The federal defamation trial Coomer v. Lindell—now underway in Colorado—is rapidly becoming one of the most consequential courtroom dramas related to the 2020 election. At the heart of the case is Eric Coomer, former Director of Product Strategy and Security for Dominion Voting Systems, who alleges that Mike Lindell and others defamed him by accusing him of rigging the election and boasting about it on an Antifa call.
Matt Crane’s Embarrassing Testimony Backfires
On Thursday, Matt Crane, Executive Director of the Colorado County Clerks Association and longtime friend of Coomer, took the stand in an attempt to bolster Coomer’s credibility. However, under cross-examination, Crane’s performance appeared to damage rather than help Coomer’s case:
-
Admitted personal investment in the outcome of the trial.
-
Struggled to explain his wife’s professional ties to Coomer.
-
Asserted that risk-limiting audits (RLAs) ensured election integrity—without realizing only four states used RLAs in 2020.
-
Was forced to read Coomer’s #UnTrumpMe Facebook post from 2016, undercutting claims that Coomer had been apolitical before 2020.
A courtroom observer stated bluntly: “He looked like a fool in front of the jury.”
Even more troubling was a potential ethical breach: Crane was reportedly spotted in a private room with Coomer and his legal team during a recess while still under oath—an occurrence defense counsel called “not necessarily illegal” but a “very bad look.”
Lindell in Hot Water Over Media Order
Meanwhile, Mike Lindell appears to be courting contempt charges for violating the court’s media order. According to filings by Coomer’s attorneys, Lindell posted multiple times on social media during the trial, including updates from inside the courthouse.
They are now seeking civil contempt sanctions or coercive penalties to ensure future compliance. As of now, the judge has not ruled on the motion.
Harri Hursti Deposition Reveals More Than Intended
Jurors were shown clips from the deposition of Harri Hursti, a Finnish-American election security expert and CNN analyst. Hursti, who admitted his highest level of education is high school, testified about:
-
His role at the 2021 Cyber Symposium, where Lindell offered $5 million to anyone who could debunk his PCAP data—Hursti testified the data weren’t PCAPs at all, but Hex dumps.
-
His view that misinformation and distrust—not actual technical vulnerabilities—pose the greatest threat to election security.
-
His belief that forensic images obtained in Mesa County at the direction of clerk Tina Peters were likely illegal, though he acknowledged he is not a lawyer.
Hursti’s testimony, however, may have underwhelmed the jury. Critics argue he seemed more concerned about optics and public narratives than the technical merits of Lindell’s claims.
Joe Oltmann to Testify
Joe Oltmann, the original source of the explosive claim that an “Eric from Dominion” said, “Trump won’t win. I made f**ing sure of it,”* is expected to testify. His statement has been central to the defense’s argument that Lindell’s comments were based on reported allegations, not manufactured malice.
Oltmann’s podcast—Conservative Daily, now renamed Untamed Media—was one of the first platforms to push the Coomer election-rigging claim.
What Comes Next
With the trial’s spotlight intensifying, and testimony becoming more volatile by the day, the stakes are higher than ever. Coomer seeks to not only clear his name, but set a precedent for how election-related speech is policed in the post-2020 media landscape.
But as defense attorneys poke holes in the plaintiff’s narrative—and as figures like Crane and Hursti stumble under pressure—it’s no longer clear if Coomer’s case is helping restore public trust… or deepening the doubts it sought to silence.
