The murder of Democratic National Committee employee Seth Rich ignited a massive wave of conspiracy theories. The murder is still unsolved, but was considered to be the violent outcome of an attempted robbery by law enforcement.
Despite the lack of supporting evidence, a bunch of right-wing conspiracy theorists began suggesting Rich was murdered because of his alleged link to leaked DNC emails. This speculation was conclusively false, which led to Rich’s survivors suing lots of right-wing personalities for defamation.
It also resulted in lots of right-wing personalities suing journalists for calling them out on their bullshit. This case is one of the latter. Here’s how the DC Appeals Court decision [PDF] describes the plaintiff — a description that directly quotes the plaintiff’s preferred perception of himself:
Matthew Couch is a self-described investigative journalist, blogger, and political commentator. He operates a news and opinion website called “The DC Patriot” and maintains active profiles on social media platforms such as X (formerly known as “Twitter”), Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. He also labels himself “one of the foremost . . . independent investigators seeking to uncover the truth of what happened to Seth Rich” — the victim of an unsolved murder.
It’s probably safer to say this is actually Matthew Couch — something we can do by directly quoting his Twitter profile:
Christian – Dad – Political Analyst and Commentator – Razorback – Trump 2024 – Founder FaithNFreedoms.com – Founder DCPatriot.com – Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Yeah, that’s more like it. It even has the de rigueur Latin so many far-right dipshits deploy to make people believe they’re smarter and more reasonable than they actually are.
Matthew Couch sued Verizon (which owns Yahoo) because one of its Yahoo News reporters (Michael Isikoff) featured him and his conspiracy theories on his Conspiracyland podcast. In the podcast, the journalist interviews people who knew Couch, including a neighbor of Seth Rich who claimed Couch both harassed him and blamed him for Rich’s death.
Couch didn’t care for this. He didn’t care for being portrayed as the conspiracy theorist he actually is. And he certainly didn’t care for being very mildly insulted by the podcast host.
At various points during the podcast, Isikoff and his guests labeled Couch a “conspiracy entrepreneur,” “troll,” “crankster,” and “bully.”
Couch struck out in the lower court. It dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, ruling that any attempt Couch might make to salvage his bullshit libel lawsuit would be “futile.”
The DC Appeals Court agrees, detailing just how futile this lawsuit is and has always been. First off, a whole lot of the lawsuit relies on the journalist directly quoting things other people said:
Between his operative complaint and proposed amended complaint, Couch identifies fourteen supposed defamatory statements. The fourteen statements fall into two categories. The first category contains the eight statements where Isikoff allegedly accused Couch of implicating Capone and Mueller in Seth Rich’s murder or accused Couch of harassment. In essence, these are statements where Isikoff reported that Couch said or did things that he claims he never said or did.
As they appear in Conspiracyland, each of those eight statements consists of Isikoff either quoting Capone and Mueller word-for-word or accurately summarizing what Capone and Mueller said.
The court says there’s nothing in the allegations or evidence that suggests Isikoff had any reason to believe the statements made by these interviewees were false. Worse, Couch’s attempts to prove his case involved him rewriting things other people said in hopes of proving Isikoff had defamed him:
Here, neither of the statements Couch identifies can be fairly read as a quotation. The first supposedly fabricated quotation is: “Matt Couch ‘was saying . . . [Joe Capone] was conspiring with Hillary Clinton.’” Couch Br. 17. But Isikoff didn’t say those words in that way. Instead, Couch has selectively assembled phrases from questions Isikoff posed to Capone, in which Isikoff did little more than ask for clarification:
Isikoff: What was Matt Couch saying was the significance of the fact that you had been to the White House on July 6?
Capone: That there were secret meetings going on.
Isikoff: Secret meetings with who?
Capone: Hillary . . . You know . . .
Isikoff: That you were conspiring with Hillary Clinton or?
Capone: Must have been right?The second supposedly fabricated quotation is: “Matt Couch said ‘a-ha, you see, why is Joe Capone going to the White House just a few days before Seth Rich’s death? He must have been consulting with someone, aides to Hillary Clinton.’” JA 647, ¶ 106 (emphasis omitted). But the actual statement was much more vague:
“Matt Couch and the Internet horde discover this [that Capone had visited the White House] apparently from White House visitor logs. And they say, a-ha, you see, why is Joe Capone going to the White House just a few days before Seth Rich’s death? He must have been consulting with somebody, aides to Hillary Clinton, and this somehow had something to do with Seth Rich’s death.
Everything Couch alleges fails. Spectacularly.
None of the six statements in Couch’s second category expresses or implies a verifiable fact. The same individual may be viewed as a “conspiracy entrepreneur” by one person and a hard-hitting investigative journalist by another, depending entirely on whether one agrees or disagrees with the asserted conspiracy. Such a subjective description cannot be proven to be true or false.
The same goes for “troll,” “crankster,” and “bully.” While those terms are certainly pejorative and reflect Isikoff’s distaste for Couch, they are merely subjective descriptors.
The court’s conclusion is short and sweet:
Couch failed to plausibly state any claims against Isikoff, Verizon, and NPR.
Everything the lower court ruled is now affirmed at the next level: case dismissed with prejudice and Couch given no opportunity to amend. Couch will just have to live with being thought of as a crank, bully, and conspiracy entrepreneur. Not that any of this pejorative will do anything to convince his followers and fans he’s not worth the money or attention they give him. This was a speculative suit that was clearly intended to either silence a critic or — hope against hope — put a little more cash in Couch’s pockets.
In the end, all he has is whatever money he hasn’t spent on a futile lawsuit and the respect of people whose respect isn’t actually worth possessing.
