Rudy Giuliani ordered to pay $148 million in defamation trial

[Vambram]

How do you see things going differently had it been a different judge?

Judge's have to act in accordance with the law, and can't show political favoritism within their job capacity, but there's nothing that should suggest that a judge isn't allowed to have a political leaning. Our supreme court is full of people who have well-established political leanings.
(Spoiler alert, Clearance Thomas is conservative, Sotomayor is liberal.... shocking right?)


In this case involving Rudy, the facts are what they are.

He falsely accused 2 people of election fraud, by name (when they did no such thing), and it led to incessant harassment, death threats, and even threats to their children.

He admitted that he made the false statements about them

Rudy Giuliani concedes he made false statements about two Georgia election workers

Former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani admitted he made false statements about two Georgia election workers to resolve their litigation against him.

www.usatoday.com

The judge's only role in this case was to determine liable or not liable for defamation, the jury decided the dollar amount.

It would seem that it wouldn't matter if the judge was Noam Chomsky or Ben Shapiro (guys who are on opposite ends of the political spectrum), if a person says "yeah I did it", there's only one logical conclusion there, he's liable.


If you want to make an argument that the media/academia/entertainment unfairly blasts conservatives for things and engages in double standards...I'd likely have some points of agreement with you on that. But if you're looking to prove that point in an objective manner, Rudy is the wrong horse to hitch your wagon to...just sayin'

It'd be like if a liberal wanted to make the case that their side is unfairly accused of cronyism, and decided to go "all-in" on defending Rod Blagojevich or Bob Menendez against allegations.

Thank you for a good and reasonable post. Concerning this case and this very biased judge, my biggest problem with the judgment is the very exorbitant amount of the award. $149 million is just flat out ridiculous.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Thank you for a good and reasonable post. Concerning this case and this very biased judge, my biggest problem with the judgment is the very exorbitant amount of the award. $149 million is just flat out ridiculous.

I’d argue the amount wasn’t high enough because Giuliani has continued to defame them.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Giuliani admitted he was guilty. He signed court papers to that affect. The judge simply accepted that admission. She had no decision to make. What could she have done? Tell Giuliani that he lied by pleading guilty? Charge him with perjury because he confessed?

Talk sense for heaven's sake.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thank you for a good and reasonable post. Concerning this case and this very biased judge, my biggest problem with the judgment is the very exorbitant amount of the award. $149 million is just flat out ridiculous.

As already noted, the judge DOES NOT SET THE AWARD. (Let me guess, you'd never heard of Beryl Howell before, had you?)

 

[Vambram]

Did I say she did?

I recall quoting someone's post saying that the federal jury set the award.

 

[Bradskii]

Did I say she did?

I recall quoting someone's post saying that the federal jury set the award.

Then why say that the judge was biased? There was nothing on which to base that. The defendant pleaded guilty and the jury awarded the damages. The judge had nothing to do. Your response has all the appearance of a knee jerk reaction. It was someone working for Trump...therefore anything that goes against him is automatically biased.

Can't you see what you just did?

 

[Vambram]

Her biases are very obvious based upon her own words. I'm done with this thread because the discussion is just going around in circles.

 

[USincognito]

I miss the days when left wing liberals weren't prosecuting their political opponents

Maybe they should stop committing crimes and doing things for which they are being held liable?

thereby causing election interference.

Just stop. It's embarrassing to read.

 

[Bradskii]

Her biases are very obvious based upon her own words. I'm done with this thread because the discussion is just going around in circles.

But you accused her of being biased in this trial. That was simply not possible. There was no way for her bias to be exhibited. If you are basing it on what she said, then that is probably her warning Giuliani that he was on trial for making defamatory claims about the two women, he had pled guilty and he was repeating them outside the court.

On a scale of one to ten for idiotic behaviour, then Giuliani gets the perfect score. What's the judge to do? Ignore that? And hey, guess who would have read those comments. Yeah, the jury members. Who were due to award damages. And they see the guy, far from being contrite, actually doubling down on the accusations.

Way to go, Rudi!

 

[essentialsaltes]

Wow,
if there is ANY verdict against a trump supporter many people will be convinced that
the verdict clearly proves the "deep state" has "weaponized" the justice system to punish Trump supporters

​

Unfortunately yes. Now that this idea has taken root, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even when people in Trump's camp plead guilty, all that means is that the deep state 'got to them'.

 

[NxNW]

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

I miss the days when Republicans didn't think they were above the law. Of course, that was when Lincoln was around, and I was barely crawling then.

 

[Vambram]

I miss the days when Republicans didn't think they were above the law. Of course, that was when Lincoln was around, and I was barely crawling then.

I miss the days when the DoJ wasn't weaponized against one's political opponents.

 

[Arcangl86]

I miss the days when the DoJ wasn't weaponized against one's political opponents.

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

 

[A2SG]

I miss the days when the DoJ wasn't weaponized against one's political opponents.

Just you wait. If Trump gets back in office, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

-- A2SG, ooh baby....

 

[iluvatar5150]

I miss the days when the DoJ wasn't weaponized against one's political opponents.

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

Or alternately, when exactly were those days? J Edgar Hoover took over what became the FBI in 1924 and wasn't exactly known for his fair and open-minded approach towards dissidents.

 

[NxNW]

I miss the days when the DoJ wasn't weaponized against one's political opponents.

There you go again, using the word "weaponized" as if it's relevant.

 

[Vambram]

There you go again dismissing the facts as brought forth in Congressman Jim Jordan's committee.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I miss the days when the DoJ wasn't weaponized against one's political opponents.

The DOJ didn't sue Rudy Giulani. Two individuals who were harassed into near hiding because of Rudy did.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

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.

The jury looks at facts, not the lies, by their news media.

 

[KCfromNC]

I miss the days when the DoJ wasn't weaponized against one's political opponents.

Lock her up! Lock her up!