Laura Loomer faces a potential libel per se lawsuit from George Farmer regarding her false allegations that he drove with a 0.26 blood alcohol level, totaled a truck, and possessed a firearm while intoxicated in Nashville. These accusations fall under criminal conduct and loathsome disease categories, presuming damages without proof of economic loss despite public figure protections. While jurisdictional conflicts between Florida and Tennessee laws exist, the permanent nature of online posts on X creates strong evidence for Farmer or Candace Owens to claim injury to profession and reputation, suggesting Loomer's "radioactive" rhetoric may be eroding her political alliances. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Libel Per Se Explained00:15:00
My friends, as many of you love to learn, as do I, and with all of this talk about litigation and this litigious talk about lawsuits and libel and defamation,
the new accusations from Laura Lohmer against George Farmer, and is it true and what if it's not, and I want to provide for you a little bit of, well, a look at kind of the basics of how.
Libel works.
And there's one thing I find is interesting regarding libel per se.
Excuse me.
Popcorn.
Libel per se.
I'll be all right.
I just get choked up whenever I talk about this.
Libel per se.
By the way, there's libel.
L I B E L.
And before we begin, libel is recorded defamation, slander is spoken.
Slander, you never even hear of somebody slander somebody, but it technically means it was never recorded.
In the old days, it meant written down, but then with audio tapes and movies and radio and recordation took on a whole new meaning.
So anything that is recorded, and why is that important?
Because it can be referred to again.
Slander is transitory, ephemeral, it's right there.
At that place, at that setting, at that moment among these people, that's it.
You got it?
This is different.
This is recorded.
It lasts forever.
You can go back and watch it.
And that's the whole notion of permanency makes it liable.
A little bit more permanent, hence the term permanency.
All right?
You got that one?
Now, what Laura Loomer is doing, and this may inure to the benefit of Candace ultimately in terms of a plaintiff's point of view.
Laura Loomer seems to be absolutely positively just hell bent on this behavior.
Now, if she's right, if Laura Loomer says the most horrible things about Candace or her husband or her family, and it's true, it's not libel.
It's not defamation.
It might be something else.
Some jurisdictions still have something about.
Kind of like exposing, exposing like prior private light.
Or they remember when Hunter Biden sued on they were revealing information about him.
It was like shining a false light or something.
It was almost like a violation of it's more of an arcane statute and it doesn't come to me now as I think about it, but that's not defamation.
There's also something which is a secondary.
Kind of a one two punch.
If the libel doesn't work, hit them with intentional inflection of emotional distress where somebody did something to hurt you.
It was to shock you.
It doesn't really fall under the issue of something that was false.
In fact, most of it's true.
Because remember, true stuff is necessary.
True.
Extortion.
All right, we're getting into the weeds.
But what I'm saying is let's just keep in mind this.
Now, what I want to talk to you about is something.
Which is very interesting.
And the purpose of this address will be libel per se.
This is presumed liability without proof of special damages in the context of accusations of criminal conduct and alcoholism and other loathsome diseases, which we'll talk to you, with application to potential defamation claims arising from public statements made from Laura Loomer and others against an anent and concerning George Farmer.
That's.
The subject.
Let us begin, shall we?
In the United States, defamation law, this is very, very critical.
Defamation law is the doctrine, or rather, the doctrine of libel per se.
By the way, it's libel, not L I A B L. Anyway, libel occupies a kind of a unique little niche, a doctrinal niche.
Niche, if you will.
It derives from the common law distinction between libel, which is written or published or recorded defamation, and slander, spoken as I said.
And it reflects the historical judgment, which kind of is still today, that certain false statements are of such a nature, such an accusation that are so inherently injurious to reputation that harm.
And thus, general damages may be presumed as a matter of law.
Let me finish this.
This is legal speak.
Without the plaintiff's obligation to plead or prove special damages, quantifiable economic loss.
What does that mean?
Normally, you're going to have to say, well, so and so said this about me, and it's false.
Okay, did it?
Did it damage you?
Huh?
Did it damage you?
Did it damage me?
Yeah.
Did you lose a job or were you suffering the ignominy and the shame and the opprobrium of people that.
Well, no, but he said it.
Oh, wait a minute.
Did anything bad happen?
Not really.
Well, then we're going to have problems.
There's got to be some kind of damage, something.
Something.
It's like what if somebody said something about you in France or let me forget it, Washington State?
You knew nothing about it.
Nobody hears it.
They said it, it was false.
You didn't know it until five years later.
It never even made it.
Were you damaged?
Well, not really.
See, sometimes there are some times, the law, you've got to be hurt.
It's called damnum obsque injuria, a wrong without an injury.
There's no such thing as, this car almost hit me.
You almost hit me.
Though, again, I'm always correcting myself negligent infliction of emotional distress, which we're not going to get into.
But for the most part, you got to prove you were damaged.
However, when the subject matter spoken is of these categories, well, that's different.
The phrase is almost kind of like.
It's a, it's a, there's, there's kind of like a strict liability aspect of it.
Now, remember something New York Times against Sullivan.
Let me throw that one in there.
Once the statement is shown to fall within a recognized per se category, which I will explain, and to have been published, the plaintiff, who in this case would be Mr. Farmer or derivatively perhaps one could say Candace, they need not demonstrate actual harm to reputation or pecuniary loss to recover compensatory damages.
Modern constitutional laws and overlays.
Have kind of tempered this rule.
Remember, if you're a public figure, if you're a public figure and you're bringing a lawsuit against somebody else, you're in the public's eye.
You're always saying, Look at me, look at me, talk about me, talk about me, here I am, here I am, here I am, talk about me.
And then somebody says something in response, You defamed me.
Well, you're a public figure.
And because you're a public figure, you could call a press conference, you could respond.
A lot of people think this is bullshit, but anyway, but the rule is it because New York Times against Sullivan, you, as the plaintiff, have to show a little bit more, not just negligence on the part of the person who said it, but the fact that they did it with malice.
Knowing, knowing it was wrong, knowing it was fake, knowing it was wrong, it was false, the statements made, and, or, I should say, having a reckless disregard for the truth.
I don't care, just say it, publish it.
When the plaintiff is a public figure, Or the matter is of public concern, we get some issues.
That's really not going to apply here.
But I want you to remember this.
Always remember this.
If you're Joe Blow, Joe Six Pack, Josephine Six Pack, whatever that means, and somebody libels you, slanders you, defames you, you don't have to prove really anything other than the fact that they said it.
Maybe negligence, just negligence.
They said it.
They weren't thinking, they didn't.
If they meant to say it and meant to harm you, that's even easier, but you just merely have to show that.
If you're somebody else, if you're, you know, Britney Spears or whoever the hell it is, you're different.
You can sue, but you've got to prove that the person who said this, unlike for ordinary folks, you being a public figure, have to show that they really either did it deliberately to hurt you with malice or they didn't care.
Okay, you got that?
Now, we have this thing called, everybody in law school knows it, the restatement.
The restatement of torts.
This is the kind of like the Bible, it's a dictionary of all of the terms.
And the restatement, second, I believe, shows that in most jurisdictions, a statement is, this is important, libelous per se.
P E R S E, two words, right?
Libelous per se.
If its character, It's defamatory character that you know what is said is apparent on its face and falls within one or more of the traditional categories.
Okay, this is important.
Meaning, if this is if it falls within one of these categories, don't even worry, we're going to presume you were harmed.
You don't have to tell anybody how it affected you, whether you lost any money, any kind of emotional drain.
Under these categories, you just prove they said this and it's wrong and it's a lie and it's, you got it.
Don't even worry about it.
It is liable per se as a matter of law.
The first one is imputation of criminal conduct, meaning to allege somebody of criminal conduct, especially a crime involving moral turpitude, a felony or a serious misdemeanor, drunk driving.
Throughout driving, particularly when there is accompanied by allegations of property damage or weapon possession or leaving the scene, all have been held to qualify.
Courts have said, and they reasoned, that such charges impute and carry a serious breach of public safety and moral responsibility.
So if that's the subject matter, Laura, and you say that, Laura Loomer, and it's false, All they have to do is go to court and prove you said it, and that's it.
The jury says, okay, they've proved the damages.
Now they have to then assess how much it's worth and all that.
But normally you have to show, well, our business dropped.
You know, the greatest example of showing businesses in libel is, you know, with all this Yelp and stuff that people use, these travel advisors, sometimes they'll say, I give it four stars or three stars, or it was terrible, the soup was cold.
Sometimes people have gone so far as to say things like, there was a dead rat in our soup, and it was false.
That's really bad.
Things like that.
You could say our business dropped.
It's very easy to show drops in business.
But in this case, imputation of criminal conduct, moral turpitude, oh, that's it.
The second one is imputation, again, to impute, to allege, of a loathsome, that's my favorite, a loathsome or socially stigmatized condition.
Historically, it was VD or leprosy.
Later on, it was AIDS.
Today, it might be this is weird.
It might be maybe mental illness, which is weird because you're going to say, well, there's no stigma to mental illness.
Oh, yeah, really?
Well, do you mind if I call you mentally ill?
Well, maybe not.
So the idea was that leprosy, oh my God, leprosy.
You even intimated somebody had leprosy or a VD.
Oh my God.
But in many jurisdictions, it's extended also to chronic alcoholism, habitual drunkenness.
When the accusation is made portrays the individual as a danger, irresponsible, you know, more than just drinking too much, but I mean, really like a dangerous drunk.
Older authorities and certain state courts have treated the label, you know, drunkard or claims of a serious drinking problem as actionable per se, because they tend to expose the subject to hatred, ridicule, or contempt.
So, when you say he's a drunk and he's this and he's that, I mean, this is, and you're, you, and it never happened?
Damages and Criminal Imputations00:15:18
Oh, man.
Now, remember, remember, New York Times against Sullivan.
Let's assume, knowing that it's false or reckless disregard for the truth, if it's proved, if it's proved that these facts were somehow either fudged or adulterated or, you know, fixed, alleged, altered, not necessarily illegally obtained, but.
If for the wrong guy with the wrong hair color, you can say, This isn't George Farmer, this is somebody else, you know, that kind of thing.
Oh, all right.
So you got it.
So, first of all, it's a crime, imputation of a crime.
Number two, imputation of a loathsome disease.
Now, next one injury to trade, profession, or office.
Statements that would tend to deter and make third parties stay away from associating with you in business or public life.
That's kind of like, but something that really is like this guy is untrustworthy.
He's dangerous.
He's a slob.
He's violent.
He's something that goes beyond something we think, damn.
Did you say this?
Did you prove they said this?
Yeah, that's it.
You don't have to prove how it hurt you.
We're going to impute this to you.
We're going to, per se, we're going to say this is libel, per se.
And the next one is imputation of unchastity.
This is accusing a woman of unchaste character.
Historically, this was kind of gender specific, but now it's largely kind of obsolete in most jurisdictions to call some woman a tramp or a harlot or some courtesan, some strumpet, some mere tricks, some, well, I don't know, virago, a slattern.
You see, now when a statement satisfies any of those categories, the law presumes both falsity.
Which is, of course, subject to rebuttal.
You can say, oh, no, no, that's true.
And general damages, reputational harm, emotional distress, et cetera.
Punitive damages remain available, punies, as we call them, upon a showing of common law malice, you know, ill will, reckless indifference, which oftentimes comes into play, tantamount or tandem to the New York Times against Sullivan public figure case.
I don't want to complicate it.
In public figure cases, constitutional, you know, actual malice, we get into these words and they make it sound like it's so different, okay?
But here's the thing what we're looking at right now is something really, really very, very critical.
George Farmer, Candace Owens' husband, as the spouse of a prominent political commentator, Candace, and the figure with his own history in conservative activism, You know, various things, entrepreneur, recent U.S. citizens.
By the way, a lot of this, as Candace brings up, could have affected his status as a citizen, revoke whatever immigration status he enjoys.
He would likely be classified as a limited purpose public figure with respect to statements touching on his personal conduct or immigration status or public persona.
Publication on X, you know, Twitter.
To a national audience, further implicates First Amendment scrutiny.
Nevertheless, the per se classification I'm talking about still operates to relieve the plaintiff, to make it unnecessary to prove special damages once actual malice, in the case of a public figure, and falsity are established.
Okay?
Let me just make it simple.
Did he say this?
Yes.
Was it published?
Yes.
See, it's got to be publication.
Publication doesn't mean like publishing a book.
It means you've got to say it.
You've got to say it.
You've got to broadcast it.
I can't go up to you and say, You're a loathsome disease.
Nobody heard that.
That's not libel.
People have to hear it.
You have to prove people heard it.
Well, when you publish on X, it doesn't matter.
And Laura Loomer's public statements on X, there they are in late, what, April and May, including this alleged, what, posting of an alleged mugshot and arrest documentation.
Explicitly accusing George Farmer of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in Nashville, Tennessee, on or about whatever in August, for the blood alcohol level reportedly is approximating 0.26.
Let me tell you something, 0.26 is serious business.
Bidness, business, all right?
This is serious business.
If this is false, and we're presuming it is because Candace is saying it's false, oh my God.
Totaling a truck in the incident, possessing a firearm while intoxicated.
Engaging in a pattern of excessive drinking that endangered the public, could have killed an innocent person, or having a serious drinking problem.
You go back and read us because when Laura Bloomberg gets started, or whoever is posting for her, oh man, potential immigration related misconduct and obtaining a U.S. citizenship without full disclosure of the foregoing.
I mean, this is as serious as it gets.
So these allegations squarely, absolutely implicate.
Two classic per se categories.
Imputation of criminal conduct, because DUI is a criminal offense in Tennessee.
The company facts elevated to beyond a mere traffic.
And imputation of habitual drunkenness or alcoholism.
Now, under Florida law, this is weird.
We're getting into venue.
Whose law?
Are you going to go to federal court and claim diversity jurisdiction when you have two people of two different states?
And the amount of controversy is over, what, 7,500 or whatever the hell it is.
This is called diversity jurisdiction.
That's a different story.
So you got to sometimes say, do we file it in the middle district of Florida?
Do we go to Tennessee?
Tennessee, if I recall, doesn't have per se, per se, doesn't have libel per se.
There's other aspects to it.
You've got to figure out, remember, all of this is subject to which jurisdiction.
Snap statues, anti snap, we're not even going to get into that one, okay?
But in Florida law, which is where Laura Loomer apparently resides, and could be the forum in which she has previously litigated defamation claims, I think, or was suggested, statements that impute the commission of a crime or that tend to injure one in reputation are libelous per se.
Damages are presumed.
Damages are presumed.
Makes it so much easier.
Imagine going to court and there was a special, you're hit in a personal injury case.
Imagine if you can prove damages per se.
If you're kicked in the nuts, all you have to prove is that you're kicked in the nuts, and you don't even have to prove any damages.
People say, Oh, we know.
Say no more.
Don't you want to hear?
Nope, you don't have to.
Say no more.
It makes it like, wow, that's easy.
I don't have to bring in doctors and noob.
I don't have to bring in medical experts to see how my testicles were crushed in the noob.
Just prove you were hit.
Oh, I was hit.
That's it.
We're going to presume damages.
Tennessee law, by the way, governing the CITUS, S-I-T-U-S, of the incident, farmers in Kansas' residence follows the same traditional categories.
But in either jurisdiction, a court would likely hold as a matter of law that the statements read in context and as a whole are defamatory per se.
Please don't hold me to this.
I am not researched on Lexis, Nexis, or whatever the current law in New Jersey, because if, I mean, excuse me, in Tennessee.
And if you went to federal court there, you would use the law of the state.
So, in any event, if the underlying arrest record and mugshot are authentic and correctly attributed to Farmer, the claim fails.
That's it.
Public records disputes, including allegation that documents containing clerical errors or may pertain to another individual, that would be litigated at summary judgment or trial.
The bottom line is simply this, and I want you to understand this.
I want you to grasp this.
I don't want to spend too much time because sometimes we get into this, and I'm trying to clarify this, and I'm thinking to myself, I don't know if they're following us.
If you're going to be on YouTube or anything, and you're going to say people do something, now you could do the old, I think, in my opinion, you know, as far as I know, there's something also we're not going to get into libel per quad.
Not going to get into that.
That's more inferential stuff.
But, but, Be very careful, even with sometimes the gratuitous, in my opinion.
If you're accusing somebody or saying that somebody was involved in certain things, something that imputes a criminal activity, loathsome disease, you know, whatever, alcoholism, you're into another world.
You're sitting here in another world.
As far as Candace's tactics, I think.
I've not spoken to her.
I have no idea.
I think what they're doing is they're sitting back and letting Laura rev the engine.
Keep it up.
Keep it up.
Keep saying, I want some more.
I want some more.
Instead of her saying this on one day, she says it on 20 days, 20 posts.
That takes whatever it is and just multiplies the damages.
Now, remember.
I don't think Candace is talking about making a killing, going after Laura Loomer to drain her millions, and I don't think that's what this is about.
There's a principle about this.
Courts have a wonderful way, especially when somebody is really out of line, when somebody uses a court or uses statements to hurt people.
The courts have a way of seeking some type of retributive justice to an extent.
I am not a fan of libel, defamation, not at all.
A lot of times it's not even defamation, it's just.
This is a different story.
Sometimes with people, the only way they're going to stop, and no matter how much you think, well, Candace is pretty tough, well, George is pretty tough, you get to a point where you're going to say, especially George, George says, look, I didn't sign off for this shit, okay?
I know I was involved, but never, I'm not doing a podcast.
You're doing, I mean, I'm loving everything, you're my wife, but, you know, and Candace, who I think has a very, I don't want to sound like Sarah Palin, kind of like a mama bear, kind of a, you know, mama grizzly or whatever it's called.
I think she's going to say, I'm going to take care of you.
You go after me, that's one thing.
You go after my husband, my family, I'll rip your lungs out.
That's where we are right now.
So just keep this in mind.
Libel per se.
If you're the subject of your libel, if you say, he's a liar.
He's an adulterer.
Is that a crime?
Sometimes adultery is a crime.
But he committed a crime.
He's a heroin trafficker.
That's definitely a very serious crime.
He had DUIs, property damage, a threat on the highway.
Oh my God.
Yep.
Loathsome disease.
He's an alcoholic.
He's a drunk.
He's a.
Now we're into a different category.
We're into the per se, libel per se.
And when you do that, damages are presumed.
Meaning, if you're the plaintiff and you can prove it's not true, remember, if any of this is true, we're done.
But assuming it's not true and it was said, it was published, and this was said, these subjects, and they're not true, that's it.
That's it.
Damages are presumed.
Let's go straight to the jury.
Now, how much?
We don't have to worry about, well, how did it affect you?
What do you mean, how did it affect me?
It speaks for itself.
You told me I'm a drunk.
Okay, you're right, you're right, you're right.
That's libel per se.
You know what?
Don't even worry about this.
Don't even worry about showing the damages.
We understand.
Said I was involved in a.
And maybe I think the latest one is that I had the record sealed and I paid people off, allegedly.
If that's true, it's like, oh my God.
That's double, double, triple, quadruple.
So be careful.
And my advice as an officer of the court, as a lawyer, former prosecutor, licensed, a whole bit, I'm going to say, watch what you say.
And a lot of, and listen to me, listen, listen to Grandpa here.
Youngens, you're new at this, okay?
You don't want to go through a lawsuit.
You don't want to go through it.
People say, I don't care, I don't have any money.
No, you can't just, it's horrible.
It's horrible.
I mean, it's just a pain in the neck.
Don't even bother.
Don't bother.
Don't do it.
You could say everything you want.
Just keep in mind these things.
Keep in mind.
In a weird way, libel laws kind of keep other people from saying things about you because it's, you don't want actual, we don't want reputations to be hurt.
Avoiding Costly Lawsuits00:04:46
However, when you get to some level, like President Trump, man, this guy's been.
He's been caught.
Everything from a murderer to a.
I mean, there is.
He's judgment proof.
Not because he doesn't have any money, but because it's just he's been just tattooed since 2015 or whenever he decided to come down that escalator.
So that's a different story, all right?
So think about this.
Be very careful.
Candace is handling this thing very, very, very carefully.
Also, keep in mind if there are people who have utilized or secured certain.
Systems.
Let's say I work for an insurance company or DMV or some credit bureau company or something, and I violated the rules by going in and doing somebody a favor and saying, by the way, I know I got all these records and arrest records and blah, blah, blah, which nobody would have ever been available.
This is.
Something which is a.
Information which is directly associated with your business that should never be violated.
I mean, somebody somewhere is also maybe looking to perhaps prevent themselves from getting into trouble, cutting a deal and saying, wait a minute, here's what happened.
Yeah, he or she or somebody came to me and paid me and I went in and I.
So now it really just.
I mean, it just.
God knows, God knows the proprietary violations and wire fraud.
And I mean, when you get into federal, federal's got stuff that laws you never thought of.
It gets really dangerous.
And whenever you get somebody, by the way, because, you know, the argument is that where did you get this stuff from?
And remember, there are people right now, I would imagine, who are saying, listen, you didn't hear this from me.
Yellow envelopes under the door.
You didn't hear this from me.
Here's something you might want.
That's always been the case since Watergate, since the whiskey rebellion.
But let's see what happens.
But be careful.
And I got to tell you something two things human being to human being.
Ben Shapiro, I don't know where you think you're benefiting anybody.
I don't know how you think you're helping whatever your cause is.
And Laura, you need help.
You need to get a grip on this.
There are a lot of people who read, you know, when something is read or written, I should say, so dangerously.
Even in a few words on an ex post, you think, oh, oh, this is, oh.
Let me tell you something.
Ben, got it?
And Laura, When you get to be so radioactive, the people around you, the people who were normally your friends and your benefactors and the ones who utilized and appreciated your genius, will cut bait and silence you and ghost you.
And just, you are on your own like that.
And ask yourself are you becoming too hot?
What happens?
Laura's connection is ostensibly through President Trump.
Whatever that is, whether it's true or not, who knows?
All kinds of rumors and stuff.
If one day he formally, and I think Susie Wise, what we're hearing is Susie Wise saying, that's it, make a statement.
I don't know who she is, forget it, get her out of here.
And Trump will do this.
Look at our foreign policy.
Okay, we're done with Iran.
Here you go.
We're going to lift the sanctions.
What?
What?
Watch some certain people go berserk in a moment.
That's another story.
And Ben, I don't know who you're helping.
Or the whole TPUSA.
Follow Me on Lionel Media00:01:28
I've never seen such a sniveling group of people.
And remember, you're trying to keep this thing afloat by having young people still honor the message of Charlie.
By you sitting back and spending all your time, how can we destroy Candace Omens?
Christian.
And then you've got this Erica walking around with her.
Rhythm Nation thing.
I mean, this is like the most cold blooded.
The mafia is not as hardcore as this.
I'm serious.
I don't know who in the hell would ever look at you and say, this is not a Christian organization.
They're just, all they want to do is just kill and meme and defeat and shut down.
That's all I'm going to say.
So, what I'd like you to do, my friends, is follow me.
You know, I'm on X. Did you know that?
At Lionel Media.
Did you know that?
Lionel Media.
I know Lionel Nation here.
It's a long story.
Lionel Media.
See my stuff.
I got some weird things too, which have nothing to do necessarily with this.
They're just weird.
Because I do love the weird and the macabre.
Also, make sure you like this video.
Make sure you hit that little button so you'll be notified of live streams and new videos.