Chronicles of a Stillborn Zombie Coup

[L'Emmerdeur]

Getting damages from that arsehole is certainly justified, but the total is somewhat absurd, since I'm pretty sure Rudy doesn't have that amount tucked away under his bed...

Correct, he's more or less broke already--he owes legal fees in at least one other big case (Dominion Voting Systems is suing him) and of course he's getting no help from the capo. The sum is symbolic, considerably more than the plaintiffs had asked for. Their lawyers will keep at it in hopes of getting paid, and Giuliani's appeal may result in some reduction of the amount. Meanwhile the plaintiffs will probably never see any substantial pay-out from Giuliani.

[Svartalf]

which is a shame given how guilty and wealthy he is...

[rasetsu]

Getting damages from that arsehole is certainly justified, but the total is somewhat absurd, since I'm pretty sure Rudy doesn't have that amount tucked away under his bed...

An article that I read stated that sometime recently his net worth was estimated at $50 million.

I doubt that's still true, though in the same breath, I rather suspect he stiffs people same as Trump does, to gain advantage, rather than because he can't pay.

[Brian Peacock]

I'm wondering what the guidelines are for deciding pecuniary penalties in these cases, or if it's different state by state, or just at a judge's discretion?

[L'Emmerdeur]

The jury sets the penalty in a jury trial like the one that just concluded.

Rasetsu is on to something as well--there is speculation that Giuliani has money squirrelled away in offshore accounts.

[Joe]

It's too bad they can't go after Trump. He was as bad as Giuliani, but since he was President when he defamed them he can probably claim immunity.

[rasetsu]

"One of the things that is a bit of an obstacle to an appeal is the idea that in Georgia, a person has to post what's known as an appeal bond," she said. "And the idea behind an appeal bond is that an appeal could be filed for good faith reasons, it can also be filed simply to delay the pay day, and so to avoid the latter, litigants are required to pay in advance an appeal bond which is usually something more than the amount of the judgment, so that it's there in case there is a finality in the case. I don't know that Rudy Giuliani is going to get an appeal bond, so he may not be able to do it at all."

McQuade continued, noting that there is a potential option for Giuliani to petition the court and argue that the amount he has been ordered to pay is excessive. Even if this was successful, however, she said that the former mayor would still be on the hook for "tens of millions of dollars."

https://www.newsweek.com/rudy-giuliani- ... de-1853073

[Brian Peacock]

Even if the penalty is slashed by 50% it's still a massive amount but of money in cash terms. I'm presuming such payments have to be paid in a lump and must be certified by the court?

[rasetsu]

Even if the penalty is slashed by 50% it's still a massive amount but of money in cash terms. I'm presuming such payments have to be paid in a lump and must be certified by the court?

The parties can agree to a settlement based on any terms, apparently, if the Alex Jones case is any indication.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The writer is a bit full of himself in this article, splashing out with the atmospheric narrative. As I understand it, approximately boiling down to:

In the election conspiracy trial, Trump's lawyers are arguing that since Trump was 'acquitted' in his second impeachment trial by the US Senate (for his attempted coup) he cannot be held criminally liable. However at that impeachment trial his lawyers argued that the impeachment was spurious because an actual criminal trial was the proper venue to deal with the issue of a president attempting to overturn an election and remain in office. One of the judges on the panel had some interesting questions for the defence.

'Trump’s Lawyer Walked Into a Trap'

[Judge Florence] Pan interrupted again: “I asked you a series of hypotheticals about criminal actions that could be taken by a president and could be considered official acts and have asked you: Would such a president be subject to criminal prosecution if he’s not impeached and convicted? And your answer, your yes-or-no answer, is no?”

Sauer, realizing he was being cornered somehow, tried to avoid the door closing behind him. But Pan was having none of it. Like the experienced prosecutor she is, she insisted on an answer, and wasn’t going to let go. (If this judging thing doesn’t work out for her, I’d love to see her host Meet the Press someday.)

She and Sauer went around and around on this a few more times. But the damage was done, and Pan’s point was devastatingly made—in essence, that Sauer was arguing out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, Sauer argued that the Constitution gave the president absolute immunity for his official acts, lest we have political prosecutions of former presidents. On the other hand, if the United States Congress—a political body if ever there was one—effectively gives permission (by impeaching and convicting), well, then, yes, a president can be prosecuted, and—wait for it—he’s not absolutely immune.

[Joe]

The writer is a bit full of himself in this article, splashing out with the atmospheric narrative. As I understand it, approximately boiling down to:

In the election conspiracy trial, Trump's lawyers are arguing that since Trump was 'acquitted' in his second impeachment trial by the US Senate (for his attempted coup) he cannot be held criminally liable. However at that impeachment trial his lawyers argued that the impeachment was spurious because an actual criminal trial was the proper venue to deal with the issue of a president attempting to overturn an election and remain in office. One of the judges on the panel had some interesting questions for the defence.

'Trump’s Lawyer Walked Into a Trap'

[Judge Florence] Pan interrupted again: “I asked you a series of hypotheticals about criminal actions that could be taken by a president and could be considered official acts and have asked you: Would such a president be subject to criminal prosecution if he’s not impeached and convicted? And your answer, your yes-or-no answer, is no?”

Sauer, realizing he was being cornered somehow, tried to avoid the door closing behind him. But Pan was having none of it. Like the experienced prosecutor she is, she insisted on an answer, and wasn’t going to let go. (If this judging thing doesn’t work out for her, I’d love to see her host Meet the Press someday.)

She and Sauer went around and around on this a few more times. But the damage was done, and Pan’s point was devastatingly made—in essence, that Sauer was arguing out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand, Sauer argued that the Constitution gave the president absolute immunity for his official acts, lest we have political prosecutions of former presidents. On the other hand, if the United States Congress—a political body if ever there was one—effectively gives permission (by impeaching and convicting), well, then, yes, a president can be prosecuted, and—wait for it—he’s not absolutely immune.

I suspect Sauer knows that his argument is frivilous. It's a longtime Trump delaying tactic to make motions that are unlikely to succeed and appeal them. I just hope that the DC Circuit upholds the trial judge's ruling and the Supremes deny certiorari to move things along.

Of course, it's highly likely Trump and company have another spurious distraction ready to go.

[Tero]

It's not his job to figure out a wsy to figure out Trump's solution from this. That will be the Supreme Court's. Plus a two word latin phrase.

The empty argument was one thing. But he was required to point out that it's a witch hunt and that Trump is winning.

[Tero]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Montana fire chief who lost a previous job over a coronavirus vaccine mandate has been charged with spraying a chemical irritant on police officers during the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Prosecutors say that Frank Dahlquist sprayed “an orange-colored chemical agent” directly into the face of one officer and later sprayed a second officer as supporters of former president Donald Trump attacked the Capitol building in Washington D.C., according to court documents unsealed Wednesday.

He was identified in part by matching his distinctive facial hair with a photo from the riot to a TV news story about firefighters who were terminated from a fire department near Seattle in April 2022 after the agency required a COVID-19 vaccination, court documents state.

Later that year, Dahlquist was named chief of West Valley Fire Rescue, near Helena, Montana.

No lawyer was listed for Dahlquist in court records, and he did not immediately respond to phone and email messages seeking comment. The Associated Press also left messages with the fire department.

Dahlquist was charged with assault, obstruction of law enforcement and other counts. The case was first reported by the online publication Court Watch.

He is also accused of throwing a piece of lumber toward a line of police officers, though it fell short of the officers and did not come close to hitting them, prosecutors said. FBI agents confirmed his identity by talking to firefighters who had worked with him in in Issaquah, Washington and identified him from video and photos taken on Jan. 6. They also provided his cellphone number, which was traced to the restricted area of the Capitol that day.

https://news.yahoo.com/montana-fire-chi ... 48308.html

[JimC]

Destroy the evil Deep State polluting our vital bodily fluids with their marxist vaccines!

[Sean Hayden]

Issaquah, Washington! What’s he got to be upset about?