PeterS

Rudy's admitted that he lied about the two Georgia pole workers but he says that liable is covered by the First Amendment. Is that true? Was the First Amendment created so you to hurt someone with lies? That seems to be what Rudy...and by extension Trump and his cohorts...want to use for harm done by their lies.

Still want to stand by the statement that you cons are the ones who support the Constitution?

liberalhunter Loc: Your mom's house

Yep...... you're being exposed daily for what you really are, and the fools you support doing it........ tick tick ol' man...tick tock.

Drue-Marie

What are you talking about? Seems like obfuscation to me.

Liberty Tree

No, pointing out blatant hypocrisy.

Drue-Marie

Rudy should know that he violated libel laws, and he is now liable for damages.

Radiance3

================
He is correct on that. I defend him.

liberalhunter Loc: Your mom's house

Exactly how the thread was started.....good catch on that lying liberal.

crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

And you're passing this judgment using conservative principles.

pescado rojo

I was not aware that Giuliani frequented topless bars. Judging by the appearance of these two obese pole workers, they should maintain a safe distance from any pole in any establishment, due to the danger of self inflicted injury while trying to perform normal pole worker dance moves. (Unless the establishment was forced to do so on the threat of a"discrimination" lawsuit. Personally, I would pay them to refrain from exhibiting their "charms" in public.) Giuliani should be applauded rather than accused, for his effort to spare the public permanent eye damage from watching these two chubby wannabe thespians attempt to slither up and down a pole. That would be a sight you can't un-see.

pescado rojo

I'm sorry. I wasn't sure which "Rudy" you were talking about. I spoke to my buddy Rudy who is a regular patron at a certain topless bar, and he agreed with my opinion. You meant Rudy Giuliani. You should have been more specific. Giuliani was found LIABLE for LIBEL by an Obama appointed DC District Court Judge, Beryl Howell. I realize that most Liberals know very little about the actual law and how it works, (given that possessing such information would require a working familiarity with, and comprehension of, a large number of big words), however... a Republican being convicted of anything in DC is hardly news. In my opinion, a Republican would be guilty of libel in DC if they stated that a p*******e had molested ten children when in fact he only molested nine.
Ever think of something? If two walrusettes from Atlanta can file suit in DC over something that happened in Fulton County GA, (and make no mistake, their lawyers did this because of an overwhelmingly hostile jury pool) Trump has very good grounds to have his trial venue moved to another location with a much friendlier pool of potential jurors. Being found guilty is one thing. Having that verdict survive appeal when it was reached in a venue that is obviously quite hostile to the defendant is quite another.
Giuliani was found guilty of not providing certain evidence that was not in his possession, basically. The FBI had confiscated it and would not release it. How convenient.
Giuliani admitted to making libelous statements, however, he also correctly stated that certain kinds of statements, which might otherwise be considered libelous, are protected by the first amendment. Had this decision been made by a Conservative judge, the outcome would have been quite different.
Speaking of walrusettes, the Fulton County DA, Fani Willis, who brought these charges would do well to see the results of frivolous bulls**t by looking at her companion in crime, Jack Smith.
I remember pointy-headed Progressives gloating about the conviction of former VA governor Bob McDonald. They gloated right up to the point where a LIBERAL dominated SCOTUS UNANIMOUSLY vacated the conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct. Wanna know who the misbehaving prosecutor was? None other than Jack Smith, the hero du jour of the looney left who brought charges against Trump.
When a prominent Liberal legal scholar and a prominent Conservative legal scholar (Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley respectively) agree that Jack Smith's case is frivolous and even a guilty finding will be reversed on appeal, Progs should be worried.

PeterS

Huh? Rudy is the one who admitted that he lied about those Georgia pole workers only he said lible (that is, lying with the intent to harm someone else) was covered by the Constitution so he broke no laws. If that's true then all of our libel law would be null and void. I simply want to know, since you people are constitutional law experts, if lible is covered by the First Amendment and therefore Rudy is innocent? A simple yea or nea will do...

PeterS

I keep forgetting that you Cons only listen to Fox and they won't tell you anything you don't want to hear...

Judge finds Rudy Giuliani liable for defamation of two Georgia e******n workers

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/30/1196875212/judge-finds-rudy-giuliani-liable-for-defamation-of-two-georgia-e******n-workers#:~:text=Transcript-,

PeterS

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/30/1196875212/judge-finds-rudy-giuliani-liable-for-defamation-of-two-georgia-e******n-workers#:~:text=Transcript-

The question remains. Are Rudy's lies covered by the First Amendment? Can you legally defame someone with your lies? Rudy says yes. What do you say?

PeterS

So you are saying that if you admit you are guilty a Conservative judge would find you (I'm assuming this only works for Conservatives) innocent anyway? Explain...

PeterS

Hey, keep going. You poor wittle wepublicans...I love the way your mind works but the question begged, what about all the Conservative judges, even ones appointed by Trump, who ruled against him...or his own AG and daughter who said he lied...or all the many of the conservative state officials who stood in his way from stealing the e******n--such as those in Georgia? Were they all RINO's so you discount their actions? So who can you MAGA con's trust...only those who are the most ideologically extreme such as yourselves? So explain how people who are ideologically extreme, in either party, be counted on to be objective in they rule? Explain...