18 ms·

As to (3), Ken and others have also pointed out, Rudy or Sydney Powel being lawyers have a duty to know this sort of thing so there's a chance that they'll be f

As to (3), Ken and others have also pointed out, Rudy or Sydney Powel being lawyers have a duty to know this sort of thing so there's a chance that they'll be found to have actual malice even without a finding that Rudy was knowingly lying.

vsareto 6y ago
Rudy also had a cybersecurity company and was named as a cybersecurity advisor. Would that help Dominion's side that this wasn't just crazy beliefs on Giuliani's part and be in favor of actual malice?
- akiselev 6y ago
  IANAL but "they should have known" doesn't follow from how they market themselves as a business unless it's a licensed profession. It's not uncommon for defendants to completely contradict their previous public statements under threat of a lawsuit like all the Fox News lawsuits where their lawyers win by claiming that it's an entertainment channel and their viewers should know better [1]. Beyond that, one can easily argue that political appointments and executive positions rarely deal with the nitty gritty details, instead providing value through things like political connections and existing business relationships. [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yor... - "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
  - andy_ppp 6y ago
    You are kidding me, their defence in court is that they are bullshit artists, it’s just beyond parody. I’m starting to think we live in something far worse than idiocracy... Dominion at the very least should be demanding they remove the word “news” from all their branding if this is to fly.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      Nope. It’s very clear to even people who like that shit that Tucker isn’t “the news”. It’s very clearly overblown rants about anything that went on recently. It’s clearly a talk show on a channel that has news during the day. Hannity is even more of a nutter bringing in panels to get peoples’ reactions to shit that went on. It’s the equivalent of /r/politics for boomers. A bunch of people getting riled up together about the “obvious stupidity” of “the other side”.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        Tucker Carlson is the Republican version of Rachel Maddow (who didn’t hear a single conspiracy theory about Trump and Russia she didn’t peddle on the air).
    - joering2 6y ago
      Fox Noise is a joke. Mostly they are being watched so much because people find them entertaining. But they are danger to society and democracy. The lies they spew are the reason they been banned both from Murdoch home Australia, and Great Britain. I find it especially funny to watch Sean Insanity, Fucker Calrson, Lara Inbreed and Mark Lenin; they all just opinion-makers, its just happen to be extremely shitty but funny opinion.
      - EdwardDiego 6y ago
        I agree with you, but I suspect the rather childish nicknames are getting you downvoted. We can discuss the issue with a news network that argues in court "It's not news, it's just their opinion" while presenting it as news, without going 12 year old in it. It's much like how a valid critique of Ballmer era Microsoft is immediately undermined by referring to them as Micro$oft or Microsucks etc.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - wcunning 6y ago
    That's the point -- lawyers are a licensed profession based on the bar exam and bar association.
    - hobofan 6y ago
      I think the point here was more that cybersecurity advisor is not a licensed profession. So lawyer is a licensed profession but doesn't really indicate any knowledge regarding cybersecurity, and cybersecurity advisor might indicate some knowledge, though not really, as it's not a licensed profession.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Giuliani explicitly and repeatedly asserted that he was working in the capacity of the president’s personal attorney. There was no ambiguity with respect for his role.
newacct583 6y ago
To be clear: Lawyers are held to a higher standard of conduct for the purposes of performing their jobs as lawyers. Giuliani could be disbarred for this almost certainly, etc... Lawyers are very much not held to a lower standard of criminal proof. They sit as defendants in exactly the same way and for the same reasons that we all do. I think what you're trying to say is that the argument about malice is easier because as an attorney of record on cases involving allegations against Dominion, he "should have been" in a better position to know the truth than a layperson repeating the same nonsense.
- EdwardDiego 6y ago
  Traditonally the obligation of proof lies on the person making the claim. And likewise, it's near impossible to prove a negative. If we followed your train of thought, we'd be demanding that Hillary Clinton prove she didn't harvest adenochrome from terrified paedophilia victims in a pizza restaurant. Which is pretty ridiculous, right?
qwerty12345678 6y ago
Serious Question: Why is everyone assuming they're lying? And why doesn't anyone want to prove Biden won? From my perspective, the accusations he made were completely dodged by Dominion and by Democrats (since their guy was labeled the winner by the media). I'm not aware of any individual claim that was debunked via substantiating evidence. They refused to answer, refused to report it in the media, and ran full speed in the opposite direction.
- apsec112 6y ago
  The complaint by Dominion very thoroughly refutes all the accusations here, and shows convincingly that they knew they were lying. It's 107 pages and has a total of 235 footnotes: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20463212/rudy.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20463212/rudy.pdf
  - adolph 6y ago
    IANAL, but that complaint reads weirdly. Most often these things are deadly dull and the facts are slowly laid out with evidence in the footnotes but that filing doesn’t play to type. I make no claim if that is right or wrong, just oddly spicy.
    - throwaway32871 6y ago
      I have read too many court documents over the last 10 years and I agree. Generally, you want to start out with your strongest statement. In this case, the strong argument is very easily legally defensible. It was very clear in context why Rudy was not pleading fraud because it wasn't the point he was making at that time. That's the strongest argument? So I wonder what exactly is the point of this lawsuit? I'm going to guess given: * 1.3 billion * Spicy, as you said This is designed for news. When Rudy asks for discovery, it will either be provided or not. I suspect Dominion does not want to take it that far because any good lawyer can make a case for whatever they want given what discovery they get. The fact of the matter is that a Dominion(? not sure if actually Dominion) machine in Michigan was found (in court) to basically make up numbers, had logs erased for 2020 but not 2016 and a whole whack of stuff that was suspect. A good lawyer should be able to make a case that it is reasonable to assume the machines were defective if not outright fraudulent in that case.

vsareto 6y ago

Rudy also had a cybersecurity company and was named as a cybersecurity advisor. Would that help Dominion's side that this wasn't just crazy beliefs on Giuliani's part and be in favor of actual malice?

akiselev 6y ago
IANAL but "they should have known" doesn't follow from how they market themselves as a business unless it's a licensed profession. It's not uncommon for defendants to completely contradict their previous public statements under threat of a lawsuit like all the Fox News lawsuits where their lawyers win by claiming that it's an entertainment channel and their viewers should know better [1]. Beyond that, one can easily argue that political appointments and executive positions rarely deal with the nitty gritty details, instead providing value through things like political connections and existing business relationships. [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yor... - "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."
- andy_ppp 6y ago
  You are kidding me, their defence in court is that they are bullshit artists, it’s just beyond parody. I’m starting to think we live in something far worse than idiocracy... Dominion at the very least should be demanding they remove the word “news” from all their branding if this is to fly.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Nope. It’s very clear to even people who like that shit that Tucker isn’t “the news”. It’s very clearly overblown rants about anything that went on recently. It’s clearly a talk show on a channel that has news during the day. Hannity is even more of a nutter bringing in panels to get peoples’ reactions to shit that went on. It’s the equivalent of /r/politics for boomers. A bunch of people getting riled up together about the “obvious stupidity” of “the other side”.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      Tucker Carlson is the Republican version of Rachel Maddow (who didn’t hear a single conspiracy theory about Trump and Russia she didn’t peddle on the air).
  - joering2 6y ago
    Fox Noise is a joke. Mostly they are being watched so much because people find them entertaining. But they are danger to society and democracy. The lies they spew are the reason they been banned both from Murdoch home Australia, and Great Britain. I find it especially funny to watch Sean Insanity, Fucker Calrson, Lara Inbreed and Mark Lenin; they all just opinion-makers, its just happen to be extremely shitty but funny opinion.
    - EdwardDiego 6y ago
      I agree with you, but I suspect the rather childish nicknames are getting you downvoted. We can discuss the issue with a news network that argues in court "It's not news, it's just their opinion" while presenting it as news, without going 12 year old in it. It's much like how a valid critique of Ballmer era Microsoft is immediately undermined by referring to them as Micro$oft or Microsucks etc.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wcunning 6y ago
  That's the point -- lawyers are a licensed profession based on the bar exam and bar association.
  - hobofan 6y ago
    I think the point here was more that cybersecurity advisor is not a licensed profession. So lawyer is a licensed profession but doesn't really indicate any knowledge regarding cybersecurity, and cybersecurity advisor might indicate some knowledge, though not really, as it's not a licensed profession.
Spooky23 6y ago
Giuliani explicitly and repeatedly asserted that he was working in the capacity of the president’s personal attorney. There was no ambiguity with respect for his role.

newacct583 6y ago

To be clear: Lawyers are held to a higher standard of conduct for the purposes of performing their jobs as lawyers. Giuliani could be disbarred for this almost certainly, etc... Lawyers are very much not held to a lower standard of criminal proof. They sit as defendants in exactly the same way and for the same reasons that we all do. I think what you're trying to say is that the argument about malice is easier because as an attorney of record on cases involving allegations against Dominion, he "should have been" in a better position to know the truth than a layperson repeating the same nonsense.

EdwardDiego 6y ago
Traditonally the obligation of proof lies on the person making the claim. And likewise, it's near impossible to prove a negative. If we followed your train of thought, we'd be demanding that Hillary Clinton prove she didn't harvest adenochrome from terrified paedophilia victims in a pizza restaurant. Which is pretty ridiculous, right?

qwerty12345678 6y ago

Serious Question: Why is everyone assuming they're lying? And why doesn't anyone want to prove Biden won? From my perspective, the accusations he made were completely dodged by Dominion and by Democrats (since their guy was labeled the winner by the media). I'm not aware of any individual claim that was debunked via substantiating evidence. They refused to answer, refused to report it in the media, and ran full speed in the opposite direction.

apsec112 6y ago
The complaint by Dominion very thoroughly refutes all the accusations here, and shows convincingly that they knew they were lying. It's 107 pages and has a total of 235 footnotes: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20463212/rudy.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20463212/rudy.pdf
- adolph 6y ago
  IANAL, but that complaint reads weirdly. Most often these things are deadly dull and the facts are slowly laid out with evidence in the footnotes but that filing doesn’t play to type. I make no claim if that is right or wrong, just oddly spicy.
  - throwaway32871 6y ago
    I have read too many court documents over the last 10 years and I agree. Generally, you want to start out with your strongest statement. In this case, the strong argument is very easily legally defensible. It was very clear in context why Rudy was not pleading fraud because it wasn't the point he was making at that time. That's the strongest argument? So I wonder what exactly is the point of this lawsuit? I'm going to guess given: * 1.3 billion * Spicy, as you said This is designed for news. When Rudy asks for discovery, it will either be provided or not. I suspect Dominion does not want to take it that far because any good lawyer can make a case for whatever they want given what discovery they get. The fact of the matter is that a Dominion(? not sure if actually Dominion) machine in Michigan was found (in court) to basically make up numbers, had logs erased for 2020 but not 2016 and a whole whack of stuff that was suspect. A good lawyer should be able to make a case that it is reasonable to assume the machines were defective if not outright fraudulent in that case.