From the link:
We have considered in mitigation Mr. Giuliani’s conduct following the September 11 attacks as well as his prior service in the Justice Department and as Mayor of New York City. But all of that happened long ago. The misconduct here sadly transcends all his past accomplishments.
Translation: Yes he behaved marginally competently in the past, but that was before he went round the bend into batshit craziness.
This seems to have been Giuliani’s clearly stated belief. The “proof” is that everyone knows that all Democrats are cheaters. QED.
Mr. Giuliani, “Everybody is saying” cannot be entered into evidence.
“Well, Your Honor, we have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.” - Lionel Hutz
how 'bout “I heard a lot of people say …” ???
Maybe he hasn’t paid his cloud provider in a year or more. They could demand that he get cirrent before releasing his data.
Can it be entered into evidence if there are tears in everbody’s eyes?
Oh yes. I see now that dougrb already confirmed this.
[steely glare]
Or maybe he’s just planning to pay the cloud provider cumulatively. I know the dude’s kind of a nimbus but perhaps they figure that he’s from a high enough social stratus that he’s bound to be good for the money.
Are you being cirrus?
Rudy admits that he lied about the Georgia election workers, but his statements were constitutionally protected and didn’t harm those workers.
He admitted the statements were false, and those workers can show damages resulting. At this point Rudy’s going to paying off settlements for the next three lifetimes.
Yeah, they received death threats. Rather damaging, I would think.
Wonder who’s first in line for the scraps; all the X-wives or the election workers?
Nothing left Rudy - perhaps a sudden attack of conscience? Do the right thing, make history, slay the dragon!
" he’s dead Jim (inside)"
This smells of a desperation move.
I don’t understand the rationale for this. If his statements were constitutionally protected (they weren’t) he could file a motion on that without admitting the other elements of the allegations. He could simply say, “for purposes of hits motion, we’ll admit all the allegations, but even then, the claims must fail.”
The rationale is that Rudy thinks he’s a much better lawyer than he actually is.
There are four elements of defamation,
Giuliani admitted 2 and did not contest 1, but that’s not the end of story because points 3 and 4, so far as I can tell, are still being litigated.
~Max
He admitted that the statements were defamatory per se. That removes the requirement (#4) that plaintiffs establish they were damaged.
Generally, for defamation per se, the statements are presumed harmful whereas for defamation per quod the damage must be proven. Most but not all states recognize the distinction between these two types of defamation.
I think - I haven’t read the actual filings - Giuliani’s strategy here is to allege that the election workers were public figures. (Which is a pretty lame argument IMO.) The presumption of defemation per se doesn’t usually apply when the statement is directed at a public figure, likewise the standard is usually raised from mere negligence to actual malice as criticism of public figures has some 1st Amendment implications.
~Max