Lindell claimed he had data showing Chinese interference and he would pay $5M to anyone who could prove the material was not from the 2020 election.
MyPillow founder and prominent election denier Mike Lindell made a bold offer ahead of a « cyber symposium » he held in August 2021 in South Dakota: He claimed he had data showing Chinese interference and said he would pay $5 million to anyone who could prove the material was not from the previous year’s U.S. election.
He called the challenge « Prove Mike Wrong. »
On Wednesday, a private arbitration panel ruled that someone had.
The panel said Robert Zeidman, a computer forensics expert and 63-year-old Trump voter from Nevada, was entitled to the $5 million payout.
Zeidman had examined Lindell’s data and concluded that it not only did not prove voter fraud, it had no connection to the 2020 election. He was the only expert who submitted a claim, arbitration records show.
He turned to the arbitrators after Lindell Management, which created the contest, refused to pay him.
In their 23-page decision, the arbitrators said Zeidman proved that Lindell’s material « unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data. » They directed Lindell’s firm to pay Zeidman within 30 days.
In a statement to The , Zeidman said he was « really happy » with the arbitrators’ decision. « They clearly saw this as I did – that the data we were given at the symposium was not at all what Mr. Lindell said it was, » he said. « The truth is finally out there. »
Zeidman’s attorney Brian Glasser said that the panel’s decision stood as a warning to others who made wild allegations about election fraud. « I think the arbitrators thought it important that these claims be vetted, because they’ve done great harm to our country, » he said.
Lindell said in a text to The Post, « They made a terribly wrong decision! This will be going to court! » His attorneys did not reply to a request seeking comment.
A copy of contest rules submitted in the arbitration said disputes would be « resolved exclusively by final and binding arbitration » and noted that arbitration « is subject to very limited review by courts. »
Glasser said that the panel’s decision cannot be directly appealed but that Lindell could ask a federal court to quash it on the basis that it represented a « manifest injustice. » The statutory grounds for such a claim are narrow and it is « extremely rare » for such a claim to succeed, according to Glasser.
