Rudy Guiliani defamation cost him $148 million

[*pally*]

2 Georgia poll workers sued Rudy Guiliani for defamation after his many many comments after the 2020 accusing them of wrongdoing. And he continued to defame them even as the case was being heard. Today a Washington jury awarded the women a whopping $148 million in damages

For damage to reputation: $16 million to 1, $17 million to the other

For emotional distress: $20 million apiece

punitive damages: $75 million


https://apnews.com/article/giuliani-2020-election-georgia-defamation-moss-freeman-6f6446c4f5224f521db8ff7763fb12d1

[M.W.]

Good, of course he is broke.

[Belsnickel]

This will get reduced on appeal, most likely.

[*Nately120*]

(12-18-2023, 08:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This will get reduced on appeal, most likely.

He also doubled down afterwards saying he has evidence they did exactly what he said they did, he just wasn't allowed to present it. 

It's amazing how childishly simple these excuses are, but they get made and people buy it.

[Stewy]

(12-18-2023, 11:30 AM)Nately120 Wrote: He also doubled down afterwards saying he has evidence they did exactly what he said they did, he just wasn't allowed to present it. 

It's amazing how childishly simple these excuses are, but they get made and people buy it.

Of course he did.....lying is all he has left.....almost literally.

[*Nately120*]

(12-18-2023, 11:49 AM)Stewy Wrote: Of course he did.....lying is all he has left.....almost literally.

I'm used to lying, it's just amazing seeing these paper-thin and easily disputed lying methodology that I associated with children on the playground making a return to my life 30+ years later as I'm an adult observing politics.  Nothing like seeing the people who run this country use the same argument style an 8 year old did when he assured me his uncle worked for Nintendo and that he had Super Mario 6 but I wasn't allowed to see it.

I'm sure someone older and wiser than me has said this, but I've come to realize that:

if you lie a little, most people will believe you

if you lie a lot, most people won't believe you

if you lie 100% of the time about stuff that is easily disproven and patently false and you completely contradict yourself with your own lies, most people won't believe you but a group of people will not only believe you, but believe that you are in fact the ONLY person who isn't lying

[M.W.]

(12-18-2023, 12:02 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm used to lying, it's just amazing seeing these paper-thin and easily disputed lying methodology that I associated with children on the playground making a return to my life 30+ years later as I'm an adult observing politics.  Nothing like seeing the people who run this country use the same argument style an 8 year old did when he assured me his uncle worked for Nintendo and that he had Super Mario 6 but I wasn't allowed to see it.

I'm sure someone older and wiser than me has said this, but I've come to realize that:

if you lie a little, most people will believe you

if you lie a lot, most people won't believe you

if you lie 100% of the time about stuff that is easily disproven and patently false and you completely contradict yourself with your own lies, most people won't believe you but a group of people will not only believe you, but believe that you are in fact the ONLY person who isn't lying

To roughly 30% of misguided Americans who believe acting like a traitor makes you a patriot and facts aren't real unless Fox news says so (Fox news literally claimed in court that no reasonable person would believe them, they are news ENTERTAINMENT) nothing matters except trump is God.  Facts do not matter to them one bit.  You either worship their God or you are a traitor even though, in reality, their God is trying to dismantle the very fabric of America (which is not white people/hatred) our democracy. We are in some insane times my friends.  I do not argue with trump supporters for the same reason I don't argue with 5 year old children.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-18-2023, 08:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This will get reduced on appeal, most likely.

It should because it's obscene to the point of utter absurdity.  I've seen families of murder victims receive far less than 1% of that.  

[*Nately120*]

(12-18-2023, 02:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It should because it's obscene to the point of utter absurdity.  I've seen families of murder victims receive far less than 1% of that.  

True, but in all fairness murder happens all the time.  Some of the most powerful people on the planet tacitly inciting mobs against specific private citizens...now that you don't see every day.  It'd downright absurd that stuff like this is happening, and will continue to happen.

Absurd retaliations follow absurd actions, I guess.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-18-2023, 02:12 PM)Nately120 Wrote: True, but in all fairness murder happens all the time.  Some of the most powerful people on the planet tacitly inciting mobs against specific private citizens...now that you don't see every day.  It'd downright absurd that stuff like this is happening, and will continue to happen.

Absurd retaliations follow absurd actions, I guess.

Sure, but if we're speaking about punitive damages and emotional distress, which we are, then someone's death rather dwarfs what these people went through.  This doesn't minimize what they experienced, it puts it in context.  A woman who is kidnapped and repeatedly raped suffers exponentially more than these people, yet I've never heard of a settlement for such a case coming anywhere close to this ridiculous figure.  It's stupid and there's no defending it when compared to the impact of other crimes on the victim.

[*Nately120*]

(12-18-2023, 02:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, but if we're speaking about punitive damages and emotional distress, which we are, then someone's death rather dwarfs what these people went through.  This doesn't minimize what they experienced, it puts it in context.  A woman who is kidnapped and repeatedly raped suffers exponentially more than these people, yet I've never heard of a settlement for such a case coming anywhere close to this ridiculous figure.  It's stupid and there's no defending it when compared to the impact of other crimes on the victim.

They aren't getting a cent regardless of how sane the judgement would be. May as well make a splash in the headlines because that's all it will be. 

[basballguy]

When the justice system becomes theater this is what happens.  

A drunk doctor kills your spouse during surgery and you might be awarded 250k.  

Celebrate the verdict if you want, but we should be ashamed of the justice system for allowing such a ridiculous amount to be awarded.  

[GMDino]

(12-18-2023, 02:50 PM)Nately120 Wrote: They aren't getting a cent regardless of how sane the judgement would be. May as well make a splash in the headlines because that's all it will be. 

Probably more of an attempt to be a deterrent to the next guy.

Maybe they will have money and be forced to pay.

A guilty verdict was good, but Rudy still doesn't think he's guilty of anything.  It's the republican way to deny you lost anything.

[*pally*]

well if it is a lesson it is one that may take more money for him to learn. The plaintiffs have filed another suit citing his continuing defamation

NEW: Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss bring another lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, for his continuing defamation. https://t.co/dqalYYOUcc

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) December 18, 2023

[hollodero]

(12-18-2023, 02:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, but if we're speaking about punitive damages and emotional distress, which we are, then someone's death rather dwarfs what these people went through.  This doesn't minimize what they experienced, it puts it in context.  A woman who is kidnapped and repeatedly raped suffers exponentially more than these people, yet I've never heard of a settlement for such a case coming anywhere close to this ridiculous figure.  It's stupid and there's no defending it when compared to the impact of other crimes on the victim.

What would you say would be an appropriate sum?

PS of course 148 million is indeed absurd.

[Belsnickel]

I just listened to an interview of the lead counsel for the plaintiffs in this case. It was very interesting hearing about the theories behind their actions and what their thought process was throughout the case. They focused a lot on trying to break the mold on how these sorts of damages are assessed. Essentially, the way these were typically done was that if you earned $100k a year, reputational damages would be based on that figure. They brought in legal theorists to argue, though, that instead of thinking about it that way you should think about these cases more like having to rebuild a home after a fire that also involves hazmat cleanup in the aftermath because of the level of damage done.

It was very interesting and because the rulings in this case also stated that there was coordination between Giuliani and the Trump campaign, I would not be surprised to see more from these plaintiffs.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-19-2023, 05:02 AM)hollodero Wrote: What would you say would be an appropriate sum?

PS of course 148 million is indeed absurd.

I'd honestly need more info on what the actual damages being claimed are beyond the generic information provided.  I would say that getting more than a person whose loved one was killed by, for example, medical malpractice, as Basballguy noted, is obscene.

Also, as an aside and completely off topic, I saw a story that Austria and the Czech Republic were the only EU members to vote against UN resolution on a ceasefire in Gaza.  I was wondering if you had any insights on why.  Not trying to derail the thread, btw.

(12-19-2023, 11:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just listened to an interview of the lead counsel for the plaintiffs in this case. It was very interesting hearing about the theories behind their actions and what their thought process was throughout the case. They focused a lot on trying to break the mold on how these sorts of damages are assessed. Essentially, the way these were typically done was that if you earned $100k a year, reputational damages would be based on that figure. They brought in legal theorists to argue, though, that instead of thinking about it that way you should think about these cases more like having to rebuild a home after a fire that also involves hazmat cleanup in the aftermath because of the level of damage done.

It was very interesting and because the rulings in this case also stated that there was coordination between Giuliani and the Trump campaign, I would not be surprised to see more from these plaintiffs.

How does that justify them getting more than someone who is suing over a person's death?  I know you're not making the legal argument, but this is insane to me.

[*pally*]

(12-19-2023, 02:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd honestly need more info on what the actual damages being claimed are beyond the generic information provided.  I would say that getting more than a person whose loved one was killed by, for example, medical malpractice, as Basballguy noted, is obscene.

Also, as an aside and completely off topic, I saw a story that Austria and the Czech Republic were the only EU members to vote against UN resolution on a ceasefire in Gaza.  I was wondering if you had any insights on why.  Not trying to derail the thread, btw.


How does that justify them getting more than someone who is suing over a person's death?  I know you're not making the legal argument, but this is insane to me.

Basically, the ambassadors for each country indicated they thought the language didn't go far enough on Israel's right to defend themselves

[hollodero]

(12-19-2023, 02:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd honestly need more info on what the actual damages being claimed are beyond the generic information provided.  I would say that getting more than a person whose loved one was killed by, for example, medical malpractice, as Basballguy noted, is obscene.

Fair enough. My question was not a fair one to pose under that circumstances, for indeed, how would you know for sure. I guess my underlying point would be that while the sum is obscene and ridiculous on its face, I am absolutely in favor of Giuliani having to pay damages for defamation. I heard those two women, mother and daughter, talk about the repercussions from being defamed with Giuliani lies in the Congressional hearing. They explained how they had to face numerous severe threats, their business war basically ruined, their life became dangerous - and all they did was a service to the nation.

I guess that's the reason for this high sum, again, not that I defend this number. Murder for sure is a more severe reason for being emotionally pained by the deed, but when it comes to society as a whole, it's a bit of a different picture. Defaming election workers and exposing them to all kinds of death threats and hatred just for counting the votes is a highly dangerous idea. It appears as if election workers are pressured and threatened to rather "find Trump votes" in the future, or else.

(12-19-2023, 02:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also, as an aside and completely off topic, I saw a story that Austria and the Czech Republic were the only EU members to vote against UN resolution on a ceasefire in Gaza.  I was wondering if you had any insights on why.  Not trying to derail the thread, btw.

Austria generally was unhappy about what they feel was a lack of condemnation of Hamas. "We" called it 'shameful' after the vote. First time, especially the line "all parties" need to respect intenational law did not sit well, Austria wanted to specifically address Hamas and the hostage takers. In the second vote, Austria had the same issue and wanted an amendment that made this condemnation more clear and also would have asked for 'immediate' humanitarian help. When this amendment barely did not pass, Austria voted no on the resolution.

PS I realize there is not much "insight"... the insight would be that we have a complicated history with the Jewish state, for the apparent reason and also for the role of our former uber-chancellor Bruno Kreisky, who significantly aided the PLO out of the terrorist hole onto the legitimate political stage - which sure was delicate and controversial. Mr. Kreisky was Jewish, but to many acquired a reputation of being rather Israel-critical and possibly a bit antisemitic. Some years later, the relationship became quite controversial again when Austria elected a former Wehrmacht official - which would be former UN secretary-general Kurt Waldheim - to be our president (a post rather ceremonial than influential, but still). We got ostracised over this quite a bit, also when Jörg Haider - an early Trump-like figure - gained popularity with his FPÖ party that many see as being too close to Nazi ideology. Ever since, it seems to me official Austria tries its darn best to be on Israel's side as much as is feasible to not appear antisemitic and Naziesque.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-19-2023, 08:31 PM)hollodero Wrote: Fair enough. My question was not a fair one to pose under that circumstances, for indeed, how would you know for sure. I guess my underlying point would be that while the sum is obscene and ridiculous on its face, I am absolutely in favor of Giuliani having to pay damages for defamation. I heard those two women, mother and daughter, talk about the repercussions from being defamed with Giuliani lies in the Congressional hearing. They explained how they had to face numerous severe threats, their business war basically ruined, their life became dangerous - and all they did was a service to the nation.

I guess that's the reason for this high sum, again, not that I defend this number. Murder for sure is a more severe reason for being emotionally pained by the deed, but when it comes to society as a whole, it's a bit of a different picture. Defaming election workers and exposing them to all kinds of death threats and hatred just for counting the votes is a highly dangerous idea. It appears as if election workers are pressured and threatened to rather "find Trump votes" in the future, or else.

In didn't see the question as unfair, at least I know it was not intended to be.  I wholeheartedly agree that damages should be paid when defaming someone, it's just this total immediately invoked a kangaroo court image for me and actually lends credence to anyone trying to delegitimize the proceedings.

Quote:Austria generally was unhappy about what they feel was a lack of condemnation of Hamas. "We" called it 'shameful' after the vote. First time, especially the line "all parties" need to respect intenational law did not sit well, Austria wanted to specifically address Hamas and the hostage takers. In the second vote, Austria had the same issue and wanted an amendment that made this condemnation more clear and also would have asked for 'immediate' humanitarian help. When this amendment barely did not pass, Austria voted no on the resolution.

PS I realize there is not much "insight"... the insight would be that we have a complicated history with the Jewish state, for the apparent reason and also for the role of our former uber-chancellor Bruno Kreisky, who significantly aided the PLO out of the terrorist hole onto the legitimate political stage - which sure was delicate and controversial. Mr. Kreisky was Jewish, but to many acquired a reputation of being rather Israel-critical and possibly a bit antisemitic. Some years later, the relationship became quite controversial again when Austria elected a former Wehrmacht official - which would be former UN secretary-general Kurt Waldheim - to be our president (a post rather ceremonial than influential, but still). We got ostracised over this quite a bit, also when Jörg Haider - an early Trump-like figure - gained popularity with his FPÖ party that many see as being too close to Nazi ideology. Ever since, it seems to me official Austria tries its darn best to be on Israel's side as much as is feasible to not appear antisemitic and Naziesque.

Thank you very much, this was precisely what I was looking for, the first person perspective.  I sincerely appreciate the time you took responding.  I always enjoy a perspective separate from US politics/culture