On June 7, 2026, a content creator named Henry L. Poitras — known online as "Planet Hank" — posted a 49-second AI-generated satirical video showing Republican congressional candidate Mark Coester using an excavator to dump Democrat Representative Becca Balint into a dumpster. Five days later, Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark opened an investigation.
AG Clark, a Democrat, invoked a Vermont state law requiring disclosure of fabricated content. The law includes a satire exception — a detail Clark apparently skipped on her way to the investigation. Poitras didn't wait around for the state to finish building its case. He filed a federal lawsuit, Poitras v. Clark, and asked the court for a preliminary injunction blocking the AG's investigation entirely.
Senior U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions III granted it. His ruling didn't just side with Poitras — it made clear how absurd the whole thing was from the start. "At this early stage, the Court is confronted with the ridiculous nature of the video," Judge Sessions wrote. He went further: "The video in its entirety — including the voiceover, the unnatural appearances of those depicted, and the eventual dumping of Balint — all contribute to its ridiculous nature."
The court called the AG's target "ridiculous" three times in the ruling. That's not legal boilerplate. That's a judge explaining, politely, that this case never should have existed.
See creator Planet Hank's AI video for yourself to see just how "bad" it was
Judge Sessions specifically noted "the threat faced is an unrealistic, satirical video" — exactly the kind of speech the satire exception in Vermont's own law was designed to protect. Clark had the statute in front of her. The exception was right there. She chose to investigate anyway.
Coester, the Republican candidate in Vermont's at-large congressional district who appeared in the video, responded on X: "It was either bow down and comply or counter sue in a higher court." He chose the second option. The federal court agreed with him.
The pattern is familiar. A Democrat official sees political speech unfavorable to a Democrat candidate and reaches for the enforcement lever. Not a public statement. Not a rebuttal. An investigation — backed by the full weight of a state attorney general's office — aimed at a private citizen who made a satirical video shorter than a TV commercial.
Clark's own state law contained the legal protection that made her investigation baseless. She didn't need a federal judge to tell her a 49-second cartoon excavator video was satire. She needed a federal judge to stop her from pretending it wasn't.
The preliminary injunction stands. The investigation is blocked. And somewhere in Vermont, a content creator's First Amendment rights cost him a federal lawsuit to defend against his own state government.
The video was 49 seconds. The legal fight took months. The AG's office had the satire exception on page one.