Full story
Defamation Case Against Lindell
A federal judge in Minnesota has ruled that Mike Lindell, the founder of MyPillow, defamed the election technology company Smartmatic by making false claims that its voting machines rigged the 2020 presidential election.
“A federal judge in Minnesota ruled that Mike Lindell, founder of MyPillow, defamed voting technology company Smartmatic by falsely claiming its machines rigged the 2020 presidential election results in Los Angeles County.”
The judge identified 51 instances where Lindell made these false statements, particularly focusing on Smartmatic’s machines in Los Angeles County.
This ruling is part of a broader legal battle where Smartmatic is seeking nine-figure damages, asserting that Lindell spread lies about the company.
The judge, however, postponed deciding whether Lindell acted with "actual malice," a necessary element for Smartmatic to obtain damages, due to ongoing factual disputes about Lindell’s intent.
Legal Battle Over Defamation
The judge's decision to defer ruling on the "actual malice" aspect is crucial, as it determines whether Smartmatic can secure damages.
This aspect of the case hinges on whether Lindell knowingly spread false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
Lindell has maintained that he genuinely believed his statements were true, which complicates the determination of malice.
Smartmatic's legal strategy involves proving that Lindell's actions were not just false but malicious, a standard that requires clear evidence of intent to harm.
Legal Actions on Election Claims
Smartmatic's legal actions against Lindell are part of a broader strategy to hold individuals and media outlets accountable for spreading false information about the 2020 election.
“The ruling supports Smartmatic’s position that its systems were secure and not involved in election fraud.”
The company has already secured settlements with several conservative media outlets and continues its litigation against Fox News.
This case against Lindell is significant not only for its potential financial implications but also for its impact on public discourse about election integrity and misinformation.
Lindell's Legal Defiance
Lindell's response to the ruling has been one of defiance.
He has dismissed the judge's decision as bizarre and has vowed to continue his fight against electronic voting machines.
He is prepared to appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.
This stance reflects Lindell's ongoing commitment to his claims about election fraud despite legal setbacks.
He has faced previous defamation losses involving Dominion Voting Systems.