Fact Check: Mike Lindell's Appeal of $2.3 Million Award to Eric Coomer
What We Know
Mike Lindell, the founder of MyPillow, was recently ordered by a jury to pay $2.3 million in damages to Eric Coomer, a former employee of Dominion Voting Systems. The jury found that Lindell had defamed Coomer by making unfounded allegations that he was involved in rigging the 2020 presidential election. Coomer's lawsuit claimed that Lindell's statements had severely damaged his reputation and led to threats against his life (New York Times, BBC).
Following the verdict, Lindell announced his intention to appeal the decision, asserting that Coomer's legal team failed to demonstrate that Coomer had suffered any actual harm as a result of his statements (Politico, ABC News).
Analysis
Lindell's claim that he would appeal the $2.3 million award is substantiated by multiple sources. The jury's decision came after a two-week trial where Lindell maintained his assertions about the election being stolen, despite the lack of evidence supporting his claims (New York Times, BBC). His argument for the appeal hinges on the assertion that Coomer's lawyers did not adequately prove the extent of harm caused by Lindell's statements.
The credibility of the sources reporting on this case is generally high. Major news outlets such as the New York Times, BBC, and Politico have covered the trial and its outcomes, providing detailed accounts of the proceedings and the implications of the jury's verdict. These sources are known for their journalistic standards and fact-checking practices, making them reliable for reporting on legal matters (New York Times, Politico).
However, it is important to note that Lindell's claims about the lack of demonstrated harm are contested by the jury's verdict, which indicates that the court found sufficient evidence of defamation and its consequences on Coomer's life (ABC News, BBC).
Conclusion
The claim that Mike Lindell stated he would appeal the $2.3 million financial award to Eric Coomer, asserting that Coomer's lawyers did not prove he had been harmed, is True. Lindell's intention to appeal is well-documented, and his rationale for the appeal is based on his belief that the evidence presented during the trial was insufficient to demonstrate harm. However, the jury's ruling contradicts this assertion, indicating that they found sufficient evidence of defamation and its impact on Coomer's life.
