- President Trump and his
allies have lost 59 lawsuits alleging election fraud. However, that hasn't stopped
the President or his fans from propagating totally
insane conspiracy theories involving dead communist leaders and the voting machines who loved them. Unfortunately, for President Trump, this information is false. But you can imagine that perpetrating the falsity of these facts
is really bad for business if you are Dominion or Smartmatics, some of the manufacturers of
some of these voting machines. But could this be one of the rare cases of honest to goodness defamation? Well, maybe. And Smartmatic and Dominion
are filing lawsuits worth billions of dollars. But before we continue,
there are obviously some wild accusations being made, and there are billions
of dollars at stake. And we here at Legal Eagle take these accusations very seriously. In fact, Smeagol at the
Legal Eagle legal department is forcing me to display this disclaimer. Please read it carefully. By continuing with this
video, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions. Sponsored by Ting Mobile. Hey, Legal Eagles. It's time to think like
a defamation lawyer. Legal Eagle has covered
defamation lawsuits many times. Remember the good old days of Devin Nunes versus Devin Nunes' cow, Tulsi Gabbard versus Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump versus
the New York Times. Well, all of those cases got dismissed because they were just not good claims. It's really hard to make
a viable defamation claim. However, when the leader
of the Western world makes claims about voting
systems calling them rigged, he empowers other people
to repeat those claims even when they're patently false. That's why the pro-Trump media
ecosystem is totally awash in conspiracy theories involving
dominion and Smartmatic, two of the companies which provided election support in 2020. And it was only a matter of time before those companies and
their employees fought back. And one lawsuit has been filed, several other lawsuits
have been threatened and Trump-allied media is retracting those claims like crazy. So let's take a look at
the suits that Dominion and Smartmatic have filed
and threatened to file against President Trump
and his surrogates. But before we dig into those
lawsuits, a word of warning. It's very easy to get
caught up in cheering people using the institutions of
government to stifle speech that we don't agree with. But the First Amendment
exists for a reason. It protects speech that we like and speech that we don't like. And in the past, when
people have filed suit against the New York Times, or when President Trump filed suit against a tiny TV station in Wisconsin, it was clear that these
defamation suits were bogus because those plaintiffs
would never be able to meet their burden. It's hard to make a defamation claim and for very good reason. But just because we think that
what's being stated is false, or we might think that the
people who are propagating these falsities are, let's
say misinformed at best, that doesn't mean it
should be any less hard for someone to be able to prove a defamation claim against them. It's my personal opinion, but I think that the First
Amendment is quite a good thing in our society and we should be very, very
reluctant to cheer on anyone making a claim that could
end up stifling speech that we just don't agree with. And additionally, in another context or even in this particular context, this is a corporation
trying to stifle criticism against that corporation. It just so happens that in
this particular context, it seems like the criticisms
are all in bad faith and are completely made up and false. But with that warning out of the way, let's talk about the
lawsuits that have been filed with regards to the Dominion
and Smartmatic voting machines. The first lawsuit that was
filed was by an employee of Dominion, which is a company
that makes voting machines. In 2020, Dominion partnered with more than 1,300
jurisdictions in the United States to provide various
elections support services. The plaintiff is Eric
Coomer, he's the director of product strategy and
security for Dominion. And if you haven't heard of Dr. Coomer, it's probably because you
weren't spending enough time consuming pro-Trump
media like Newsmax, OANN and your uncle's Facebook page. Because there he's
practically a celebrity. In the aftermath of Biden's victory, conspiracy theories about Dr.
Coomer spread like wildfire all over conservative media. This started with a story
told by an "entrepreneur" and podcast host Joseph Oltman, who claims he eavesdropped
on an Antifa conference call where Antifa activists
discussed their evil plans. During this conference call, Oltman says that someone who introduced
himself as Eric from Dominion stated he would ensure the
election went to Joe Biden. Here's Oltman telling Eric Metaxas that he infiltrated Antifa. - I had a group of people,
and we infiltrated Antifa. - Then Oltman discovered that there was a Dominion
employee on the line, allegedly. - You know, this guy
named Eric started talking and then somebody asked who Eric was. And they said, "Eric's a Dominion guy." - Then Eric from Dominion
said he was going to just, you know, rig the entire election. - And I'm paraphrasing this, right? So I didn't write down
word for word what he said, but Eric responds, "Don't
worry about the election. Trump's not gonna win. I've made effing sure of that." - He made effing sure of that. Effing means very, very. - Oltman offered no explanation of how he allegedly infiltrated the call, nor does he have a recording of it. Nevertheless, Oltman decided that the Eric was actually Eric Coomer. He then decided that this was proof that Dr. Coomer may have
just rigged the election for Joe Biden. And within days, the hashtags, #EricCoomer, #ExposeEricCoomer and #ArrestEricCoomer were
trending on social media. And of course, President Trump published similar false statements on Twitter, alleging that Dominion had
interfered with the election. Eric Trump tweeted a photo of Dr. Coomer and alleged that he rigged the election. The other defendants published
Oltman's false allegations about Dr. Coomer and Oltman appeared on YouTube videos, radio
programs, and television shows. The hosts of these programs
repeated the false allegations. And for example, Michelle
Malkin interviewed Oltman and started tweeting his
allegations as if they were true. Quote, Trump's campaign
lawyers identified Dr. Coomer in a nationally televised press conference where they described him as "a vicious, vicious man",
who is "close to Antifa". And falsely claimed that Dr. Coomer, "specifically says that they're
going to fix this election" and that he "had the election
rigged for Mr. Biden". So seemingly in response
to these allegations, Dr. Coomer sued all of the
defendants for defamation and intentional infliction
of emotional distress. He also sued them for civil conspiracy, alleging they coordinated with each other to spread lies about Dr. Coomer himself. Okay, so those are the facts
as alleged in the lawsuit. But before we dig into
this particular lawsuit, let's examine what you have to prove to actually make a claim for defamation. Now, as you probably know, defamation is making a provably
false statement of fact about a person or a company. Yes, companies can be
the victim of defamation. But what are the elements? What do you have to prove to make a defamation claim in court? Well, first, the content
of the communication has to be factual in nature. An opinion is not defamation. So if you get on Yelp
and write a savage review of Popeye's chicken
sandwich, this is an opinion. It's not fact. The internet may ratio you for preferring the Chick-fil-A sandwich, but Popeye's can't sue you
for failing to recognize the factual truth because there is no factual truth to recognize, most opinion is protected under
First Amendment free speech. But on the other hand, if
you write a bad review, because you say that your chicken sandwich had a human finger in it, well that's not an opinion anymore. That's a verifiable provable fact. And if that's false, it could give rise to a claim for defamation. Which takes us to the second element, the content of the
communication must be false. Someone can say something
mean that might cause harm to another person's reputation. Just because you've harmed
someone's reputation doesn't mean that you
have committed defamation, but that reputation harming
statement must in fact be true. If it is true, it doesn't
constitute defamation. If it's false and you have
impugned someone's character, it's possible that that might give rise to a defamation claim. That's why we say the truth is an absolute defense to defamation. It does get a little bit wonky because truth is both
an affirmative defense, something the defense can prove to defeat a claim of defamation, but it's also an element that
the plaintiff has to prove. They have to prove that
the original communication was in fact false. But that takes us to the third element which is that the content is made with either negligence or actual malice. When a private person
brings a defamation claim, they need to only show
negligence by the party who published the
communication or statement. In other words, that
the person was negligent in saying something
that was in fact false. But you probably know that public figures must prove an allegedly
defamatory statement was made with what's called actual malice. Now actual malice has absolutely nothing to do with maliciousness. If you take anything away from this video, it is that actual malice is
not about the maliciousness with which someone repeats
something that's false. Actual malice is just a legal term of art. That means that the person
making the statement must have known that
the statement was false, or that the person making the statement made it with reckless
disregard for that truth. In other words, that's
a pretty high burden to show that somewhere was
either knowingly saying something that was false or
recklessly saying something that was false. Thus, if you are a public
figure or a celebrity, a politician, and often
a private business, you're subjected to prove
in your defamation claim by this higher standard of
proof called actual malice. Which takes us to the fourth element, which is that the content
could be defamation per se. This is also something that
is often misunderstood. In most states, there is
a subset of communications that are considered so
harmful that damages to an injured person's
reputation are assumed, and the plaintiff doesn't
need to prove damages. Generally, if you make
a claim for defamation, you have to prove damages. But for old, old reasons in
law, there are some categories that are just assumed that a
person's reputation is damaged if you say it. So for example, in New York, there are four categories of speech where it's defamation per se. Statements that accuse someone of committing a serious crime, statements that injure a
person's business or profession, statements that someone
has a loathsome disease, and a statement that a person is unchaste. Yes, really, unchastity is
one of the kinds of things that are defamation per se. If you are accused of being unchaste, you don't have to actually
prove your damages in order to make an actual
claim for defamation. And regarding damages, there's generally three different kinds. This goes for just about
any civil claim you can make but it's relevant when
it comes to damages. First, there's special damages. Those are generally economic, things that the plaintiff
actually has suffered. So in the context of defamation, that can mean loss of income. It could mean actual loss of business as a result of the defamation. And then there's general damages. These are things that are harder to put an actual monetary price tag on. Things like emotional
damages, pain, and suffering or loss of consortium. Ask your parents about that one. And then there's punitive damages, things that aren't really related to the injury suffered itself but are meant to actually
punish the defendant. Things that are meant to prevent them from doing things again. And then finally, let's talk
about some of the defenses that you can raise to
a claim of defamation. Obviously, you can show that the statement that you made was true,
or substantially true and that will generally
defeat a claim for defamation. You can also show that
the statement at issue is one of opinion,
rather than one of fact. So with that background, let's analyze some of the claims here. Defamation is a highly
fact-specific claim to make but here we can probably
make some generalizations. First of all, the claim
communications here seem to be factual in nature. They accuse Mr. Coomer of actually doctoring voting machines. That doesn't seem like an issue of opinion or of hyperbole. That seems like a
verifiable fact that could or could not be true. It seems like it's false. While it's highly
contentious on social media, the reality seems to be that
these election-related claims are almost all made up. And with respect to the
infiltrated Antifa phone call, that seems to be pure imagination. Sometimes you can raise the defense that the communications don't actually involve the person
claiming the defamation, but here the social media posts and the actual news reports
mention Dr. Coomer by name here. So it seems like these communications are about him specifically. And of course, until these news reports and social media posts ran, Dr. Coomer was not a household name and it would be very difficult to prove that he was a public figure. And thus, he may benefit
from the lower standard, not the actual malice standard but simply the negligence
standard, because he could prove that he is a private person
rather than a public figure. So the Eric Coomer defamation lawsuit is the main one that's been filed so far, but it looks like others
are on the horizon from both Dominion and Smartmatic. Now, Smartmatic and Dominion
have started filing suit but it doesn't look like
they've sued everyone that they've threatened, yet. But it's probably only a matter of time until all of these clowns
receive a summons eventually. And part of the reason that
they might not have filed so far is that many states have laws requiring a plaintiff to
first request a retraction before they can recover
certain types of damages in a defamation lawsuit. And both Dominion and Smartmatic are basically scorching the earth with their cease and desist letters, and making certain news
organizations bend over backwards to try and limit the damages
that they might suffer in terms of a defamation lawsuit. And generally, if you
want to know how strong your defamation claim is, you can tell based on how quickly the potential defendants roll over and give you a retraction. And it's these kinds of
demands for retractions that can lead to hilarious results like even Newsmax muzzling Mike Lindell, and an anchor walking away from him after he started talking about some of these unverified accusations. - Can I ask our producers,
can we get out of here please? - You know that when even
Newsmax is afraid to touch you, number one, you're a complete whack job. And number two, the retraction
letter is doing its work. And retraction law is a
really interesting wrinkle in the sort of defamation lawsuit area. Generally states that have retraction laws require a plaintiff to
request a retraction or notify the defendant of the allegedly defamatory statement before they can file a lawsuit. The request or notice must be made within a reasonable period of time after publication of the
allegedly defamatory statement. And if the defendant
responds by airing a frank and full retraction of
the defamatory statement, the defendant will be entitled to a reduction in
certain types of damages. In a majority of states, a
retraction prevents a plaintiff from recovering punitive damages unless a plaintiff can prove malice. In those states, even if
the plaintiff proves malice, a timely retraction can mitigate most of the punitive damages. And some states put the
onus on the plaintiff to be able to recover certain damages. And some states put the
onus on the defendants to be able to limit their damages. So for example, in California,
you have to send a letter or else you'll only get economic damages. But in New York, if the defendant prints or airs the retraction, then the defendant can limit the damages to economic damages only. So a retraction doesn't
end the plaintiff's lawsuit but it just reduces the amount and type of damages that are
available to the plaintiff. So here Dominion and
Smartmatic have sent letters to several people and organizations
which made false claims about the 2020 election. Smartmatic and Dominion have demanded that the media organizations
retract their false claims. So let's look at some of
these retraction letters. The first is the Smartmatic
vs Fox and Newsmax. Smartmatic's letter to Fox
News accused the network of repeatedly airing false
and defamatory statements about the company. Smartmatic said in the letter
that Fox news had aided, "a concerted disinformation campaign" presenting unsupported claims
that the company conspired to change the results of the
vote to benefit Joe Biden. Although most of the
statements were made originally by Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, the allegations were repeated
by Fox hosts like Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro, and Maria Bartiromo. The funny thing is, Smartmatic
did not provide any services to swing States, nor did it tabulate votes outside of Los Angeles. But Fox News said Smartmatic
was literally designed to change votes without detection and then send them out of
the country for tabulation. And Newsmax and OANN had pushed the voting company conspiracies
even harder than Fox News. - We should make up stories because that'd be far more interesting. - Fellas, are you sure
all of this is e-ethical? - Newsmax claim that
Smartmatic had relationships with all of the right-wing
scariest monsters; the Clintons, the Pelosi family, George Soros, and Hugo Chavez. Yet after they received the legal letter, they aired a detailed retraction. Here's a Newsmax host reading
the script like a hostage. - Newsmax has no evidence to the contrary. Dominion has stated the
company has no ownership, relationship with the Pelosi family, the Feinstein family, the Clinton family, Hugo Chavez, or the
government of Venezuela. - Newsmax also posted an
article on the website. You can check out the scope
of the admissions here. So these retractions may
in fact reduce the damages that the news organizations face. Though a court does require
that a retraction be made in the same manner as the
original defamatory statement. So it's not clear that it's getting quite the same sort of coverage that the original allegations received, which was basically
nonstop on these channels for days if not weeks. Of course, if the news organizations repeat the false allegations, it might undo the retraction
and a claim for defamation might have no limits
in terms of the damages that they can seek. And now let's turn to the potential case of Smartmatic and Dominion versus OANN, because the OAN Network has its
own interesting relationship with defamation claims. - We should make up a bunch of reports about how dangerous it is to be alive. - Oh boy! - For one, YouTube
suspended the OAN Network for posting false
information about COVID-19. But on top of that, OAN knows its way around defamation suit. At least it knows what it's like to be on the losing side of a defamation claim. OAN actually sued Rachel
Maddow last year for defamation claiming that she called the network, paid Russian propaganda, which I guess Maddow actually did. Apparently an OAN
contributor was moonlighting as a writer for Sputnik,
the Kremlin's newspaper. The lawsuit was dismissed because the statement
was Maddow's opinion. But here predictably, OAN has doubled down on its groundless election fraud claims. The company responded to the
Smartmatic and Dominion letters which demanded the OAN
preserve all documents related to the defamatory statements or potentially defamatory statements, which is a pretty standard
litigation tactic. By demanding that Smartmatic
and Dominion preserve all documents related to George
Soros, which is interesting. And some including the New
York Times have speculated that if this defamation
suit were successful, it might be enough to shut down OAN. And then there's the potential case of Dominion versus Sidney Powell. In some, Sidney Powell talked
about Dominion's connections or purported connections
with Nicolas Maduro, the company's use of
algorithms to flip votes, the founder saying his machines can change a million votes for Biden, its relationship with Smartmatic, its relationship with George Soros, its relationship with Hugo Chavez, kickbacks it paid to the state of Georgia, its interference in the Hillary
Clinton 2016 primary win, and training election workers all over the country to flip for Biden. All of these allegations
are demonstrably false says Dominion and most rational people. And Powell has stated
them as if they were true. She wrote about all these
things in blog posts, went on TV and radio and repeated them, appeared at rallies and made
false statements in court. And to further amplify her lies, she tagged Donald Trump on Twitter, ensuring that her claims would
be heard around the world. Now, after sending Sidney
Powell a cease and desist letter for the ages, Dominion
eventually did file a suit against her and Dominion
sought $1.3 billion in damages. But more on that later. Dominion is proceeding
as if it will be treated as a public figure. Therefore, the complaint
pleads that Powell acted with actual malice. As evidence of malice,
the company accuses her of lying about every facet
of the vote tallying process. Dominion claims this is defamation per se because Powell described
Dominion as the perpetrator of, "The greatest crime this century if not the life of the world." Her comments inspired others to say that Dominion committed, "the greatest crime in the
history of the country." But as we've talked about,
the difficulty for Dominion is proving that she
acted with actual malice. Because to do so, they
have to prove that she knew that what she was doing was wrong rather than she just was acting
crazy or using hyperbole. And the company's
strategy here is to argue that she's in the game for the money. That's why the emphasis that
she fundraised off the effort, that she seems to have a
501(C)(4) group to get the money and that she ignores all of the evidence disproving her claims because
(cash register ringing). As for hyperbole, if Powell
actually confined her comments to things like this was the biggest heist in the history of the world, she'd probably have a good argument that it was clearly
meant as an exaggeration or even opinion. But Powell's problem here is
that she spouts statistics and things that feel like facts, and her comments even found their way into President Trump's phone
call with Brad Raffensperger which I covered in a
video a few weeks back. He claimed that the votes were shredded and flipped and massive
numbers of dead people voted, and that Dominion took out
the innards of the machines and replaced them with, I dunno, a frozen yogurt machine or something. But Powell makes these same claims despite the fact that they've
been completely disproven. And not surprisingly Dominion says that all of this
naturally severely damaged the company's reputation,
and undermined its business. The company would likely have solid proof that Powell's claims have
damaged its reputation, and almost certainly have correspondence from existing clients
or prospective clients saying that they won't
continue to do business with Dominion because of all
of these crazy allegations. Certainly it seems clear that
the fury over these claims have created serious pressure
on local elections officials to cut ties with Dominion entirely. So for these reasons, dominion
seeks punitive damages under both DC and Georgia law because they claim that the statements show willful misconduct,
malice, wantonness, and conscious indifference to the facts. And speaking of legal action, it's criminal how few people
are actually subscribed to this channel. I was looking through
my analytics and only a small percentage of viewers
are actually subscribed. So if you find this video
interesting or informative, hit that subscribe button. And just when you thought
all the fun was over, SmartmaticC dropped a complete bomb, a lawsuit seeking $2.7 billion against Fox, Fox news, Lou
Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro, Rudy
Giuliani and Sidney Powell. I covered this very briefly before but this is a somewhat unusual complaint. And it's very, very clear that the lawyers for Smartmatic know that this is as much a PR play
as it is actual litigation. And the intro to this
particular complaint, the document that starts the
litigation is pretty epic. It starts with one paragraph. The earth is round. Two
plus two equals four. Joe Biden Kamala Harris
won the 2020 election for president and vice
president of the United States. The election was not
stolen, rigged or fixed. These are facts. They're
demonstrable and irrefutable. And then the lawsuit goes
into paragraph number two. Defendants have always known these facts. They knew Joe Biden and Kamala Harris won the 2020 U.S election. They knew the election was not stolen. They knew the election
was not rigged or fixed. They knew these truths just as
they knew the earth is round and two plus two equals four. And then the complaint goes
on in paragraphs 12 and 13. With this action, Smartmatic says: Enough. Facts matter. Truth matters. Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to spread disinformation about Smartmatic. They lied and they did so
knowingly and intentionally. Smartmatic seeks to hold them
accountable for those lies and for the damage that
their lies have caused. Smartmatic brings 16
claims against defendants for defamation and disparagement. Smartmatic seeks to recover
in excess of 2.7 billion for the economic and
non-economic damage caused by Defendants' disinformation campaign, as well as punitive damages. Finally, Smartmatic seeks a declaration requiring Defendants to
fully and completely retract their false statements and implications. So a couple of things about
this Smartmatic complaint. First is that Dominion filed
a suit for 1.3 billion, Smartmatic filed a suit for $2.7 billion and those are very, very big numbers. And if these allegations are true, they probably suffered
a great deal of damages. But the thing about these
particular complaints, and any complaint for that matter is that these numbers
are completely fanciful. You can basically put any number you want in these complaints. So just because they put
these billions of dollars in damages into the thing that
they're asking for the court, it has no bearing on the reality. It might be true, but most likely, it's an inflated number
designed to attract attention. And obviously these
numbers attract attention. And it's impossible not to recognize that sometimes litigation
is as much about PR as it is about actually
getting the damages that you're owed. Now, the second thing is that these suits are probably stronger than
your average defamation suit. In the Smartmatic complaint, there are over 250 pages of allegations. It's clear that these lawyers
have done their homework and they're loaded for bear. And they talk a lot
about the same statements and allegations that we've
already covered in this video. Now in performative defamation suits that really don't have
any basis in law or fact, like for example, what
Devin Nunes tends to do, you get very broad
allegations where the lawyers characterize the statements,
but don't actually say what the statements are
because the claims are BS. But here the lawyers
painstakingly put every statement front and center verbatim
into the complaint, which lends credence to the idea that these lawyers actually believe that the statements they're
making accusations about are potentially defamatory. Now, the third thing is
that these complaints would probably withstand
a motion to dismiss. If you've watched this
channel, you probably know that a motion to dismiss is
taking all of the accusations the plaintiff alleges as true,
it assumes them to be true. It's just testing whether it
would be legally sufficient if it was true. And if you get past the motion to dismiss, that means you're into discovery where you get to ask
questions and demand documents from the other side. And when you're in that universe, that can be really, really
bad for the defendants because broad categories of things that you don't want disclosed probably are disclosable in discovery. And then finally, the
fourth thing is that, at least in the Smartmatic suit,
there's 16 causes of action which normally would give me pause. Because you often will just
generate causes of action in claims to try and throw
everything against the wall and see what sticks. But here, all of the causes
of action are for defamation or disparagement of false statements, because they're just talking
about different categories of topics of statements that were made. So it's not like they're claiming 16 different laws were broken, but rather mainly two
sets of laws were broken. It's just, there are different
categories of statements that fall into those different buckets. So the fact that there are 16 claims doesn't really give me as much pause as it would in a different context. And then finally Smartmatic
is seeking punitive damages amongst other kinds of
damages, which is interesting, because punitive damages are hard to get. You have to show particularly odious and willful conduct to
get punitive damages, because those damages are
meant to punish the defendant, to make sure they don't do it again. Regular damages are just
to compensate the victim. And if Smartmatic is successful
in proving its claims, punitive damages might not be outside the realm of possibility. This suit is by no means a slam dunk. It's probably stronger than average when it comes to political
defamation suits. But if it were me, I would
not want to be Fox News or any of the Fox News
hosts who have been sued as a result of these claims. But if you published some
of this election nonsense, and Dominion sues you, then you'll need to call a good lawyer. And I'm afraid these
guys might not be lawyers for very much longer. And the best way to make those phone calls is with Ting Mobile. I personally switched to Ting Mobile. Why? Because of this? Yes, this is a real bill that I got. But Ting Mobile has three brand new plans that make sure that that
will never happen again. You can talk in texts for just $10 a month and pay for the data you use. Get 5 gigabytes for $25 a month. And even unlimited for just $45 per month. Switching plans is actually really easy because you can keep
your same phone number, and use pretty much any phone. And the service is great too, because Ting partners with
several massive networks. Very possibly the exact same network that you're using right
now, but at a huge discount. Now, contractually, I can't tell you which ones they contract with because I always respect contracts. But I've noticed no difference in my service since I switched. So whether you use 2 gigabytes
or 20 gigabytes a month, there is a perfect Ting plan
for you and your family. And if you don't use that much data, and you're around wifi all the time, which most of us are, considering we're probably
working from home, you still have the flexibility
of Ting's original plan, which can literally save
you hundreds of dollars. Literally hundreds of dollars. Because Ting's flex plan
gives you the option to pay for just what you use. It's a smarter, cheaper
version of the same plan that they've always had. And now they're just adding
unlimited versions as well which are still way cheaper
than everybody else. So if you want unlimited data, go crazy. So if you'd like to try out Ting Mobile, go to legaleagle.ting.com and
you can use your last bill to compare just how much you would save. And Legal Eagles will also
get a $25 service credit that could cover literally
months of service. So just click on the
link in the description or go to legaleagle.ting.com
to save hundreds of dollars on your cell phone plan. Plus clicking on that link
really helps out this channel. But do you agree with my analysis? Leave your objections in the comments and check out this playlist over here with all my other real law reviews, where I talk about all the
crazy things that happened with the election and
the Trump administration. So click on this playlist,
and I'll see you in court.
u/abcbri for the win! Thanks!
L e a g l e
9:32 sponsored by VirtuaGirlsHD ;)