Rudy Giuliani Lawsuit

Author: Danielle

Posts

Total: 18
Topic's author
#1
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
Dominion Voting Systems, the election equipment manufacturer that became the target of wild conspiracy theories pushed by former President Donald Trump and his allies, sued Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani for defamation Monday.

Dominion said in a 107-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Washington that "as a result of the defamatory falsehoods peddled by Giuliani" in conjunction with other Trump allies and pro-Trump media outlets, "Dominion's founder and employees have been harassed and received death threats, and Dominion has suffered unprecedented and irreparable harm."

According to the complaint, that disinformation campaign forced the company to spend more than $565,000 on private security for the protection of its people, plus more than $1,170,000  to mitigate the harm to its reputation and business.

Dominion says the reputational damage inflicted by Giuliani's conspiracy mongering has cost the company about $200 million in lost profits and destroyed its resale value, which it says was between $450 million and $500 million before the viral disinformation campaign. The company is seeking $651,735,000 in compensatory damages and the same amount in punitive damages.

"Dominion brings this action to set the record straight, to vindicate the company's rights under civil law, to recover compensatory and punitive damages, and to stand up for itself, its employees, and the electoral process," the lawsuit says.
#2
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Danielle
you have to wonder what the hell happened to Giuliani. He used to be a respected and apparently intelligent person. He is a lawyer. He knows what the rules are for defamation. But he still went on an insane campaign to defame Dominion voting systems. 

How does somebody sink that far into crazy and stupid? 

He doesn't even have a defense against this lawsuit. He is on tape saying these lies over and over and over. And he obviously can't back up his insane claims since his lawsuits had no evidence in them. He is so screwed. 
#3
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Danielle
@HistoryBuff
There's a difference between having no evidence, and a court's refusal to hear it, including SCOTUS.
As it happens, to date, neither this suit, nor the suit filed against Sidney Powell by Dominion has yet to appear on the DC District Court docket calendar.
Your mutual crowing is premature efactualtion
Satisfied?
#4
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
There's a difference between having no evidence, and a court's refusal to hear it, including SCOTUS.
As it happens, to date, neither this suit, nor the suit filed against Sidney Powell by Dominion has yet to appear on the DC District Court docket calendar.
Powell filed 4 lawsuits about this, the so called "Kraken". They all got tossed out. Some explicitly for having no evidence. 

Here is an article about the case in Michigan. The judge called her case “nothing but speculation and conjecture,”

Here is a link about the case in Georgia. It was tossed out because she had no standing to bring it, brought the case too late and in the wrong place. 

Here is one that discusses her case in Arizona. Here's a fun quote:

"U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetawa sided with those judges in Arizona ... and saying Powell’s allegations of fraud are “sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence""


Multiple judges have now thrown out cases about Dominion voting machines because thee is no evidence. Both Powell and Giuliani continued making claims that Dominion was complicit in fraud when they had absolutely no evidence this was true. Even continuing it after judges told them they had “nothing but speculation and conjecture,”

They are fucked. 

#5
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
They all got tossed out. Some explicitly for having no evidence. 
The point was, the courts refused to hear the evidence; therefore decisions not based on lack of evidence, but refusal to hear it. The matter deserved it's day in court, but the court abdicated its proper role, including SCOTUS, in this case, the Court of first [and only] jurisdiction. So, stop spouting crap. Evidence refused to be heard is NOT evidence that there is no evidence. Does that make any impression?
#6
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
The point was, the courts refused to hear the evidence; therefore decisions not based on lack of evidence, but refusal to hear it. 
I don't know how you missed it, but here are the quotes from those judges again.

the judge called her case “nothing but speculation and conjecture,”

"U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetawa sided with those judges in Arizona ... and saying Powell’s allegations of fraud are “sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence""

Judges did hear Powell's case. She got her day in court. She had absolutely no evidence to back it up and her cases got tossed out. Why do you keep repeating that the courts refused to hear it when that isn't true?

Evidence refused to be heard is NOT evidence that there is no evidence. Does that make any impression?
it might if it wasn't complete bullshit. She presented her case and had no evidence to back it up. The judges explicitly said that was why her case was being tossed out. 
#7
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,570
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@HistoryBuff

It's called brain lesions. As we age our brains shrink in volume, particularly in the frontal cortex. As our vasculature ages and our blood pressure rises the possibility of stroke and ischaemia increases and our white matter develops lesions.


Topic's author
#8
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@fauxlaw
That is wrong. The courts heard testimony and oral arguments in each case.  When all of those cases were thrown out (for lack of evidence) which was unanimously determined by every single judge, including Republican judges and judges that Trump appointed, then the Appellate and Supreme Courts refused to hear some cases because they were not persuaded by the contents of the appeals.

You can read what all of those judges said by looking it up online, but here is a brief summary from the media. 

Also note that Giuliani will be able to make that argument ("I didn't get to present my cases!") if he goes to trial. We'll see how that defense holds up in court. 
#9
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Danielle
When does a litigator try the entire case in pre-trial? Absurd.
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Danielle
Giuliani's only crime was his hair dye.

Trump's too, dear oh dear, my oh my.

Though his brush over creation

Did mesmerise a Nation. 

So perhaps Joe, should give it a try.



Always be kind and considerate and understanding, towards your old folk.



Topic's author
#11
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@fauxlaw
When does a litigator try the entire case in pre-trial? Absurd.

You don't have to "try the entire case;" that is not the standard. But thinking you don't have to prove a case is justified in the first place is equally absurd and proves a blatant ignorance of how the law and justice system works. 

If your evidence is so incredibly low you can't even get a TRIAL... and then lose appeal after appeal... that is extremely telling. 

Think of how insane it is and how brainwashed you have to be to think that the entire justice system and every single judge all over the country (including Trump's ideological equals and his own appointees) are in some type of ridiculous conspiracy against him. Do you also believe that we didn't land on the moon, that the Earth is flat and that the Sandy Hook shooting was a false flag? Think. 
#12
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Danielle
Don't assume what I think. 
#13
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
In order to have a case heard there are standards of evidence that must be met, if a case does not achieve that bare minimum standard of evidence, then it is thrown out because of conjecture. You present all of your evidence in the lawsuit, this isn't some court drama with a surprise testimony or evidence, that's not how the court works, you present all of your evidence at the gate and the court will evaluate if that case if worth their time. These cases were not due to an explicit lack of evidence. 
Topic's author
#14
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@fauxlaw
Again for your reference: In order to have a case heard there are standards of evidence that must be met. If a case does not achieve that bare minimum standard of evidence, then it is thrown out because of conjecture. You present all of your evidence at the gate and the court will evaluate if that case if worth their time. These cases were not due to an explicit lack of evidence. And then when that was disputed on appeal, each and every one of the appellate courts agreed there was not enough evidence to try any of the cases.

Think of how insane it is and how brainwashed one has to be to think that the entire justice system and every single judge all over the country (including Trump's ideological equals and his own appointees) are in some type of ridiculous conspiracy against him. Seriously, think about it. Think. 
#15
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
And beyond that, do you actually have any evidence for your claims or are your objections purely speculative?
#16
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
These cases were not due to an explicit lack of evidence. 
Have you read the motions filed in these cases, each of which had motions to dismiss? Probably not.

Motion to Dismiss. This motion asks the court to dismiss the suit because the suit doesn’t have a legally sound basis, even if all the facts alleged are proven true.https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/motions/
#17
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Have you read the motions filed in these cases, each of which had motions to dismiss? Probably not.
have you read them? because you didn't actually provide any of them. You just defined a motion to dismiss. And not having any evidence would be a good reason to dismiss a case. And since multiple judges in multiple cases explicitly said the cases were getting tossed out for having no evidence, it would seem like you are continuing to ignore reality. 

Some of the cases got tossed out on procedural grounds because trump hired terrible lawyers who don't know what they are doing.

Some of them got tossed out on procedural grounds because they were never intended to go anywhere. The lawyers starting the suits knew they were dead ends when they filed them, but filed them just so that politicians could point to the lawsuits as evidence of fraud, even though the lawsuits were bullshit. (which is exactly what you are doing)

And many of them got tossed out for having no evidence. The lawyers filing the lawsuits had no evidence. They had speculation and hearsay. In some cases their witnesses fell apart after basic questioning. In some cases they listed witnesses who had not agreed to go to court. But mostly, they just had no evidence at all. 
#18
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
..... do you any evidence that the claims were true? Furthermore consider this:

"Despite the chaos of election night and the days which followed, the media has consistently proclaimed that no widespread voter fraud has been proven. But this observation misses the point. The constitutional issue is not whether voters committed fraud but whether state officials violated the law by systematically loosening the measures for ballot integrity so that fraud becomes undetectable."
Misses the point does it? The observation - the state that is suing for voter fraud just admitted that no voter fraud had been proven, they instead object that the voter fraud is being made "undetectable" by loosening voter options?

Mmm...