Deposition Eric Coomer
The original deposition was shared by Telegram. This is a copy from the original PDF but first I will going to make a summary. Please check about Dominion Voting Systems
SUMMARY
Eric Coomer's statement is based on a series of Facebook posts incriminating him in far-left groups. Despite the constant refusals on his part and the objections declared by Coomer's lawyer (Mr. Cain, who has small "frictions" with the judge at the beginning), the evidence is overwhelming since the judge handling the case reiterated constantly in his questions so that the accused answered them or not.
The key points of this statement are:
-He told the NY Times reporter that he had tattoos and piercing holes when he was young.
- The reporter showed him an 11-minute video of Mr. Oltmann in the hotel room. He does not remember the quote from Max McGuire where the word "Antifa" was mentioned and Coomer called it "satirical." The judge allowed him a few minutes so that he could read the 4-page document that referred to the antifas.
- It does not see the "antifa" as a danger or a terrorist organization, it only sees it as a "satirical" organization (neither denies it nor affirms it, thereby obstructing the investigation by referring to the statements made by the FBI).
-What the judge wanted is for him to assume that he was one of the leaders of the "antifa"
- Coomer was surprised to see the video that the NY Times reporter showed him and denies having received a call from any "antifa" leader. He also denies the existence of the group.
-In the 80s he was a skinhead who had problems with drugs in 2004. Because of his addiction he was on the verge of bankruptcy and divorced his wife. He also ended up in jail for driving under the influence of alcohol.
-Fearing for his life on Facebook, he began to delete his posts, approximately 80 posts. He says that he remembers it and that he still maintains some 2020 posts.
-According to him, he feared for his own safety and tried to erase information that could be used to "misinterpret" his words or involve him in criminal conduct. He was, according to him, receiving death threats
- On Exhibit P19, which refers to a post in The Denver Post, it stated: "" It is inconceivable that certain fringe media personalities seeking to increase personal notoriety, website traffic, and advertising revenue continue to take advantage of the public's fears. "
-He blames several well-known people who were sharing his posts from November 9 on the internet.
- In the second part of the publication in The Denver Post, Coomer declares that: "Also, all the posts on social media channels that pretend to be mine have also been invented." Nothing is made up if a person publishes it. All the information we write can be shared for better or for worse. Lie
-Another lie is that he says that he does not have a Twitter account and the Facebook account was not active since many people created false profiles to harm him. Facebook blocked all accounts in Eric Coomer's name including his own.
- Supposedly Coomer suspects that Oltmann was behind having shared all the supposedly false information. Oltmann has a podcast and also belongs to OAN, a national media outlet that also has a digital newspaper.
-His Facebook account was inactive for three and a half years until the "murder" of George Floyd in which he opened his account in May 2020 and that he was very active in that social network. He insists that he did not make any "wild posts" on that social network and that The Denver Post reporter made it up.
-All of his posts were being shared on Twitter.
- The Mrs. Malkin also shared everything that mr. Oltmann shared Coomer. He has a huge following on his podcasts
- The video allegedly showed a scary clown. She denies it and comments that he was a Twitter user (McDoo) in a Halloween costume as a profile picture to smear and hurt him. This photo was from a post on her Facebook account in 2016 putting on makeup to celebrate Halloween.
-In July 2016 he put a very risque publication to the supporters who were going to vote for Trump. Dominion Voting Systems did not like his harsh words and in fact he left the account inactive for quite some time (already mentioned above). He would not agree to work with / for a company that has, in his opinion, a fascist drift.
-He hates Trump and his politics but, according to him, as a person he does not hate him. A contradiction that, even the judge, we would not understand.
-He was glad that Mr. Sackler died due to drug addiction and that he should have had a very painful death. The judge was annoyed by his words.
-In another Facebook post, on May 31, he published "Pigs to the slaughterhouse" or "Oi Polloi" or "Pigs for slaugther" referring to a song that he has scooped out many times. He supposedly talks about animal rights. He was actually referring to kill the cops.
- Another musical group mentioned "Dead Prez-cop shot" were on the Tonight Show.
- Also posted "Fuck the USA" on Facebook. The judge was also offended because we are old enough to publish these bad words on social networks.
- He is a supporter of the NWA
-He also published "Fuck the police" in which the judge was also offended.
-In one of the responses he is glad of the policeman that he was unjustly convicted of the murder of George Floyd
-In the last few minutes, both Coomer and his lawyer began to feel uncomfortable with the judge's questions.
-He finally assumes that having shared so much information on social networks, he only managed to feed those who shared his publications. He literally screwed up. He only needed to cry to the judge.
-In what he has been CEO, he asked his suppliers to be "the most transparent". We see the opposite.
-In his Facebook account he had 300 followers and he says that what he publishes are "private" publications. No post is considered private even between friends or family. Anyone can obtain such information. It is still a public social network. The judge leaves it reflected.
-It is not clear his involvement within the Antifa group, if he supports it or is within them and he considers himself very anti-fascist.
This is from the original PDF:
P R O C E E D I N G S
WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were taken pursuant to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.
* * * * *
THE COURT REPORTER: Will counsel please stipulate that the court reporter is authorized to administer the oath remotely; that no objection to admissibility of the deposition will be made based on validity of the oath; and that Dr. Coomer is who he says he is so that I may swear him in remotely?
MR. ARRINGTON: So stipulated on behalf of Ms. Powell and Powell, PC.
MR. CAIN: Plaintiff stipulates as well.
MR. ARRINGTON: And since there's so many people involved here, what's typically happened in the past, Jana, is you ask if anyone doesn't stipulate; and if not everybody -- if no one says anything, you can take that as an unanimous stipulation. Does anyone object to that stipulation? Okay.
ERIC COOMER, Ph.D., having been first duly sworn to state the whole truth, testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. ARRINGTON:
Q. Thank you for appearing this morning, Dr. Coomer. If you could please just state your name and address for the record.
A. Yes. Eric Coomer, Salida, Colorado.
MR. ARRINGTON: And before we get started, we're going to make a couple of things for the record. One of the things that we've been doing in all of these depositions is that an objection by one party will be counted as an objection by all parties. The other stipulation is that Mr. Cain is going to perhaps make some scope objections. And, Mr. Cain, if you would like to state, with that, what you mean by that.
MR. CAIN: Yeah, let me explain. Just for ease here, if I make an objection as to the scope of the question or the question is seeking privileged information -- so if I say "scope" or "privileged," that is an instruction by me to Dr. Coomer to not respond to that question because it would exceed the Court's order of September 7th with respect to this deposition. So just to reiterate, if I say "scope," that's an instruction to Dr. Coomer to not respond to that question because it's outside the scope of the order.
MR. ARRINGTON: Okay. And so stipulated. And the other thing that I would like to clarify -- (Distortion.)
MR. ARRINGTON: Mr. Rogers, can you --can you mute, please. Okay, thank you. So the other thing is that I anticípate you'll be making preservation objections as well, and the witness will -- unless you instruct him not to answer, will, after you've made your preservation objection, answer.
MR. CAIN: Yes, thank you. Absolutely.
MR. ARRINGTON: Okay.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) So let's get started. Dr. Coomer, typically, at the start of the deposition, we make some -- a record in terms of your capacity to -- to participate in the objection [sic] today. One of the things that has come to light is that you have, in the past, struggled with substances. And I wanted to know if you are, in fact, under the influence of any substance today.
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Okay. When is the last time that you ingested cocaine?
MR. CAIN: Objection. Don't respond to that question.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Okay. When was the last time you used heroin?
MR. CAIN: Objection. Don't respond to that question.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) When is the last time you used any mind-altering substance that might affect your ability to answer questions in your capacity today?
MR. CAIN: The same objection. Don't answer that question. He's indicated he's not under the influence of any substance.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) I'm going to share my screen. And I have put up what we're going to mark as Exhibit P --
MR. ARRINGTON: What's the next one? I think it's 18, isn't it, Jana, P18?
THE REPORTER: Yes.
MR. ARRINGTON: Thank you.
(Exhibit P18 was marked for identification.)
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) This is going to be marked as P18. This is a New York Times magazine article entitled: "He Was the 'Perfect Villain' For Voting Conspiracists." Have you seen this article before, Dr. Coomer?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you read it?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. When was the last time you read it?
A. Within the last week.
Q. Within the last week. Do you consider yourself familiar with its contents, then?
A. I gave the interview, yeah.
Q. Okay. So I'm going to go through this. It's going to be a fairly tedious exercise, but we're going to go through several sections of it and see if you said that to this reporter. It says in the very first paragraph, very first line: "It was already late on November 9." I presume that's November 9th, 2020; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. "... when Eric Coomer, then the director of product strategy and security for Dominion Voting Systems, left his temporary office on Daley Plaza in Chicago and headed back to the hotel." So you went to your -- to the hotel in Chicago on November 9th, 2020, correct?
MR. CAIN: Scope.
MR. ARRINGTON: I beg your pardon?
MR. CAIN: Scope.
MR. ARRINGTON: Okay. So are you going to have a scope objection for each of the times that we say something about this article, Charles?
MR. CAIN: No, I think the order says, as it relates to public statements, Plaintiff's prior public statements, that certain Facebook posts were fabricated. And so those questions don't relate to the fabrication of Facebook posts.
MR. ARRINGTON: Were you present at the hearing last Friday, the status conference, when the Court specifically stated that I was entitled to inquire about this article?
MR. CAIN: I'm reading her order.
MR. ARRINGTON: Okay. That's not the question I asked. Are you denying that last Friday, when you were sitting right there in front of her, she said that I would have the right to inquire about this article?
MR. CAIN: I'm not denying or confirming anything. I'm just reading her order.
MR. ARRINGTON: Okay. We'll call the Court right now. Off the record.
(Off the record from 11:40 a.m. to 11:47 12 a.m.)
MR. ARRINGTON: Back on the record.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Dr. Coomer, can you see Exhibit P18?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. Okay. And the first thing that's there, I've already read. So you told the New York Times reporter that on November 9th you were in Chicago and went to your hotel.
A. Yes.
Q. And --
MR. CAIN: And, Barry, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Just to clarify the record, I was able to find your statement -- well, someone on my staff did. And our off-the-record discussion was about the fact that I was fine with you asking Dr. Coomer if he made the statements that are attributed to him in the New York Times article. What you said to the Court --
MR. ARRINGTON: Back off the record. Off the record, Jana. I'm not going to have Mr. Cain waste my time.
MR. CAIN: I'll give you back this -- this comment. I'm not trying to waste your time. You can have the -- whatever the minute is that I'm talking. I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Okay? So just credit this to me, not you. And I think it's consistent with kindof -- both of what we were saying. So you said, Since the New York Times article, we would -- we agree with counsel that the article is absolutely critical in this case, and I intend, at the deposition next Thursday, to ask a simple question to Mr. Coomer -- Dr. Coomer, rather, I apologize -- did he say the things that are attributed to him in this New York Times article? And he can either state that he stated it or he didn't, but I don't see why we should not be able to ask that. And the Court said, Yeah, I haven't put any limit on your ability to get that information. And you say, Thank you, Your Honor. So I think that's consistent with what we're talking about, confirming whether he told the New York Times that information. So I think we're on the same page, and you can have whatever time I just took back credited to you.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Okay. We're in the third paragraph. I've highlighted some information that begins "prone to profanities." Did you tell the New York Times reporter that you were prone to profanities, with a sense of humor that could have blunt force?
A. No, that's not a quote from me.
Q. Okay. Did you tell the New York Times reporter you travel around the world for competitive endurance bike races?
A. Yes, we did discuss that.
Q. Did you tell the New York Times reporter that you have full-sleeve tattoos, one of Francis Bacon's "Screaming Popes," some Picasso bulls, and half-inch holes in your ears where you once wore what are known as plugs?
A. I discussed my tattoos. I don't recall discussing my piercings.
Q. Okay. Is that, in fact, true, that –
A. That I have piercings?
Q. Excuse me. You've got to allow me to finish my questions. Is it, in fact, true that you have full-sleeve tattoos and half-inch holes in your ears where you once wore plugs?
A. I have many tattoos. I have to actually measure the current diameter of the holes in my ears.
Q. Okay.
A. But they're about a half inch.
Q. Okay. So you watched -- let's go back to the next paragraph, and then the next one. It says the video you watched in your hotel room. So did you tell the New York Times or the -- we'll call him the Times reporter -- that you watched a video in your hotel room on November 9th of Mr. Oltmann -- or actually Joe Otto at the time?
A. Yes. To the best of my recollection, yes. That's -- that's the timeline we're talking about.
Q. And -- and when you were watching this video on November 9th, about 11 minutes, did you tell the Times reporter that about 11 minutes in, you heard Oltmann say your name, the conversation will be about a man named Eric Coomer, and he spelled it out?
A. No, I don't believe I said that to the reporter. I believe that she watched the video herself and gave -- and gave those time stamps and quotes.
Q. Okay. Did you, in fact, watch the video on November 9th and hear your name?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. We're on page 2 now. Do you remember -- and, again, on November 9th, watching this video in your hotel room, where Max McGuire read from an anonymous open letter that explained that "while there was no formal organization known as 'antifa,' the ideas the public associates with it are worth supporting" -- "the ideas the public associates with it," rather, "are worth supporting"?
A. Can you repeat that question?
Q. Okay. Do you remember on November 9th, 2020, hearing on this video you were watching, Max McGuire read from an anonymous open letter that explained that "while there was no formal organization known as 'antifa,' the ideas the public associates with it are worth supporting"?
A. I don't remember that exact quote coming from Mr. McGuire. I do have a vague recollection that they were going through various private posts of mine, one of which was a satirical Antifa manifesto, in quotes.
Q. What does "satirical" mean?
A. Tongue-in-cheek. Not serious.
Q. Okay. I've put up what's going to be marked as Exhibit P23.
(Exhibit P23 was marked for identification.)
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) I'm on page 9 of P23. Is this your Facebook post, Mr. Coomer -- or Dr. Coomer?
A. It's a repost that I made on my private Facebook, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. I did not author this. I reposted it.
Q. Okay. Which -- which part of it is tongue-in-cheek?
A. All of it.
Q. All of it? Okay. So let's go back to satirical. I've got a dictionary.com there. Actually, I've asked it for a definition of satirical. It's the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, et cetera. Can we use that as a working definition of satirical?
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: It's one of. I'm not going to -- there are a lot of other definitions in there. Dictionary.com is not the definitive source on definitions of terms.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Okay. So do you dispute that this is what you were using the Word "satirical" to mean?
A. It's part of. I wouldn't say it encompasses all of it, no.
Q. Okay. So let us go back to -- let's see what dictionary.com says tongue-in-cheek means, if it has one. No, it's not going to give us one. Whimsical. How about whimsical, joking, humorous, jocular? Is that what you meant?
A. Again, those are multiple terms. I'll pick out sarcastic, satirical, flippant, ironic, irreverent, blithe. Sure. Dry. Farcical.
Q. Okay. So tell me -- tell me which of those terms apply to this document? What in it is ironic, farcical, whimsical?
A. So, from my best recollection, this anonymous letter was posted the day after the current FBI released the statement saying that there was no such thing as an organized group called Antifa. So it's clear, when it says, Let us be perfectly clear Antifa isn't an organization. There are no memberships, no meetings, no dues, no rules, and then it goes on to then describe rules and leaders and structure. That, in itself, is a contradiction, which to me is satirical, tongue-in-cheek, irreverent, and trying to make a statement through that sarcasm.
Q. Okay. So you think the article, as a whole, is satirical. Are there any particular statements in the article, other than the ones that you've already mentioned, that you believe are ironic or not serious, tongue-in-cheek, whimsical?
A. I'd have to reread the entire article, which if you want me to do that right now, I guess I can, but I would say, on the whole, the document stands in and of itself as a satirical, sarcastic post.
MR. ARRINGTON: Off the record. We'll let you read this on your own time. When you're ready, we'll have you set down the page and we'll go. Go ahead.
MR. CAIN: I'm sorry, you're asking to go off the record?
MR. ARRINGTON: We're off the record. I'm not going to let him waste my time while he reads a document word for word.
MR. CAIN: No, I don't agree to that. I've done -- we've done this throughout all of the depositions, and I'm not going to have him study up on a particular document off the record.
MR. ARRINGTON: No, no. In other depositions, when someone has said that they needed to read an entire document, you and Mr. Skarnulis have said, Okay, we'll go off the record and he can read that document on a break. And now you're not giving me the same courtesy, Mr. Cain. And so --
MR. CAIN: I'm not being discourteous.
MR. ARRINGTON: -- we are going to have to reschedule this deposition because of this. But if -- I'm going to make a record. The witness has said he needs to read an entire single-spaced, four-page document before he can make any comments about it. And Mr. Cain is insisting that he do that on the record, knowing that I have one hour.
THE DEPONENT: No, no. Hey, I made my statements on this. I said, as a whole, I view that entire document satirical. I don't have to parse every single sentence. Don't need to. I view the entire document as satirical. There you have it. That's your answer.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) And so I get to ask the questions, Dr. Coomer, and one of the questions I'm going to ask is: Which of these things in there specifically are whimsical, farcical, tongue-in-cheek? And you said you needed to read the entire document before you can do that.
A. Every single line.
MR. ARRINGTON: Every single line. Okay. A four-page, single-spaced document before he can answer my question, which will probably take up the rest of my deposition time, reading this paper. And so if you're going to insist that he do that on my time, I'm going to make a record of it, and then we'll come back after the Court says you're being ridiculous. Is that what you're going to insist on him doing, Mr. Cain?
MR. CAIN: I'm not going to argue with you. If there's something specific in this document that you want him to comment on, then show it to him.
MR. ARRINGTON: That's what I did --
MR. CAIN: I'm sorry --
MR. ARRINGTON: -- I showed it to him. I asked him a question: What specific in this document is whimsical, facarical -- farcical, tongue-in-cheek, and he said he had to read the entire document in order to tell me.
MR. CAIN: You can do what you want, Barry. I'd suggest that you go on the record and ask your questions.
MR. ARRINGTON: Okay. If I can do what I want, we'll go off the record while he does what he needs to do in order to answer my question.
MR. CAIN: Nope, we're not going to do it. If there's something in this --
MR. ARRINGTON: And I'm going to ask for fees. I'm going to ask for fees.
MR. CAIN: -- if there's something in this document that you want to point him to that you need a comment on, then do it.
MR. ARRINGTON: No, Mr. Cain. I asked him a question about this document, and I asked him to point out what is satirical, whimsical, farcical, and he said he had to read the whole document in order to do it, and you're saying he had to do that on the record and waste everybody's time. And we're going to come back in a couple of weeks, whenever the Court reschedules this deposition, and we will do that.
MR. CAIN: You can do what you want. We're here to --
MR. ARRINGTON: You know what? We're going off the record while we call the Court. Off the record, Jana.
MR. CAIN: I thought we were off the record.
MR. ARRINGTON: I hope we've been off the record.
(Discussion off the record from 12:02 p.m. to 12:06 p.m.)
MR. ARRINGTON: Back on the record. We're going to, not adjourn, but recess this deposition pending the resolution of the issue about whether Mr. Cain is to waste half an hour of my hour while his client reads this document. And so --
MR. CAIN: You're mischaracterizing the situation.
MR. ARRINGTON: I'm characterizing it perfectly. And we will -- the Court has asked everybody to go onto its WebEx page, which is public record, at 12:15. So we will stand in recess.
MS. HALL: Barry?
MR. ARRINGTON: Yeah?
MS. HALL: Barry, I would also ask that we address the New York Times issue with the judge, as well, since she's already going to be on there.
MR. ARRINGTON: Well, I don't think that we have a dispute regarding the New York Times issue. Mr. Cain, who obviously already had the quote in hand, even though he was denying it, has specifically agreed --
MR. CAIN: Barry, look. I'm trying not to engage because this is ridiculous. But, no, I didn't have it. One of my staff folks pulled it while we were talking about it so I could look at it. Why would you say that?
MR. ARRINGTON: Well --
MR. CAIN: I didn't have it.
MR. ARRINGTON: Okay. I will take your word for that. You were not prepared.
MR. CAIN: No, that's not what I said.
MR. ARRINGTON: Okay. See you -- everybody will readjourn after the hearing – reconvene after the hearing.
(A recess was taken from 12:08 p.m. to 12:38 p.m.)
MR. ARRINGTON: Back on the record.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Dr. Coomer, we have Exhibit P23, starting at page 9, on the screen here. Do you see that?
A. Yep.
Q. Okay. We're going to call this the Antifa Manifesto for short. Is that okay? A. It's a document that has that title.
Q. Okay. Well, that's what we'll refer to it as -- for short.
A. It's an alleged -- it's an alleged manifesto.
Q. Okay. You can characterize it, if you'd like, but we'll refer to it as the Antifa Manifesto for purposes of our discussion today. Have you read the Antifa manifestation -- or Manifesto just now, word for word?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Just a few seconds ago, correct?
A. Well, now we're coming up on a few minutes.
Q. Okay. Is it fresh in your mind?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. All the statements are fresh in your mind?
A. I couldn't recite it verbatim, but, yes, I understand the gist of the article.
Q. Okay. So which of the statements in the document are satirical, the individual statements in the article are satirical?
A. Okay. If you want to ask me about every individual sentence, we can do that. So I will wait for you to read each individual statement, sentence, and then I will tell you whether I think it's satirical. But let's try to make this easy on everyone: I think the document, in totality, is a satirical document as laid out in the opening paragraphs where it clearly states: Also according to the FBI report that was released the day before --
Q. Okay. You're now engaging in a filibuster, wasting my time. So the question that's on the table and that you're not responding to, is which of the statements in the article --
A. The document is satirical.
MR. CAIN: Hold on. Object to the sidebar. The question is, which of the statements? So you're going to have to go through and identify which of these paragraph -- or sentences or paragraphs you consider satirical and do that for the entire document.
MR. ARRINGTON: No, I don't have to do that, Mr. Cain. So I'm going to ask –
MR. CAIN: No, you've asked the question, so Dr. Coomer needs to respond --
MR. ARRINGTON: Are you objecting? Are you objecting? Or are you just doing a Wild, Wild West 1980s style deposition here? Do you have an objection? If you don't, you need to be quiet, sir.
MR. CAIN: Yes, you're asking the question --
MR. ARRINGTON: You can't tell me how to run my deposition. You absolutely cannot do that. If you have an objection, you can put it on the record. Otherwise, you need to be quiet.
MR. CAIN: What was your question?
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Dr. Coomer, do you remember, from your perusal of this document, reading it just a few minutes ago, any specific statement that you thought was whimsical, satirical, tongue-in-cheek, farcical?
A. Yes.
Q. Which ones?
A. Okay. Let's start at the top. "Public Statements From 'Antifa' In Response To The Threats Issued By United States President Donald Trump," I find satirical.
Q. Okay. What's the next one?
A. "Dear Mr. Trump" I find satirical.
Q. Okay.
A. Please stop scrolling, sir. "Let us be perfectly clear: 'Antifa' isn't an organization. There's no membership, no meetings, no dues, no rules, no leaders, no structures. It is, literally, an idea and nothing more." I find that satirical because it's in direct contradiction of then President Trump trying to designate the organization that his own FBI said wasn't an organization, as a terrorist organization. So I find those statements satirical.
Q. You think that statement is untrue? You think Antifa is an organization?
A. No, I don't. I think the statement issatirical --
Q. Wait. Wait. Do you think Antifa is an organization?
A. No.
Q. Do you think that there is membership of Antifa?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you think that Antifa had meetings?
A. No, not that I know of.
Q. Do you think that people pay dues to Antifa?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Do you think that people -- that Antifa has rules?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Do you think Antifa has leaders?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Do you think Antifa has structure?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. So do you disagree with anything that that statement says, what we just read? It's absolutely true, isn't it, in your opinion?
A. No, I didn't say it was absolutely true. To the best of my knowledge --
Q. What part is untrue?
A. Sir, can I –
MR. CAIN: Let him finish his --
THE DEPONENT: Can I finish my answer?
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Which part of this is untrue that we just read?
A. Something does not have to be untrue to be satire, sir.
Q. Okay. And you can say that later on. I'm asking you: Which part of "Antifa isn't an organization. There's no membership, no meetings, no dues, no rules, no leaders, no structure," which part of that is untrue?
A. As far as I know, my personal knowledge, none of it is untrue.
Q. So you're -- even though those statements are true, you still think they're satirical?
A. Do you want to keep reading the document, sir?
Q. I've asked you a question.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. And there are other true statements in this document that you think are satirical, correct?
A. There are other statements in this document that I believe are satirical, yes.
Q. Okay. You changed the question. There are other true statements in this document that you think are satirical, correct?
A. Possibly. I'd have to continue to read each individual statement, and we can do that.
Q. Okay. So can you -- can you remember any untrue statement in this document that you just read?
A. Any untrue statement.
Q. I'm not asking you to read it again. I'm asking if you can remember it. You read it a couple minutes ago. Do you remember any untrue statements?
A. And I clearly said that I did not commit the entire document to memory.
Q. I understand that as well. What I'm asking you is: Do you have a specific recollection of any untrue statement in this document that you read a few minutes ago?
A. Yes, I believe --
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: -- the author, after stating that there is no membership, meetings, or leaders, then proclaims to be a leader, even though he is not a leader that can release a manifesto.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Let me ask you this: You don't think Antifa exists as an organization, do you?
A. No, I don't.
Q. And therefore --
A. I see no evidence of that.
Q. And, therefore, in your view, it would be impossible, by definition, for there to be an Antifa cult; isn't that true?
A. Correct.
Q. Let's move on. Okay. We're on page 2 of Exhibit P18. It says: "Coomer watched the video in shock." Did you tell the Times reporter that you watched the video of Mr. Oltmann in shock?
A. Since that's not in quotes, I'm not sure that that's an exact quote, but I was shocked watching the video.
Q. Coomer "is adamant that he never participated in any antifa phone call." Did you tell the Times reporter that?
A. Yes.
Q. And, of course, in your opinion, it's impossible to participate in an Antifa phone call because Antifa doesn't exist, correct?
A. I -- I also expressly stated multiple times --
Q. Sir, I've asked you a question. You can answer a different question when your counsel has his time. The question I have is: In your view, it's impossible to participate in an Antifa phone call because Antifa doesn't exist?
A. No, it's impossible because I was never -- I was never on a call with Antifa.
Q. Okay. So you're now saying that it's possible to have an Antifa call; you just weren't on it?
A. No, that's not what I said. I said I was never on a call with Antifa.
Q. Which is true, as a matter of definition, because Antifa doesn't exist, correct, in your view?
A. To my -- to my personal recollection, I don't know beyond my own sphere of day-to-day life. Got it?
Q. Don't know what?
A. Whether Antifa exists or not. I don't think it does because I've never come in contact with it. That's not the same thing as you're implying, that I have somehow made a statement that it's self-inflicted. I've never been on an Antifa call.
Q. Is it possible -- is it possible for you to be on an Antifa call?
A. I have -- me personally? No, because I'm not a member of that organization, if one exists.
Q. So it is an organization?
A. Not that I know of. That's why I'm not a member.
Q. But you don't believe that it does?
A. According to all of the evidence that I've seen, including from the FBI under the Trump Campaign, the Trump presidency, they said it doesn't exist. I'll give them the credit.
Q. Okay. So did you tell the Times reporter that before you left for work on November 10, you checked the settings on your Facebook account?
A. Yep.
Q. Did you wonder whether you had been careless?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you think that your privacy settings had ensured that your personal posts were only visible to your Facebook friends?
A. Yes, that's why I had them set.
Q. So everything in this paragraph, if you can just read this paragraph --
A. Well, why don't you read it. You read the first part.
Q. Okay. Read this paragraph out loud -- not out loud but to yourself, to the word "it," and tell me if it's true.
A. Yes, that's true.
Q. Okay. So did you tell the New York Times reporter that you had considered yourself a skinhead?
A. In the '80s, yes.
Q. So it's true that you told the New York Times reporter that you told -- that you considered yourself a skinhead at one time?
A. At one time, yes, in the past. Asked and answered.
Q. And so in -- in 2000 you tell -- did you, in 2004, write a climbing board message about your struggles with heroin and cocaine?
A. Yes.
Q. And how much they had damaged your life?
A. Addiction is a horrible disease, yep.
Q. Did you tell the Times reporter that you were -- in 2004 -- you were on the verge of bankruptcy and had lost your marriage and ended up in prison after being charged with several counts of driving under the influence?
A. I was actually never in prison. I was in jail.
Q. Other than that, you told the New York Times reporter everything that I just quoted?
A. Well, the ones that are in quotes, yes.
Q. You, in fact, did file bankruptcy, correct?
A. Like many unfortunate Americans, yes.
Q. So did you tell the New York Times reporter that, in 2016, you were on Facebook when you came across a few posts -- well, let's stop. Read to yourself from "In 2016" to "linking to both songs" and tell --
A. Everything in -- sir, everything in quotes are quotes from me that I said.
Q. So everything in article -- in Exhibit P18 that is attributed to you, you in fact told the New York Times reporter?
A. Everything that's in quotes are quotes from me, and that is true for the rest of the article.
Q. Okay.
MR. ARRINGTON: Jana, what time – how much time have we gone?
THE REPORTER: Well, up to the last break, you had been going 35 minutes, but then there were 13 minutes off of that. So let's see what we did since -- I have to go back to the recess and we came back on.
MR. KIMREY: Can we go off the record?
MR. ARRINGTON: Yes. Off the record.
(A recess was taken from 12:53 p.m. to 12:55 p.m.)
THE REPORTER: I have 36 minutes on the record.
MR. ARRINGTON: Okay. We've been going for about an hour and half, let's take a --
THE REPORTER: Oh.
MR. ARRINGTON: Oh, sorry. Just so you know, I have much less than 36 minutes.
THE REPORTER: Much less than 36 minutes?
MR. ARRINGTON: Let's take a 15-minute break. We'll go back on the record at -- I'm talking Mountain time -- 1:10. Okay?
MR. CAIN: Sure.
(A recess was taken at 12:56 p.m. to 1:13 p.m.)
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Dr. Coomer, I put upyour declaration, Exhibit A to your recent brief, and it talks about your Facebook posts. And in paragraph 19, it says, "In fear for my life, and in light of security professionals' assessment that the threats against me were legitimate, I immediately began deleting my Facebook posts." How many Facebook posts did you delete, Dr. Coomer?
A. I actually don't recall.
Q. How many Facebook posts did you have?
A. I do not recall.
Q. All right. Did you delete -- going back to Exhibit -- page 2, which we were looking at earlier as Exhibit 23, you've seen Exhibit 23 before, haven't you?
A. I have.
Q. This is a series of about 80 Facebook posts?
A. I've never counted.
Q. Okay. But you've seen it before and you're familiar with it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you deleted all these Facebook posts?
A. Actually, I'd have to -- I'd actually have to go back and look. I can't say that with any certainty.
Q. So there are some Facebook posts you didn't delete.
A. Well, I certainly didn't delete all my Facebook posts, no.
Q. Let's talk about a particular time frame. From May of 2020 to November 11th, 2020, are there Facebook posts you didn't delete?
A. That I did not delete? Absolutely.
Q. Okay.
A. Well, actually, maybe. I'd have to go back and look.
Q. So you don't know how many Facebook posts you deleted.
A. Nope.
Q. Okay. And so there might be a lot more Facebook posts on your Facebook from this time period of 2020 that you didn't delete.
A. No. No. That I can say without a doubt. I know that this is the sum total of Facebook posts that I had. I cannot tell you definitively which of these I deleted. None of the posts that I deleted are not contained in this file.
Q. Okay. So Exhibit P23 contains all of the posts that you deleted?
A. As well as other posts that I may not have deleted.
Q. I see. Okay. So --
A. So I -- sorry. I did not delete – as far as I can recall, I have never deleted a Facebook post until on or around November 9th or 10th.
Q. Did anyone at Dominion tell you to delete these Facebook posts?
A. No.
Q. Did you tell, as an executive of Dominion, that anyone should delete Facebook posts?
A. No.
Q. Are you aware of a Dominion policy that provides that posts of the Dominion employees, either for or against President Trump, should be deleted?
A. No.
Q. Do you believe such a policy does not exist?
A. Such policy does not exist as far as I know. Actually, that would be -- that would be ilegal under Colorado statute.
Q. To do what?
A. To have such a policy.
Q. I see. Okay. Your declaration goes on to say, "I generally feared for my own safety and was trying to remove information that I understood was being misconstrued and used to falsely suggest I was somehow involved in criminal conduct." So when you were deleting these posts, whichever ones you deleted, you understood that someone could construe those -- could misconstrue them as implicating you in wrongful conduct; isn't that correct?
A. No.
Q. Isn't that what you just said in your declaration?
A. No, that's slightly -- that's slightly parsed. They were misconstruing it to set a narrative. I do not and never have believed that any of this material could be used to construe that I was involved in a criminal enterprise, no.
Q. But you agree that it could be misconstrued, that it could be used as evidence misconstrued that you were engaged in wrongful conduct?
A. I think it could be used to lie about it, yes. Not misconstrued. Lied.
Q. Okay. Let's go back to your --
A. Yes, my affidavit says "misconstrued." Maybe I should have had another sentence. Misconstrued and then used to lie about a criminal conspiracy.
Q. Mr.
A. There is nothing -- I have never at any time felt that anything in that data, those posts, could ever be used to show criminal intent, no.
Q. Who just suggested that you modify your answer?
A. Pardon me?
Q. Who are you looking at? Who did you just look at?
A. I can turn my computer around. I looked at my screen, sir. I'm the only person in the room that I'm in.
Q. Is anybody communicating with you during this deposition?
A. No. My cats have meowed at me once or twice.
Q. So you -- we're looking at your declaration again. It says you understood that these Facebook posts could be misconstrued to suggest --
A. Falsely suggest.
Q. You're going to have to let me ask my own question, sir. You understood that these Facebook posts that you deleted could be misconstrued to suggest that you had been involved in wrongful conduct. Didn't you understand that?
A. So I will repeat my answer. Misconstrued and then used to falsely suggest. So I explained that earlier in my clarification. They could be misconstrued and then used in lies. That's not the same as being misconstrued on their own.
Q. Understood. And so this was evidence -- this was evidence that you were worried would be misconstrued and falsely used to implicate you in wrongful conduct, so you got rid of it, right?
A. I got rid of it because I was getting death threats, sir.
Q. Okay.
MR. ARRINGTON: Read the question back to him, Court Reporter. Listen very carefully to the question, Dr. Coomer. (Whereupon, the record was read back by the court reporter.)
THE DEPONENT: I deleted the Facebook posts, yes.
(Exhibit P19 was marked for identification.)
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) So I've put up Exhibit P19, which is a document called "Guest Commentary." Are you familiar with this document?
A. Yeah, that's in The Denver Post.
Q. You wrote it, right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And it says, towards the bottom: "It is unconscionable that certain fringe media personalities looking to increase personal notoriety, website traffic, and ad revenue would continue to prey on the fears of a public."Did you have anyone in particular in mind when you said that?
A. I had multiple personalities in mind.
Q. Which fringe media personalities did you have in mind?
A. I -- off the top of my head, Max McGuire, Joe Oltmann, Michelle Malkin, Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Eric Trump, Eric Metaxas, Clay Clark, Randy Corporon.
Q. Okay. And they were -- they were – you were aware from approximately November 9th of 2020, that they were making the Facebook posts that we just looked at in Exhibit 23 public, right?
A. Yes. On or about November 9th, yeah.
Q. And so that's what you were talking about in terms of these fringe personalities generating fear by trafficking those Facebook posts?
A. Nope.
Q. Okay. And then it says, "Additionally, any posts on social media channels purporting to be from me have also been fabricated." So you were saying that Facebook posts that --
A. No, I was not --
Q. You're going to have to let me answer my -- ask my questions. You can talk about what you want to say after the question is completed. Can we have that understanding, sir?
A. Yes, we do.
MR. CAIN: Object to the sidebar.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) So it says, "Additionally, any posts on social media channels purporting to be from me have also been fabricated." So you were accusing Mr. Oltmann of fabricating those Facebook posts, weren't you?
A. No, I was not.
Q. "I do not have a Twitter account and my Facebook account is not active." You were trying to imply that you didn't have Facebook accounts -- posts such as those exposed by Dr. -- or Mr. Oltmann, weren't you?
A. No, I was not.
Q. So you never had those particular Facebook posts in mind when you said that they were being fabricated?
A. Nope.
Q. Okay. What did you -- what social media posts did you have in mind?
A. So if you scroll up at the top -- and can we get a date stamp on this?
Q. No, I'm asking you a question. What social media posts did you have in mind?
A. Okay. So, actually, I'll look at the bottom. The date stamp is December 8th. On December 8th and the week preceding December 8th, when I was writing this op-ed, there were multiple people that had fake accounts that were using my profile pictures and my name and posting things. That is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote this. At the time that this article was published, my Facebook was completely locked down. It was actually locked down before this, but that's a different question that you haven't asked. So that is exactly what I had in mind. "Purporting" is an active verb in the current context and tense of when I wrote this article. It does not speak --
Q. And so -- are you finished?
A. It does not speak to any past Facebook posts. Current.
Q. Are you finished?
A. Yep.
Q. So were these fake social media posts in the national news, as far as you know?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Okay. But you knew that the Facebook posts that Mr. Oltmann had produced and circulated were in national news, right?
A. They were on -- I saw them on -- on his podcasts and various other outlets, yes.
Q. And you knew that they were in the national news.
A. I guess you'd have to define "national news" for me, sir.
Q. What do you think the word "national news" means, Dr. Coomer? Are you unfamiliar with that term?
A. Again, maybe define it.
Q. You know
A. Credible news sources?
Q. You have a Ph.D. Do you know what the phrase "national news" means?
A. I know
Q. We can do this all day long, if you want to.
A. I know what it's commonly conferred to mean.
Q. Give me -- give me your definition of "national news."
A. Credible news that's carried nationally.
Q. And so
A. I don't know if I would call a podcast national news.
Q. Okay. So you
A. I don't know if I would call -- I don't know if I would call random Twitter accounts national news, sir.
Q. Would One America News Network, which has -- which is broadcast nationally, would that be a national news source to you, or are you denying that One America News Network is a national news media outlet?
A. I think they have national -- they have national reach, yes. And I've got to be honest that this... (Audio distortion.)
THE DEPONENT:... at this point, I'm not sure -- sorry, I'm getting some feedback. I don't know if somebody needs to mute.
MR. CAIN: Let me look at it.
MR. ARRINGTON: What?
MR. CAIN: I'm seeing if someone is unmuted.
MR. ARRINGTON: Okay.
THE DEPONENT: At this point, I honestly can't say for certain that I saw the Facebook posts on something like OAN. Where I had seen them, from my recollection, were mostly on Mr. Oltmann's podcasts and random Twitter accounts and also vitriolic e-mails sent to me threatening my life. I can't say for sure if I ever saw those specific Facebook posts on a, quote/unquote, national media outlet.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) So your testimony here today, under oath, is that on December 8, 2020, you were unaware that the Facebook posts marked as Exhibit P23 were in the national news?
A. As I said, I cannot point to a single, quote/unquote, national media organization that I recall posting them. I know that they were out in the digital wild.
Q. So the answer to the question is, as far as you knew on December 8, 2020, they were not in the national news.
A. That's not what I said.
Q. Okay. So were you or were you not aware on December 8, 2020, that the Facebook posts marked as Exhibit P23 were in the national news?
A. I cannot recall a single media outlet that I saw those Facebook posts on.
Q. Did you have a general awareness that those Facebook posts were in the national news?
A. I had a general knowledge that they were out in the digital universe.
MR. ARRINGTON: Can you read the question back to him, Jana? (Whereupon, the record was read back by the court reporter.)
THE DEPONENT: I cannot recall any national news outlet where I saw those Facebook posts.
MR. ARRINGTON: Okay. That's the answer to a very different question than what I asked. Could you read it again, please, Jana?
MR. CAIN: Object to form.
MR. ARRINGTON: Listen very carefully to the question, Dr. Coomer. (Whereupon, the following record was read back by the court reporter: "Did you have a general awareness that those Facebook posts were in the national news?")
THE DEPONENT: Statements related to the Facebook posts, I was aware, were being discussed in the national news. I do not recall whether the actual posts appeared on any national news media outlets.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) And so it was important to you to address the Facebook posts that you knew were at least being referred to in the national news and rebut them on December 20th -- or December 8, 2020, wasn't it?
A. I have never denied that I authored those posts, ever.
Q. Okay. My question is this: It was important to you on December 8, 2020, to go into the media and rebut --
A. No.
Q. Okay. You've got to let me finish. It was important to you on December 8, 2020, to go into the media and rebut the idea that you had put those Facebook posts up; isn't that correct?
A. No, absolutely not. That was not the goal of this at all. I have never rebutted that I made those posts. Not once, sir. That was not the goal of that op-ed. The goal of that op-ed was to clear my name that I had no role in any alleged Antifa call, any alleged progressive action call, or any statements of trying to throw the election or doing anything of that sort. That was the expressed goal of that outlet.
(Exhibit P21 was marked for identification.)
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) So I've got Exhibit 21 on the screen. It starts "On Edge." It's from December 22nd, 2020. Are you familiar with this article from the Ark Valley Voice?
A. Yeah.
Q. Reading from the paragraph on the second page: "Later in the interview, Coomer reiterated that his Facebook account was dormant for about three and a half years." Is that correct, your Facebook account was dormant for about three and a half years?
A. Yep.
Q. "Until the George Floyd murder." So you opened up your Facebook account in May of 2020 in response to the George Floyd murder?
A. To the best of my recollection, yes.
Q. "At that point, he began posting here and there. He was not the author of the wild posts being circulated. He doesn't even have a Twitter handle."Did you say that to the Ark Valley Voice?
A. No, I did not.
Q. So you're saying that the Ark Valley Voice just made this up?
A. So I -- I reviewed the interview. There's an audio-video interview that accompanied this -- accompanies this article. I reviewed that last night. And at no point did I ever make that statement, that I was not the author of wild posts being circulated.
Q. Did you imply it, if you did not – if not expressly make it?
A. No. Again, I reviewed the audio-video. I will also point out that I believe the day after this article appeared is when we filed our original suit. And in there, I made clear statements that I did author those Facebook posts. So that would have been -- that would certainly supersede any setting the record straight.
Q. So you're saying your original complaint in this case admitted to authoring the Facebook posts?
A. As far as I recall, I believe that that's explicit in the original. Again, I don't have everything memorized, but that's my recollection. I've certainly never denied the Facebook posts. In fact, I've actually stood by them. That's in the New York Times article.
Q. Dr. Coomer, it's your testimony that you did not state in The Denver Post article that you had not -- that the Facebook posts that we've been talking about were fabricated?
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: That is a fair statement, yes. I -- I never said or implied that the Facebook posts that were clearly authored by me were fabricated.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Go back on the New York Times article. It says in a paragraph on page 9: "On December 8, Coomer responded to some of the attacks. In an op-ed for The Denver Post, he called out for the 'fringe media personalities' who 'continue to prey on the fears of a public concerned about the safety and security of our electoral system.' He also claimed that 'any posts on social media accounts purporting to be from me have also been fabricated.' And yet, Coomer had written posts that Oltmann had highlighted." So the Times reporter goes on to say, "Asked about the misleading language, Coomer concedes that his writing could have been clearer." Did you concede that your writing could have been clearer, Dr. Coomer?
A. It probably could have been clearer, yep.
Q. And do you agree with the Times reporter that your statement in The Denver Post was misleading, at best?
A. No, I don't.
Q. So it's your testimony that the Facebook posts that were in the media that you knew were out there and were being talked to -- talked about by people like Mr. Oltmann were not what you were referring to, but certain social media posts that you cannot specifically identify were?
A. I'm sorry, when did I say I couldn't identify those?
Q. Well, I asked you to identify one. What specific social media post did you refer to that has been fabricated?
A. I -- I think I was pretty clear. There were multiple accounts that were using my name and profile pics and posting things.
Q. Can you remember any specific post that you believe was fabricated?
A. I -- I've got a screenshot of at least one of them, yeah. So, yes, I can remember one, yes.
Q. Okay. What did it say?
A. I think something about being a scary clown, the best of my recollection.
Q. So do you remember any others besides the screenshot that you're looking at right now? A. I'm not actually looking at a screenshot, sir --
Q. So you --
A. -- it was from my recollection. But I do have screenshots, yes.
Q. So I thought you said you were looking at a screenshot of one of them. Okay.
A. No, I said I had a screenshot, sir.
Q. I see. Okay. So the only specific social media post that you can think of right now, sitting here today that you're referring to in the December 8th Denver Post op-ed was that one about the scary clown?
A. I cannot remember the specifics of multiple posts that had my name and profile picture attached that were posted, but I do know for a fact that there were multiple.
Q. Okay. Any others that you can think of other than the --
A. I believe I've --
Q. Let me finish. Let me finish. Any others that you can think of other than the, quote/unquote, scary clown post?
A. Not that I recall with specifics.
Q. Okay. So it's your testimony that all of these Facebook posts that Mr. Oltmann had made public and which you knew were out there in the digital wild and that were being referred to in the national media were not what you were trying to assure people about, but only the ones that were not in the national news that you yourself can't even remember were what you were talking about, right?
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: That's actually not what I said. I don't know if these posts were out in the digital world. I assume they were, at least as much as the other posts that were on the Twitter. So ...
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) You didn't know that, and now you're just speculating, right?
A. No, they were on Twitter, yes. I know that for a fact.
Q. Did you -- were you aware that any news media organization had picked them up and ran with them?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Okay. So all these social media posts that had not been in the news were what you were talking about and not the ones that had been in the news; is that what you're saying?
A. Yes. That's why I used the present tense in the verb. Not had purported to be me, but purporting to be me. That's the present tense when this article was written.
Q. I think it's a yes-or-no question.
MR. ARRINGTON: Can you read the question, again, Jana? (Whereupon, the following record was read back by the court reporter: "So all these social media posts that had not been in the news were what you were talking about and not the ones that had been in the news; is that what you're saying?")
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Yes or no?
A. Again, I don't -- I know that those posts were on Twitter. So when you say "not in the news," I can't speak to that. But I am speaking specifically to --
Q. You just said you didn't know whether they were in the news or not --
THE REPORTER: Oh --
THE DEPONENT: I'm sorry, you just interrupted me now.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Okay. Did -- let -- it sounds like you're backtracking. Are the social media posts -- are you aware of any news organization that had picked up the social media posts that you were, in fact, talking about on December 8 and ran with them?
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: No, I'm not.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Okay. But you were aware that at least some news organizations had picked up the Facebook posts that Mr. Oltmann had made public?
A. No, I said certain podcasts and Twitter accounts had. I do not recall whether the news media, national news media, as you put it, had actually posted those. I -- I can't recall that.
Q. But you do know that they were being talked about in podcasts, and at least Michelle Malkin had talked about them in her podcasts, which had national scope?
A. Yes, they were used to defame me, yes.
MR. CAIN: Object to form.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) I'll ask the question again. You knew that journalists with national following had used -- had referred to the Facebook posts that Mr. Oltmann had made public?
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: You're asking me to make a judgment on what a journalist is.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) So are you suggesting that Ms. Malkin was not a journalist?
A. I'm not sure I can make that determination.
Q. Okay. You knew she had a national following, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So you knew that Ms. Malkin, who had a national following, had referred to these Facebook posts, correct?
A. Correct.
MR. CAIN: Form.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) And yet you were unaware of any national news organization that had covered these fake social media accounts that you say that you were talking about on December 8th?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So can you explain why you were worried about the fake social media accounts and felt like you had to explain them in The Denver Post when they hadn't been picked up by anyone talking about them, whereas you were ignoring the Facebook posts that had been picked up?
A. Yes. It was the death threats.
Q. The death threats as a result of what?
A. Of those fake accounts.
Q. Okay.
A. Some death threats included screenshots of those people, yes.
MR. KIMREY: Mr. Arrington, my wife is summoning me, and I don't know why. Could we take a brief break of five minutes?
MR. ARRINGTON: Okay. We'll take a five-minute break. How much time has elapsed, Jana?
THE REPORTER: Let me look at the last starting time.
MR. ARRINGTON: Okay. Off the record. Thank you.
(A recess was taken from 1:47 p.m. to 1:56 p.m.)
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Dr. Coomer –
MR. CAIN: Are we on the record?
MR. ARRINGTON: Yes.
THE REPORTER: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Dr. Coomer, please describe the scary clown video that you referred to that you were -- you said you had in mind when you wrote the December 8th Denver Post piece.
A. I never said it was a video.
Q. Okay. Please describe the scary clown post that you referred to when you were talking about what you had in mind with respect to the December 8th Denver Post piece.
A. There was a Twitter user. I believe his real name was Larry McDoo.
THE REPORTER: Mc ...
THE DEPONENT: McDoo, M-c-D-O-O. He change his profile pic to be a photo of me from one Halloween costume, and he made several posts over many weeks under my name, purporting to be me at the time. And there were others that I, again, can't recall the details. At that time, late November, I was in great fear of my life, so I was moving around a lot and under a lot of stress. So I wasn't always good about --
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) You've got a narrative going that has nothing to do with the question. So let me just -- so you're saying the scary clown post was, in fact, an authentic picture of you, just being someone who was using it to impersonate you. Is that what you're saying?
A. No, that's not what I said. I said he was using an authentic picture of me as his profile pic and then making other posts under that.
Q. Looking at Exhibit P23, page 56, this is a -- purports to be a Facebook post made by you, Eric Coomer, on October 31, 2016. Is this, in fact, something that you did? Is this your post?
A. Yes. I've already stipulated to that, sir.
Q. And is that a picture of you on page 56?
A. In Halloween makeup, yes.
Q. Is this the scary clown photo to which you were referring that Mr. McDoo had used as his Twitter handle?
A. Yes.
Q. So when you say you were talking about present social media posts on December 8th, what does "present" mean? I mean, are you talking about --
A. Can
Q. Well, excuse me. Were you talking about posts that were at that moment going on, or was there sometime in the past that those posts had been going on?
A. Contemporaneous to when I wrote the article.
Q. So immediately as the article was being written, you're only talking about those posts?
A. Yes.
Q. It had -- so even -- even a post that had gone out the day before, you didn't have in mind?
A. No.
MR. CAIN: Form.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) We had a double negative there, so let me clarify. If a social media post had gone out the day before, it's your testimony that you did not have that social media post in mind because it wasn't contemporaneous with what you were writing at that moment; is that correct?
A. That's reasonable, yeah.
Q. That's -- well, I don't know if it's reasonable or not. I'm just asking if that's what you had in mind. Is that what you meant?
A. Yep.
Q. I'm looking at a Facebook post from Exhibit P23, page 72, dated July 21, 2016. Is this your Facebook post, Dr. Coomer?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. I want you to read it out loud into the record, please.
A. "Rant on," is essentially what the hashtag means. "Facebook friend land - open call ..." "If you are planning to vote for that autocratic, narcissistic fascist asshat blowhard and his Christian jihadist VP pic, UNFRIEND ME NOW! No, I'm not joking. I'm all for reasoned political discourse and healthy debate - I'm looking at you, Geoffrey Cushing-Murray, Gus Munem, Benjamin Rice – I disagree with you" there on -- "you three on many philosophical grounds but respect your opinions. Only an absolute FUCKING IDIOT could ever vote for that wind-bag, fucktard FASCIST RACIST FUCK! No bullshit, I don't give a damn if you're a friend, family or random acquaintance, pull the level, mark an oval, touch a screen for that carnival barker ... UNFRIEND ME NOW. I have no desire whatsoever to ever interact with you. You are beyond hope, beyond reason. You are controlled by fear, reaction and bullshit. Get your shit together. "Oh, if that doesn't persuade you, FUCK YOU! Seriously, this fucking ass-clown stands against everything that makes this country awesome! You want in on that? You deserve nothing but contempt." Hashtag untrump me. "I think that hashtag might go viral." Hashtag taking a stand. End rant. "No really, unfriend me!" Untrump me. You are beyond hope. Really end rant. Actually, I added that word. "Edit, I put the end-tag in the wrong spot ..." "2nd edit, these opinions are rational, and completely my own. They are based in reason and highly credible. Though they are not necessarily the thoughts of my employer, though if not, I should probably find another job ... Who wants to work for complete morons? None of my personal opinions affect my professional conduct or attitudes. I am non-partisan. I am not, however, willing to stand by and watch this great country be" -- can't read those under the Bates tag -- "saying something, anything." "2nd edit, these opinions" -- oh, here we go, it repeats.
Q. Right here is where you left --
A. Yeah, "I am not, however, willing to stand by and watch this great country be taken over by fascists without saying something, anything."
Q. So you said that these thoughts don't necessarily reflect the thoughts of your employer. That's Dominion Voting Systems, correct?
A. At the time, yes.
Q. Though, if not, you should probably find another job? Is that what you meant to say?
A. I think that's what's written there, yes.
Q. So it's your view, if the thoughts expressed in this Facebook post did not reflect the thoughts of Dominion Voting Systems, that you should probably find another job?
A. If I thought I worked for fascists, I would quit.
MR. ARRINGTON: Jana, could you read the question, please? (Whereupon, the following record was read back by the court reporter: "So it's your view, if the thoughts expressed in this Facebook post did not reflect the thoughts of Dominion Voting Systems, that you should probably find another job?")
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Is that true?
A. I think -- I think I answered that.
Q. But is the statement -- is the statement true? That if the thoughts -- that it was your view on the date of this Facebook post that if the thoughts you expressed in it were not shared by Dominion, you should get another job.
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: If I thought I worked for fascists, I would quit.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Okay. You've avoided the question again.
A. I don't think I have.
Q. It's a yes-or-no question. Yes or no --
A. Yes, I don't work for fascists.
Q. Yes or no: It was your view on the date of this Facebook post that if Dominion didn't share the thoughts you expressed, you should get another job?
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: I'll answer once again: Yes.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Okay.
MR. KIMREY: Is that because your answer --
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) It was your view at that time --
A. If Dominion were fascist, I would quit.
Q. Okay. So the answer is yes. Okay. So it was your view that if Dominion did not think that only an absolute fucking idiot could ever vote for Donald Trump, you should get another job?
A. No, if they were fascists.
Q. Okay. So now you're saying that you don't think that Dominion -- Dominion -- let me back up. Now your testimony is that you don't necessarily think you should get another job if Dominion didn't think that only an absolute fucking idiot could vote for Trump?
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: I -- I clearly stated that if they were fascists, I would get another job.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) No, you didn't say that at all.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. So let me ask you this: Do you believe everything you say here in this post that we just read?
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: I stand by it, yes.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) So it's your -- it's your position sitting here today, in 2021, that only an absolute fucking idiot could ever vote for Donald Trump?
A. Yes.
MR. CAIN: Form.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) You hate Donald Trump, don't you, sir?
A. I do not like him at all.
Q. Let me ask the question again: You hate Donald Trump, don't you, sir?
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: I do not like him at all.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) I'm going to ask it one more time: Do you or do you not hate Donald Trump?
A. I do not like Donald Trump, sir.
Q. You've avoided the question. I didn't ask --
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Okay. I did not ask you whether you liked him or not. I asked you whether you hated him or not. Do you or do you not hate Donald Trump?
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: I'm not sure I would characterize it as such, no. I do not like Donald Trump or his policies.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) You dislike him intensely, don't you?
A. I would say it's intense.
Q. Intense enough to be characterized as hate?
A. I'm not sure about that.
Q. You're not sure, but you may hate Donald Trump; you just don't know; is that what you're saying?
A. No, I said I wasn't sure if you would characterize it as that.
Q. So you're just going to sit here today and say you don't hate -- do -- is it your testimony today that you don't hate Donald Trump?
A. Again, that's -- that's a characterization I'm not ready to agree to. I dislike Donald Trump intensely, yes.
Q. So you're unwilling to sit here today and say you don't hate him?
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: Again, hate -- hate's a different connotation.
MR. ARRINGTON: Read the question, please, Jana. Listen very carefully to the question, sir. (Whereupon, the following record was read back by the court reporter: "So you're unwilling to sit here today and say you don't hate him?")
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: Your double negatives are really confusing a lot of times.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) All right. So let me ask --
A. No, I would -- I would say that I don't hate him. I hate his policies and his fascist tendencies.
Q. So you think he's an autocratic, narcissistic fascist, asshat blowhard, but you don't hate him?
A. I absolutely think all of those are true, yes.
Q. But you don't hate him?
A. Again, I wouldn't characterize it as that.
Q. Let me ask you this: Could you -- do you agree that someone reading this post on page 72 of Exhibit 23 could be excused for thinking that you hate Donald Trump?
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: I won't speculate on that.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) No, I'm not asking you to speculate. I'm asking you if --
MR. CAIN: You are asking that. Form.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) I'm asking you if a reasonable person could read the -- in your view, could a reasonable person read what you wrote on page 72 of Exhibit P23 and come to the conclusion that you hate Donald Trump?
MR. CAIN: Form. Foundation.
THE DEPONENT: I am neither a psychologist nor a grammarian, so I am not qualified to say how somebody might read this.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) I understand. I'm not asking you to speak as a psychologist or a grammarian. I'm asking whether you think, Dr. Coomer, whether you think a reasonable person could read what's written on page 72 and come to the conclusion that you hate Donald Trump?
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: Again, I'm not qualified to -- to make that assessment on somebody else's reading.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) I'm not asking you about somebody else's reading. I'm asking you about your reading.
A. No, you weren't.
Q. Yes. I'm asking you if you believe that a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that you hate Donald Trump after reading what's on page 72.
MR. CAIN: Asked and answered.
THE DEPONENT: You're asking whether I can get into the mind of somebody else who is not me, reading this. I cannot do that.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) So you're saying that someone may or may not come to the conclusion that you hate Donald Trump from reading page 72; you just can't tell?
A. May or may not.
MR. CAIN: Form.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) That's your testimony under oath today?
A. Yeah.
Q. That somebody could read this and say, Yeah, that guy doesn't have any problems with Donald Trump; he loves him, right?
A. That's not -- that wasn't the question, sir.
Q. Okay. Okay. I've put up page 4 of Exhibit P23, a July 6th Facebook post. By the way, did you delete the post on page 72?
A. No idea. I'd have to go back and look.
Q. You don't know whether you deleted that or not.
A. No.
Q. Do you have a specific recollection of any of the Facebook posts you deleted?
A. No. I'd have to go back and look.
Q. But you deleted -- do you know how many -- do you know how many Facebook posts you deleted?
A. No.
Q. It could be dozens, it could be three; is that what you're saying?
A. We covered this earlier. I do not recall how many I deleted. I can say with absolute fact under oath that nothing I deleted does not appear here.
Q. So up to 80 Facebook posts you deleted; is that what you're saying?
A. No, that's not what I said. I said I don't recall the number I deleted.
Q. So we're on page 4 of Exhibit P23. Please read that into the record starting with "Okay, okay."
A. "Okay, okay. It was technically June, but I found out recently, and I SOOOO love a Good Christmas in July ... Christmas in June? I dunno, fuck it. Good riddance, you shitbag - I'm GLAD you're dead. I hope it was painful, but you were probably dosed to high-heaven with your own supply."
Q. Who were you talking about?
A. Jonathan Sackler, the architect of the opioid crisis. One of them.
Q. So you were glad that Jonathan Sackler was dead and you hoped his death was painful?
A. As a personal sufferer of the opioid crisis --
Q. Mr. Coomer, I asked you a question. You --
A. Yes. Yeah. I was happy. Yep.
Q. Do you think that the average, typical corporate executive, high-salaried, high-ranking corporate executive in his 50s, would be happy that someone died and hoped they'd died in a great deal of pain?
MR. CAIN: You don't have to answer that question. I do have a form objection. I think it's harassing and irrelevant. If you want to answer it, Dr. Coomer, you can, but you don't have to.
THE DEPONENT: One, I wasn't acting in the capacity of a high-ranking employee of a company. These were my personal statements based on my very personal experience with opiate addiction. Yeah.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Yeah what?
A. I think these were reasonable statements.
Q. That a typical high-ranking executive in his 50s would not say --
A. That's not what I just said.
MR. CAIN: Form.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Okay. What my question is -- it's very -- it's very specific – you say in here, in your brief, that a lot of what Mr. Oltmann said was absurd on its face because no high-ranking, high-compensated executive would say something like that. I'm asking about this one. Would a high-ranking, highly compensated executive say something like that?
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: I've seen lots of evidence of high-ranking executives from many companies doing reprehensible and illegal things. This is not illegal. So I would say the bar is very low.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) So you think the typical high-ranking, high-compensated executive in his 50s would say something like what you said on page 4, the typical --
A. It wouldn't be out -- it wouldn't be out of the question, nope.
Q. No, I'm not talking about whether it's out of the question on the fringe. I'm asking if it's a typical thing for a high-ranking, highly compensated executive in his 50s to say.
MR. CAIN: Form.
THE DEPONENT: So, again, I can't speak to that. I think it's reasonable based --
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) Based on what?
A. I think it's reasonable based on the evidence I've seen of high-ranking executive officials that have done lots of things. I actually don't know that many high-ranking executive officials in their 50s to know enough to posit an answer to that.
Q. So it's your testimony sitting here today that you really can't speak to what's typical of high-ranking, highly compensated executives in their 50s?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So let's go on with this. We've got page 17. It says -- this is a May 31 Facebook post. Did you post this, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Is this one of the ones you deleted?
A. Again, I'd have to -- I'd have to cross-check. I don't know.
Q. You don't know. Okay. It says, "Oi Polloi - Pigs For Slaughter." Do you know what "pigs for slaughter" is referring to? Are they talking about literal pigs, in your view?
A. They could be.
MR. CAIN: Form.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) It could be? So you think that -- that "Oi Polloi - Pigs For Slaughter" is about the slaughterhouse industry?
A. I actually don't know. It's been a while since I looked at the lyrics.
Q. Okay. So it's your testimony, sitting here under the oath -- under oath today that you think "Oi Polloi" might be thinking about the actual slaughter of the actual pigs? Is that what your testimony under oath today is?
A. No, I said I didn't know without seeing the lyrics.
Q. You're saying that you -- it's your testimony under oath today that you have no idea whatsoever what the phrase "Pigs For Slaughter" means in this context, unless you were able to look at the actual lyrics? Is that your testimony under oath, sir?
A. For this song? Absolutely.
Q. Okay. So as far as you know, they could be talking about pigs in the slaughterhouse industry?
A. Again, I don't know. It's been a long time --
Q. That's your testimony --
A. -- since I've listened to this song.
Q. Do you recall ever hearing the song about actual pigs being slaughtered in an actual slaughterhouse?
MR. CAIN: Form objection. Good Lord.
MR. ARRINGTON: That's highly unprofessional, Mr. Cain.
THE DEPONENT: Actually -- actually, I think -- yeah, I think so. Way back. And it was more of a metaphor. It's kind of like Animal Farm. I seem to recall -- and, again, you're going to probe me and -- I do have a vague recollection of actual – and particularly some punk rock songs, mostly out of the animal rights' wing of punk rock -- that did talk about actual slaughterhouses, yes.
Q. (By Mr. Arrington) So it's your testimony, on page -- that page 17 might be referring to an animal rights' movement song?
A. I don't think so, but, again --
Q. Okay. Then why did you bring that up?
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario