Thread by @AsheinAmerica

DAY 8 COOMER v. LINDELL

Back in court this morning! First update on the break.

Reminder: All posts are my summaries from my notes, posted on delay per court media order. Please tag or DM for corrections.

Coomer Attorney: You said it was used in Panama, Venezuela and Colombia, first time used in Brazil in 2004. How was it used in Brazil in 2004?

Montgomery: You’d have to ask the CIA?

Coomer Attorney: But they don’t know how to use it.

Quibbling over the UX/UI and who is running the program.

Coomer Attorney: was it used to keep Chavez in power in Venezuela during George Bush.

Montgomery: Now you’re talking about Washington, not Intrepid. Ppl in government that had control over the tech you were using it.

Coomer Attorney: do you have evidence that they used H&S to keep Chavez in power?

Montgomery: Yes.

Coomer Attorney: What is it?

Montgomery: The people that used it.

Coomer Attorney: The CIA told you they used it?

Montgomery: Yes.

Coomer Attorney: how do you know the machines were used to hack Venezuela.

Montgomery: I watched it happen.

Coomer Attorney: Were you hacking it?

Montgomery: No.

Coomer Attorney: Who hacked it?

Montgomery: Employees of the U.S. government

Coomer Attorney: How many instances of H&S would be needed to hack a U.S. elections in all 50 states?

Montgomery: 40 or 50 — describes tech limitations

Coomer Attorney: Does that require 40-50 operators?

Montgomery: No, scorecard communicates through itself.

Coomer Attorney: How many elections systems is scorecard capable of hacking today?

Montgomery: 75%

Coomer Attorney: So how did it hack all 3300 counties?

Montgomery: Because it did. I don’t have the list of which were successful and which were not.

Coomer Attorney: So all 3300 counties isn’t accurate?

Montgomery: No, it was accurate. There is a difference between access and manipulate.

Coomer Attorney: How do you know it accessed all 3300 counties?

Montgomery: The data tells you.

Coomer Attorney: Where did you get the data?

Montgomery: Not discussing sources and methods.

Coomer Attorney: Do you still have a copy?

Montgomery: Rambling answer about the FBI.

Coomer Attorney: Does Mike Lindell have a copy of scorecard?

Montgomery: No

Coomer Attorney: How much of scorecard did you give to Lindell?

Montgomery: All of it.

Coomer Attorney: But he doesn’t have a complete copy?

Montgomery: No, I don’t recall exactly what I gave to Conan and Jeff.

Coomer Attorney: So Mike doesn’t have a complete copy?

Montgomery: Mike doesn’t have anything, it’s the people he assigned — Hayes and O’Donnell.

Coomer Attorney: So Hayes has a copy of software that can rig all the elections?

Montgomery: I don’t think so because they took his phone.

Coomer Attorney: Who rigged the election?

Montgomery: Doesn’t really answer, dances around US government.

Coomer Attorney: So it wasn’t dominion voting systems?

Montgomery: No.

Coomer Attorney: So Dominion employees would have no idea?

Montgomery: You’d think they’d have a software alert but probably not.

Coomer Attorney: What evidence do you have that Dominion rigged the election?

Montgomery: My testimony is that scorecard was involved,

Coomer Attorney: Did you tell Lindell that dominion rigged the election?

Montgomery: I told him that whoever was controlling scorecard hacked the election.

Back and forth on centralized vs decentralized

Coomer Attorney: Do you have any evidence that Dominion was responsible for rigging the election? What specific evidence?

Montgomery: Without looking at all the data, I can’t tell you yes and no.

Coomer Attorney: You’ve been looking at the data for years.

Montgomery: I also had four strokes.

Coomer Attorney: But in your years of looking at the data, you didn’t find any evidence?

Montgomery: I can’t say that.

Coomer Attorney: Did you ever tell Lindell that Dominion was responsible for rigging the election?

Montgomery: I might have.

Coomer Attorney: When did you move here to Naples?

Montgomery: In 2021

Coomer Attorney: Did Mr. Lindell buy you that house?

Montgomery: No, I traded it for Blxware.

Coomer Attorney: And he also gave you $1.8M You signed over interest, he paid you $1.8M, and you bought the house?

Montgomery: I originally took the money as a loan, but yes.

Coomer Attorney: Was it Mike Lindell or an entity?

Montgomery: Think it was an entity, don’t recall.

Coomer Attorney: What is Grey Horse Family Trust?

Montgomery: My wife’s living trust.

Coomer Attorney: That’s the entity that owns the house?

Montgomery: Yes.

Back and forth about the Mary Fanning text messages we reviewed during Lindell testimony. No dates and times on the exhibit. Montgomery disputing some of the substance of texts about what was produced for the CS. Mike’s texts.

Coomer Attorney: You gave them 32Tb data?

Montgomery: Yes.

Deposition ends.

Coomer Attorney: calls Brannon Howse

Coomer Attorney: you’re a journalist

Howse: Yes one of the best in the conservative market.

Coomer Attorney: you spoke to Lindell in Jan 2021?

Howse: Yes

Coomer Attorney: Why?

Howse: I’d been interviewing Mary Fanning about Hammer and Scorecard and they wanted to get the info to Lindell?

Coomer Attorney: Was Mike Lindell vetting the info in Absolute Proof?

Howse: Talking to lots of people to understand what was going on.

Coomer Attorney: Was anyone else working on vetting and fact checking for Absolute Proof?

Howse: Mary Fanning.

Coomer Attorney: She wasn’t there though, right? Primarily interacted with her in email?

Howse: Yes and drop box.

Coomer Attorney: was anyone else vetting and fact checking?

Howse: Maybe, don’t recall.

Coomer Attorney: did you see or know anything about Coomer?

Howse: No, didn’t know who he was. I knew someone with a voting machine company was, but didn’t know who he was at that time. I cover what I am interested in — I wasn’t interested in Eric Coomer.

Coomer Attorney: Do you find him interesting today?

Howse: No. (chuckles in gallery)

Coomer Attorney: Going through contract. You and Larry Johnson were paid a million dollars (ostensibly for Absolute Proof but the question/answer was weird on this one)

Howse: Yes.

Coomer Attorney: were you involved in getting Oltmann on stage?

Howse: Didn’t really know who he was, knew him as a computer guy, no.

Coomer Attorney: are you aware that Coomer has issued repeated written requests to retract claims about him?

Howse: I don’t know anything about that, did that happen?

Coomer Attorney: yes.

Howse: You have to ask Mr. Lindell

Asked about knowledge of Oltmann. Howse doesn’t recall. Attorney plays clip of Oltmann recapping his antifa call story.

Coomer Attorney: Did you ask for Oltmann’s notes?

Howse: No, why would i?

Coomer Attorney: Do you believe the election was rigged?

Howse: What do you mean by rigged?

Coomer Attorney: Long answer but basically that the outcome was overturned.

Howse: how would I know that?

Coomer Attorney: you had a guest on your show and you didn’t investigate his claims, beyond speaking to Mr. Oltmann?

Howse: Not that I’m aware of, unless it’s in the video

Coomer Attorney: Have you read the lawsuit?

Howse: Is it online?

Coomer Attorney: yes, you provided your audience a link to it and Mr. Lindell has a copy.

Series of questions about what diligence Howse did on claims, did he reach out to Coomer, did he contact Dominion.

Howse: If they reached out to me I would have had them on.

Coomer Attorney: but you didn’t make that effort?

Howse: No. if they had reached out to me, I would have taken it very seriously and had him/them on the show.

Coomer Attorney: so no one has told you that we’ve repeatedly demanded retraction?

Howse: No, but I don’t run Frankspeech. Did you reach out the LindellTV?

Howse: But why wouldn’t you reach out to me? I would have likely given Mr. Coomer the opportunity to make his case. The best television is when people don’t agree. It makes for good television and disagree. I’m wondering why Mr. Coomer never reached out to me.

Coomer Attorney: well you’re not a defendant. We communicated the frankspeech and presumed that had been communicated to you. So had you known you would have pulled the interview?

Howse: I would have inquired and done my due diligence to get to the bottom of it and limit my exposure.

Coomer Attorney: you didn’t investigate Oltmann’s claims after you interviewed him.

Howse: No.

Series of questions exploring the specific defamatory statements, and specifically Newsmax lawsuit and settlement. Howse doesn’t recall.

Coomer Attorney: what was the purpose of the CS?

Howse: To get as many state legislators there to get educated on elections so they could return to their states and craft legislation to fortify elections.

Coomer Attorney: but this was more than an educational forum, right? $5M award?

Howse: Yes.

Coomer Attorney: what was the purpose of that award?

Howse: Prove that the data was from the 2020 election.

Coomer Attorney: and he was ordered to pay that award to a claimant, right?

Howse: By an arbitration board, yes.

Coomer Attorney: did you know Oltmann was going to present?

Howse: I didn’t. I was shocked he was there?

Coomer Attorney: Shocked? Why?

Howse: I didn’t know why he would be there.

Coomer Attorney: Oltmann said Kurt Olsen was putting people on stage, is that accurate?

Howse: That’s probably true.

Coomer Attorney: are you paid on pillow codes? Your compensation is tied to Promocodes?

Howse: Since LindellTV, almost exclusively.

Coomer Attorney: you don’t have a set date that you charge (Mr. Lindell) on a monthly basis?

Howse: Not yet.

Video clip played of Clements on stage at CS, talking about Poulos and Coomer and Dominion “murdering people’s vote” — repeats Joe Oltmann’s statement.

Coomer Attorney: have you seen this presentation?

Howse: I don’t recall. I might have. I was upstairs in the suite working a lot of the time. I don’t recall that presentation.

Coomer Attorney: shows exhibit or FS Google analytics for the CS. 1.5M new numbers?

Howse: Those are great numbers. I’d like to see that everyday.

Coomer Attorney: you don’t have access to this reporting?

Howse: No, I’d have to ask someone to generate that.

Coomer Attorney: was FS trying to promote itself through this event?

Howse: It’s more public service and education.

Coomer Attorney: and you were streaming the event the whole time?

Howse: Yes, that was why we were there. It did go down at times.

Coomer Attorney: Looking back, do you think it was a success?

Howse: For legislators yes, many legislators really got activated and organized after the CS.

Coomer Attorney plays a clip of Lindell talking about being served by Coomer at the CO Capitol. In the video, Lindell states that Coomer ran into a building — a detail wasn’t supposed to be presented to the jury. Coomer attorney pauses video and tells judge that they need to make sure they have the right video. Apologies to judge and video keeps playing (Wondering if the plaintiffs just opened the door car crash stuff???)

Video ends

Coomer Attorney: Lindell is talking about crimes, what crimes has Coomer committed?

Howse: I don’t know. What I believe and what I can prove are two different things.

Asking now about Tina Peters and why he didn’t challenge her on her claims.

Howse: Why did I have her on the show? Something had happened (Mesa arraignment of Peters). I didn’t have her on to talk to her about Coomer. She brought it up and it’s live television.

More about why he didn’t reach out the Coomer.

Coomer Attorney: has anyone encouraged you to investigate the claims about Eric Coomer?

Howse: Not that I am aware of. I don’t run FS. As I said, Eric Coomer is not a topic that I’m interested in

Coomer Attorney: And that’s because you don’t believe Eric Coomer rigged the election, do you?

Howse: I don’t have any evidence. I have my concerns about voting machine companies based on my work with Mary Fanning or Dennis Montgomery. Coomer isn’t on my radar. On my radar is the CIA. My opinions are based on the testimony of government officials and national security people.

Discussion about how all hosts are, at least in part, paid through pillow codes on FS.

Howse: They can get other sponsors as well. Most of them or supplementing with other sponsors. The only person paid a guaranteed standard monthly fee is Emerald Robinson.

Coomer Attorney: email between Howse, Lindell and Todd Carter (MyPillow CTO). Is he paid directly by Frankspeech?

Howse: I don’t know.

Morning Break

Reminder all my posts are summaries from my notes, posted on delay. DM or tag for corrections.

NOTE: This is what Dennis Montgomery looks like (from Reuters article). Same guy from the deposition.

All Rise!

The Court: During the examination of Mr. Howse, there was an exhibit shown and I don’t believe that exhibit was formally admitted. (Confirms it has not.) Email from Todd Carter. Formally admitted.

Now want to discuss timing. Does the defendant have one or two live witnesses. One — anticipated 1-2 hours. Another hour with Mr. Lindell with videos and cross examination.

Typically in our pretrial orders, we expressly divide time between the parties. Doesn’t make sense in this case and I’m going to make an adjustment. Because Mr. Lindell and Mr. Olsen and the manner they testified and offered excess info. Need to make sure defendants have ability to bring their case and are not prejudiced. To that end, the plaintiffs have to conclude by lunch tomorrow. That gets us to closing by Friday morning instead of Friday afternoon so that the jury has a chance to deliberate on Friday before the weekend. Giving plaintiff fair warning that they have to control their time.

JURY ENTERS

Coomer Attorney: Plaintiffs call Doug Bania. Mr. Bania is a reputational harm
and damages expert who will
testify as to the economic cost to
repair Dr. Coomer’s reputation. Mr. Bania what do you do for a living.

Bania: I have an intellectual property consulting firm called Nevium. We value intellectual property. Trademarks, patents, etc. valuations and recommendations to better monetize clients IP.

Coomer Attorney: And are you also an expert witness?

Bania: Yes, we provide litigation support. I’ve been an expert witness around 150 times.

Coomer Attorney: does that also include reputational impact?

Bania: Yes, for individuals and businesses.

Talks about his educational background (creative, cinema, internet analytics, Masters degree, etc.)

Coomer Attorney: Do you have experience with publicity disputes.

Bania: Hands on experience with this.

Court reporter is ill — she runs out The court sends the jury out to take a break. We are in recess as the judge checks on the reporter. UPDATE: Taking lunch while they find a replacement.

LUNCH BREAK

RETURN FROM LUNCH

All Rise!

The Court: Ready to roll with the jury instructions later today. Asking about reference in the verdict form and instructions on exhibit 212 (the statement that Clerk Peters made on interview with Brannon Howse). We will give you all final instructions by the close of today.

For defense, plaintiffs are not presenting Dr. Finkell — cutting the witness — is defense going to present Dr. Finkell? (Dr. Finkell is a therapist who
provided counseling to Dr.
Coomer and prescribed related
medications. He was expected to
testify that Dr. Coomer suffered
non-economic damages arising
from the claims at issue in this
dispute.) Defense does not plan to call him.

Defense says they may recall Dr. Coomer at the end. Judge thanks them for letting her know.

Bania returns to the stand.

Jury Enters

Coomer Attorney: Do have specific training and experience in defamation, social media, and internet analytics?

Bania: Yes

Coomer Attorney: publicity disputes?

Bania: Yes — false endorsement, using name and likeness without consent.

Coomer Attorney: professional certifications?

Bania: Yes — ABA, INTA, Copyright Associations.

Coomer Attorney: professional articles?

Bania: Yes. Use of social media analytics for IP disputes, the value of a reputation. Recaps his articles and where they’re published.

Coomer Attorney: For what purpose were you retained in this case?

Bania: (1) Investigate and analyze the spread/reach of defamation, and (2) determine the cost of reputation repair.

Now being asked about prior work similar to this case. Mentions Berkshire Hathaway and Dominos Pizza cases. Johnny Depp’s expert on his case with Amber Heard — he testified to the jury in that case

Coomer Attorney: Move to qualify as expert.

Lindell Attorney: No objection.

Coomer Attorney: when were you retained?

Bania: My first report was submitted May 2023, by Coomer attorneys law firm.

Coomer Attorney: In the two years since you were retained, have you completed your assessment?

Bania: yes

Coomer Attorney: how’d you go about your investigation?

Bania: Talked to attorneys, reviewed the complaint, deposition transcripts, etc.?

Coomer Attorney: did you review Lindell deposition transcripts?

Bania: Yes

Coomer Attorney: how did that assist you?

Bania: gives me necessary context I can review with an open mind.

Coomer Attorney: how many reports did you do in this case?

Bania: Two, May 5, 2023 and May 15, 2024

Coomer Attorney: why two reports?

Bania: First was reach, second was cost of reputation.

Coomer Attorney: how did you tackle the assignment?

Bania: first — reach and spread — (1) Internet investigation of FrankSpeech re: CyberSymposium, (2) social media investigation; second — reputation repair — (3) structure of reputation repair, (4) cost of reputation repair.

Coomer Attorney: how’d you go about step one.

Bania: Wanted to review FrankSpeech analytics for cyber symposium.

Coomer Attorney: were you able to complete that review?

Bania: No. typically I get access to Google analytics in read only. I did not receive that access in this case.

Coomer Attorney: without access, were you able to get generalized access to the analytics?

Bania: No.

Coomer Attorney: what did you receive?

Bania: Two screenshots of analytics on FS homepage during the CS — so I know they have Google analytics, but I didn’t get access.

Coomer Attorney: another two exhibits, not published to jury. Document is analytic snapshots received from the defendants by the expert.

Bania: Yes.

Coomer Attorney: move to admit, no objection. What’s on slide 4?

Bania: Screenshot of FS homepage and huge spike in traffic during the CS.

Coomer Attorney: what does this show?

Bania: 1.8M users during the CS.

Coomer Attorney: how many were new uses during that time?

Bania: 1.5M users. Brought in a lot of new users vs. people who have visited previously. New users are tracked through cookies.

Coomer Attorney: 5.7M sessions — what does that mean?

Bania: 1.8M users visited the site over 5.7M times.

Coomer Attorney: Dividing that gives us the number of sessions?

Bania: Yes, 3.10 sessions on the FS homepage.

Coomer Attorney: is FS content available on other platforms?

Bania: Yes, appleTV, Roku, GoogleTV, etc. These analytics wouldn’t pick up those users.

Coomer Attorney: so 1.8M is only on FS.com, not other channels?

Bania: Yes — and only homepage, CS was embedded deep in the site. I wanted those analytics but I didn’t get them.

Coomer Attorney: did you look at YouTube?

Bania: Yes but didn’t really find anything. Election stuff was removed from YT so that’s probably why.

Coomer Attorney: This concludes step 1, what was your key findings?

Bania: 1,854,271 unique users.

Ignore that link — my error.

Coomer Attorney: Did you have a step two?

Bania: Yes, social media impact. Found that Rumble, Telegram and Facebook had impact of sharing videos on “cyber symposium”

Coomer Attorney: any on YT?

Bania: No, I believe it’s because YT took them down.

Coomer Attorney: what about Twitter?

Bania: No videos, but there were Twitter posts that referenced the defamatory statements.

Coomer Attorney: what did you find on those three platforms?

Bania: 62 videos

Coomer Attorney: what platforms?

Bania: Warroom, Gateway Pundit, Pete Santilli

Coomer Attorney: of 62 videos how many included the defamatory statements?

Bania: 42 did not include the alleged defamatory statements (10,404,400 views), 20 did (1,876,900 views)

Coomer Attorney: In the 20 videos, were the statements at least one of the 10 alleged defamatory statements plaintiff has alleged?

Bania: Yes

Coomer Attorney: focusing on Rumble, what did you find?

Bania: Exhibit that shows video breakdown of David Clement’s on Rumble and three of the 10 defamatory statements.

Coomer Attorney: of the 20 videos how many were on rumble? And how many views?

Bania: 10 videos, 1,075,400

Coomer Attorney: how did you determine the views?

Bania: Rumble provides a publicly accessible view count

Coomer Attorney: when did you capture that data?

Bania: before May 5, 2023

Coomer Attorney: so presumably there are more views now?

Bania: There could be.

Coomer Attorney: what about telegram?

Bania: Found 7 videos with 690,300 views. Statements on the exhibits are Oltmann and Clements statements.

Coomer Attorney: what about Facebook?

Bania: Three videos, 111,200 views. Two Oltmann statements, and Lindell saying “you were the first to be sued by Coomer”

Coomer Attorney: 20 videos combined to 1,876,900 views.

Bania: yes.

Coomer Attorney: what about twitter?

Bania: Had to use a tool called brand watch — harder to get into Twitter analytics. 129 posts mention both Coomer and Lindell. 119 did not contain the alleged defamatory statements. 10 posts contained the alleged defamatory statements. 10 posts generated 139,707 views.

Coomer Attorney: asking about methodology

Bania: We built a query that pulled Coomer, AND Lindell or MyPillow, but NOT words related to the lawsuit. No retweets, OPs only.

Coomer Attorney: Did you have to sift through the posts manually?

Bania: Yes, I would never rely on software or AI. Brand watch is like a big fishing net, then I manually sorted.

Coomer Attorney: do you have examples of the defamatory posts?

Bania: Yes. (1) post from Ron Filipkowsi embedded Mike video, quoting Mike saying “He’s an evil man” … 46.3K views and 312 RTs; (2) post from Patriot Takes, embedding video and quoting Mike, “You’re disgusting” “you are treasonous” “you’re a traitor to the United States of America” 92.1K and 321 RTs; (3) post from John Stubbins — links to Lindell video, John says “I agree Coomer is a criminal. Everyone should be demanding his arrest immediately.

Coomer Attorney: total on rumble, telegram, Facebook and Twitter?

Bania: 2,026,607 views

Coomer Attorney: and that’s conservative?

Bania: Yes didn’t count RTs, etc. High confidence into the number in report.

Coomer Attorney: summarize

Bania:
Internet investigation: 1,854,272
Social investigation: 2,016,607

Coomer Attorney: what is your methodology for reputation repair?

Bania: Determine the impact, from small to vast depending on the case. Make sure the data is accurate.

Coomer Attorney: based on your summary (the two metrics above) did you have sufficient data to effectively determine reputation repair?

Bania: For the Internet investigation, I didn’t because they didn’t give me the analytics; for social media I did.

Coomer Attorney: can you render an opinion?

Bania: Yes, absolutely.

Coomer Attorney: what does it mean to launch a reputation repair campaign?

Bania: Determine the structure — how many people have been exposed to defamation and launch a communications / education campaign to that target population. First step is to determine the correct structure. In this case, I chose a corrective website and Google ads due to the specific nature of the facts of this case.

Coomer Attorney: what content would be a part of the corrective website?

Bania: the truth of the defamation and correcting it with the truth. “Basically, you want to control the narrative” (1) provide the facts, (2) correct and control the narrative, (3) target the appropriate audience via search optimization

Coomer Attorney: what about Google ads?

Bania: SEO takes time and is not guaranteed. Google ads you have instant results, top of search results, attract target audience — hits target audience because it responds/triggers your ad off search terms. Allows you to better target the audience exposed to the defamation by presenting them with the corrective information when they search for the defamatory topic (heavily summarized on this, but that’s the gist — long answer)

Coomer Attorney: do Google ads help your website get traffic?

Bania: 60% of users click on Google ads. (Goes through how to set up Google ads and what the interface looks like) leverage the power of search to drive the correct people to the website. Talked about the importance of keywords.

Coomer Attorney: what were the important keywords for Dr. Coomer?

Bania: mentions using tool “Semrush” and Keywords: “Frank Speech” “FrankSpeech . com” “frankspeech” — 64% of traffic landed on these key words.

Approach to deal with expected objection on next section.

Coomer Attorney: What is step four?

Bania: determining the cost of repair.

Coomer Attorney: how did you determine the cost for Dr. Coomer?

Bania: Cost per Click x Target audience = reputation repair

(Numbers below are cost per click, weighed average cost per click — saying that weighted average cost is the cost for the client)

Top three keywords
Frank speech: $1.22, $0.65
Frankspeech . com $1.74, $0.45
Frankspeech $1.31, $0.27
Top 3 keywords, cost to client: $1.37

Coomer Attorney: how did you determine the total cost?

Bania: 2,016,607 Target audience times the $2.37 cost per click = $2,762,243

Coomer Attorney: You dropped out everyone that watched the CS?

Bania: Yes because I don’t know what they watched. The cost is the cost to drive the audience to the corrective information.

Coomer Attorney: so all the other costs are not included: PR, messaging, website development, etc.

Bania: This is just the cost to get the audience there.

Coomer Attorney: so this is a very conservative number?

Bania: Yes.

Coomer Attorney now asking him about a whole bunch of stuff he didn’t look at — Lindell activity in this trial, etc.

Coomer Attorney: were you aware that Lindell that Lindell was not the first person to allegedly defame Coomer? How did that factor in?

Bania: This was not part of the assignment. Didn’t get into the causal. This was a very narrowly focused assignment. Did not include anyone other than the three defendants.

Coomer Attorney: pass the witness.

Lindell Attorney: You want this jury to believe that you need $2.7M to correct what’s been done.

Bania: You need the audience to go to the website and get the truth,

Lindell Attorney: you get to that number based on views?

Bania: yes, views of the defamatory statements

Lindell Attorney: you don’t even know if people saw the part of the defamatory statement?

Bania: I haven’t interviewed anyone that watched, No.

Lindell Attorney: didn’t you have to search through a lot of stuff to find the defamation statements?

Bania: Yes

Lindell Attorney: last month, using your keyword analysis, last month. There were 3200 searches on those keywords in May 2025. Reference to Keyword Planner

Bania: I didn’t use keyword planner.

Back and forth about what keyword planner is — a Google analytics tool

Lindell Attorney: so if there were 3200 searches in May 2025x

Objection! Foundation. Counsel approach.

SIDE BAR

Lindell Attorney: you didn’t use a keyword planner in this case?

Bania: No

Lindell Attorney: you didn’t think that would be helpful?

Bania: No

Lindell Attorney: if keyword planner showed your 320 clicks; that would be a failure of a campaign, right?

Bania: No.

Lindell Attorney: you did not perform an analysis on Coomer’s reputation before the defamation did you?

Bania: No.

Lindell Attorney: You’re retained on coomers other cases?

Bania: Yes, Byrne, Clay Clark, DJT

Lindell Attorney: You’re not giving an opinion on his reputational harm, you’re just providing an opinion on the cost to send people to a website?

Bania: I’m offering opinion of the cost of sending people to a website.

Lindell Attorney: pulls up Ron Filipkowski post. “Lindell is griping to his audience tonight” — 46K views of people that do not like Lindell and therefore would not need to be repaired?

Objection! foundation. Sustained.

Lindell Attorney: You didn’t conduct any public polling on reputation before or after, or do you know of anyone knows who Coomer is today?

Bania: No.

Lindell Attorney: the attorneys told you to put Oltmann’s statements next to Mr. Lindell, right?

Bania: No

Lindell Attorney: You figured it out from the lawsuit then?

Bania: I consider all the posts and statements (even of third parties) as part of my analysis and cost of repair.

Lindell Attorney: This idea of using pay per click commercial to repair reputation, has that been peer reviewed and tested in the industry?

Bania: It’s used in advertising every day. Identify the audience, know what they’re search for.

Lindell Attorney: you did not conduct an analysis of error rate or assess against industry benchmarks?

Bania: I have not.

Lindell Attorney: you don’t claim that your analysis is generally accepted in the community?

Bania: Yes I do.

Lindell Attorney: there has been no court case that has ordered this as a repair, correct?

Bania: I don’t know.

Lindell Attorney: You didn’t not account for reputational harm that occurred to Dr Coomer before Frankspeech launched in Early 2021.

Bania: I did not.

Lindell Attorney: You are not aware that Dr. Coomer testified that his reputation was “effectively destroyed” before May 3, 2021?

Objection! sustained.

Lindell Attorney: you’re not testifying that about whether the defamation occurred.

Bania: I’m not.

Lindell Attorney: you did not account for the MSM coverage fact checking these claims?

Bania: I did not.

Lindell Attorney: how on earth can a reputational repair program compete with those claims?

Objection! approach, side bar.

Lindell Attorney: you would agree that national coverage would impact cost of repair, right?

Bania: No, national coverage has nothing to do with my assignment. That wasn’t my assignment. I was identifying the target audience exposed to defamation.

Lindell Attorney: from four years ago?

Bania: no, I delivered my report in 2023.

Lindell Attorney: but it’s four years now?

Bania: No, it’s two years.

Lindell Attorney: four years since the defamation…

Bania: oh yes.

Lindell Attorney: nothing further.

Coomer Attorney Redirects on keyword planner, interviewing target audience, reinforcing his methodology and assignment.

Coomer Attorney: you were asked about MsM coverage of this trial? Do you know if Mr. Lindell has also covered this trial?

Bania: Yes.

Coomer Attorney: Have you seen anything from Dr. Coomer discussing this case?

Bania: I have not.

Coomer Attorney: Nothing further.

AFTERNOON BREAK

Reminder that my posts are summaries from my notes. Please tag or DM for corrections.

Lindell Attorney discussing a clip with the court. Plaintiffs plan to object. The court wants to know why this wasn’t raised earlier when all the clips were identified, after all that process on the clips, now you’re telling me there’s more? Lindell Attorney says they only were dealing with clips that plaintiffs objected to.

Video is being played for the court so she can decide now — it’s a bunch of democrats talking about election fraud.

Plaintiffs object — it’s out of context, it’s not dominion, doesn’t relate to the 2020 election, doesn’t fall in the parameters of the case. Hearsay objection.

Defense says this goes directly to Mr. crane and rebukes the CNN clip that played Anderson Cooper with a one-sided view. That clip didn’t mention dominion or Coomer either. This directly contradicts the testimony of Crane.

The court: As the court explained this morning, the defendants burden is not symmetrical to the plaintiffs burden. Unclear foundation, unclear which system. Court finds that probative value is outweighed by prejudice. Exhibit will be excluded. Defense objection is preserved for the record.

On jury instructions — arbitration, doxxing are terms that the jury has already asked about these terms. The court pulled the definitions from what’s been used in the 10th circuit. Want to agree on a jury instruction since they already asked. Everyone agrees. The court will write the jury instruction.

Jury Enters

Mike Lindell is back on the stand.

Lindell Attorney: Is FS still active?

Lindell: No

Lindell Attorney: When did it go inactive?

Lindell: November or December of 2024

Lindell Attorney: About Brannon Howse. He did work for Frank Speech right?

Lindell: Yes. He has a partner and the my were called Johnston Howse and they did all the backend tech and customer service, marketing, etc?

Lindell Attorney: Did he help you set up the Frank Speech platform?

Lindell: No they did it all.

Lindell Attorney: on his other shows, WVW, etc, did that have anything to do with you?

Lindell: No that’s his own stuff from before I came into the picture. He never got paid (by Lindell) for any of that.

Lindell Attorney: discussing words on a public post (not sure what exhibit, it isn’t shown). Did you write that?

Lindell: No, the social media team wrote that. (Discusses why that goes back to Jan 9, 2021 — told dominion to sue him)

Lindell Attorney: so you welcomed the opportunity to present your evidence in court.

Lindell: Yes, absolutely.

Lindell Attorney: Ruddy testimony from yesterday. Was his explanation accurate?

Lindell: No, that video was from 2023 and he’s trying to recall it all. There’s a lot left out of that video. MyPillow got their Twitter banned. Everyone was having me on — it was a big deal, because no company had been banned by then. I called Ruddy from an airport and he said—

Objection! Hearsay! Sustained.

Lindell Attorney: did he give you any further invitations?

Lindell: Yes, he said I could come on and talk about MyPillow but I wasn’t allowed to go again to this day. Only one time I was allowed to go on and talk about Fox News, bc they were a competitor. One more thing — Newsmax was sued by Dominion on the first day of the CS. They would put anything on about election fraud after that. That lawsuit is still going on.

Lindell Attorney: Opportunity to clarify your statement that Mr. Coomer said to you by the bathroom?

Lindell: It was “piece of shit”

Lindell Attorney: any doubt in your mind?

Lindell: No.

Lindell Attorney: Playing clip from HBO production “Kill Chain,” have you seen that movie?

Lindell: Yes, in December of 2020.

Clip of Kill Chain at DefCon voting village — Harri Hursti on the screen. (Attorney pauses to have Mike identify Hursti) Clip is hackers interspersed with commentary about machine threats to democracy, malware that can impact the machines for years to come. “Malware can stay forever, for years to come, and no one would know it was there.” Every piece of the voting equipment in voting village was breached. Most popular machine “right now” is in the dominion image cast.

Lindell Attorney: That’s not the whole video right?

Lindell: No, it keeps going —

Coomer Attorney: Your honor may we approach?

SIDE BAR

Lindell Attorney: when did you see this film?

Lindell: December 2020

Lindell Attorney: you’re not an expert on elections?

Lindell: No.

Lindell Attorney: What effect did this have on you?

Lindell: I was 35 days into 18 hour days. I saw this and there were experts in there, and I said “we have a real problem!” And I’m going to say this—

Objection! Approach

SIDE BAR

Lindell Attorney: segment on voting village segment at DEFCON — was there anything similar at the CS?

Lindell: It was exactly the same thing but the voting companies declined to come.

Lindell Attorney: moves to admit new clip exhibit, a segment from absolute proof. Admitted. What was your role?

Lindell: Producer.

Video playing. Matt DePerno talking about Dana Nessel tweets in Absolute Proof. Nessel calling for attorneys to be disbarred if they file election lawsuits. Mike’s reaction (effect on the listener)

Lindell Attorney: what was the message that you were trying to convey to your audience with this segment?

Lindell: Blockers — you get silenced or sued. I called them all traitors because I think they are.

Lindell Attorney: are these examples of blockers?

Lindell: Absolute blockers.

Lindell Attorney moves to admit the next clip. Admitted. It’s from absolute interference, March of 2021 (Lindell estimating) — clip with Lindell and General Flynn talking about Kill Chain. Additional headlines and documents showing a Chinese interference in the election. Harri Hursti talking about vulnerabilities and that they are well known.

Lindell Attorney: when you heard former head of DIA Flynn telling you about the machines, did you believe him or have any reason to doubt him?

Lindell: General Flynn? Yes I believed him, didn’t doubt him, he was the highest official I could go to.

Lindell Attorney: do you still personally believe was General Flynn told you?

Lindell: 100%

Lindell Attorney: nothing further

Coomer Attorney: you still believe General Flynn knowing he pled guilty to lying to the FBI?

Lindell: Yes

Coomer Attorney: you found Matt DePerno to be credible on election security issues?

Lindell: That’s not what he was testifying about so I don’t know.

Coomer Attorney: are you aware that DePerno was indicted in Michigan for unauthorized access?

Lindell: Yes they attacked him to.

Coomer Attorney: “I’m getting exactly what I wanted” — you said that some people had put that statement into the fundraising email?

Lindell: Yes

Coomer Attorney: what is the name on the top of the fundraising email?

Lindell: Mike Lindell Legal Defense Fund

Coomer Attorney: Nothing Further

Plaintiffs call Alex Halderman

Coomer Attorney: what is your occupation?

Halderman: I am a professor of computer science and engineering. Three degrees in computer science from Princeton including PhD on the security of elections.

Coomer Attorney going through background to establish him as an expert witness. He is going through his coursework and elections focus. Talking about Curling v Raffensberger, case brought against GA barcode. Expert for Jill Stein recount. Discussion about Coomer also being an expert in Curling, on the opposite side of — Coomer called for the State of GA.

Coomer Attorney: what kind of analysis did you perform in this case?

Halderman: Reviewed statements of Lindell and Oltmann, and reviewed the data from the cyber symposium for this case and before as commissioned by CNN in response to the CS.

Coomer Attorney: At a high level what are your opinions?

Halderman: At a high level, there is no evidence that the 2020 election was hacked, there is simply no evidence. There are vulnerabilities but that doesn’t mean the election was hacked, and it certainly doesn’t mean it was hacked by Dr. Coomer. Allegations are implausible and debunked and technically incoherent. Lindell’s data from the CS — I reviewed it and it’s fake.

Coomer Attorney: move to qualify as an expert.

Lindell Attorney: No objections. Qualified.

Coomer Attorney: have you warned about vulnerabilities?

Halderman: Yes, you saw some of them in the video but they were taken out of context. (Exhibit showing “Securing the Vote” from the National Academies under the heading of “Science” and “Absolute Proof” under the heading of Science Fiction. Everyone agrees we need paper ballots and risk limiting audits. We all agree — that’s the scientific view.

Coomer Attorney: (sorry, I missed the question)

Halderman: We have vulnerabilities, but we don’t have any evidence that any election result has been changed by hacking. Lindell’s view that he has absolute proof that the election was hacked is science fiction.

Coomer Attorney: The jury just saw films that Mr. Lindell produced. Can you explain what changed since 2016?

Halderman: In 2016 there were attempts by a foreign government to penetrate US elections. We never saw that before. This was a major wake up call for election security — outdated equipment, no audits — and I always ended with we need risk limiting audits and paper ballots. There were many grants and changes to state elections to replace equipment and add audits. So there was certain progress between 2016 and 2020 and much of that was concentrated in the key swing states because those were the ones suspected to have issues.

Coomer Attorney: what percentage of states had paper in 2020?

Halderman: 90%

Coomer Attorney: did that include the swing states?

Halderman: By 2020, the only state that was fully paperless was Louisiana. All the swing states had full paper record.

Coomer Attorney: with all these issues, why isn’t it reasonable to conclude that the elections are hacked?

Halderman: There isn’t any evidence. It’s not a binary. In the days, weeks, months since the election, the result was studied extensively, audited extensively, and there is simply no evidence to conclude that there was any tampering. There were audits of the paper ballots. None of those audits turned up any issue. No credible evidence that the election was interfered with by hacking votes.

The court dismisses jury, instructs them to return for a 9am start.

Coomer Attorney: promising limiting instructions for the videos.

The Court: Okay.

Lindell attorney: Issues with jury instruction, want to address.

The Court: confer with opposing counsel. Everyone be here by 8:30a. Review the courts proposed glossary.

Coomer Attorney: After Halderman, our evidence presentation is complete. Asking about scheduling before close.

The Court: Intend to proceed to closings tomorrow.

COURT IS IN RECESS

/END

Reminder that all posts are my summaries from my notes. Please tag or DM for corrections or clarifications. If you appreciate my work, you can tip me @asheinamerica on most payment platforms or consider becoming a paid subscriber to my substack.

CORRECTIONS:
Apologies for inaccuracies. I am summarizing as I’m hearing it, doing my best, and I appreciate material corrections to the facts so the thread is accurate as to the facts. (Note: material corrections to facts are not the same as opinions and theories — love to see them, but don’t expect me to update the thread 😂😬)

(1) @tdu_weight brought this one to my attention) — Mike Lindell hired Conan Hayes in Summer of 2021, not summer of 2020. I confirmed this detail with him today — it took a couple days because I had to wait for him to no longer be under oath before I asked him.

(2) Johnson of JohnsonHowse is RJ Johnson, not Larry Johnson. Thanks to @realMaryFanning and @FSociety_1942 for this one.

Pls tag of there are other material facts that are inaccurate.

See you tomorrow.

Cheers

@threadreaderapp please unroll!