407
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Just minutes after leaving the first day of his civil trial, Rudy Giuliani repeated a false allegation about the pollworkers.

Rudy Giuliani’s defiant public statements outside a Washington, D.C., federal courthouse — just minutes after he departed the first day of his civil trial for defaming two Georgia election workers — may have defamed them yet again, the judge presiding over the proceedings said Tuesday.

“Was Mr. Giuliani just playing for the cameras?” wondered U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who has already found Giuliani liable for lying about the workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, by accusing them of manipulating ballots in the 2020 election.

His attorney, Joe Sibley, agreed that he could not reconcile Giuliani’s out-of-court comments on Monday evening with the more contrite argument Sibley had made on behalf of the former New York City mayor earlier in the day.

After the first day of his trial, when jurors began to hear evidence to determine just how much Giuliani must pay for defaming the two women, Giuliani approached television cameras outside the courthouse and reiterated his attacks on them.

all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 102 points 9 months ago

"This has taken a bit of a toll on him. He’s almost 80 years old"

Boo fucking Hoo. They should ride that fucking traitors corpse into the poor house if they have to.

[-] nul9o9@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago

He could have sold his NY real estate, moved to a cozy home upstate with full time nursing care if he was so enfeebled.

[-] djsoren19@yiffit.net 26 points 9 months ago

It's a stupid fucking excuse. If the man's been on this earth hurting people and spreading bullshit for 80 years, why should I feel any sympathy for his age? These vile assholes don't deserve peace, they shouldn't be allowed to just get away with it because they've been ruining lives for long enough.

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago

Won't someone please think of the perpetrator?! /s

@ Ghouliani: Get rekt you crooked, traitorous fuckstick.

[-] reversebananimals@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Should have thought of that before deciding to commit crimes then.

[-] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Apparently you can be a criminal and so long as you get old before they catch you, you're good!

[-] Ibex0@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

He should have walked away, around 2016. The whole "America's mayor" thing was a sweet deal for him.

[-] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 32 points 9 months ago

That picture of him leaving the courthouse in the article; are his pants conspicuously wet?

[-] wisemanzero@lemm.ee 65 points 9 months ago

You don't understand, he has to piss himself because his pants are continuously on fire.

[-] sonoranspace@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

LOL I think your right. I did some basic investigating https://photos.app.goo.gl/jRb2rLgmhtp1EECC8

[-] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Looks like he's trying to signal Batman

[-] friendlycheese@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Looks like his diaper leaked. He should find out what brand trump wears.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

I guess whatever affliction that made the hair on his head melt finally migrated down to his pubes

[-] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

Question for the legally aware:

I’ve seen many cases where the court will adjust jury-awarded penalties downward. A jury might find a chemical company liable in polluting a river and award the claimants $100M, and the court will adjust it to $5M.

The justice and potential for corruption etc aside, could the judge in a case like this and given an event like this increase the amount Rudy must pay over and above the $43M or whatever it is that’s being asked? Could the court say that the impenitent and repeatedly offending nature of Rudy merits additional penalties above and beyond what was asked for in the context of this case, or like with the Trump defamation case would it need a separate trial?

[-] SoylentBlake@lemm.ee 19 points 9 months ago

In E Jean Carrolls case against Trump, after the judge awarded her $5mil, Trump walked out of the courtroom and lied to the camera, again, even having just lost on it.

The attorney filed a motion against Trump the next day asking for double damages and was promptly awarded it. $10mil total.

So yea, the judge has some discretion.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yes, the terms are additur (adding money to the jury's award) and remittitur (taking money away from from the jury's award. It happens when the jury's award is obviously too much or not enough.

Additur is very rare. Basically requires an inconsistent verdict or a clearly wrong application of the facts by the jury, such as if the jury found the defendant solely liable for destroying the plaintiff's car and the value of the car was never disputed and accepted by everyone to be $10,000, but the jury only awards $5,000 in compensation. One reason it's so rare is because if the value of a thing is not really in dispute, usually the parties will stipulate to its value.

Remittitur is much more common. Most state courts hold that the damages awarded must have some basis in the evidence, and the figure cannot simply be pulled from thin air. Even with punitive damages, a smart plaintiff puts in some evidence of the defendant's total worth or profits.

[-] PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Thank you, that was exactly the answer I was looking for.

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago

I'm beginning to regret spending all that money to graduate the Rudy Giuliani School of Real Good Lawyerin'.

[-] FilthyHands@sh.itjust.works 8 points 9 months ago

The one next to the adult book store?

[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

You've been there too!

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 15 points 9 months ago

Lol, his attorney trying to be all "Oh he's just an old man," and Howell putting a stop to that shit instantly.

[-] ForestOrca@kbin.social 14 points 9 months ago

Is it reasonable to double the fines for each act of defamation? Or should the multiplier be larger?

[-] Alto@kbin.social 10 points 9 months ago

Doubling is fine, people tend to be awful at visualizing exponential growth as it is

[-] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Let me introduce you to a little thing called tetration...

[-] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 9 months ago

Oh I see you have used up all that rope already?

Sure, have some more Mr. Giuliani.

[-] recapitated@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

Let's make this real clear and help stop normalizing all the self-owning and wasting every taxpayers' time and money.

This is why the elder and wiser politician bowed the f out whenever they f'd up. Stop digging your graves deeper. We don't want you back and you're not saving face this way.

[-] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 5 points 9 months ago

Giuliani couldn't keep his mouth shut if his life depended on it.

[-] eighthourlunch@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

Mostly because he wouldn't be able to fill it with booze.

[-] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Why does the title frame it as a possibility, then immediately go on to describe him definitely doing it?

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 5 points 9 months ago

Same reason someone is alleged to have done something even if you have video for it, you wait until it's been affirmed by the courts to avoid being potentially liable for defamation.

Probably liability

this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
407 points (99.3% liked)

News

22890 readers
3742 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.


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