I had posted somewhere a few weeks ago the judge in the case was threatening summary judgement for Dominion because the defense attorney, Tictin, had posted motions and briefs which included things the judge had improperly sealed. Byrnes attorney, Tictin, said they were improperly sealed because A) they were publicly available documents and B) you cant blame me for posting sealed discovery because dominion has refused for years to turn them over to us, and you judge, has failed to make them turn it over. Tictin then basically told the judge to pound sand, and if he didnt straighten out, the judge could be found guilty of obstruction of justice.

This may be a second case out of Florida. It has been dismissed. This should affect the other case with the whacko judge.

just another poli-game...

(10-29-2026 12:38 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  just another poli-game...

A hit like that would have demolished their stock price. Wonder why it didnt?

(10-29-2026 01:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 12:38 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  just another poli-game...

A hit like that would have demolished their stock price. Wonder why it didnt?

XACLY!

Whoops. lol

So does that mean Dominion has to give Fox News the money the latter was forced to pay the former? (Most likely not, but that should be the case.)

Oh boy. Tom isn't going to like this.

And the hits just keep on coming for Coomer:

Muh democracy

If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:Under Colorado law

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.

(10-29-2026 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.

(Decided to indulge myself a little today. lol)

(10-29-2026 04:37 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.

(Decided to indulge myself a little today. lol)

you and me both ... sometimes, the game is just fonzies ...

(10-29-2026 04:42 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 04:37 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.

(Decided to indulge myself a little today. lol)

you and me both ... sometimes, the game is just fonzies ...

Yeah, it is. And the East Texas Dumbassedness that makes up part of my ancestry wanted to be indulged today so I figured... why not?

(10-29-2026 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.

That's pretty good, I wonder how long Tom spent researching his rebuttal on the internet, damn left wing AI.

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Nice spin, doctor tom.

(10-29-2026 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.

Oops, another misdiagnosis by our resident spin doctor.

(10-29-2026 06:05 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.

That's pretty good, I wonder how long Tom spent researching his rebuttal on the internet, damn left wing AI.

You can tell he ran it through something. That is not his usual writing style.

Welp, truth is still a complete defense to a defamation claim.

(10-29-2026 04:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  If you actually read about this case and why it was dismissed, no, nothing shows that what was in the documentary The Deep Rig financed by defendant Patrick Byrne about an alleged phone call between Coomer from Dominion and Antifa was "true."

It was dismissed because Coomer hadn't introduced evidence to support his claim. And the court concluded that Coomer had indeed not uncovered enough evidence to prove "actual malice" by clear and convincing evidence.

Quote:Under Colorado law, where the alleged defamatory statement relates to a matter of public concern, a defamation plaintiff must prove actual malice on the part of the defendant, and must do so by clear and convincing evidence, even if the plaintiff is not a public figure. Coomer has expressly conceded that the statements at issue concern matters of public concern, [and] that Colorado's actual malice standard applies ….

Coomer himself asserts that Byrne believed the 2020 election was rigged immediately after the election. Byrne testified that he believed Oltmann's story and remains highly confident that the gist of Oltmann's story was true. Although the actual malice standard focuses on Byrne's subjective state of mind and beliefs, Byrne's statements as to those beliefs are not necessarily dispositive and Coomer may seek to establish Byrne's subjective lack of belief in the story through circumstantial evidence. The relevant question, then, is whether the evidence Coomer points to is sufficient to support a jury finding, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that Byrne in fact subjectively disbelieved or had serious doubts about Oltmann's story.

Eric Coomer (of Dominion Voting) Loses Libel Lawsuit over The Deep Rig

In fact, the case shows that Byrne didn't even corroborate that Oltmann's story WAS true. Further, Byrne didn't even include the story in his book.

Oltmann claimed that he infiltrated a conference call involving members of Antifa and heard comments from a speaker identified by another anonymous participant on the call as "Eric" and "the Dominion guy."

According to Oltmann, the speaker stated on the call in substance that President donald j. trump would not win the election because he had "made sure of it." Oltmann clams he later determined through research and by recognizing Coomer's voice that the speaker had been Coomer. Oltmann further stated that he concluded there was a "high probability" Coomer affected the election.

There is no recording of that call and no evidence it even happened.

Except in the other case thats ongoing, Coomer has admitted that the dominion machines were connected to the outside world, that foreign workers were able to access the machines on election day, and evidence came out in discovery of Coomer admitting he had his own server/vpn setup and got into the machines where he accessed the raw votes before tabulation.

Wow, that's quite the scoop, Jimmy Olsen! What day was it published in The Daily Planet?

So, a top executive at Dominion supposedly admitted that he had a server accessing raw vote totals before tabulation in the 2020 election and that foreign workers were able to access it, yet no major news publication did even one story on it? And trump has never said a word about it, ever?

Seems like there's a much bigger answer at play here...you simply are just throwing a bunch of **** together and don't have a ******* clue what you're talking about.

And if we look at how Georgia (and likely every state) handled the 2020 election, someone would have needed physical access to a county's equipment to see raw votes before tabulation since they were never put online yet! They were only on the touchscreen device (that's never connected on election day) and on the memory taken from the machine after polls were closed. Those cards are then physically taken to be tabulated by a server, which again, was never connected to any internet.

Finally, we all now about all the Georgia recounts that affirmed the vote totals showing that trump still lost, bigly.

But you can clear this all up and easily prove me wrong by showing some sources. I'll wait.....