Jump to content

Oh shit: New pillow guy lawsuit coming "in two weeks"


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, miguelito said:

I'm not a lawyer, but it would probably help Lindell's case if he were to shit his pants in the courtroom.

Tom-Berenger-in-Training-Day-Cropped.jpg

Send him off to the puzzle factory.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Wife is in Denver for work and just sent me this:IMG_0496.thumb.jpeg.85c86dd9e7f8f8ea45d17337e56d30fd.jpeg

Tell her not to get too close. She might catch the stupid.

Posted

Lindell's lawyers: "this trial is about whether Mike Lindell believed his statements were true at the time he made them. it doesn't have to be true but he has to believe at the time he made them that they were true."

frick-all-that-steve-buscemi.gif.eadb1cbbcd6ac992bfc22351394da4ad.gif

so if you are barely sane and just believe whatever imaginary bullshit is being spewed you get a pass for saying whatever you want? what a crock of shit 🙄

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 hours ago, mchookem said:

Lindell's lawyers: "this trial is about whether Mike Lindell believed his statements were true at the time he made them. it doesn't have to be true but he has to believe at the time he made them that they were true."

frick-all-that-steve-buscemi.gif.eadb1cbbcd6ac992bfc22351394da4ad.gif

so if you are barely sane and just believe whatever imaginary bullshit is being spewed you get a pass for saying whatever you want? what a crock of shit 🙄

Who knows? That used to be a losing argument, if I understood BT correctly. Now, I guess you have to check in with the information booth first thing in the morning to know today’s lawyerscope.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Who knows? That used to be a losing argument, if I understood BT correctly. Now, I guess you have to check in with the information booth first thing in the morning to know today’s lawyerscope.

In oldlaw, which is still mostly viable for the present, for non-public figures, belief was irrelevant.  For public-figure defamation, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth is required.  So, belief can be relevant, but only if it is a well-founded belief.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, belief can be relevant, but only if it is a well-founded belief.

Fox and Murdoch having to pay almost $1 billion because their accusations of election fraud were false would seem to indicate that any similar statements - made after that $$ settlement disclosure - is evidence of malice

  • Like 1
Posted

If you need some cheering up, I highly recommend doing a twitter search on Mike Lindell.   The quotes from this testimony, chef kiss, the copium from MAGATs, hysterical.   

Posted
2 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

If you need some cheering up, I highly recommend doing a twitter search on Mike Lindell.   The quotes from this testimony, chef kiss, the copium from MAGATs, hysterical.   

 

this case is over 

Posted
8 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

This thread is LONG, covers Lindell’s testimony, it’s absolutely hysterical.  Holy shit 

 

I'd love to read that thread, but not on Twitter.  fuck those putos.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted
On 6/3/2025 at 11:12 PM, mchookem said:

Lindell's lawyers: "this trial is about whether Mike Lindell believed his statements were true at the time he made them. it doesn't have to be true but he has to believe at the time he made them that they were true."

frick-all-that-steve-buscemi.gif.eadb1cbbcd6ac992bfc22351394da4ad.gif

so if you are barely sane and just believe whatever imaginary bullshit is being spewed you get a pass for saying whatever you want? what a crock of shit 🙄

The George Costanza defense?

  • Haha 1
Posted

That defense may work for a statement like “the election was rigged” but it can’t for “I have evidence that the election was rigged” when you don’t have evidence.  You can’t genuinely believe you have evidence that you know you don’t have. 
 

otherwise I could email a blank pdf to briskettexan with the document title photographicproofthattrumpdiddledkids.pdf and as long as he doesn’t actually open the document, he can say he has proof that Trump had sec with kids and believe it. 

  • Like 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

That defense may work for a statement like “the election was rigged” but it can’t for “I have evidence that the election was rigged” when you don’t have evidence.  You can’t genuinely believe you have evidence that you know you don’t have. 
 

otherwise I could email a blank pdf to briskettexan with the document title photographicproofthattrumpdiddledkids.pdf and as long as he doesn’t actually open the document, he can say he has proof that Trump had sec with kids and believe it. 

Keep in mind that this is Eric Coomer as the plaintiff, not Dominion, generally.  So many of the statements at issue pertained directly to Coomer rather than broad "election rigging."  But I suppose they get into all of it 



×
×
  • Create New...