I don’t think they think they can get away with it. They know that turning over the evidence would be more damaging to them than losing the case.

It's the one problem with denying reality. Reality doesn't care. I just didn't expect the US legal system to be the place where the rubber met the road. Honestly I thought it would take physical violence, unfortunately. Although our legal system ain't perfect, it's a pleasant surprise.

It was a default judgement, in large part because he refused to comply with a discovery order; wasn't a matter of them winning so much as him not showing up.

The judge speculated - and other commentators seem to agree - that he may have done this because the discovery could have hurt him more badly in some of the other, scarier legal cases against him (like the criminal case in Georgia); she made it clear she wasn't going any easier on him because of it, though. But if he figures he's going to be broke for the rest of his life anyway, then having them get in line with all of the other people he owes money to might be worth it if it even slightly reduces his likely jail time.

Only within the Four Seasons of the year...

Yes, because as long as your statement is presented as an opinion or rhetoric then it's protected speech. It only becomes defamation when you emphasize that your statements aren't opinions but actual facts that you can prove with (non-existent) evidence. It's also why Fox lost their lawsuit.

Yeah. Unless the defamer (is that a word? if not, it now is...) is a total idiot.

The Judge thinks he may have been intentionally withholding the records.

“Perhaps he has made the calculation that his overall litigation risks are minimized by not complying with his discovery obligations in this case,” Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court in Washington, DC, wrote Wednesday. “Whatever the reason, obligations are case specific and withholding required discovery in this case has consequences.”

They handed over 200 documents plus financial records.

Without knowing what was specifically submitted, the quantity doesn't say much.

I could provide hundreds of pages of spam emails, automated messages from my bank and every online store I've bought stuff from, and still leave out any communication which was specifically requested by the court.

Example:

You use Firefox, you occasionally use IE to download MS updates and when you accidentally click on a link generated by windows.

You use Firefox to Google "how to commit murder" and "how to remove blood from fabric" and then are accused of committing a murder around that same time.

You get a subpoena for your electronic communications and searches.

You only submit your IE searches (and delete your Firefox History).

You are in contempt. The prosecutor would have the expert note that you use the computer for X hours a day (as per the logs that build up as you are online), yet IE shows minimal usage.

Your Firefox shows no history, however there is a bookmark in your browser from after the time you received the subpoena. Therefore, you cleared your browser history after you were subpoenaed.

You have Firefox installed (which you would have to go out of your way to do), but submitted no Firefox logs or empty logs.

These logs also show logged activity from Firefox during the period of missing browser history.

Keep in mind it is a very common tactic to "bury" your opponent in paper. By law the lawyer knows they have to turn over an incriminating document. So they bury it in hundreds or thousands of other documents and hope opposing counsel misses it.