The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Defamation Lawsuits May Leash the Kraken
The first defamation lawsuit against the Trump campaign and its allies has been filed. More seem likely.
Makes of voting tabulation machines accused of facilitating election fraud are not taking such accusations lying down. Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems have retained counsel and have sent cease-and-desist and record retention letters to various media outlets that have repeated false claims about their products and activities. Lawsuits are likely to follow.
As this New York Times story details, the likely defamation claims appear to have some heft. Indeed, they appear stronger than the defamation suit brought by Covington Catholic High School student Nicholas Sandmann against the Washington Post that was eventually settled. Of note, Smartmatic and Dominion have both retained attorneys with a record of bringing successful defamation claims.
Some media outlets are taking the warnings seriously. Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax, for instance, have aired reports discrediting some of the false and conspiratorial accusations made on their networks, including reports crediting accusations that voting machines were used to inflate Joe Biden's vote totals. Others, such as #Kraken attorney Lin Wood (who appears to be representing his #Kraken compatriot, Sidney Powell), have dismissed the threats.
Earlier today, the first suit was filed when Dr. Eric Coomer, Dominion's Director of Product Strategy and Security filed a defamation suit against the Trump campaign, Sidney Powell Rudy Giuliani, James Hoft (aka "Gateway Pundit), Michelle Malkin, Eric Metaxas, One America News Network and Newsmax Media. The complaint is here.
The various lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign and its allies have largely crashed and burned. We will see whether Team Kraken fares better on the defense.
UPDATE: In response to a few inquiries, I think these potential suits are more promising than some others out there, largely because certain figures made demonstrably false claims repeatedly, even after they should have been aware that that the claims were unfounded. Thus even if the voting machine companies are treated as "public figures," they may be able to demonstrate that at least some of the defendants acted with the degree of reckless disregard for the truth necessary to demonstrate "actual malice." This could distinguish these suits from, say, that filed by former DHS official Chris Krebs. While some of the things said about Krebs (for doing his job faithfully and effectively, no less) are positively risible, I share Ken White's skepticism about whether Krebs can successfully pursue his defamation and other claims.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
These defendants are contemptible, and deserve to be sued down to their socks.
Orange man bad!
Cogent response, BillyG.
It fits though. Too bad you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute. When do you think your external personality became solely about being angry and wrathful?
Are you claiming that they aren't pieces of shit?
When do you think your external personality became solely about being angry and wrathful?
My political opinions started becoming angry about the time Trump was elected. They got more angry as time went by, as I realized, in part by participating in comments here, how many utter fools, knaves, and outright assholes were joining the Trump cult.
It's been assholes the whole way down from the beginning.
Other than having the wrong plaintiff(s), this suit should have strong orange support. The only quibble that orangers should have is the excessive burden, because the libel laws were never "opened up" as promised. Which is kind of ironic, because the defendants in this case are likely to use a defense that the "opening up" would have reduced or eliminated.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1365/open-libel-laws/
"Orange man bad!"
Indeed, but significantly less so once removed from power.
Unless, of course, they are right.
Discovery should be interesting...
Even ignoring all the evidence that they are clearly not right, if they were right, do you think Newsmax and the like would have printed such a scrambling retraction?
Yes.
The reason SLAPP lawsuits were effective wasn't that the people filing them expected to win them on the merits.
I rather imagine the plaintiffs aren't much afraid of discovery. The defendants, on the other hand.
If they were right they would have produced some proof by now.
If they had proof then, Brett's ideas notwithstanding, they would have had top Republican lawyers crawling over each to pursue the cases.
Quit dreaming.
Except that the top Republican lawyers weren't Trump supporters.
The party establishment does not like Trump.
Disaffected, delusional, no-count clingers are perhaps my favorite culture war casualties.
Deplorable losers.
Right.
That's why they nominated him, donated huge sums, supported his policies, etc.
What they finally backed away from was his absurd claims about the election. In short, you have cause and effect wrong. The claims didn't fail because the lawyers dropped him, the lawyers dropped him because the claims were ridiculous.
Is there a more pathetic, disgusting, figure running around than Giuliani?
Well, in fairness, this does not look good.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/sidney-powells-secret-intelligence-contractor-witness-is-a-pro-trump-podcaster/2020/12/24/d5a1ab9e-4403-11eb-a277-49a6d1f9dff1_story.html
"Is there a more pathetic, disgusting, figure running around than Giuliani?"
His employer...
The party establishment does not like trump because of their near-total obedience to his commands? How many Republicans have criticized him or his actions unless they are leaving office?
"The party establishment does not like Trump."
Depends on what, exactly, he's doing at the moment. For the last month or so, he's been embarrassing them no end.
"The party establishment does not like Trump."
Perhaps, but they'd prefer an incompetent oaf who listens when they tell him whom to appoint to the judiciary to anyone who belongs to a different party.
"Discovery should be interesting…"
Indeed. Hopefully, plaintiff will demand evidence in the defendants' position regarding defendants' efforts to alter the outcome of the election, outing the Trump campaign's bag of "dirty tricks".
Plus, they'll have to disclose whatever "evidence" they think they have of the vast global Democratic conspiracy. That should provide some amusing news cycles.
Hate to throw cold water on this, but my first question is -- what are your damages?
Which, of course, is mandatory as one of the initial disclosures. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).
And in a case like this, I don't think "we need discovery first" is a valid response.
It's defamation per se; damages are presumed.
Also, this was filed in state court, so I'm quite certain that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 doesn't apply. (I don't care enough to check to see if Colorado has a comparable disclosure requirement.)
OK. I thought this was a corproate plaintiff. I now see it is an individual. That makes it easier, as he can claim emotional damages.
Still, even if damages are presumed, you have to quantify them.
And Colorado does have a disclosure rule that appears to be closely modeled on the federal rule. https://casetext.com/rule/colorado-court-rules/colorado-rules-of-civil-procedure/chapter-4-disclosure-and-discovery/rule-26-general-provisions-governing-discovery-duty-of-disclosure
Bored Lawyer, he will assert that his voting machine business is being damaged, and present evidence from potential clients saying that the publicity has made it politically impossible to use him. He will also show that he is being attacked falsely, despite not having any business involvement in at least some of the states mentioned. Or at least that is how I remember what his lawyer said in an interview published by the NYT.
Backpedaling by Fox News and other right-wing news outlets suggests they understand that this is a potentially strong case.
"Still, even if damages are presumed, you have to quantify them."
So they'll assert a hundred gazillion in lost sales due to loss of market confidence in their products. They don't have to prove the number is accurate until they are contesting the merits of the case, which is after discovery.
I thought this was a corproate plaintiff.
Wouldn't that make showing damages from lost business easier?
"Hate to throw cold water on this,"
Is this the announcement that you have changed your position on supporting right-wing bigotry and downscale Republican backwardness?
Back to your old blather, I see. Are Jupiter and Saturn no longer in conjunction?
I have no idea why BL's question is political, one way or the other.
But aren't punitive damages available in most libel actions, especially libel per se?
I seem to remember something from the Supreme Court about punitive damages needing to be at least somewhat proportional to actual damages.
I doubt that concept would be as applicable at the lower end of actual damages, especially where those damages are difficult to quantify. Interesting question though.
"what are your damages?"
I don't know how you could quantify it into a dollar amount, but it seems to me getting harassment and death threats and being forced to go into hiding is significant and demonstrable damage.
And the malice is clear. Some percentage of Trump's base are clearly violent nuts who will eventually take action (excuse me, "2nd Amendment Solutions") against whomever they think is harming their cult leader. With all the news about I don't see how they can claim ignorance about stoking them into rage. The defense will no doubt argue that they have no control over the violent fringe. Let's see if that works.
The NYT has reported on this, saying there are going to be money damages documented, quantified, and claimed.
It seems to me that both sides could make a similar claim regarding the violent fringe.
Nothing shows the asymmetry in death threads like Ed having to bothsides it.
"there were good people on both sides"
Presumably the plaintiffs would have to allege and prove "actual malice".
I don't think Coomer will be considered a public figure, so actual malice should not be the standard.
He'll have the same argument that Sandmann did: absent the libellous statements, nobody would ever have heard of me.
I agree; while Dominion and Smartmatic almost certainly are public figures, I don't see how Coomer would be.
That having been said, if he wants punitive damages (and I'm sure he does) he needs to prove actual malice even if he's not a public figure.
Hard not to show actual malice.
This appears to be the relatively rare case in which actual malice seems likely to be demonstrated with ease. Sure, some half-educated bigots, drooling evangelicals, anti-social gun nuts, and faux libertarian right-wing law professors might be disaffected enough to disagree, but to Americans who operate in the reality-based world it would be difficult to avoid a finding of actual malice. A seventh-grader with a C average would be able to recognize that the statements in this dispute were false (indeed, delusional), malicious, and damaging.
Dominiom execs refused to appear at a PA GOP Senate hearing to answer questions about their vote counting machines.
The good news is that Trump lawyers and Sidney Powell will now be able to access (via discovery) lots of Dominion documents, software and data (that Dominion has refused to give so far).
Unless Dominion and Smartmatic can prove that their machines cannot be tampered with, all states should ban their use.
Bill,
When you're asked to prove a negative; how do you tend to go about doing that? Asking for a friend, so I'd love some expert advice.
Aren't all criminal defenses an attempt to prove a negative?
No, Ed, they're poking holes in a positive.
And the difference is?
The positive here is that their machines are tamperproof. And poking holes in that would be?
The actual claim is that the machines were not tampered with during this election.
No.
I can't may not be able to prove that I didn't rob the bank yesterday.
But if you have evidence that I did I can refute your evidence.
Furthermore, the claims here go way beyond, "The machines aren't perfectly tamper-proof," since probably nothing is. The claim is that they were specifically designed to enable rigging of votes, and then set to transfer votes to Biden.
"When you’re asked to prove a negative; how do you tend to go about doing that? "
That's not logical. BG said, in part "prove that their machines cannot be tampered with." In this technical field, one would say that they have addressed every known security vulnerability (see nvd.nist.gov), and kept the operating system up to date regarding security updates.
Unfortunately for Dominion, they haven't done this. Their systems as deployed now are YEARS out of date regarding OS and CVEs.
Their systems as deployed now are YEARS out of date regarding OS and CVEs.
Where did you cut and paste this from?
Screw you, Bernard, and your snarky comments. I wrote that myself. I worked in software security for a few years (still in the software biz).
What's your point, anyway? Nothing, as usual?
Screw you, Publius, and your conspiracy theories about Hugo Chavez and whatnot.
Trump lost the fucking election. That's it. No matter how much smoke Sydney Powell tries to blow.
Let him twist and whine for a bit longer.
Tell us why, even though he got fewer votes, Trump should be declared the winner of the election, Publius.
You know what, Publius. I retract the "screw you," as it relates to you specifically, though not the various conspiracy theories.
Instead I wish you a Merry Christmas, and express this non-Christian's hope for peace on earth and good will towards men.
"Instead I wish you a Merry Christmas, and express this non-Christian’s hope for peace on earth and good will towards men. "
What makes you think screwing is incompatible with being merry, and/or being peaceful and/or having good will towards men.
" In this technical field, one would say that they have addressed every known security vulnerability (see nvd.nist.gov), and kept the operating system up to date regarding security updates."
They could go through the problem of proving program correctness, although approximately 0% of the jury pool is prepared to follow the mathematics required to do so.
Are you the dumbass Bill Godshall who got his ass kicked on camera at a polling place this year for being a belligerently ignorant malcontent? If so, your wife deserves better than to have people talking about your boorishness while she is trying to earn a living in a professional setting.
I am inclined to take that as a yes. I will hold a kind thought for this guy's wife, just as I feel sorry for Heidi Cruz..
"Unless Dominion and Smartmatic can prove that their machines cannot be tampered with, all states should ban their use."
Unless Republicans can prove that their brains can't be tampered with, all states should ban their votes.
The bad news is that Trump lawyers and Sidney Powell are the stupidest and least competent lawyers in the history of the lawyering profession.
But I'm sure they'll find the email from Coomer to the Dominion CEO in which he says, "Okay, tell Hugo that they're all set to switch votes from Trump to Biden, as soon as he gives us the word."
"The bad news is that Trump lawyers and Sidney Powell are the stupidest and least competent lawyers in the history of the lawyering profession."
The good news is that they will have a full and complete opportunity to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, and possibly to the unreasonable doubts that seem to plague the conservative minds.
Can they depose the Texas authorities who banned Dominion?
I'm assuming that TX had a reason.
Texas reasons:
https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/laws/dominion.shtml
Thanks for that link. So I read the reports. Weirdly, the words "Hugo Chavez" don't come up even once on the list of reasons not to certify the machines in Texas.
Instead, the reasons read like ordinary product reviews, the kind one might find in, e.g., Consumer Reports. They list features of the products that they like or don't like, or problems that arose when testing the machines.
" Weirdly, the words “Hugo Chavez” don’t come up even once on the list of reasons not to certify the machines in Texas."
Hugo's just subtext. Nobody was supposed to say his name out loud.
"I’m assuming that TX had a reason."
lack of kickbacks doesn't work in favor of Republicans.
Discovery is a two way street and one that Donald Trump seems to avoid at all cost. We all like to see the emails between Powell, Giuliani and Trump. Expect settlements before discovery.
"Expect settlements before discovery."
Nah, expect sanctions against the defense for non-compliance with discovery Settling looks like giving up, which is off-brand for Trump. As long as he's still kicking and screaming, he can keep asking supporters to send him money. Once he gives up, that revenue stream dries up.
Some plaintiffs are disinclined to settle because imposing prolonged, expensive pain and sufferingis what some defendants deserve -- and some plaintiffs are prepared to vindicate that point, particularly if the prospects for judgment are strong.
I hope Dominion takes at least some defendants to judgment. The discovery and trial could be illuminative and delightful.
Basic rule in life is don't mess with people with deep pockets that can afford good lawyers.
You probably should say 'successful lawyers', rather than 'good lawyers'.
Messing with people who have access to either kind is a generally bad idea.
Two questions:
1) Will Giuliani and Powell be savvy enough to hire real lawyers to represent them, or will they represent themselves?
2) If they choose to represent themselves, will it be above or below the average pro se defendant?
Maybe they'll hire each other as legal representation.
Dominion could serve some Trumps with notices to defend shortly after January 20.
Joint and several liability would be a worthwhile goal for Dominion.
Donald Trump has a documented history of stiffing people he owes money to. Is there any reason to assume that this personal trait has not been inherited down the bloodline?
Obviously it could change, but in response to the demand letter that Sidney Powell received, L. Lin Wood tweeted the response on Twitter, saying he was representing her.
(With his level of competence, she'd probably get the electric chair for this civil defamation case.)
"...have sent cease-and-desist and record retention letters to various media outlets that have repeated false claims about their products and activities."
Assumes facts not in evidence?
And facts are not Trump's stock-in-trade. He has not use for them.
I note that Coomer "requests a jury to decide all issues of fact".
Does Colorado require a unanimous verdict by the jury in civil cases? If so, one die-hard Trumpista on the jury, and Coomer's goose is cooked. Jury selection would be interesting: I can all too easily imagine such a Trumpista perjuring himself all over the courtroom during jury selection, swearing that he doesn't fly a Trump flag, has never watched One America News, doesn't own an MAGA hat, didn't vote for Trump... in hopes of being the juror who sinks the case.
Guess the plaintiff's lawyers will have to be very thorough in voir dire.
Are you even allowed to ask about whom people voted for?
And with (at least) nearly half the country voting for Trump, wouldn't excluding Trump voters not create a biased jury?
Questions might not be necessary in most circumstances. Many clingers lack the self-awareness required to refrain from wearing Confederate flag shirts, MAGA hats, "White and Proud" pins, and the like.
Clingers can't be impartial jurors, they can't even spell "jury."
Independents can't be impartial either, because they fail to see obvious facts like Trump being a fascist.
A jury of 100% Democrats is what we need. Not older Democrats, who may have civil libertarian hangups, but passionate young Democrats who can provide the needed impartiality.
I don't often talk to young Democrats, but when I do it's to tell them I want large fries.
then they tell you they don't care what you want, and what do you do then? Demand to talk to a manager? To explain to you that you're in a Pizza Hut...?
... and there aren't any fries, large or otherwise?
"Are you even allowed to ask about whom people voted for?"
You don't have to ask this. You ask if they had a preference in the election, and exclude anybody who says they did. That's a strike for cause, and doesn't even use up any of your peremptory strikes.
No court has found that the claims of cheating weren't true. They have all merely copped out using standing and similar procedural issues. And the audits ongoing in MI and PA have already found cheating by Dominion, as did the military's raid on Dominion's facility in Frankfurt.
And the fat lady has not sung yet on the election, either.
This is total bullshit.
This is the kind of crap RWNJ's make up and spread around.
Stop spreading lies.
It's not a lie if the person believes false things because he's mentally ill.
It's not a lie if the person believes it to be true for whatever reason. Knowing it's not true is a part of lying.
Michigan.
"No court has found that the claims of cheating weren’t true."
Which is a stark contrast to all the ones that found there was evidence of vote fraud. The Trump campaign had plenty of time to manufacture voting irregularities. all they had to do was point to the candidate in North Carolina, telling supporters to all vote twice. That's PLENTY irregular.
Pennsylvania.
Discovery will be interesting.
As others have noted, it likely won't get to discovery. The defendants have too much they need to keep under wraps to let it get that far. Expect a settlement for an undisclosed amount.
Maybe, but if Dominion can show substantial loss of business there is potentially a lot of money at stake. This is a company with annual revenue of $36.5M.
Settling might be pretty uncomfortable financially. Could it be better to hope for a favorable outcome in court?
Some of the defendants and those associated with them have lots of money. The question is it worth letting things come out. I don't know how close this will get to Trump and other in the WH, but I don't think anyone of them want to be questioned under oath. I still going on a settlement before discovery.
Dominion isn't the plaintiff in this first one.
A true, but not really meaningful, distinction.
One of Powell's experts.