(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.

Fact check :
Claim by claim:
“Foreign workers could access the machines on election day.” This is false as stated. According to a pro-Byrne outlet’s account of his sworn responses, Serbian employees had the ability to connect to Dominion equipment located in the company’s Denver headquarters for troubleshooting purposes. The same article says Coomer denies that foreign employees had remote access to voting machines deployed in customer jurisdictions. So foreign staff could reach the company’s own office equipment and worked on the code. Nothing in the reporting says they could reach county voting machines, on election day or any other day. Even the friendly coverage says the filings do not establish that any specific election outcome was altered.

“He admitted the machines were connected to the outside world.” This one is partly true but exaggerated. An election-integrity site describing his January 2026 deposition says a VPN was configured specifically for him to remotely access the Election Management System (EMS) during a 2020 primary in an unnamed city, as a contingency. It also mentions older modem-based servers that sent in unofficial results. That’s a real departure from a strict “everything is air-gapped” story, and it’s fair to raise. But it’s about a back-office server in a primary, not voting machines in the general election. I also couldn’t check the deposition itself, only that sites summary as the deposition isn’t published so this claim depends on someone else’s interpretation.

“Discovery showed his own server/VPN, that he got into the machines, and that he accessed raw votes before tabulation.” I found no support for this anywhere. The most aggressive write-up of his deposition makes no such claim. Its strongest point is that he personally monitored election results through the reporting system on election night 2020 for at least one major jurisdiction after the polls closed but before certification. Watching unofficial results in a reporting system, which is what counties publish on election night, is a very different thing from getting into machines and seeing raw votes before they’re counted. Nothing describes a personal server.

Conclusion : You are talking out of your ass again.

Also your conclusion in this thread that because this lawsuit was dismissed the claims are true is another pant load of complete BS you are dumping on the board.

Here are quotes from the judges ruling :

“The Court ruled at the motion to dismiss stage that Coomer had alleged sufficient facts to avoid dismissal and to proceed on these claims. Byrne now seeks summary judgment on Coomer’s claims, arguing that he did not “publish” Oltmann’s allegedly defamatory statements, that any statements he personally made were not “of and concerning” Coomer, and that Coomer cannot establish falsity, actual malice, causation, or damages. As set forth below, the Court determines that the issue of actual malice is dispositive and declines to address the other issues Byrne raises.”

So all the Jude is ruling on is actual malice.

“ Thus, the issue is not whether “a reasonably prudent [person] would have published, or would have investigated before publishing,” but rather whether the defendant “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication, or was highly aware of its probable falsity[.]”

“ Coomer must not only prove the existence of actual malice but must do so by clear and convincing evidence. While not impossible to satisfy, the clear and convincing standard has been described as “heavy,” as “daunting,” as involving a “high standard of proof,” and as “significantly more onerous” than the preponderance of the evidence standard.”

I like this part where the judge basically says that Bryne is stupid and a reasonable person should have known the claims weren’t true.

Coomer points to circumstantial evidence that includes the improbable nature of Oltmann’s allegations, the lack of independent investigation by Bryne and the lack of corroboration for Oltmann’s story, published reports and opinions rebutting claims of election fraud, and Coomer’s denials and other suits for defamation filed prior to the publication of the film. It would be reasonable to conclude from a totality of the evidence that, had Byrne acted reasonably, he would have concluded that Oltmann’s story was
probably false and that Coomer probably did not attempt to tamper with or “rig” the 2020 Presidential election. However, the question for the jury at trial would not be whether Byrne reasonably should have reached that conclusion. It would be whether he did in fact reach that conclusion or at least harbored serious doubts about Oltmann’s story or was highly aware it was probably false. On this record, a jury could certainly draw an inference that Byrne acted with actual malice if the standard were a preponderance of the evidence, because that standard merely requires a finding that a given fact or conclusion is more likely true than not true.”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/....391.0.pdf

Conclusion : this dismissal has nothing to due with the claims being true or not, and this thread is another crock of BS lies.

(10-30-2026 09:00 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Also your conclusion in this thread that because this lawsuit was dismissed the claims are true is another pant load of complete BS you are dumping on the board.

Here are quotes from the judges ruling :

“The Court ruled at the motion to dismiss stage that Coomer had alleged sufficient facts to avoid dismissal and to proceed on these claims. Byrne now seeks summary judgment on Coomer’s claims, arguing that he did not “publish” Oltmann’s allegedly defamatory statements, that any statements he personally made were not “of and concerning” Coomer, and that Coomer cannot establish falsity, actual malice, causation, or damages. As set forth below, the Court determines that the issue of actual malice is dispositive and declines to address the other issues Byrne raises.”

So all the Jude is ruling on is actual malice.

“ Thus, the issue is not whether “a reasonably prudent [person] would have published, or would have investigated before publishing,” but rather whether the defendant “in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of [the] publication, or was highly aware of its probable falsity[.]”

“ Coomer must not only prove the existence of actual malice but must do so by clear and convincing evidence. While not impossible to satisfy, the clear and convincing standard has been described as “heavy,” as “daunting,” as involving a “high standard of proof,” and as “significantly more onerous” than the preponderance of the evidence standard.”

I like this part where the judge basically says that Bryne is stupid and a reasonable person should have known the claims weren’t true.

Coomer points to circumstantial evidence that includes the improbable nature of Oltmann’s allegations, the lack of independent investigation by Bryne and the lack of corroboration for Oltmann’s story, published reports and opinions rebutting claims of election fraud, and Coomer’s denials and other suits for defamation filed prior to the publication of the film. It would be reasonable to conclude from a totality of the evidence that, had Byrne acted reasonably, he would have concluded that Oltmann’s story was
probably false and that Coomer probably did not attempt to tamper with or “rig” the 2020 Presidential election. However, the question for the jury at trial would not be whether Byrne reasonably should have reached that conclusion. It would be whether he did in fact reach that conclusion or at least harbored serious doubts about Oltmann’s story or was highly aware it was probably false. On this record, a jury could certainly draw an inference that Byrne acted with actual malice if the standard were a preponderance of the evidence, because that standard merely requires a finding that a given fact or conclusion is more likely true than not true.”

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/....391.0.pdf

Conclusion : this dismissal has nothing to due with the claims being true or not, and this thread is another crock of BS lies.

Fact check: True.

lol Storage.com? What in the world?

Man, the leftists on this board are just reaching at this point.

(10-30-2026 03:42 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  lol Storage.com? What in the world?

Man, the leftists on this board are just reaching at this point.

Your reading is deficient. There isn’t a .com after storage, you could try reading the rest of the URL correctly or clicking on it to see what it actually is (the court filling) before spouting off.

(10-30-2026 05:35 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 03:42 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  lol Storage.com? What in the world?

Man, the leftists on this board are just reaching at this point.

Your reading is deficient. There isn’t a .com after storage, you could try reading the rest of the URL correctly or clicking on it to see what it actually is (the court filling) before spouting off.

Your spelling is deficient. Court "filling?"

(10-30-2026 05:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 05:35 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 03:42 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  lol Storage.com? What in the world?

Man, the leftists on this board are just reaching at this point.

Your reading is deficient. There isn’t a .com after storage, you could try reading the rest of the URL correctly or clicking on it to see what it actually is (the court filling) before spouting off.

Your spelling is deficient. Court "filling?"

Oh no, I made a typo. Anyway.

(10-30-2026 05:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 05:35 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 03:42 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  lol Storage.com? What in the world?

Man, the leftists on this board are just reaching at this point.

Your reading is deficient. There isn’t a .com after storage, you could try reading the rest of the URL correctly or clicking on it to see what it actually is (the court filling) before spouting off.

Your spelling is deficient. Court "filling?"

I bet it tastes like chocolate. lol Also, Heaven forbid I make an error.

(10-30-2026 05:54 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 05:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 05:35 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 03:42 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  lol Storage.com? What in the world?

Man, the leftists on this board are just reaching at this point.

Your reading is deficient. There isn’t a .com after storage, you could try reading the rest of the URL correctly or clicking on it to see what it actually is (the court filling) before spouting off.

Your spelling is deficient. Court "filling?"

I bet it tastes like chocolate. lol Also, Heaven forbid I make an error.

I made a typo, you tried to find a reason to dismiss a source of information because you don’t like the content. Which is the constant playbook around here.

The source is the actual court document. The quotes I bolded are the judges words in that document. They completely invalidate the premise of this thread and prove it is BS on the OPs part, but as usual when confronted with facts you guys don’t like you attack the source. There is no better source than the actual court document, so that tactic doesn’t work here.

(10-30-2026 05:50 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 05:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 05:35 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(10-30-2026 03:42 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  lol Storage.com? What in the world?

Man, the leftists on this board are just reaching at this point.

Your reading is deficient. There isn’t a .com after storage, you could try reading the rest of the URL correctly or clicking on it to see what it actually is (the court filling) before spouting off.

Your spelling is deficient. Court "filling?"

Oh no, I made a typo. Anyway.

Oh no, on exactly the same level as you busted GC's chops for calling it storage.com.