534
Giuliani liable for defaming Georgia election workers, judge rules
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
534 points (98.9% liked)
News
23367 readers
1842 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Could this ruling impact the Georgia RICO case because it’s now on the record that the election in Georgia was not rigged as they have claimed and keep claiming? Can a civil ruling like this be used as evidence in a criminal ruling? I am not a lawyer and not American.
Edit: Please read this child comment, where I describe how I am technically wrong.
Well, it's now on the record that those who Guiliani defamed were not involved in any "election rigging" in Georgia. That's different from "the election in Georgia was not rigged" (even if that statement is also true).
This ruling certainly eliminates some of the claimed "evidence" of "election rigging" that is being claimed. They continue to claim that other evidence exists, without producing said evidence, of course.
Not exactly. It's on the record that Giuliani failed to follow courtroom procedures and automatically lost the case.
It was not necessary to determine whether anyone was involved in election rigging.
That's what I get for not reading the article.
But, "He previously admitted that his statements were false and damaged Moss and Freeman's reputations." That still covers my earlier comment.
Edit: Actually ... no, it doesn't. It means that Moss and Freeman were not involved in any "election rigging" in the way that Guiliani had publicly accused them, as opposed to not involved in any "election rigging" at all (even if they were not actually involved in any election rigging, and there is no evidence to show that they were).
But... he was a lawyer...
That issue was resolved against him by sanction.
In order for a judicial finding to have preclusive effect in another action, it must be between the same parties in the same configuration, or by parties parity or with like incentive to litigate, and have been actually litigated.
I was listening to NPR, and they gave the impression that Giuliani withheld the evidence so it couldn't be used against him in the RICO case
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty confident that you can't use something with a lower standard of proof as evidence in a trial that requires a higher standard of proof. Civil cases only need to be proven by the standard "a preponderance of evidence", whereas criminal trials are required to proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".
It's probably okay in the other direction, though.