Giuliani liable for defaming Georgia election workers, judge rules
Giuliani liable for defaming Georgia election workers, judge rules
Donald Trump's former lawyer Rudy Giuliani is liable for defaming two election workers in Georgia, a U.S. judge in Washington said on Wednesday.
WASHINGTON, Aug 30 (Reuters) - Donald Trump's former lawyer Rudy Giuliani is liable for defaming two election workers in Georgia, a U.S. judge in Washington said on Wednesday.
Judge Beryl Howell issued the order as a sanction against Giuliani for failing to turn over electronic records sought by the two election workers, Wandrea "Shaye" Moss and her mother Ruby Freeman, in the case.
The judge's order means Giuliani will have to pay damages for spreading false vote-rigging claims against the pair following the 2020 U.S. presidential election. He previously admitted that his statements were false and damaged Moss and Freeman's reputations.
Giuliani will face a civil trial in Washington, D.C. federal court to determine how much he will have to pay.
I love that lies now have consequences because conservatives are people who love to be lied to.
I mean if you look at the Fox News/Dominion case ... Fox viewers should know they've been lied to and manipulated. It's crazy how little they care.
In the words of my father when I pointed out one again that the horrible shit he emailed me about Obama was in fact false:
"I don't care. I hate them."
That's it. The party of Hate and Fear. They don't care what lies they are told as long as they believe it hurts the people they hate.
He may have lied in this particular instance, but that lie serves a greater truth: I'm always right about everything and I should always get my way.
But though this is known, it wasn’t likely mentioned anywhere that they’d trust as news. Fox News certainly didn’t talk about it. I’m sure many of them have no idea about the outcome of that case.
Could this ruling impact the Georgia RICO case because it’s now on the record that the election in Georgia was not rigged as they have claimed and keep claiming? Can a civil ruling like this be used as evidence in a criminal ruling? I am not a lawyer and not American.
Edit: Please read this child comment, where I describe how I am technically wrong.
Well, it's now on the record that those who Guiliani defamed were not involved in any "election rigging" in Georgia. That's different from "the election in Georgia was not rigged" (even if that statement is also true).
This ruling certainly eliminates some of the claimed "evidence" of "election rigging" that is being claimed. They continue to claim that other evidence exists, without producing said evidence, of course.
That issue was resolved against him by sanction.
In order for a judicial finding to have preclusive effect in another action, it must be between the same parties in the same configuration, or by parties parity or with like incentive to litigate, and have been actually litigated.
I was listening to NPR, and they gave the impression that Giuliani withheld the evidence so it couldn't be used against him in the RICO case
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty confident that you can't use something with a lower standard of proof as evidence in a trial that requires a higher standard of proof. Civil cases only need to be proven by the standard "a preponderance of evidence", whereas criminal trials are required to proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".
It's probably okay in the other direction, though.
Two parts of this Order seem to be particularly in the "I'm sick of your crap, Rudy." category:
-
To ensure that the Giuliani Businesses reimburse plaintiffs’ attorneys fees associated with their successful motion to compel discovery from those Businesses, see Pls.’ Revised Mot. Compel Giuliani Partners & Giuliani Communications (“Pls.’ Giuliani Businesses Motion”), ECF No. 70, in the amount totaling $43,684, with interest on that amount to accrue from September 20, 2023 against defendant Rudolph W. Giuliani personally if his Businesses fail to timely comply;
-
ORDERED that, as a sanction for defendant’s failure timely to reimburse plaintiffs’ $89,172.50 in attorneys’ fees by July 25, 2023, the jury will be instructed that they must, when determining an appropriate sum of punitive damages, infer that he is intentionally trying to hide relevant discovery about his financial assets for the purpose of artificially deflating his net worth, unless he produces fulsome responses to plaintiffs’ RFP Numbers 40 and 41 by September 20, 2023, in which case, the mandatory instruction may be converted to a permissive one.
they must, when determining an appropriate sum of punitive damages, infer that he is intentionally trying to hide relevant discovery about his financial assets for the purpose of artificially deflating his net worth
that sounds expensive
-
Couldn't have happened to a nicer treasonous ghoul.
Absolutely glorious
Glad to see Mr. Law and Order getting his just desserts.
Trying the Alex Jones defense playbook was certainly a choice...
You're not going to need any butter to fry this greeseball.
Member in the 2016 RNC when Rude came out and lost his goddamned mind in front of the world for trump? Obviously he was a piece of shit then for manipulating the SDNY FBI to “re-open” the hEr EmAiLs probe 2 days before the election, but I still was like wtf dude, what happened to you. (Spoiler: Scotch and greed is a helluva drugs.)
He didn't lose his mind.
People like him (Trump too) pretended to be moderates or even Democrats, because that's what was needed to fake it till you make it in New York.
Once they didn't need that anymore, the mask came off (granted, it had been slipping for a long time, especially with Trump who always looked exactly like he was, a narcissist only out for himself) and they showed themselves to be completely what they are. The most assbackward type of right wing self obsessed, self important narcissistic conmen imaginable.
what happened to you. (Spoiler: Scotch and greed is a helluva drugs.)
Nah, what happened was nothing. This is who he has always been.
is that big, sloppy mouth gonna get his fat ass in trouble holy shit i think it might
Disrespecting a court’s authority is generally a bad idea.
