Rudy Giuliani: What in the ever loving fuck is wrong with him?

[Cmaier]

Rudy Giuliani Defames Plaintiffs On The Courthouse Steps On The First Day Of Defamation Trial - Above the Law

Judge Howell was not impressed.

abovethelaw.com

 

[fooferdoggie]

Rudy, who already admitted to lying, is now telling the judge in his trial that he didn't lie and doesn't regret anything he said or did because he told the truth.

He literally ruined the lives of these people and totally upended it, and he's just ok with it all and isn't going to give an inch. He needs an intervention.

They're going to win additional damages before the trial decide on the damages even concludes.

yes good it will nail his dumb ass to the wall. sounds like trump is not happy with him so trim to recant. sorry someone who used to be a lawyer seems to have forgotten how the law works.

 

[fooferdoggie]

If I were their lawyer, I’d be filing a new defamation case tomorrow morning based on Rudy’s comments to the press before court today.

hey that works for trump why not the melter?

 

[GermanSuplex]

I’d invite Ruby Freeman and her daughter to the next State of The Union and present them with the Medal of Freedom just like Trump did Rush Limbaugh. Except this time, the recipients will deserve it.

 

[Citysnaps]

I’d invite Ruby Freeman and her daughter to the next State of The Union and present them with the Medal of Freedom just like Trump did Rush Limbaugh. Except this time, the recipients will deserve it.

After reading a transcript of their testimony I'd be totally on-board with that. They deserve it.

Giuliani turned into such a piece of shit. That speaks to trump, like ex-lax, literally bringing out their "best" with everyone who associates with him.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Bless his little cult heart...

Sibley also claimed that the decision for Giuliani to not testify in his defense was made out of respect for the two plaintiffs.

“We feel like these women have been through enough,” he told the jury Thursday.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/14/politics/rudy-giuliani-freeman-moss-defamation-trial/index.html

 

[MEJHarrison]

Bless his little cult heart...

Sibley also claimed that the decision for Giuliani to not testify in his defense was made out of respect for the two plaintiffs.

“We feel like these women have been through enough,” he told the jury Thursday.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/14/politics/rudy-giuliani-freeman-moss-defamation-trial/index.html

Does that mean that last week they hadn't been through enough? Since he went after them, again, earlier this week outside the courthouse, I can only presume that threshold hadn't yet been crossed. NOW they've been through enough. Good to know where that line is.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Bless his little cult heart...

Sibley also claimed that the decision for Giuliani to not testify in his defense was made out of respect for the two plaintiffs.

“We feel like these women have been through enough,” he told the jury Thursday.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/14/politics/rudy-giuliani-freeman-moss-defamation-trial/index.html

like the melter has any respect for them. what he did was showing respect? man that lawyer has the lies down well. its not going to save the melter he is doomed and deserves it.

 

[GermanSuplex]

like the melter has any respect for them. what he did was showing respect? man that lawyer has the lies down well. its not going to save the melter he is doomed and deserves it.

The lawyers also claimed the circumstances raised their profiles and opportunities, the implication being they should be thanking Rudy instead of suing him.

Verdict is in: Nearly $150 million. Or, as Trump calls it, "Winning". We "vermin" call it losing, however.

Live updates: Rudy Giuliani ordered to pay nearly $150 million in damages

A jury has ordered Rudy Giuliani to pay nearly $150 million to two Georgia election workers for the harm caused by defamatory statements he made about them following the 2020 election. Follow here for the latest.

www.cnn.com

*AAaaand, Rudy is accusing the judge of threats of contempt, said he couldn't produce the information he wanted and that he still has lots of proof, and he has "no doubt" everything he said was true.

He's nuts.

**Just heard Freeman and Moss speak.... they looked and sounded FANTASTIC. They looked overcome with emotion, but in a happy way. Never been so happy for two people to win a lawsuit. Maybe they can take Rudy through the wringer again if he doesn't STFU. In fact, they may be able to do just that in the upcoming RICO case. Hope Rudy's appeal is shot down fast so they can start selling off whatever he hasn't blown or drank up to pay them for their inconvenience.

 

[Yoused]

*AAaaand, Rudy is accusing the judge of threats of contempt, said he couldn't produce the information he wanted and that he still has lots of proof, and he has "no doubt" everything he said was true.

He's nuts.

You know, that just might be part of his appeal strategy: he is mentally unbalanced and therefore cannot be held responsible for the judgement.

I would prefer that he use the Ken Lay escape clause.

 

[Roller]

You know, that just might be part of his appeal strategy: he is mentally unbalanced and therefore cannot be held responsible for the judgement.

I would prefer that he use the Ken Lay escape clause.

Rudy will claim he spent $148 million on hair dye, so he can’t afford to pay.

 

[GermanSuplex]

Rudy will claim he spent $148 million on hair dye, so he can’t afford to pay.

“Then take that goofy f******g ring off your fat, grifting, racist pinky finger and pawn it.”

Just think of how far Rudy has fallen, and there’s a long way left to go. I so vividly remember George Bush’s approval rating shooting up to like 90% and Rudy becoming a celebrity just by playing the part. That’s was leaders used to do, not try to overturn elections and make baseless, racist attacks on civil workers and servants and use them as collateral damage in his schemes.

 

[Yoused]

Rudy: "No, it isn't truth. Truth isn't truth."

He is full-on going for the dementia defense.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Well he pulled a trump what a melting idiot.

Rudy Giuliani Hit With Another Lawsuit From Election Workers He Defamed​

Rudy Giuliani Hit With Another Lawsuit From Election Workers He Defamed

Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss have accused the disgraced former attorney of continuing to spread the same lies about their role in the 2020 election.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Citysnaps]

Well he pulled a trump what a melting idiot.

Rudy Giuliani Hit With Another Lawsuit From Election Workers He Defamed​

Rudy Giuliani Hit With Another Lawsuit From Election Workers He Defamed

Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss have accused the disgraced former attorney of continuing to spread the same lies about their role in the 2020 election.

www.huffpost.com

Hah!

I remember watching him being interviewed outside the courthouse on the news after the $148M verdict was read, where he was *still* disparaging Freeman and Moss, and thinking that guy really is dumber than rocks. And there will be *another* suit for that.

 

[Cmaier]

Hah!

I remember watching him being interviewed outside the courthouse on the news after the $148M verdict was read, where he was *still* disparaging Freeman and Moss, and thinking that guy really is dumber than rocks. And there will be *another* suit for that.

The new suit is not asking for money, but is asking for an injunction. Should be very interesting, but I don’t see the court granting the injunction.

 

[Citysnaps]

The new suit is not asking for money, but is asking for an injunction. Should be very interesting, but I don’t see the court granting the injunction.

Is that because what he said didn't rise to the level of defamation?

 

[Cmaier]

Is that because what he said didn't rise to the level of defamation?

Oh, it definitely does. There are several possible reasons they aren‘t asking for money:

1) P.R. They already got all the money he will ever have, so no point in asking for more. Instead get the public relations boost.

2) damages. I don’t know the laws in Georgia, but under some defamation/libel/slander statutes, and under traditional common law principles, you have to prove that there are actually damages. This could be difficult to do for two reasons: A) the statements just occurred, so it’s too soon for damages to have happened. B) they already argued in the first case that their reputations are in the mud because of Giuliani’s prior defamatory statements, so how much worse could the damage be due to these additional statements?

That said, there is a principal in common law called “defamation per se,” where it is just assumed that you are injured and you don’t have to prove it. The categories are kind of fun - category (2) is always a favorite in law school:

1. Saying that someone committed a crime or immoral conduct
2. Saying that someone had a contagious, infectious, or "loathsome" disease
3. Saying someone engaged in sexual misconduct or was unchaste
4. Saying something harmful about someone's business, trade, or profession

Item 1, and arguably 4, would apply here, but I don’t know if Georgia recognizes this theory.

 

[Citysnaps]

Oh, it definitely does. There are several possible reasons they aren‘t asking for money:

1) P.R. They already got all the money he will ever have, so no point in asking for more. Instead get the public relations boost.

2) damages. I don’t know the laws in Georgia, but under some defamation/libel/slander statutes, and under traditional common law principles, you have to prove that there are actually damages. This could be difficult to do for two reasons: A) the statements just occurred, so it’s too soon for damages to have happened. B) they already argued in the first case that their reputations are in the mud because of Giuliani’s prior defamatory statements, so how much worse could the damage be due to these additional statements?

That said, there is a principal in common law called “defamation per se,” where it is just assumed that you are injured and you don’t have to prove it. The categories are kind of fun - category (2) is always a favorite in law school:

1. Saying that someone committed a crime or immoral conduct
2. Saying that someone had a contagious, infectious, or "loathsome" disease
3. Saying someone engaged in sexual misconduct or was unchaste
4. Saying something harmful about someone's business, trade, or profession

Item 1, and arguably 4, would apply here, but I don’t know if Georgia recognizes this theory.

Thanx for your thoughts.

That now makes me wonder if Giuliani, before saying what he said, weighed the above and concluded he didn't need to worry about any consequences. Or... being worked up and angry about the trial outcome, he just can't keep his mouth shut, and consequences be damned. I'm guessing the latter.

Just curious... with respect to #2, above... What if someone really did have a contagious, infectious, or loathsome disease? Would that be a defense against defamation? Or does publicly disclosing "private facts" with respect to privacy law come into play at that point?

 

[Cmaier]

Thanx for your thoughts.

That now makes me wonder if Giuliani, before saying what he said, weighed the above and concluded he didn't need to worry about any consequences. Or... being worked up and angry about the trial outcome, he just can't keep his mouth shut, and consequences be damned. I'm guessing the latter.

Just curious... with respect to #2, above... What if someone really did have a contagious, infectious, or loathsome disease? Would that be a defense against defamation? Or does publicly disclosing "private facts" with respect to privacy law come into play at that point?

The concept of defamation (libel and slander) doesn’t apply when the facts are true (at least in the United States).

However, various states (but not all) have laws about public disclosure of private facts.

Under common law, “public disclosure of private facts” requires:

1. Giving publicity to a matter that concerns the private life of another,
2. Where the matter would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
3. The matter is not of legitimate public concern

Truthfulness is typically not a defense, though if the “private fact” is a matter of public record, that would typically be a defense. But it does vary quite a bit state-by-state.

Some states have “intrusion upon seclusion” which is similar:

• The defendant intentionally intruded upon the plaintiff's seclusion or private concerns.
• The intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
• The intrusion caused the plaintiff anguish and suffering

In any event, if the statement is true, then you would likely be relying on some sort of invasion of privacy cause of action (like the two mentioned above) that would vary state-by-state.