When you’re 79, I’m not sure if it makes sense to call it “early dementia”, but then, I’m not a gerontologist.
Scotch-induced dementia, sure.
This is what @Spoons was mentioning upthread:
In Canada, we call it a “fraudulent preference” when a person transfers title to an asset to try to shield it from a creditor. Dunno if that’s what it’s called down south, but it’s the same concept: you owe money on a judgment, you can’t just transfer title to your assets and be free and clear.
(that’s a different scenario than the one @Dinsdale mentioned, where the judgment debtor did not have anything in his name prior to the law suit. It’s the transferring an asset out of your name to avoid the judgment that is considered a “fraudulent preference”. In Canada, at least.)
I’m not a gerontologist but I don’t think you have to be to look it up.
Dementia is not a normal or inevitable part of aging, but generally it’s exceedingly rare before age 65. I’d say any time it sets in after that age it’s not “early”.
It’s slightly more common among women than men. The likelihood goes up the older you get, but even at age 90 only 20% of men are affected on average.
From here:
Thanks for that. Makes sense.
Okay, what’s the betting line on the price of a RAMASWAMY '24 t-shirt after Iowa?
Or Better ASA Than ADA (have we forgotten Asa Hutchinson already?).
Or the RFK jr “muscle shirt” tank top?
And when does the price nosedive on the SDMB t-shirt? The one that reads FLORIDA MAN is a RON!
I’m skeptical that he’s legitimately that far gone. There’s still a discernible difference between his lunatic media persona and his behavior inside the courtroom. To whatever extent he actually believes his own ranting for the TV cameras, he knows that shit won’t fly in front of a judge, and he reins it in. That’s a pretty strong indicator that he still has something like a partial handle on reality, or at least a recognition of the risk of consequences.
If he cracks and throws a shoe at the bench or something, then I’ll buy that he’s lost it.
You know, I would wear a tee like that if there was no chance anyone would think it was sincere, as opposed to mocking. But, of course, we don’t live in that universe. But if I wore it to a party with my closest friends, they’d think it was hilarious.
So maybe I’d pay a buck to a street vendor.
You could always turn it inside out for public wear.
True!
Sad Trombone sound:
Article:
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/rudy-giuliani-hit-with-another-defamation-complaint
To be fair, they’re almost certainly not going to get the full amount that was decided in the judgement from the case, so there’s not going to be anymore coming from another lawsuit. Rudy pretty much has nothing to lose at this point.
But it’s still somewhat of a facepalm moment anyway.
Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss know this. I admire them all the more for suing Rudy just on the principle of the thing. Giuliani is such a toad.
These are just ordinary citizens, volunteers who dedicated their time to help the election process, and were put through Hell for it. And now they’re putting themselves through another round of this stuff without getting any money from it because it’s the right thing to do.
They’re damn heroes.
They are. And even knowing what they’re going to face for doing it, they understand how important it is.
I hope any other election worker whose reputation and name was sullied with all this garbage will do the same. It could have been any of us anywhere who work(ed) elections.
So if he’s got nothing to lose, and he just keeps defaming these women…
Can there be any legal repercussions that result in jail time for him?
I was about to post the same thing. Something doesn’t seem right about the idea that all they can do is sue him forever and he can shrug and pull his empty pockets out of his soiled trousers.
Could there be a point where it becomes criminal harassment?
That’s what I was thinking. Is that what this new case his hoping to lead to?
From CNN:
Their new lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction from the federal court in Washington, DC, to be placed on Giuliani that would prohibit him “from making or publishing, or causing to be made or published, further statements repeating any and all false claims” that the mother and daughter during the 2020 election ballot counting “engaged in election fraud, illegal activity or misconduct of any kind,” according to the filing.
Presumably if this is successful and injunction from the federal court would include the specific penalties that would be imposed if Giuliani continues his campaign of defamation. And I hope this would include jail time.
God knows people go to jail all the time for lesser offenses in this country. He should be jailed, but sadly, this American will believe it when he sees it.
“definitively clear that what I said was true”
“everything I said about them is true”
“I told the truth. They were engaged in changing votes.”
I think Rudy has made his appellate lawyers’ task more difficult with his statements. As I understand it from news reports (no cite, sorry), their plan was to appeal the defamation case on the basis that Rudy’s comments were all just opinion.
Now he’s said it was the truth. That’s him asserting that he was making statements of fact, not just giving his opinion.