attorney: Question about who was running things on the screens.
Lindell: The only person I authorized to do that was Conan, from the drive we had. Then I found out there were two drives and Josh gave drives to Harri and I don’t know what Josh gave him, and that’s why we went after Josh in court was to get the drives.
Lindell Attorney: Do you know where Josh got the information he gave to Harri?
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: Do you recall Josh Merritt saying that Tina Peters said you’d buy her a house?
Lindell: I couldn’t believe that. I didn’t even know Tina Peters, never spoke to her, never promised anything.
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: Do you recall Josh Merritt saying that Tina Peters said you’d buy her a house?
Lindell: I couldn’t believe that. I didn’t even know Tina Peters, never spoke to her, never promised anything.
Lindell Attorney: Was Tina ever paid anything by you?
Lindell: I gave her money and paid for a hotel and to get to Texas for her to do her job from there because she was in fear of going back to Colorado.
Lindell Attorney: Was that a one time gift?
Lindell: No, I paid attorneys and some other things. I didn’t give her money, I gave it to her attorneys. And a car and hotel and so she could get something to eat.
Lindell: I gave her money and paid for a hotel and to get to Texas for her to do her job from there because she was in fear of going back to Colorado.
Lindell Attorney: Was that a one time gift?
Lindell: No, I paid attorneys and some other things. I didn’t give her money, I gave it to her attorneys. And a car and hotel and so she could get something to eat.
Lindell Attorney: Was Peters ever your employee?
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: did you have any idea what she was going to say?
Lindell: No. Once I heard at the symposium, I told her she needed to tell her story and I told her, because she was scared, that I would pay her attorneys and safe passage. Her attorneys were there and I left the room, and they decided.
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: did you have any idea what she was going to say?
Lindell: No. Once I heard at the symposium, I told her she needed to tell her story and I told her, because she was scared, that I would pay her attorneys and safe passage. Her attorneys were there and I left the room, and they decided.
LUNCH BREAK JURY EXITS
The Court: Video designations — be prepared to present after the break.
Coomer Attorney: They’re reclipping
Lindell Attorney: No we’re not, everything has been provided.
To be determined after lunch.
The Court: Video designations — be prepared to present after the break.
Coomer Attorney: They’re reclipping
Lindell Attorney: No we’re not, everything has been provided.
To be determined after lunch.
REMINDER: All posts are my personal notes and summaries. Please excuse typos and tag or DM for any corrections or clarifications. Reporting drafted during the proceedings and posted outside the courthouse on breaks (per the courts media order).
TYSM: If you appreciate my reporting, please like, share snd follow, and please consider becoming a paid subscriber to my substack: asheinamerica.substack.com.
TYSM: If you appreciate my reporting, please like, share snd follow, and please consider becoming a paid subscriber to my substack: asheinamerica.substack.com.
Lindell Attorney: Questions about Lindell businesses. When was FrankSpeech created.
Lindell: March 2021
Lindell Attorney: Is it a platform or original content?
Lindell: It’s a publishing thing for others to put their stuff up, not original content.
Lindell Attorney: LindellTV is a separate entity, right?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell: March 2021
Lindell Attorney: Is it a platform or original content?
Lindell: It’s a publishing thing for others to put their stuff up, not original content.
Lindell Attorney: LindellTV is a separate entity, right?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell Attorney: Montgomery — did you vet his credentials or his data or both?
Lindell: credentials beyond belief, partial on the data.
Lindell Attorney: On blocking, what do you mean and how does that relate to Mr. Coomer and your allegations?
Lindell: There are a couple ways to block. First is destroy my companies and the other is like here, lawfare, to silence me. Intended to silence me.
Lindell: credentials beyond belief, partial on the data.
Lindell Attorney: On blocking, what do you mean and how does that relate to Mr. Coomer and your allegations?
Lindell: There are a couple ways to block. First is destroy my companies and the other is like here, lawfare, to silence me. Intended to silence me.
Lindell Attorney: Did you ever say that Mr. Coomer had rigged or stolen the election?
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: On the documentaries, what are their names?
Lindell: Absolute Proof, Absolute Scientific Proof, and Absolute Interference.
Lindell Attorney: We’re you in them?
Lindell: Yes, all of them.
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: On the documentaries, what are their names?
Lindell: Absolute Proof, Absolute Scientific Proof, and Absolute Interference.
Lindell Attorney: We’re you in them?
Lindell: Yes, all of them.
Lindell Attorney: Who else?
Lindell: First one, Pat Colbeck, Matt DePerno, General McInerney, Colonel Waldron. Second one, me and Dr. Frank. Third one, General Flynn — can’t remember who else.
Lindell Attorney: In those films, did you or anyone mention Dr. Coomer or make claims about him?
Lindell: No
Lindell: First one, Pat Colbeck, Matt DePerno, General McInerney, Colonel Waldron. Second one, me and Dr. Frank. Third one, General Flynn — can’t remember who else.
Lindell Attorney: In those films, did you or anyone mention Dr. Coomer or make claims about him?
Lindell: No
Lindell Attorney: The films mention Joe Oltmann or his claims?
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: Did you ever endorse Joe Oltmann or his claims?
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: Remember the CNN interview from yesterday?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: Did you ever endorse Joe Oltmann or his claims?
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: Remember the CNN interview from yesterday?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell Attorney: Was any of that about Dr. Coomer, Antifa call, etc?
Lindell: No
Lindell Attorney: When Anderson Cooper said you didn’t know what you were talking about, did that change your mind or did you find him credible.
Lindell: No
Lindell: No
Lindell Attorney: When Anderson Cooper said you didn’t know what you were talking about, did that change your mind or did you find him credible.
Lindell: No
Lindell Attorney: Mr. Cain asked you a number of questions yesterday about why you weren’t bringing in experts. Why aren’t you bringing in experts?
Lindell: This case isn’t about 2020 election fraud. This case is about me and my beliefs, they’re trying to make me guilty by association for a call I never knew anything about. That has nothing to do with experts on election fraud.
Lindell: This case isn’t about 2020 election fraud. This case is about me and my beliefs, they’re trying to make me guilty by association for a call I never knew anything about. That has nothing to do with experts on election fraud.
Lindell Attorney: In all your conversations about election fraud, have you met anyone that could come in and testify about evidence of election fraud?
Objection! Approach.
SIDE BAR
Lindell Attorney: Same question as before.
Objection! Sustained.
Objection! Approach.
SIDE BAR
Lindell Attorney: Same question as before.
Objection! Sustained.
Lindell Attorney: We’ve heard a lot during this trial about your statements about the election and Dr. Coomer. At the time you made the statements, did you believe them to be true?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell Attorney: Did you make them with indifference or reckless disregard for the truth?
Lindell: No.
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell Attorney: Did you make them with indifference or reckless disregard for the truth?
Lindell: No.
Lindell Attorney: With all you’ve lost, why didn’t you stop talking about elections?
Lindell: Because we lose everything. I will never stop. We have to get rid of the machines and go to paper ballots.
Lindell Attorney: Do you still believe your claims are true.
Lindell: Yes
Lindell: Because we lose everything. I will never stop. We have to get rid of the machines and go to paper ballots.
Lindell Attorney: Do you still believe your claims are true.
Lindell: Yes
Lindell Attorney: Did you hear anything in the trial that persuades you about Dr. Coomer?
Lindell: i might have been hyperbolic, but no. I will probably still call them traitors and criminals.
Lindell Attorney: For the blocking?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell: i might have been hyperbolic, but no. I will probably still call them traitors and criminals.
Lindell Attorney: For the blocking?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell Attorney: Has Dr. Coomer ever said anything to you directly.
Lindell: Yesterday I was waiting for my wife outside the bathroom and he called me a piece of shit.
Lindell Attorney: Your honor I am done (except for the videos but he danced around this because the jury is present).
The Court dismisses the jury.
Lindell: Yesterday I was waiting for my wife outside the bathroom and he called me a piece of shit.
Lindell Attorney: Your honor I am done (except for the videos but he danced around this because the jury is present).
The Court dismisses the jury.
The Court: Quick break for the court to get her notes. Will return quickly to hear arguments on video clips.
All Rise!
Defendants would like to proffer for video snippets — want to hear from Plaintiffs. Please address exhibit by exhibit.
All Rise!
Defendants would like to proffer for video snippets — want to hear from Plaintiffs. Please address exhibit by exhibit.
Plaintiffs counsel argues that defendants have failed to set the evidentiary basis for why these should be admitted under rule 803(3) — Goes to State of Mind. Same objections for most of these exhibit.
Clip of DePerno — Citing case law (US vs Joes. Self serving hearsay. Hearsay within hearsay. Plaintiffs object. Also, relies on statement from a third party witness that was otherwise designated.
Clip of Douglas Frank — 703 problems, and 705 problems. We have not been given access to Dr. Frank. Prejudice outweighs probative value.
Clip of General Flynn — Same objections and Dr. Frank and DePerno. Flynn never designated as an expert.
Next Clip does discuss Dominion, but has an undesignated third party give her opinion. New info about Dominion machines will confuse the jury. We haven’t had the opportunity to examine the witnesses.
Final Clip — Bolstering, hearsay within hearsay. No probative value.
Clip of DePerno — Citing case law (US vs Joes. Self serving hearsay. Hearsay within hearsay. Plaintiffs object. Also, relies on statement from a third party witness that was otherwise designated.
Clip of Douglas Frank — 703 problems, and 705 problems. We have not been given access to Dr. Frank. Prejudice outweighs probative value.
Clip of General Flynn — Same objections and Dr. Frank and DePerno. Flynn never designated as an expert.
Next Clip does discuss Dominion, but has an undesignated third party give her opinion. New info about Dominion machines will confuse the jury. We haven’t had the opportunity to examine the witnesses.
Final Clip — Bolstering, hearsay within hearsay. No probative value.
Response from Lindell team:
803(3) objection — the statements made by the defendant are admissible to set his state of mind. We aren’t offering the statements of third parties. We’re offering Mr. Lindell’s comments under 803(3)
Third party statements are included to show the impact of the statement on the listener — and the listener is Mike Lindell. Admissible under 801(c). Talks explicitly about blocking and Mr. Lindell’s state of mind on what those statements mean to him (in 2021) — directly relevant to his beliefs. To show that the comments about Coomer had to do with his role in elections (clip of Coomer). Clips go directly to reckless disregard standard.
803(3) objection — the statements made by the defendant are admissible to set his state of mind. We aren’t offering the statements of third parties. We’re offering Mr. Lindell’s comments under 803(3)
Third party statements are included to show the impact of the statement on the listener — and the listener is Mike Lindell. Admissible under 801(c). Talks explicitly about blocking and Mr. Lindell’s state of mind on what those statements mean to him (in 2021) — directly relevant to his beliefs. To show that the comments about Coomer had to do with his role in elections (clip of Coomer). Clips go directly to reckless disregard standard.
Response from Lindell team:
803(3) objection — the statements made by the defendant are admissible to set his state of mind. We aren’t offering the statements of third parties. We’re offering Mr. Lindell’s comments under 803(3)
Third party statements are included to show the impact of the statement on the listener — and the listener is Mike Lindell. Admissible under 801(c). Talks explicitly about blocking and Mr. Lindell’s state of mind on what those statements mean to him (in 2021) — directly relevant to his beliefs. To show that the comments about Coomer had to do with his role in elections (clip of Coomer). Clips go directly to reckless disregard standard.
803(3) objection — the statements made by the defendant are admissible to set his state of mind. We aren’t offering the statements of third parties. We’re offering Mr. Lindell’s comments under 803(3)
Third party statements are included to show the impact of the statement on the listener — and the listener is Mike Lindell. Admissible under 801(c). Talks explicitly about blocking and Mr. Lindell’s state of mind on what those statements mean to him (in 2021) — directly relevant to his beliefs. To show that the comments about Coomer had to do with his role in elections (clip of Coomer). Clips go directly to reckless disregard standard.
The Court has already decided as a matter of law that the statements are defamation per se (by itself) or per quod (with context). Defense argues that the question of Lindell’s malice is what the jury needs to decide. His mindset include: (1) he believed what he was saying, and (2) he had reckless disregard for the truth.
Defense argues these clips are required to counteract plaintiffs assertions about Mike Lindell knowing he was wrong. He must be able to present evidence that he had a reasonable basis for his beliefs. Kill chain came out in 2019, Defendant relied on it. It is very probative and relevant to the questions before the jury. Additionally, punitive damages are a reasonable doubt standard, and defendants lack of malice towards Dr. Coomer must be allowed to be shown.
Defense argues these clips are required to counteract plaintiffs assertions about Mike Lindell knowing he was wrong. He must be able to present evidence that he had a reasonable basis for his beliefs. Kill chain came out in 2019, Defendant relied on it. It is very probative and relevant to the questions before the jury. Additionally, punitive damages are a reasonable doubt standard, and defendants lack of malice towards Dr. Coomer must be allowed to be shown.
The Court: What claims are impacted if the clips don’t go in.
Defense: All of them. Extreme and outrageous conduct, intentional desire to cause plaintiff extreme emotional distress. Plaintiff is required to show defendant sought out Mr. Coomer to harm him. They made the argument that Mr. Lindell’s conduct was intentional towards Mr. Coomer. We must be allowed to rebut that. We have to be able to rebut allegations of acting with actual malice. Goes to show reasonable basis for his beliefs.
Plaintiff: Argues that court needs to review relevance as well as probative vs. prejudicial.
Defense: All of them. Extreme and outrageous conduct, intentional desire to cause plaintiff extreme emotional distress. Plaintiff is required to show defendant sought out Mr. Coomer to harm him. They made the argument that Mr. Lindell’s conduct was intentional towards Mr. Coomer. We must be allowed to rebut that. We have to be able to rebut allegations of acting with actual malice. Goes to show reasonable basis for his beliefs.
Plaintiff: Argues that court needs to review relevance as well as probative vs. prejudicial.
The Court: Okay. Going to take some time to make a ruling. To the extent that some are excluded vs admitted, I would assume you need time to make new clips.
BREAK WHILE COURT CONSIDERS
BREAK WHILE COURT CONSIDERS
Lindell redirect from plaintiffs. Expected 20-30 mins. Then Chris Ruddy deposition. Then charge conference. Court will rule on video admissibility in the morning and Lindell will go back on the stand in the morning.
Jury Enters — Lindell on redirect.
Coomer Attorney: You said you believed everything you said about Dr. Coomer was true, right?
Lindell: Yes.
Jury Enters — Lindell on redirect.
Coomer Attorney: You said you believed everything you said about Dr. Coomer was true, right?
Lindell: Yes.
Coomer Attorney: You also said you weren’t acting with reckless disregard when you were making statements about Dr. Coomer?
Lindell: Yes.
Coomer Attorney: And you said you were referring to blocking about these statements.
Lindell: Yes and the attack on MyPillow.
Lindell: Yes.
Coomer Attorney: And you said you were referring to blocking about these statements.
Lindell: Yes and the attack on MyPillow.
Coomer Attorney: With respect to Dr. Coomer, you did not conduct any investigation specific to Dr. Coomer?
Lindell: No.
Coomer Attorney: All of your investigations, they didnt have to do with Dr. Coomer?
Lindell: No, his name didn’t come up.
Lindell: No.
Coomer Attorney: All of your investigations, they didnt have to do with Dr. Coomer?
Lindell: No, his name didn’t come up.
Coomer Attorney: Dr. Coomer didn’t tell you stop talking did he?
Lindell: No, Dominion did.
Coomer Attorney: He did tell you to stop making statements about him in his lawsuit right?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell: No, Dominion did.
Coomer Attorney: He did tell you to stop making statements about him in his lawsuit right?
Lindell: Yes.
Coomer Attorney: And you said that you only made one statement (mypillow) about Dr. Coomer before you got sued, and that you didn’t read the lawsuit until the night before your deposition?
Lindell: Yes.
Coomer Attorney: Shows stipulation of a statement on Frankspeech on May 3; it’s not Mikes statement but is about Joe Oltmann.
Lindell: Yes, that’s not my statement I only made the one.
Lindell: Yes.
Coomer Attorney: Shows stipulation of a statement on Frankspeech on May 3; it’s not Mikes statement but is about Joe Oltmann.
Lindell: Yes, that’s not my statement I only made the one.
Coomer Attorney: Shows two stipulations of statements at cyber symposium with Clements and Oltmann. Still not Mike statements. You don’t take responsibility for that do you?
Lindell: No, of course not.
Coomer Attorney: Show Mike’s promotional / fundraising materials for the case. Asks Mike to confirm, he does.
Coomer Attorney: offers an exhibit.
Objection! Beyond the scope. Approach.
SIDE BAR
Lindell: No, of course not.
Coomer Attorney: Show Mike’s promotional / fundraising materials for the case. Asks Mike to confirm, he does.
Coomer Attorney: offers an exhibit.
Objection! Beyond the scope. Approach.
SIDE BAR
Coomer Attorney: Exhibit admitted. You testified that you read all the customer service emails, right?
Lindell: Yes.
Coomer Attorney: Exhibit is an email to MyPillow. It repeats Joe Oltmann’s claims about Coomer and the Antifa call. You didnt read this?
Lindell: No, we had to set up a new account for this stuff because I was busy.
Lindell: Yes.
Coomer Attorney: Exhibit is an email to MyPillow. It repeats Joe Oltmann’s claims about Coomer and the Antifa call. You didnt read this?
Lindell: No, we had to set up a new account for this stuff because I was busy.
Coomer Attorney: But someone read it, because it was forwarded to Kim Rasmussen.
Strange exchange about Kim and why she had a mypillow email address when she didn’t work for mypillow.
Coomer Attorney: questions about Tina Peters and Mike saying “broke in” to her office vs. law enforcement executing a warrant on her office. Did you know that?
Lindell: unclear on the details
Strange exchange about Kim and why she had a mypillow email address when she didn’t work for mypillow.
Coomer Attorney: questions about Tina Peters and Mike saying “broke in” to her office vs. law enforcement executing a warrant on her office. Did you know that?
Lindell: unclear on the details
Back and forth on details of Tina Peters on the stage at CS.
Coomer Attorney: Yesterday you said you didn’t know what Peters was going to say on the stage. Today you said you told her to get on the stage and tell her story.
Lindell: Recaps Tina’s story. Says she had her attorneys there. They made the decision.
Questions about platform vs. publisher.
Coomer Attorney: Yesterday you said you didn’t know what Peters was going to say on the stage. Today you said you told her to get on the stage and tell her story.
Lindell: Recaps Tina’s story. Says she had her attorneys there. They made the decision.
Questions about platform vs. publisher.
Coomer Attorney: After Lindell said that FrankSpeech is a platform that doesn’t stream and the streaming platform is LindellTV, attorney shows a stipulation that says the CS was live-streamed on FrankSpeech.
Lindell: It was streamed on LindellTV and was platformed on FrankSpeech. (Seems to be a semantic dispute but they’re arguing now. The jury is mostly checked out imo.)
Coomer Attorney: LindellTV decided to post the CS on FS, right?
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell: It was streamed on LindellTV and was platformed on FrankSpeech. (Seems to be a semantic dispute but they’re arguing now. The jury is mostly checked out imo.)
Coomer Attorney: LindellTV decided to post the CS on FS, right?
Lindell: Yes.
Coomer Attorney: You and I can agree that calling someone… I’m not going to use the name you used with me… but there is name calling in political discourse?
Lindell: Yes.
Coomer Attorney: But we’re not talking about that we’re talking about criminal conduct. You said that Mr. Coomer said you made a statement about him out in the hallway.
Lindell: Yes.
Lindell: Yes.
Coomer Attorney: But we’re not talking about that we’re talking about criminal conduct. You said that Mr. Coomer said you made a statement about him out in the hallway.
Lindell: Yes.
Coomer Attorney: And you know that Mr. Coomer has been accompanied by his attorneys everywhere he’s been right?
Lindell: Yes you guys were right there. He looked at me and said “You’re full of shit.”
Coomer Attorney: No further questions.
Lindell: Yes you guys were right there. He looked at me and said “You’re full of shit.”
Coomer Attorney: No further questions.
The court: (to the jury) We are going to put a bookmark in Mr. Lindell’s testimony, he will return tomorrow.
Coomer Attorney: Plaintiffs call Chris Ruddy via video deposition.
Ruddy: Talks about the Feb 2, 2021 interview where the host walked off. Mike had agreed prior to the interview to not talk about the election, and he agreed. Afterwards, he said he forgot. We were not happy. Prior he was unhappy because he said we refused to have him on. We said we were happy to have him on, but that we aren’t talking about stolen election theories. He agreed and then violated that agreement.
Ruddy: Talks about the Feb 2, 2021 interview where the host walked off. Mike had agreed prior to the interview to not talk about the election, and he agreed. Afterwards, he said he forgot. We were not happy. Prior he was unhappy because he said we refused to have him on. We said we were happy to have him on, but that we aren’t talking about stolen election theories. He agreed and then violated that agreement.
Coomer Attorney: Did you talk to Mr. Lindell about Eric Coomer in that conversation?
Ruddy: I don’t remember
Coomer Attorney: did you ever talk to Lindell about Coomer?
Ruddy: Yes. He called to talk about settlement (doesn’t recall specific date)
Attorney shows Ruddy exhibit of settlement. Ruddy confirms it’s accurate.
Ruddy: I don’t remember
Coomer Attorney: did you ever talk to Lindell about Coomer?
Ruddy: Yes. He called to talk about settlement (doesn’t recall specific date)
Attorney shows Ruddy exhibit of settlement. Ruddy confirms it’s accurate.
Coomer Attorney: Did Newsmax agree to air a statement about Dr. Coomer?
Ruddy: I believe so. (May 8, 2021 — Clip of statement played in the deposition.)
Coomer Attorney: why did it air a month after the settlement?
Ruddy: I don’t recall the circumstances
Ruddy: I believe so. (May 8, 2021 — Clip of statement played in the deposition.)
Coomer Attorney: why did it air a month after the settlement?
Ruddy: I don’t recall the circumstances
Coomer Attorney: what do you recall about your conversation with Lindell.
Ruddy: He was angry that we had settled. I told him we had no evidence of Coomer claims.
Coomer Attorney: how did he respond?
Ruddy: He was not happy about our settlement and that was that.
Ruddy: He was angry that we had settled. I told him we had no evidence of Coomer claims.
Coomer Attorney: how did he respond?
Ruddy: He was not happy about our settlement and that was that.
Coomer Attorney: did you mention Dr. Coomer’s name?
Ruddy: Michael (Lindell) raised the name “the Coomer lawsuit.”
Coomer Attorney: did you tell him about the settlement?
Ruddy: He was aware of it from public notice and the press.
Ruddy: Michael (Lindell) raised the name “the Coomer lawsuit.”
Coomer Attorney: did you tell him about the settlement?
Ruddy: He was aware of it from public notice and the press.
Coomer Attorney: Did he indicate that he wanted to go onto Newsmax airwaves?
Ruddy: I don’t recall. Mike has frequently come on the network and I always tell him the same thing, “you’re welcome to come on but we are not going to discuss the stolen 2020 election.”
Coomer Attorney: did you refuse to let him on to talk about mypillow, FrankSpeech?
Ruddy: Never
Ruddy: I don’t recall. Mike has frequently come on the network and I always tell him the same thing, “you’re welcome to come on but we are not going to discuss the stolen 2020 election.”
Coomer Attorney: did you refuse to let him on to talk about mypillow, FrankSpeech?
Ruddy: Never
Coomer Attorney: Was there an agreement that you were involved in with Eric Coomer to keep Mike Lindell off Newsmax.
Ruddy: No.
Coomer Attorney: Was there an agreement that you were involved in with Eric Coomer to keep Mike Lindell off Newsmax to promote MyPillow or FrankSpeech?
Ruddy: No.
Ruddy: No.
Coomer Attorney: Was there an agreement that you were involved in with Eric Coomer to keep Mike Lindell off Newsmax to promote MyPillow or FrankSpeech?
Ruddy: No.
Coomer Attorney: anything in the settlement?
Ruddy: There was never a provision, and it never came up (as to all three defendants.)
Coomer Attorney: did you tell Lindell that you thought his theories didn’t hold water?
Ruddy: I told him our positions and the reasons for it, many times, every state certified and “stolen” is a legal claim and Newsmax can’t make a legal claim without evidence.
Ruddy: There was never a provision, and it never came up (as to all three defendants.)
Coomer Attorney: did you tell Lindell that you thought his theories didn’t hold water?
Ruddy: I told him our positions and the reasons for it, many times, every state certified and “stolen” is a legal claim and Newsmax can’t make a legal claim without evidence.
Coomer Attorney: Lindell still, consistently makes ad buys?
Ruddy: Correct.
Coomer Attorney: Ran ads for Cyber Symposium on Newsmax after the settlement?
Ruddy: Correct.
Ruddy complete. The court dismisses the jury.
Ruddy: Correct.
Coomer Attorney: Ran ads for Cyber Symposium on Newsmax after the settlement?
Ruddy: Correct.
Ruddy complete. The court dismisses the jury.
Okay homies, the charge conference is happening now. I will get updates on it later tonight and post in the morning re: Jury Instructions. Gotta head home to be mom 😬
Reminder — notes and summaries, posted on delay.
Cheers!
/END
Reminder — notes and summaries, posted on delay.
Cheers!
/END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
