Introductory Post: Lying liar gets sued

 

Recently, I have been thinking on and off about doing a bit more with “political” writing. In the process, I decided that the best way to do it was to start a new blog. In the meantime, I was doing my own research on a very interesting story. In the last few weeks, an individual named Eric Coomer filed a lawsuit against a number of parties alleging that he had been targeted for death threats based on an unsubstantiated accusation that he had been heard claiming that he made “sure” that Donald Trump lost the election, as well as certain social media posts critical of the president. What interested me most is that this story in turn was based solely on a statement by one person who claimed to have infiltrated an “antifa” conference call without recording the exchange, preserving a record of how he was invited to take part, or reporting the matter to anyone until after the election.

Since the lawsuit itself is already on record, I will instead dive right in to the alleged phone call. It all comes from a partisan podcaster named Joe Oltmann, independently known as the leader of FEC United, an organization of paramilitary counterprotesters and vigilantes. Per his very hazy account, he was taking part in the call when he overheard an individual named “Eric”, and then personally asked who “Eric” was. By his narrative, another participant freely volunteered that it was “the guy from Dominion”. Then he claimed to hear a further exchange in Eric freely responded to a question about the upcoming election with the off-hand comment, “Trump is not going to win, I made sure of that.” Despite this ominous comment, Oltmann only mentioned it in mid-November, at which point he explicitly urged followers to make sure “Coomer has no peace”.

At this point, I will come out and say what others will not: The entire story as recounted certainly never happened. The whole thing reads like nothing so much as the counterculture “urban legend” that undercover cops are required to identify themselves when asked. In reality, of course, dissidents usually make a point of keeping their identities secret from each other, even when there is little fear of official persecution. They would not volunteer information about a member without that individual’s consent. They certainly would not take kindly to a newcomer interrupting a conversation to ask for names. What should have been the nail in the coffin is Oltmann’s very open and personal hostility to Coomer, by all indications based solely on completely routine (and relatively mild!) criticisms of President Trump.  While he has insisted he only identified the Dominion director after the supposed call, he couldn’t possibly have known how many other people could have been “Eric from Dominion”, and he clearly never cared. (If anything, an experienced investigator presented with his “evidence” would have started with a list of Dominion employees who were already disciplined or fired.) The simplest and only necessary explanation is that Oltmann and his followers knew of Coomer the whole time, and developed the story accordingly.

The one thing that might raise doubt is whether that Oltmann was the victim as much as the perpetrator of a hoax. What otherwise skeptical sources have already allowed is that he overheard someone else’s joke, but we should be past taking any element of the story at face value. Quite simply, an individual like this would have as much chance of getting into a significant “antifa” gathering as an NBA star would of getting onstage a KKK rally. The only scenario that might be worth considering is that he was “trolled” by a few nobodies who knew who he was the whole time. I counter, however, that all the obvious weaknesses in his story can be accounted for simply as an insurance policy so he could pretend to retract it if he faced legal action. What I will not only admit but offer as the likeliest explanation is that he heard the whole yarn from sources even less reliable and stable than himself, and then claimed it as his own experience. Again, the most economical explanation is that the story was tailored to justify harassment against Coomer.

Meanwhile, one can see ample evidence of a “dry run” for the hate campaign in local coverage of his organization in October by local media such as Colorado Springs Indy, The Colorado Times Recorder and Colorado Politics. It can be noted to start with that these articles further confirm that Oltmann would be well-known and easily recognized among any actual, self-identifying “antifa” in the area, having appeared and spoken many times both at specifically right-wing events and counter-demonstrations where his group was in direct contact with local leftists. Even more problematically, this is exactly the time frame Oltmann claimed to have overheard the supposedly ominous phone call, but the only quote regarding the election is a vague complaint about poll watchers. However, there is already a claim of “infiltrating” antifa, not by Oltmann himself but by an associate named John Tiegen, a veteran involved in the Benghazi siege. More specifically, Tiegen claimed to have personally worked his way into the ranks of left-wing protesters, where he invariably reported preparations for vandalism and other mayhem that always ended with the would-be rioters dispersing. On critical but not incredulous consideration, this is what would be expected if protest organizers and participants had already identified Oltmann and members of his group as hostile observers or provocateurs, regardless of their original intentions.

A further wrinkle to emerge is that Oltmann already had a history of accusing his critics of “antifa” associations, as recently recounted in detail by Erik Maulbetsch at the Recorder. According to both Oltmann and others, he set out in October 2020 to “infiltrate” antifa groups expressly to discredit journalists who criticized him and his organization. This was in fact a clear dead end even apart from the certainty that any of his efforts would be quickly detected. On one hand, both “antifa” representatives and third-party observers have repeatedly confirmed that the group/ movement has little or no central organization or leadership. On the other, any journalist worth the name would already have a much wider circle of connections and associates than usual, making casual contact with any number of unsavory groups a likely but hardly damning development. Meanwhile, per Maulbetsch’s own account, a semi-formal interview with Oltmann included being directly asked, “Do you support antifa?”, a nearly meaningless question that seems to have left the journalist simply befuddled. If this ham-fisted confrontation is anything to go by, it becomes hard to comprehend how this “investigator” could ever have had a mutually intelligible conversation with the opposition, let alone get far enough to listen in on an incriminating communication.

What is truly interesting here is how all this might unfold in court. The most significant and potentially problematic part is that Oltmann was only named as a co-defendant, with most of the others being right-wing outlets that interviewed or quoted him about his accusation. Predictably, most of the parties named will either issue retractions or deny liability for claims that were correctly attributed to another source. Such arguments are likely to bog down the case, to the point that it would arguably have been better to name Oltmann alone. (In full hindsight, Tiegen should have been sought as a “witness” to his activities.) Either way, any useful result would depend on Oltmann being placed under oath. At that point, if the question was asked whether he really took part in the obviously fictional “antifa” call, he would be legally required to give a truthful answer. However, given the scenarios I have outlined, this would mainly establish who really told the story first, which in practice is exactly where memories tend to get hopelessly hazy. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that Coomer will ever get what he truly deserves, an admission from Oltmann that the “antifa” call itself never happened.

If there’s an upside to all this, it is that the far-right conspiracy theorists accusing Coomer have long since been embroiled in far bigger problems of their own making, something I witnessed in the time I’ve been writing this essay. While Coomer himself has credibly reported ongoing harassment based on Oltmann’s accusations, the most significant developments have been right-wing media retracting conspiracist accusations against Dominion, or just blaming antifa for other things. Once the inauguration is complete, it is predictable that conspiracist chatter over the election will drop off far more steeply. (Watch me have to say if I’ve been proven wrong…) The problem is that “moving on” is how the dishonest and irresponsible avoid accountability. The personal malice shown toward one particular, semi-private individual is the one thing that might make this different. I wish the best for Mr. Coomer, and I personally call on Oltmann to tell the truth before this gets to court.