Giuliani loses defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
A federal judge has determined that Rudy Giuliani has lost a defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers against him after he failed to provide information sought in subpoenas.

A federal judge has determined that Rudy Giuliani has lost a defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers against him after he failed to provide information sought in subpoenas.

The decision could lead to significant penalties for the former Donald Trump attorney.

In court in recent weeks, Giuliani said he could no longer contest that he made false and defamatory statements about Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss – who are only one group of plaintiffs suing him for defamation related to his work for Trump after the 2020 election.

  • blazera@kbin.social
    34·
    1 year ago

    This is a weird read. They handed over 200 documents plus financial records. This case is about some remarks, how does it need so many records, what wasnt provided that resulted in this? There was an FBI raid and they say he should have made backups.

    Is backing up all your documents expected in all court cases?

    • czech@kbin.social
      6·
      1 year ago

      The Judge thinks he may have been intentionally withholding the records.

      “Perhaps he has made the calculation that his overall litigation risks are minimized by not complying with his discovery obligations in this case,” Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court in Washington, DC, wrote Wednesday. “Whatever the reason, obligations are case specific and withholding required discovery in this case has consequences.”

      • blazera@kbin.social
        1·
        1 year ago

        Stuffs probably over my head but what would they think was withheld?

        I think ive got court phobia, if i ever get accused of something im gettin booked for deleting my emails cus my inbox fills with spam.

    • LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world
      4·
      1 year ago

      They handed over 200 documents plus financial records.

      Without knowing what was specifically submitted, the quantity doesn’t say much.

      I could provide hundreds of pages of spam emails, automated messages from my bank and every online store I’ve bought stuff from, and still leave out any communication which was specifically requested by the court.

      Example:

      You use Firefox, you occasionally use IE to download MS updates and when you accidentally click on a link generated by windows.

      You use Firefox to Google “how to commit murder” and “how to remove blood from fabric” and then are accused of committing a murder around that same time.

      You get a subpoena for your electronic communications and searches.

      You only submit your IE searches (and delete your Firefox History).

      You are in contempt. The prosecutor would have the expert note that you use the computer for X hours a day (as per the logs that build up as you are online), yet IE shows minimal usage.

      Your Firefox shows no history, however there is a bookmark in your browser from after the time you received the subpoena. Therefore, you cleared your browser history after you were subpoenaed.

      You have Firefox installed (which you would have to go out of your way to do), but submitted no Firefox logs or empty logs.

      These logs also show logged activity from Firefox during the period of missing browser history.

    • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
      2·
      1 year ago

      Keep in mind it is a very common tactic to “bury” your opponent in paper. By law the lawyer knows they have to turn over an incriminating document. So they bury it in hundreds or thousands of other documents and hope opposing counsel misses it.