Judge: Giuliani may have defamed Georgia election workers again outside DC courthouse
Judge: Giuliani may have defamed Georgia election workers again outside DC courthouse
Just minutes after leaving the first day of his civil trial, Rudy Giuliani repeated a false allegation about the pollworkers.
Just minutes after leaving the first day of his civil trial, Rudy Giuliani repeated a false allegation about the pollworkers.
Rudy Giuliani’s defiant public statements outside a Washington, D.C., federal courthouse — just minutes after he departed the first day of his civil trial for defaming two Georgia election workers — may have defamed them yet again, the judge presiding over the proceedings said Tuesday.
“Was Mr. Giuliani just playing for the cameras?” wondered U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who has already found Giuliani liable for lying about the workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, by accusing them of manipulating ballots in the 2020 election.
His attorney, Joe Sibley, agreed that he could not reconcile Giuliani’s out-of-court comments on Monday evening with the more contrite argument Sibley had made on behalf of the former New York City mayor earlier in the day.
After the first day of his trial, when jurors began to hear evidence to determine just how much Giuliani must pay for defaming the two women, Giuliani approached television cameras outside the courthouse and reiterated his attacks on them.
"This has taken a bit of a toll on him. He’s almost 80 years old"
Boo fucking Hoo. They should ride that fucking traitors corpse into the poor house if they have to.
He could have sold his NY real estate, moved to a cozy home upstate with full time nursing care if he was so enfeebled.
It's a stupid fucking excuse. If the man's been on this earth hurting people and spreading bullshit for 80 years, why should I feel any sympathy for his age? These vile assholes don't deserve peace, they shouldn't be allowed to just get away with it because they've been ruining lives for long enough.
Won't someone please think of the perpetrator?! /s
@ Ghouliani: Get rekt you crooked, traitorous fuckstick.
Should have thought of that before deciding to commit crimes then.
He should have walked away, around 2016. The whole "America's mayor" thing was a sweet deal for him.
Apparently you can be a criminal and so long as you get old before they catch you, you're good!
That picture of him leaving the courthouse in the article; are his pants conspicuously wet?
You don't understand, he has to piss himself because his pants are continuously on fire.
LOL I think your right. I did some basic investigating https://photos.app.goo.gl/jRb2rLgmhtp1EECC8
Looks like he's trying to signal Batman
Looks like his diaper leaked. He should find out what brand trump wears.
I guess whatever affliction that made the hair on his head melt finally migrated down to his pubes
Question for the legally aware:
I’ve seen many cases where the court will adjust jury-awarded penalties downward. A jury might find a chemical company liable in polluting a river and award the claimants $100M, and the court will adjust it to $5M.
The justice and potential for corruption etc aside, could the judge in a case like this and given an event like this increase the amount Rudy must pay over and above the $43M or whatever it is that’s being asked? Could the court say that the impenitent and repeatedly offending nature of Rudy merits additional penalties above and beyond what was asked for in the context of this case, or like with the Trump defamation case would it need a separate trial?
In E Jean Carrolls case against Trump, after the judge awarded her $5mil, Trump walked out of the courtroom and lied to the camera, again, even having just lost on it.
The attorney filed a motion against Trump the next day asking for double damages and was promptly awarded it. $10mil total.
So yea, the judge has some discretion.
Yes, the terms are additur (adding money to the jury's award) and remittitur (taking money away from from the jury's award. It happens when the jury's award is obviously too much or not enough.
Additur is very rare. Basically requires an inconsistent verdict or a clearly wrong application of the facts by the jury, such as if the jury found the defendant solely liable for destroying the plaintiff's car and the value of the car was never disputed and accepted by everyone to be $10,000, but the jury only awards $5,000 in compensation. One reason it's so rare is because if the value of a thing is not really in dispute, usually the parties will stipulate to its value.
Remittitur is much more common. Most state courts hold that the damages awarded must have some basis in the evidence, and the figure cannot simply be pulled from thin air. Even with punitive damages, a smart plaintiff puts in some evidence of the defendant's total worth or profits.
Thank you, that was exactly the answer I was looking for.
I'm beginning to regret spending all that money to graduate the Rudy Giuliani School of Real Good Lawyerin'.
The one next to the adult book store?
You've been there too!
Lol, his attorney trying to be all "Oh he's just an old man," and Howell putting a stop to that shit instantly.
Is it reasonable to double the fines for each act of defamation? Or should the multiplier be larger?
Doubling is fine, people tend to be awful at visualizing exponential growth as it is
Let me introduce you to a little thing called tetration...
Oh I see you have used up all that rope already?
Sure, have some more Mr. Giuliani.
Let's make this real clear and help stop normalizing all the self-owning and wasting every taxpayers' time and money.
This is why the elder and wiser politician bowed the f out whenever they f'd up. Stop digging your graves deeper. We don't want you back and you're not saving face this way.
Giuliani couldn't keep his mouth shut if his life depended on it.
Mostly because he wouldn't be able to fill it with booze.
Why does the title frame it as a possibility, then immediately go on to describe him definitely doing it?
Same reason someone is alleged to have done something even if you have video for it, you wait until it's been affirmed by the courts to avoid being potentially liable for defamation.
Probably liability