- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rudy responds to Dominion Lawsuit
Posted on 1/25/21 at 1:19 pm to Jjdoc
Posted on 1/25/21 at 1:19 pm to Jjdoc
quote:You are so lost and as a result unwilling/unable to explain your position.
Now try No Standing vs Evidence heard in Trail. He thinks it's the same.
Feel free to demonstrate anything I have missed on standing, evidence presented in cases, or Rudy’s ridiculous statement that he is exploring a counter suit against Dominion on constitutional grounds because the amount they asked for by Dominion limits free speech or the ability of attorneys to represent their clients.
This post was edited on 1/25/21 at 1:21 pm
0
Posted on 1/25/21 at 1:24 pm to ChoadieMcSmalls
quote:
If he loses or settles, will you still believe dominion machines flipped votes?
When has reality or facts mattered?
Posted on 1/25/21 at 1:32 pm to TigersOfGeauxld
quote:
When has reality or facts mattered?
Never, when you're posting, lol.
Posted on 1/25/21 at 1:34 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
The amount being asked for is, quite obviously, intended to frighten people of faint heart. It is another act of intimidation by the hate-filled left-wing to wipe out and censor the exercise of free speech, as well as the ability of lawyers to defend their clients vigorously. As such, we will investigate a countersuit against them for violating these Constitutional rights.
Oh Rudy.
That’s just fricking dumb.
Posted on 1/25/21 at 1:37 pm to Jjdoc
Here's where all the flip flopping chicken littles around here hop back on the Rudy train after they've spent the last month or so calling him a lunatic.
Posted on 1/25/21 at 1:43 pm to BoarEd
quote:
they've spent the last month or so calling him a lunatic.
I never called him a lunatic. I always just thought he was an incompetent idiot.
quote:
At a different moment, Giuliani said: “I’m not quite sure what ‘opacity’ means. It probably means you can see.”
The judge responded: “It means you can’t.”
Washington Post
Posted on 1/25/21 at 1:49 pm to lsutigermall
quote:
The President can get away with just making up and saying things
Hillary wasn’t president when she claimed muh russians, lying seemed to be ok then. Not sure what being president has to do with whatever point you thought you were making.
Muh #resist was what all the cool kids used to do.
Posted on 1/25/21 at 1:52 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
Are Constitutional grounds reserved for the government/criminal trials?
Basically.
Giuliani cannot sue Dominion (a private actor) for infringing on his free speech.
There are limits on defamation law that are constitutionally based.
Posted on 1/25/21 at 1:56 pm to WDE24
quote:
Feel free to break it down, unless you are uncomfortable with more than drive by quips.
He is describing the basis for an anti-slapp suit. Which is an action intended to protect those exercising their first amendment rights. He did not say the unconstitutional actions were the amount of the suit. It’s the intimidation.
This post was edited on 1/25/21 at 1:57 pm
Posted on 1/25/21 at 1:58 pm to CaTiger85
quote:He said the amount was another act of intimidation designed to interfere with free speech and vigorous representation.
He did not say the unconstitutional actions were the amount of the suit. It’s the intimidation.
quote:
The amount being asked for is, quite obviously, intended to frighten people of faint heart. It is another act of intimidation...
This post was edited on 1/25/21 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 1/25/21 at 2:05 pm to WDE24
It’s clear he is laying the groundwork for an anti-slapp suit. It’s ok you had no idea that existed and tried to mock him.
Posted on 1/25/21 at 2:05 pm to JudgeHolden
I am curious to see how uses the vigorous representation of his client as a defense since he never pled or argued anything about Dominion in court.
Posted on 1/25/21 at 2:07 pm to Jjdoc
Discovery is a bitch!
Posted on 1/25/21 at 2:08 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
In order to establish his defense, I suppose the court will have to allow Rudy to crack open the machines in the footprint, as Wednesday called it.
Assuming any are left which haven't been tampered with prior to 11/04/2020.
Posted on 1/25/21 at 2:16 pm to CaTiger85
quote:That’s weird considering I’m dealing with one right now.
It’s ok you had no idea that existed
quote:I definitely mocked him.
tried to mock him.
This post was edited on 1/25/21 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 1/25/21 at 2:22 pm to Bard
quote:Wow. Your lunacy is uncapped.
Assuming any are left which haven't been tampered with prior to 11/04/2020.
How about the ones Trump appointed?
Posted on 1/25/21 at 2:24 pm to CaTiger85
quote:
It’s clear he is laying the groundwork for an anti-slapp suit. It’s ok you had no idea that existed and tried to mock him.
Rudy out there playing 5D Chess.
Posted on 1/25/21 at 2:26 pm to CaTiger85
quote:In DC, would it be a counter suit or a special motion to dismiss? How do the federal courts in DC handle those claims?
an anti-slapp suit.
Posted on 1/25/21 at 2:27 pm to JudgeHolden
quote:
think Dominion is focused on his extra-judicial statements.
I'm sure they are - which would probably prevent a SLAPP defense . . . However I think this is like Sidney. Rudy's extrajudicial statements seem to all repeat the statements made in his pleadings.
I think the privilege would apply to those.
Also, Rudy was way more reticent to discuss Dominion claims publicly. His focus was always on more conventional ballot stuffing and the state governments kicking out poll watchers. I tend to believe that the state governments and some bad actors within Dominion were in cahoots, but Rudy was only after the state actor part of the conspiracy.
Every time I've ever seen him address it - it involved the Coomer guy, defer to Sidney or discuss Dominion in general terms as a shady company. Not a flattering opinion - but still, you can't sue someone for defamation for giving an unflattering opinion.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News