Rudy Giuliani ordered to pay $148 million in defamation trial

[Bradskii]

This post leads me to believe even stronger that the so-called federal justice system is persecuting Giuliani, and any other Trump ally that they can.

Why? It was the jury who made the awards. In a civil case.

 

[iluvatar5150]

This post leads me to believe even stronger that the so-called federal justice system is persecuting Giuliani, and any other Trump ally that they can.

Perhaps you missed this question when I posed it to you the first time:

What, in your opinion, would be an appropriate amount for someone like Giuliani who's not only rich on his own, but has wealthy friends and legions of supporters willing to pay his debts? How much is enough to punish him and deter him and others like him from being lying jerks in the future?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This post leads me to believe even stronger that the so-called federal justice system is persecuting Giuliani, and any other Trump ally that they can.

But in this case "the justice" system didn't make the call on the dollar amount, a jury did.

Unless you're suggesting that the jurors were "secret agents of the deep state"? (for which I would need to see some solid evidence), I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion on this one.

While, granted even the original asked amount may have some "sticker shock", the more I've thought about it, the more I think the ask from the them was quite reasonable.

If someone name-dropped me and inspired a bunch of nutjobs to show up at my house, follow my kids to school and send harassing texts to their phones, and made it so I basically uproot and move to another part of the country and basically live in hiding for the next 10 years till things cool down, yeah, $20 million sounds about right, so their ask was reasonable.


The only critique I would make of the jury's decision to grant the additional $100 million would be this. Given that he likely doesn't have that amount of money, the ladies won't see an extra dime in all likelihood. And with such an exorbitant markup, it could potentially increase his chances of a successful appeal because that kind of huge mark-up could become a basis for claiming jury bias. So I would posit that the lever they pulled has a very minimal chance of having an upside, but could run the risk of having a pretty serious downside. (that downside being an appeals court reversing the decision altogether)

So hopefully the jury thought that thru...

If it were me, I would've voted to grant them their original asking amount and called it a day, but the jury obviously had more information provided to them than us armchair QBs.

 

[Vambram]

Perhaps you missed this question when I posed it to you the first time:

What, in your opinion, would be an appropriate amount for someone like Giuliani who's not only rich on his own, but has wealthy friends and legions of supporters willing to pay his debts? How much is enough to punish him and deter him and others like him from being lying jerks in the future?

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.

 

[Vambram]

Why? It was the jury who made the awards. In a civil case.

If I recall correctly, the jury pool for this civil case was drawn from a very liberal, anti-conservative district. However, I could be wrong about that. After all, I ain't omniscient.

 

[Vambram]

What federal justice system? This was a civil case brought by two private individuals and decided by a jury made up of 8 random individuals.

A federal jury on Friday ordered former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani to pay a total of $148 million to two former Georgia election workers who were at the center of baseless claims he spread in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, a stunning award worth nearly $100 million more than the women had sought.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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 didn't have that choice. Giuliani had already been found liable. Their only job was to determine the dollar amounts.

 

[Bradskii]

If I recall correctly, the jury pool for this civil case was drawn from a very liberal, anti-conservative district. However, I could be wrong about that. After all, I ain't omniscient.

How about you recall a bit harder. Else it seems like a desperate attempt at blaming 'very liberal, anti conservative' elements, which admittedly means you don't have to think of any other reason why it was high. Or enter into any discussions about damages in civil case in general. Much easier to blame people you don't like for things you don't like happening.

And as I understand it, the defendent's legal eagle gets to object to jurors they think would be detrimental to his clients case. The process of voir dire is apparently pretty comprehensive in the US. Jury selection - Wikipedia.

So in that case, whether you actually were right or wrong is largely irrelevant anyway.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Except he had no evidence to 'believe' what he was saying. Just the opposite in fact.

 

[Vambram]

Except he had no evidence to 'believe' what he was saying. Just the opposite in fact.

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?

 

[Vambram]

How about you recall a bit harder. Else it seems like a desperate attempt at blaming 'very liberal, anti conservative' elements, which admittedly means you don't have to think of any other reason why it was high. Or enter into any discussions about damages in civil case in general. Much easier to blame people you don't like for things you don't like happening.

And as I understand it, the defendent's legal eagle gets to object to jurors they think would be detrimental to his clients case. The process of voir dire is apparently pretty comprehensive in the US. Jury selection - Wikipedia.

So in that case, whether you actually were right or wrong is largely irrelevant anyway.

The amount is way too high because the plaintiffs didn't ask for that much money as was awarded, and also it is triple the amount of the defendant's net worth.

 

[Bradskii]

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?

Yeah. Sixty cases taken to court and all thrown out. And thrown out because there was no evidence. Here's Rudy admitting to that well known fact:

'Attempting to overturn election results in service of Donald Trump’s lie about voter fraud in his defeat by Joe Biden, the former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani told an Arizona official: “We’ve got lots of theories. We just don’t have the evidence.” Giuliani told Arizona official ‘We just don’t have the evidence’ of voter fraud

And hey, here's Rudy telling you again, in case you missed it the first time: Giuliani concedes he made public comments falsely claiming Georgia election workers committed fraud

'Rudy Giuliani has conceded that he made public comments falsely claiming two Georgia election workers committed ballot fraud during the 2020 presidential race'.

And here's the court document: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.84.2.pdf, which says: 'Giuliani...does not contest...that the statements....were false'. And he signed that document.

Do you have any 'reasonable doubt' after the guy admits in a court of law what he did? And I am nothing but astonished that you didn't know any of this before.

 

[Bradskii]

The amount is way too high because the plaintiffs didn't ask for that much money as was awarded, and also it is triple the amount of the defendant's net worth.

At least we've moved on from 'He might not have known what he was saying wasn't true'. That notwithstanding, the extra money was punitive damages. That is "You done wrong and you gotta pay as a punishment'.

Now if you spend an hour or so investigating theories and articles and various papers and legal opinions on damage payouts as I have just done then you can offer some considered opinions as to why you think it was high and perhaps unfair and some means by which you think it could be seen to be fairer.

 

[Vambram]

At least we've moved on from 'He might not have known what he was saying wasn't true'. That notwithstanding, the extra money was punitive damages. That is "You done wrong and you gotta pay as a punishment'.

Now if you spend an hour or so investigating theories and articles and various papers and legal opinions on damage payouts as I have just done then you can offer some considered opinions as to why you think it was high and perhaps unfair and some means by which you think it could be seen to be fairer.

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.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Let’s not forget that we’re not talking about some random 80-IQ keyboard warrior spewing conspiracy theories on social media. This was Rudy Giuliani, the US Attorney who took down the NY mob, and the mayor who cleaned up NYC and shepherded it through 9/11. The guy was as close to being a living legend as any politician since Eisenhower. Somebody with that pedigree doesn’t just get confused about what constitutes evidence for a claim. His entire storied legal career had been built around compiling and presenting evidence. He knew exactly what he was doing. He knew he was making stuff up about some perfectly innocent women, and the professional “journalists” who pushed his lies knew what they were doing, too. And they all did it because it got them fame and money and power.

 

[iluvatar5150]

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.

For the third time, how much have been the right amount?

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Why do you think I'm here to change your mind?

 

[Vambram]

Why do you think I'm here to change your mind?

Why are you here?

 

[Vambram]

For the third time, how much have been the right amount?

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.

 

[Bradskii]

Why are you here?

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.