this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
409 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19050 readers
3777 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
409
Rudy Giuliani held liable for defaming Georgia election workers, judge rules (19thnews.org)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This is separate from Rudy's criminal trial with Trump, this was a civil trial between him and the election workers, where Rudy admitted that he lied about them.

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Howell’s three-page ruling entered a default judgment finding Giuliani liable for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy and punitive damage claims. The court ordered Giuliani to cover Freeman’s and Moss’ attorney fees associated with discovery in the case. Giuliani will also have to pay punitive damages; that amount will be determined by a jury trial.

Howell instructed the jury to consider that Giuliani was “intentionally trying to hide relevant discovery about his financial assets for the purpose of artificially deflating his net worth” in determining punitive damages.

Life sure sucks for this sack of shit these days. I’m all in favor of his bullshit burying him for the rest of his life. Could have led a fat and pampered lifestyle and threw it all away. Fuck him.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The only thing about this whole scenario I dislike is how much time elapsed between "fuck around" and "find out". But it's good to see justice catching up with that shitbag.

Unfortunately, no matter what ends up happening, it still will never fully make right what those poor election workers went through and are still going through.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unfortunately you are right. That said, if we get enough punitive damages to deter a second guiliani, we have done a whole lot already. Let it never happen again.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Criminals aren't deterred by consequences, because they never expect them. Criminals commit crimes when they think they can get away with it, and unfortunately many of them do.

I am enjoying watching Giuliani suffer, but that doesn't mean it's justice, or that the system is working. No amount of money can atone for his crimes, and no prison sentence will change our legal system into something closer to fair.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

That time is literally just justice occurring. In general, you should be wary of a very fast trial

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Too bad Lou Reed didn’t live to see it

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Damn I just looked that up. It's not vaguely prophetic. It's more spot on than the Simpsons predictions.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sick of You? 1989?

https://youtu.be/XsKwqr2SKwo

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/XsKwqr2SKwo

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I don't know where to look, how is he related to Giuliani?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

💀

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I love how the author describes the ruling, "unsparing." Heh.

He assured this Court directly that he “understand[s] the obligations” because he has “been doing this for 50 years[.]” In this case, however, Giuliani has given only lip service to compliance with his discovery obligations and this Court’s orders by failing to take reasonable steps to preserve or produce his ESI. Instead, Giuliani has submitted declarations with concessions turned slippery on scrutiny and excuses designed to shroud the insufficiency of his discovery compliance.

And that's just page 1.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is called the "full Alex Jones"

Not to brag, but I called this https://lemmy.world/comment/2467076

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's going to be interesting to see how "for purposes of this litigation only — does not contest the factual allegations" is going to fly in the criminal case.

I don't think the court system allows you to admit you lied in one case and then go "No, no, that's only for that ONE case... this criminal case is TOTALLY different..."

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It kinda does though. Standards of proof are different between civil and criminal trials. Your "right to remain silent" is only relevant for criminal proceedings. This is why you will never be required to take the stand in your own criminal trial. This gives you coverage for shady law enforcement inferring criminal guilt based on your silence or reluctance to answer questions.

Contrast that with civil proceedings where you do not have the right to remain silent. In those if you refuse to answer a question, the judge/jury/finder of facts can legally infer a negative response. So if asked "Did you do the thing?" and you remain silent, they can assume you did the thing. In a criminal trial, they can't assume you did the thing.

This brings us back to the standards of proof. For criminal it's "beyond all reasonable doubt". For civil it's "a preponderance of the evidence". Consider these to be effectively 100% and 50% respectively. Now why this makes sense in this case is he effectively admitted that there's a better chance someone would think he's lying than telling the truth. He's admitting to the 50%, but not admitting it's provable beyond all reasonable doubt at 100%.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Just to quibble, reasonable doubt is not 100% certainty.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

The money his lawyers already got. ;)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wonder how he feels about going all in on trump now. Was it worth it?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

He's literally lost everything and, at 79 years old, he will likely die before this is all settled for good.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I'd say they should take all his money, but... what money?