Giuliani liable for defaming Georgia election workers, judge rules
WASHINGTON, Aug 30 (Reuters) - Donald Trump's former lawyer Rudy Giuliani is liable for defaming two election workers in Georgia, a U.S. judge in Washington said on Wednesday.
Judge Beryl Howell issued the order as a sanction against Giuliani for failing to turn over electronic records sought by the two election workers, Wandrea "Shaye" Moss and her mother Ruby Freeman, in the case.
The judge's order means Giuliani will have to pay damages for spreading false vote-rigging claims against the pair following the 2020 U.S. presidential election. He previously admitted that his statements were false and damaged Moss and Freeman's reputations.
Giuliani will face a civil trial in Washington, D.C. federal court to determine how much he will have to pay.
Could this ruling impact the Georgia RICO case because it’s now on the record that the election in Georgia was not rigged as they have claimed and keep claiming? Can a civil ruling like this be used as evidence in a criminal ruling? I am not a lawyer and not American.
Edit: Please read this child comment, where I describe how I am technically wrong.
Well, it's now on the record that those who Guiliani defamed were not involved in any "election rigging" in Georgia. That's different from "the election in Georgia was not rigged" (even if that statement is also true).
This ruling certainly eliminates some of the claimed "evidence" of "election rigging" that is being claimed. They continue to claim that other evidence exists, without producing said evidence, of course.
Not exactly. It's on the record that Giuliani failed to follow courtroom procedures and automatically lost the case.
It was not necessary to determine whether anyone was involved in election rigging.
That's what I get for not reading the article.
But, "He previously admitted that his statements were false and damaged Moss and Freeman's reputations." That still covers my earlier comment.
Edit: Actually ... no, it doesn't. It means that Moss and Freeman were not involved in any "election rigging" in the way that Guiliani had publicly accused them, as opposed to not involved in any "election rigging" at all (even if they were not actually involved in any election rigging, and there is no evidence to show that they were).
But... he was a lawyer...
That issue was resolved against him by sanction.
In order for a judicial finding to have preclusive effect in another action, it must be between the same parties in the same configuration, or by parties parity or with like incentive to litigate, and have been actually litigated.
I was listening to NPR, and they gave the impression that Giuliani withheld the evidence so it couldn't be used against him in the RICO case
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty confident that you can't use something with a lower standard of proof as evidence in a trial that requires a higher standard of proof. Civil cases only need to be proven by the standard "a preponderance of evidence", whereas criminal trials are required to proven "beyond a reasonable doubt".
It's probably okay in the other direction, though.