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.