Rudy Giuliani ordered to pay $148 million in defamation trial

[Bradskii]

Wow, you are a persistent person, ain't ya?
Very well, if the jury absolutely HAD to award an amount, then I would have voted to award the amount that the plaintiffs were asking to receive.

I was going to ask you how much you thought the punitive damages should be. But the difference between the two figures is no real difference at all. Except that I guess they take the place of a custodial sentence should that have been an option in a crimi al case.

 

[SimplyMe]

That's a silly question.

The thread is about one of the major players in the monstrously ridiculous claim that the last election was stolen. He was the guy who fronted the legal team. He was the one making the claims. He was the one who was in effectively in charge of over 60 cases claiming fraud. All of which were thown out. He was the guy who stood in a car park next to a sex toy shop saying that Trump had been robbed. The one with hair dye running down his face as he made what he must have known were false claims. You know, the guy who eventually admitted that there was no evidence. And that he defamed those women.

I want to see what people like you think of him. I want to see if people can still find it in themselves to support a guy like this.

Just to be clear, in 2020, Giuliani only claimed that there was fraud outside the courtroom, where there was no requirement to tell the truth. When he went into court, he made a point to claim that he was not alleging there was any fraud. This YouTube video has audio from one of the Pennsylvania cases for Donald Trump, where they were suing over the 2020 election, and Giuliani makes sure to make it clear to the judge that he is not alleging there was any fraud in the election:

 

[7thKeeper]

If I was on the jury, I would have voted "not guilty." I don't believe that he lied. Because if someone believes that he, or she, is really telling the truth, then that person is not lying.... even if others believe that the "facts", or interpretation of the facts, are different than what the defendant believes is true.

I do not believe that's the standard though. He can believe he's telling the truth all he wants, if he doesn't have anything to back it up, that's still defamation. "Reckless disregard of the facts" is the term used, if I remember right. You can believe your own bull as much as you want, but if you cannot substantiate what you are saying in front of the court, it's defamation. Whether he is "lying" or not, doesn't matter. He was untruthful in a harmful manner.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How do you know that is true? Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had no evidence to believe what he was saying?

In this instance, the jury was deciding compensation based on the amount of damage he did to the lives of the victims, whether or not he actually believed what he was saying is irrelevant at that point in the process.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If I was on the jury, I would have voted "not guilty." I don't believe that he lied. Because if someone believes that he, or she, is really telling the truth, then that person is not lying.... even if others believe that the "facts", or interpretation of the facts, are different than what the defendant believes is true.

Oh you conservatives and your truth-relativism. Facts don't care about Giuliani's feelings.

 

[Vambram]

Can someone inform me as to why this case was done in Washington DC, instead of Georgia?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Can someone inform me as to why this case was done in Washington DC, instead of Georgia?

I assume becasue the lawsuit also targeted OAN, which has its HQ there.

Likewise, their suit against Gateway Pundit was filed in Saint Louis, where that organization is HQed.

as for how that's going:

Gateway Pundit accused of purposely delaying defamation case involving false fraud claims​

 

[Arcangl86]

I assume becasue the lawsuit also targeted OAN, which has its HQ there.

Likewise, their suit against Gateway Pundit was filed in Saint Louis, where that organization is HQed.

as for how that's going:

Gateway Pundit accused of purposely delaying defamation case involving false fraud claims​

Also I'm pretty sure Rudy made the comments in question in DC.

 

[Pommer]

How do you know that is true? Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had no evidence to believe what he was saying?

The jury got the facts incorrect and decided wrongly?
The “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of evidence is for criminal trials; in civil suits I believe the standard is “preponderance of the evidence”.

 

[Pommer]

I'm glad that you got plenty of time to do that kind of research. But you still haven't changed my mind that the damage payout in this case is far, far, too much.

I’m willing to concede that the amounts awarded were “too high”; this can be amended upon appeal (of the awards, (not the verdict)). $50M ought to be plenty.

 

[Arcangl86]

How do you know that is true? Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that he had no evidence to believe what he was saying?

1) The standard in civil cases is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather preponderance of the evidence, or sometimes call "balance of the probabilities." 2) Believing the defamatory remark is actually not a defense. For a regular person simple negligence is enough, and for a public figure the actual malic standard applies, but both of those seem met here.

 

[SimplyMe]

1) The standard in civil cases is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather preponderance of the evidence, or sometimes call "balance of the probabilities." 2) Believing the defamatory remark is actually not a defense. For a regular person simple negligence is enough, and for a public figure the actual malic standard applies, but both of those seem met here.

Both of which are moot, since Giuliani freely admitted that he defamed the two women in a court filing; he just claimed that it was "protected free speech" so he shouldn't have to pay anything. It is also worth noting this court filing was in response to Giuliani not providing documents that were ordered to be turned over as part of discovery, likely because they proved the defamation (but we'll never know since he admitted to the defamation rather than submit the documents).

 

[JustOneWay]

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.263084/gov.uscourts.dcd.263084.1.0.pdf

On August 31, 2023, the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a default judgment as to liability
against Defendant Giuliani in Freeman I, which had the effect of deeming as true the factual
allegations in the operative complaint in Freeman I. A copy of the order granting a default
judgment is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. A trial
on damages has recently been held, although judgment has not yet been entered, in Freeman I.
3. Defendant Giuliani continues to spread the very same lies for which he has already
been held liable in the Freeman I action. For example, on December 11, 2023, Defendant Giuliani
held an impromptu press conference before a gaggle of reporters. Standing in front of the cameras,
Defendant Giuliani stated that his forthcoming testimony would make: “definitively clear that
what I said was true, and that, whatever happened to them—which is unfortunate about other
people overreacting—everything I said about them is true.”2 When asked whether he regretted
his actions, Defendant Giuliani stated: “Of course I don’t regret it . . . I told the truth. They were
engaged in changing votes.”

Cha-Ching again!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Former Georgia election workers sue Rudy Giuliani again, asking judge to permanently stop him from lying about them​

(not sure that's really in the judge's power, but anyway...)

“Defendant Giuliani continues to spread the very same lies for which he has already been held liable,” the new lawsuit said. “Defendant Giuliani’s statements, coupled with his refusal to agree to refrain from continuing to make such statements, make clear that he intends to persist in his campaign of targeted defamation and harassment. It must stop.”

At the end of the first day of their defamation damages trial against him last week, Giuliani told TV cameras outside court that “everything I said about them is true” and that he had proof that the media should “stay tuned.” Giuliani presented little defense in the case, and didn’t testify.

 

[Bradskii]

Former Georgia election workers sue Rudy Giuliani again, asking judge to permanently stop him from lying about them​

(not sure that's really in the judge's power, but anyway...)

There's a problem in that if he thinks he's financially wiped out and they have awarded more than he can actually pay, then he can say what he wants and they can keep on suing him for money he doesn't have.

As far as I can see, although defamation can be a criminal offence in Australia, it's only a few states that allow it in the US.

United States defamation law - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Vambram]

This is a lengthy post from Congresswoman Stefanik demonstrating why Judge Beryl Howell is very clearly the wrong judge to have been chosen to preside and judge this case against Rudy Giuliani. In my opinion, Judge Beryl Howell is little more than a partisan leftist liberal.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is a lengthy post from Congresswoman Stefanik demonstrating why Judge Beryl Howell is very clearly the wrong judge to have been chosen to preside and judge this case against Rudy Giuliani. In my opinion, Judge Beryl Howell is little more than a partisan leftist liberal.

I miss the days when tweets were only 140 characters.

 

[JustOneWay]

I miss the days when tweets were only 140 characters.

I miss the days when we had better republican politicians. That lady is a joke talking about election interference when the person they support for president was arrested for election interference.

 

[Vambram]

I miss the days when we had better republican politicians. That lady is a joke talking about election interference when the person they support for president was arrested for election interference.

I miss the days when left wing liberals weren't prosecuting their political opponents thereby causing election interference.

 

[Arcangl86]

I miss the days when left wing liberals weren't prosecuting their political opponents thereby causing election interference.

How can you miss those days when they are still here?