re: Rudy Giuliani found liable for defaming GA election workers, has to pay damages.

quote:

---

Nobody thought you'd accept anything in response to your request. Absolutely nobody.

---

I definitely wouldn’t accept your screen cap site.

But look, if the goods were had, they would be on profound display, in the multitude of bullshite cases filed around the election. The fact that they aren’t says all we need to know. That’s how the world works, pal.

quote:

---

It's great because so many on this board love to flood a thread with "wait till muh discovery comes out" then when Rudy decides not to turn over discovery you get emotional hissy fits as seen in this thread

---

It’s ignorance, willful ignorance and bad faith.

Every time I’ve ever entered a factual stipulation, the sole purpose of it is to avoid having to expend discovery / trial time arguing about something. For example, I’ve tried serious rear-end accidents representing trucking companies. (I’d rather take a beating than to ever do that kind of work again, but it was a great learning experience). In those cases, I often stipulated that the driver was negligent, for example. I did so bc the Gordon Flunky on the other side couldn’t enter in pictures of mangled vehicles and such to engender sympathy. He’s limited to his whore doctor testifying against the whore doctor I hired and that shite is boring and the jury falls asleep listening to an underemployed individual moaning about their back pain.

You only stipulate to facts, but you can and often do reserve legal arguments about the implications of those facts. That’s what Rudy appeared to be trying to do.

If Rudy is stipulating he said the things that he said - which from reading the opinion it appears to be what he did - he’s only stipulating to the facts - he’s not stipulating that those facts, even if true result in his liability - bc his statements are “opinion.” An opinion is a statement that is neither true nor false and cannot, by definition be defamatory. Therefore, it cannot, by definition expose him to damages - punitive or otherwise.

I haven’t read the Lawsuit - but assuming the plaintiffs just raised defamation claims - it makes it perfectly understandable what he did.

Further - statements made while representing clients (ie the bad orange man) - are also privileged. So even if they were defamatory, he can’t incur any liability for them.

From reading the opinion itself and this Politico Article (not this whole 10 page thread), Rudy has already moved to dismiss the defamation case, presumably based on this opinion and privilege argument. The judge apparently denied it (likely on Orange Man Bad Grounds).

The MTD denial isn’t appealable, but a default judgment, especially on a freaking discovery motion is appealable. Rudy can bide time and potentially get the ruling before a non-Democrat of Columbia panel on whether his “opinion” statements and statements made while representing Trump are defamatory, and if so, whether he can be subject to liability for them. IOW he’ll get a do-over on his motion to dismiss.

What he’s trying to do here makes perfect sense to me- albeit arcane. And it’s pretty smart bc it allows him to avoid making statements so that Jack Smith and the rest of the Democrats of Columbia can read what’s on his phones.

quote:

---

It’s amazing how gleeful you get over this stuff while being totally indifferent to the Biden’s corruption.

---

He's always been a leftist.

quote:

---

Of course it doesn’t. The fact trump is being prosecuted for political reasons should, however.

---

So we shouldn’t prosecute people from one party if the other party is in the White House?

quote:

---

I haven’t read the Lawsuit - but assuming the plaintiffs just raised defamation claims - it makes it perfectly understandable what he did.

---

They also claimed Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Your point is right though. He was still arguing that his statements, even though they were false, were his opinion.

quote:

---

Further - statements made while representing clients (ie the bad orange man) - are also privileged. So even if they were defamatory, he can’t incur any liability for them.

---

I don't believe its that cut and dry. Statements made in an actual proceeding maybe, but statements made to the media about people that, at the time, weren't involved in litigation with that client?

quote:

---

Further - statements made while representing clients (ie the bad orange man) - are also privileged. So even if they were defamatory, he can’t incur any liability for them.

---

I need a cite for this one.

quote:

---

I’m just gonna stop there. You’ve had a lifetimes worth of koolaid in a few years and you really need to detox and come back to reality.

---

If in 2023 you don't understand the lengths the Obama Administration went to in a massive criminal enterprise to derail the Trump campaign/transition/administration in 2016 and beyond, then you're not tall enough to ride.