Tennessee Cops Arrest Man For Posting Photoshopped Picture of Men Urinating on Dead Officer’s Grave

tn-cops

Tennessee law enforcement arrested a man last week for posting a photoshopped picture of two men urinating on a dead police officer’s grave.

The Dickson County Sheriff’s Office, following an investigation by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI), arrested and charged Joshua Garton with harassment after Garton posted a picture to Facebook that appeared to show two men desecrating the tombstone of Sgt. Daniel Baker, who was shot and killed on duty in 2018. Garton was held on a $76,000 bond.

“Agents subsequently visited Baker’s gravesite this morning and determined the photograph was digitally manufactured,” a TBI press release says. The agency launched the investigation at the request of 23rd District Attorney General Ray Crouch.

While the picture was in poor taste, constitutional experts say law enforcement violated Garton’s First Amendment rights by arresting him for the image.

“The First Amendment clearly and unmistakably protects this man’s right to post an offensive photo about a police officer,” says Daniel Horwitz, a Nashville civil rights attorney. “The only people who broke the law here were the police officers and TBI agents who participated in this flagrantly unconstitutional arrest.”

The picture Garton posted is in fact a doctored photo of the cover of “Pissing on Your Grave,” a single by The Rites, which originally depicted two people urinating on the tombstone of punk legend GG Allin.

It’s unclear how a dead person can be criminally harassed under Tennessee law, which requires that the subject be “frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed.” Rather, Garton committed the unwritten crime of hurting a police officer’s feelings, also known as “contempt of cop.”

For example, in 2019 an Iowa man won a lawsuit after he was charged with third-degree harassment for saying online that a sheriff’s deputy was a “stupid sum bitch” and “butthurt.” (In hindsight, the latter seems undeniably true.)

Then there’s the San Diego Police Department, which issued more than 80 tickets over the last decade for “seditious language” under an unconstitutional World War I–era law. The Voice of San Diego reported that the majority of the tickets were issued to minorities for allegedly using vulgarities.

Another Tennessee resident was arrested in 2017 after he wrote “Erin’s police chief is a bitch” in white paint on the back of his car.

There’s a wide body of case law upholding the right to flip off police officers, but despite this, arrests and tickets are still meted out to people who hurt cops’ feelings by giving them the finger. Just this month, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals denied qualified immunity to a Minnesota police officer who pulled over and arrested a man for flipping her off.

A spokesperson for the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation directed a request for comment to Crouch’s office.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36bN037
via IFTTT

Tennessee Cops Arrest Man For Posting Photoshopped Picture of Men Urinating on Dead Officer’s Grave

tn-cops

Tennessee law enforcement arrested a man last week for posting a photoshopped picture of two men urinating on a dead police officer’s grave.

The Dickson County Sheriff’s Office, following an investigation by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI), arrested and charged Joshua Garton with harassment after Garton posted a picture to Facebook that appeared to show two men desecrating the tombstone of Sgt. Daniel Baker, who was shot and killed on duty in 2018. Garton was held on a $76,000 bond.

“Agents subsequently visited Baker’s gravesite this morning and determined the photograph was digitally manufactured,” a TBI press release says. The agency launched the investigation at the request of 23rd District Attorney General Ray Crouch.

While the picture was in poor taste, constitutional experts say law enforcement violated Garton’s First Amendment rights by arresting him for the image.

“The First Amendment clearly and unmistakably protects this man’s right to post an offensive photo about a police officer,” says Daniel Horwitz, a Nashville civil rights attorney. “The only people who broke the law here were the police officers and TBI agents who participated in this flagrantly unconstitutional arrest.”

The picture Garton posted is in fact a doctored photo of the cover of “Pissing on Your Grave,” a single by The Rites, which originally depicted two people urinating on the tombstone of punk legend GG Allin.

It’s unclear how a dead person can be criminally harassed under Tennessee law, which requires that the subject be “frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed.” Rather, Garton committed the unwritten crime of hurting a police officer’s feelings, also known as “contempt of cop.”

For example, in 2019 an Iowa man won a lawsuit after he was charged with third-degree harassment for saying online that a sheriff’s deputy was a “stupid sum bitch” and “butthurt.” (In hindsight, the latter seems undeniably true.)

Then there’s the San Diego Police Department, which issued more than 80 tickets over the last decade for “seditious language” under an unconstitutional World War I–era law. The Voice of San Diego reported that the majority of the tickets were issued to minorities for allegedly using vulgarities.

Another Tennessee resident was arrested in 2017 after he wrote “Erin’s police chief is a bitch” in white paint on the back of his car.

There’s a wide body of case law upholding the right to flip off police officers, but despite this, arrests and tickets are still meted out to people who hurt cops’ feelings by giving them the finger. Just this month, the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals denied qualified immunity to a Minnesota police officer who pulled over and arrested a man for flipping her off.

A spokesperson for the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation directed a request for comment to Crouch’s office.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/36bN037
via IFTTT

Changing Litigating Positions at the Solicitor General’s Office

NPR has this story (quoting Jonathan Adler among others) about the choices faced by President Biden’s solicitor general’s office. When should they withdraw briefs filed by the previous administration and replace them with a new position?

As Katyal observes, the Bush administration had largely followed the tradition of defending laws enacted by Congress, even laws that Republicans generally opposed. With rare exceptions, that is one of the traditional jobs of the SG. But the Trump administration did not adhere to that norm.

Perhaps the most glaring example is a case currently before the court in which the Trump administration joined a challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Although the Supreme Court had twice before upheld the law, the Trump administration asked the court to strike it down in its entirely.

The court has already heard arguments in the case, so the question for the Biden administration is this: Should it weigh in at this late date or let sleeping dogs lie?

Because the Justice Department’s position in a variety of ways violated so many legal norms, “the case for informing the court that the Justice Department no longer stands behind those briefs, I think is stronger than it would be for a lot of cases,” says Case Western University law professor Jonathan Adler.

Katyal says he would go further, not only withdrawing the Trump administration brief but filing a new one in its place. …

Still, the Biden administration knows there will be lots of times in the future when it is trying to persuade a very conservative court to leave undisturbed the policy positions of a far more liberal administrations, positions that, as a pure policy matter, the conservative justices likely disagree with. So the new administration doesn’t want to start out by burning its bridges if it doesn’t have to.

The consensus view of those quoted in the article is that a new administration should switch position for maybe a few really important things that they think the previous administration got really wrong, but otherwise presumptively stick to the litigating positions of past administrations. And this reflects a broader institutional norm in the Solicitor General’s office, that the office should presumptively argue that the law should be interpreted however the office argued in the past that the law should be interpreted.

Interestingly, though, this norm runs counter to an argument recently made by former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben in the Yale Law Journal Forum. Dreeben, who argued 105 Supreme Court cases, argues that because the Solicitor General’s office is not a court, it should actually use the opposite presumption:

Although the judicial system operates with a presumption of retaining precedent even when the Court regards it as wrong, I suggest that the opposite presumption should apply to OSG when it concludes that its prior position is wrong. That is, OSG should operate with a presumption in favor of providing the Supreme Court with its current view of the law, rather than sticking to error

Dreeben adds two caveats: That the because the SG’s office has a client, “[a]rriving at a position thus requires balancing both the institutional interests of the United States and a purely legal analysis of the case at hand,” and that “the Office should proceed very carefully before concluding that its prior position was wrong.” Still, I thought this perspective given that it came from a longtime litigator in the Solicitor General’s office.

On the merits, it seems to me that this is a general application of the question of when one should build a certain kind of credibility and when one should spend it. The Solicitor General’s office would like the Supreme Court to defer to it, seeing it as some kind of wise, not-too-political respository of institutional knowledge and tradition. It’s hard to get the Court to do this if the office is seen as just another group of lawyers with the usual views one would expect them to have given the immediate needs of their client.

If you can build that kind of institutional capital, it’s tempting to spend it in the cases that are most important to you or your client. And yet if you do that too transparently, it doesn’t work. Maybe there’s some very clever mixed equilibrium strategy that works best here, but I don’t know whether anybody has found it in practice.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3iMVMtF
via IFTTT

Poetry Monday!: “Chanson d’automne” by Oscar Milosz

Here’s “Chanson d’automne” (1899) by the French-Lithuanian poet Oscar Milosz (1879-1939):

Écoutez la voix du vent dans la nuit,
La vieille voix du vent, la lugubre voix du vent,
Malédiction des morts, berceuse des vivants…
Écoutez la voix du vent.
Il n’y a plus de feuilles, il n’y a plus de fruits
Dans les vergers détruits.
Les souvenirs sont moins que rien, les espoirs sont très loin.
Écoutez la voix du vent….

For the rest of my “Sasha Reads” playlist, click here. Past poems are:

  1. “Ulysses” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
  2. “The Pulley” by George Herbert
  3. “Harmonie du soir” by Charles Baudelaire
  4. “Dirge Without Music” by Edna St. Vincent Millay
  5. “Clancy of the Overflow” by A.B. “Banjo” Paterson
  6. “Лотова жена” (“Lotova zhena”, “Lot’s wife”) by Anna Akhmatova
  7. “The Jumblies” by Edward Lear
  8. “The Conqueror Worm” by Edgar Allan Poe
  9. “Les Djinns” by Victor Hugo
  10. “I Have a Rendezvous with Death” by Alan Seeger
  11. “When I Was One-and-Twenty” by A.E. Housman
  12. “Узник” (“Uznik”, “The Prisoner” or “The Captive”) by Aleksandr Pushkin
  13. “God’s Grandeur” by Gerard Manley Hopkins
  14. “The Song of Wandering Aengus” by William Butler Yeats
  15. “Je crains pas ça tellment” by Raymond Queneau
  16. “The Naming of Cats” by T.S. Eliot
  17. “The reticent volcano keeps…” by Emily Dickinson
  18. “Она” (“Ona”, “She”) by Zinaida Gippius
  19. “Would I Be Shrived?” by John D. Swain
  20. “Evolution” by Langdon Smith

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39dlDrr
via IFTTT

Biden Ends Trump’s Ban on Trans Troops

transtroops_1161x653

President Joe Biden signed an executive order today repealing former President Donald Trump’s ban preventing transgender Americans from serving in the military.

The order brings an end to one of Trump’s more unusual executive decisions, launched by a series of abrupt tweets in 2017 that left military leaders scrambling to comply. The order prompted lawsuits attempting to block implementation of the rule.

Under President Barack Obama, the military had begun allowing trans troops to serve openly. This created an environment where members of the military who were discovering they were trans could openly say so and transition without fear of being ejected. With the implementation of Trump’s orders—which the Supreme Court allowed in 2019—all those troops suddenly faced ejection.

The full order is here. It reverses Trump’s orders banning trans military members from serving, bars the military from discharging or refusing to reenlist servicemembers because of their gender identities, and essentially tells the military to adapt so trans troops can serve openly.

The Palm Center, a research institute known best for its analyses of public policy issues surrounding military service and LGBT citizens, put out a prepared statement by Director Aaron Belkin praising the move:

The ban will now be replaced with a single standard for everyone that, as in the successful previous policy, will apply equally to all service members. This is a major step in the defense not only of America but of American values. We look forward to a speedy implementation of inclusive policy.

Based on the Palm Center’s research, the reversion to what the Obama administration started may happen quickly. According to a report the Center released last July (and updated later in 2020), the Department of Defense preserved enough of the work it had done adapting the military to support trans troops that it’s not going to have to restart the process from scratch:

There will be no need to redevelop guidance, restudy options, redraft regulatory language, or retrain anybody. Everything needed already exists in current military guidance and remains a part of current military practice. The path to restoring inclusive policy is based on erasing separate tracks of grandfathered and non-grandfathered transgender personnel and returning to a single military standard that everyone, transgender or otherwise, is expected to meet. Consistent with decades of military research findings, the optimal framework will be to apply one standard to all, nothing more, nothing less.

The Palm Center believes the return to the previous trans-inclusive military policy could take place within 30 days.

This is great news for liberty. Being trans doesn’t, on its own, mean an individual is unsuited for military service. There may be some individual trans people whose specific struggles mean that they aren’t ready for military work. But they should be evaluated as individuals, not categorically rejected. As former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) noted on Twitter: “This is a win for equality before the law. Transgender persons should not be prohibited from serving in the Armed Forces on the sole basis of being transgender.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YbDiJE
via IFTTT

Changing Litigating Positions at the Solicitor General’s Office

NPR has this story (quoting Jonathan Adler among others) about the choices faced by President Biden’s solicitor general’s office. When should they withdraw briefs filed by the previous administration and replace them with a new position?

As Katyal observes, the Bush administration had largely followed the tradition of defending laws enacted by Congress, even laws that Republicans generally opposed. With rare exceptions, that is one of the traditional jobs of the SG. But the Trump administration did not adhere to that norm.

Perhaps the most glaring example is a case currently before the court in which the Trump administration joined a challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Although the Supreme Court had twice before upheld the law, the Trump administration asked the court to strike it down in its entirely.

The court has already heard arguments in the case, so the question for the Biden administration is this: Should it weigh in at this late date or let sleeping dogs lie?

Because the Justice Department’s position in a variety of ways violated so many legal norms, “the case for informing the court that the Justice Department no longer stands behind those briefs, I think is stronger than it would be for a lot of cases,” says Case Western University law professor Jonathan Adler.

Katyal says he would go further, not only withdrawing the Trump administration brief but filing a new one in its place. …

Still, the Biden administration knows there will be lots of times in the future when it is trying to persuade a very conservative court to leave undisturbed the policy positions of a far more liberal administrations, positions that, as a pure policy matter, the conservative justices likely disagree with. So the new administration doesn’t want to start out by burning its bridges if it doesn’t have to.

The consensus view of those quoted in the article is that a new administration should switch position for maybe a few really important things that they think the previous administration got really wrong, but otherwise presumptively stick to the litigating positions of past administrations. And this reflects a broader institutional norm in the Solicitor General’s office, that the office should presumptively argue that the law should be interpreted however the office argued in the past that the law should be interpreted.

Interestingly, though, this norm runs counter to an argument recently made by former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben in the Yale Law Journal Forum. Dreeben, who argued 105 Supreme Court cases, argues that because the Solicitor General’s office is not a court, it should actually use the opposite presumption:

Although the judicial system operates with a presumption of retaining precedent even when the Court regards it as wrong, I suggest that the opposite presumption should apply to OSG when it concludes that its prior position is wrong. That is, OSG should operate with a presumption in favor of providing the Supreme Court with its current view of the law, rather than sticking to error

Dreeben adds two caveats: That the because the SG’s office has a client, “[a]rriving at a position thus requires balancing both the institutional interests of the United States and a purely legal analysis of the case at hand,” and that “the Office should proceed very carefully before concluding that its prior position was wrong.” Still, I thought this perspective given that it came from a longtime litigator in the Solicitor General’s office.

On the merits, it seems to me that this is a general application of the question of when one should build a certain kind of credibility and when one should spend it. The Solicitor General’s office would like the Supreme Court to defer to it, seeing it as some kind of wise, not-too-political respository of institutional knowledge and tradition. It’s hard to get the Court to do this if the office is seen as just another group of lawyers with the usual views one would expect them to have given the immediate needs of their client.

If you can build that kind of institutional capital, it’s tempting to spend it in the cases that are most important to you or your client. And yet if you do that too transparently, it doesn’t work. Maybe there’s some very clever mixed equilibrium strategy that works best here, but I don’t know whether anybody has found it in practice.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3iMVMtF
via IFTTT

Poetry Monday!: “Chanson d’automne” by Oscar Milosz

Here’s “Chanson d’automne” (1899) by the French-Lithuanian poet Oscar Milosz (1879-1939):

Écoutez la voix du vent dans la nuit,
La vieille voix du vent, la lugubre voix du vent,
Malédiction des morts, berceuse des vivants…
Écoutez la voix du vent.
Il n’y a plus de feuilles, il n’y a plus de fruits
Dans les vergers détruits.
Les souvenirs sont moins que rien, les espoirs sont très loin.
Écoutez la voix du vent….

For the rest of my “Sasha Reads” playlist, click here. Past poems are:

  1. “Ulysses” by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
  2. “The Pulley” by George Herbert
  3. “Harmonie du soir” by Charles Baudelaire
  4. “Dirge Without Music” by Edna St. Vincent Millay
  5. “Clancy of the Overflow” by A.B. “Banjo” Paterson
  6. “Лотова жена” (“Lotova zhena”, “Lot’s wife”) by Anna Akhmatova
  7. “The Jumblies” by Edward Lear
  8. “The Conqueror Worm” by Edgar Allan Poe
  9. “Les Djinns” by Victor Hugo
  10. “I Have a Rendezvous with Death” by Alan Seeger
  11. “When I Was One-and-Twenty” by A.E. Housman
  12. “Узник” (“Uznik”, “The Prisoner” or “The Captive”) by Aleksandr Pushkin
  13. “God’s Grandeur” by Gerard Manley Hopkins
  14. “The Song of Wandering Aengus” by William Butler Yeats
  15. “Je crains pas ça tellment” by Raymond Queneau
  16. “The Naming of Cats” by T.S. Eliot
  17. “The reticent volcano keeps…” by Emily Dickinson
  18. “Она” (“Ona”, “She”) by Zinaida Gippius
  19. “Would I Be Shrived?” by John D. Swain
  20. “Evolution” by Langdon Smith

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39dlDrr
via IFTTT

Biden Ends Trump’s Ban on Trans Troops

transtroops_1161x653

President Joe Biden signed an executive order today repealing former President Donald Trump’s ban preventing transgender Americans from serving in the military.

The order brings an end to one of Trump’s more unusual executive decisions, launched by a series of abrupt tweets in 2017 that left military leaders scrambling to comply. The order prompted lawsuits attempting to block implementation of the rule.

Under President Barack Obama, the military had begun allowing trans troops to serve openly. This created an environment where members of the military who were discovering they were trans could openly say so and transition without fear of being ejected. With the implementation of Trump’s orders—which the Supreme Court allowed in 2019—all those troops suddenly faced ejection.

The full order is here. It reverses Trump’s orders banning trans military members from serving, bars the military from discharging or refusing to reenlist servicemembers because of their gender identities, and essentially tells the military to adapt so trans troops can serve openly.

The Palm Center, a research institute known best for its analyses of public policy issues surrounding military service and LGBT citizens, put out a prepared statement by Director Aaron Belkin praising the move:

The ban will now be replaced with a single standard for everyone that, as in the successful previous policy, will apply equally to all service members. This is a major step in the defense not only of America but of American values. We look forward to a speedy implementation of inclusive policy.

Based on the Palm Center’s research, the reversion to what the Obama administration started may happen quickly. According to a report the Center released last July (and updated later in 2020), the Department of Defense preserved enough of the work it had done adapting the military to support trans troops that it’s not going to have to restart the process from scratch:

There will be no need to redevelop guidance, restudy options, redraft regulatory language, or retrain anybody. Everything needed already exists in current military guidance and remains a part of current military practice. The path to restoring inclusive policy is based on erasing separate tracks of grandfathered and non-grandfathered transgender personnel and returning to a single military standard that everyone, transgender or otherwise, is expected to meet. Consistent with decades of military research findings, the optimal framework will be to apply one standard to all, nothing more, nothing less.

The Palm Center believes the return to the previous trans-inclusive military policy could take place within 30 days.

This is great news for liberty. Being trans doesn’t, on its own, mean an individual is unsuited for military service. There may be some individual trans people whose specific struggles mean that they aren’t ready for military work. But they should be evaluated as individuals, not categorically rejected. As former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) noted on Twitter: “This is a win for equality before the law. Transgender persons should not be prohibited from serving in the Armed Forces on the sole basis of being transgender.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YbDiJE
via IFTTT

Surely Rudy Giuliani’s ‘Conclusive Proof’ of Machine-Based Election Fraud Will Save Him From Dominion’s $1.3 Billion Defamation Lawsuit

Rudy-Giuliani-rally-1-16-21

Rudy Giuliani, former President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, says the vast criminal conspiracy that supposedly denied his client a second term is “easily provable.” Yet Giuliani has never presented the evidence he claims to have. It supposedly shows that Dominion Voting Systems helped steal the election by supplying fraud-facilitating software that manufactured “hundreds of thousands” of phony votes for President Joe Biden.

Now that Dominion has filed a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit against Giuliani, he will have to put up or shut up.

Dominion’s 107-page complaint, which it filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that Giuliani perpetrated “a viral disinformation campaign” based on “demonstrably false” claims about the company. According to the complaint, which is similar to the lawsuit that Dominion filed against former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell on January 8, that disinformation campaign forced the company to spend “more than $565,000 on private security for the protection of its people,” plus “more than $1,170,000” to “mitigate the harm to its reputation and business.”

Dominion says the reputational damage inflicted by Giuliani’s conspiracy mongering has cost the company about $200 million in lost profits and destroyed its resale value, which it says was “between $450 million and $500 million before the viral disinformation campaign.” The company is seeking $651,735,000 in compensatory damages and the same amount in punitive damages.

During the “Save America” rally that preceded the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Giuliani told thousands of Trump supporters that he was about to blow the lid off Dominion’s alleged role in delivering Georgia to Biden. “Over the next 10 days,” he said, “we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent. And if we’re wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail.” Giuliani claimed he had “conclusive proof” that “crooked Dominion machines” had switched Trump votes to Biden votes. “So let’s have trial by combat,” he said. “I’m willing to stake my reputation. The president is willing to stake his reputation on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there.”

The very next day, Trump’s attorneys dropped four lawsuits challenging Georgia’s election results, claiming they had reached “an out of court settlement agreement,” which was news to the state’s lawyers. What happened to Giuliani’s “conclusive proof”? The same thing that happened every time he and the rest of Trump’s legal team went to court, where they never alleged anything like the elaborate scheme that Giuliani and Powell repeatedly described in tweets, press conferences, interviews, and podcast monologues.

“Although he was unwilling to make false election fraud claims about Dominion and its voting machines in a court of law because he knew those allegations are false,” the company says, “he and his allies manufactured and disseminated the ‘Big Lie,’ which foreseeably went viral and deceived millions of people into believing that Dominion had stolen their votes and fixed the election. Giuliani reportedly demanded $20,000 a day for that Big Lie. But he also cashed in by hosting a podcast where he exploited election falsehoods to market gold coins, supplements, cigars, and protection from ‘cyberthieves.’ Even after the United States Capitol had been stormed by rioters who had been deceived by Giuliani and his allies, Giuliani shirked responsibility for the consequences of his words and repeated the Big Lie again.”

Trump “won that election,” Giuliani asserted on his WABC radio show last week. “You give me one hour. I will prove it to you with pictures, documents, votes and people we can call on the phone in five states.” That was a month after Dominion threatened to sue Giuliani and two weeks after his tall tale encouraged hundreds of deluded Trump followers to storm the Capitol in a vain effort to “stop the steal.”

Dominion says Giuliani hatched his disinformation scheme on the night of the election. “There’s no way he lost!” Giuliani told Trump campaign officials just after midnight, according to Axios. “This thing must have been stolen. Just say we won Michigan! Just say we won Georgia! Just say we won the election! He needs to go out and claim victory!” And that is what Trump did, beginning with the conviction that he must have won and then casting about for evidence to support it.

Two days after the election, the complaint says, Powell began encouraging the campaign to focus suspicion on Dominion. She found a receptive audience in Giuliani, who in turn encouraged Trump to echo the wild charges about massive, machine-based fraud. In November 12 interview on Lou Dobbs Tonight, Giuliani falsely claimed that Dominion is owned by Smartmatic, another company that figures in Powell’s fantasy. Giuliani said Smartmatic was created “in order to fix elections” for Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and had ties to billionaire George Soros, a major supporter of Democratic campaigns and causes. Dominion’s software, Giuliani averred, “really is Venezuelan” and is essentially the same as Smartmatic’s.

Giuliani continued to tell this weird story on Twitter, on his Common Sense podcast, on his radio show, in TV interviews, and in a bizarre November 19 press conference where he stood alongside Powell, representing the “elite strike force team…working on behalf of the president and the campaign.” Meanwhile, the claims of machine-based fraud were repeatedly debunked by leading election security experts, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, post-election audits and recounts, Republican election officials, Republican members of Congress, and Trump’s own attorney general. Although Giuliani never dared to float the Dominion allegations in court, Powell and another pro-Trump lawyer, Lin Wood, detailed the conspiracy theory in several suits, presenting highly dubious evidence that failed to impress a single judge.

“Plaintiffs append over three hundred pages of attachments, which are only impressive for their volume,” a federal judge in Arizona wrote in response to one of Powell’s lawsuits. “The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections.” She noted that “the ‘expert reports’ reach implausible conclusions, often because they are derived from wholly unreliable sources.”

Ten days ago, the conservative website American Thinker, which Dominion threatened to sue for publishing articles that amplified Giuliani’s charges against the company, published a retraction and apology. “These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion’s supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion’s machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently,” it said. “These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims.”

Giuliani carried on as if none of that had happened, averring that the skeptics had not seen his secret “proof.” Last Tuesday, when a caller to Giuliani’s radio show referred to the purportedly stolen election, Giuliani replied: “I investigated it. I have the evidence. What am I supposed to say? Lie? I’m supposed to lie? I got the pictures of Atlanta, where they stole 30 to 40,000 votes right in front of your eyes. And I’m supposed to lie?”

Giuliani does seem to believe that is his function. It may end up costing him a lot more than he earned by representing Trump and hawking vitamin supplements.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3c9hR4g
via IFTTT

Surely Rudy Giuliani’s ‘Conclusive Proof’ of Machine-Based Election Fraud Will Save Him From Dominion’s $1.3 Billion Defamation Lawsuit

Rudy-Giuliani-rally-1-16-21

Rudy Giuliani, former President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, says the vast criminal conspiracy that supposedly denied his client a second term is “easily provable.” Yet Giuliani has never presented the evidence he claims to have. It supposedly shows that Dominion Voting Systems helped steal the election by supplying fraud-facilitating software that manufactured “hundreds of thousands” of phony votes for President Joe Biden.

Now that Dominion has filed a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit against Giuliani, he will have to put up or shut up.

Dominion’s 107-page complaint, which it filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that Giuliani perpetrated “a viral disinformation campaign” based on “demonstrably false” claims about the company. According to the complaint, which is similar to the lawsuit that Dominion filed against former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell on January 8, that disinformation campaign forced the company to spend “more than $565,000 on private security for the protection of its people,” plus “more than $1,170,000” to “mitigate the harm to its reputation and business.”

Dominion says the reputational damage inflicted by Giuliani’s conspiracy mongering has cost the company about $200 million in lost profits and destroyed its resale value, which it says was “between $450 million and $500 million before the viral disinformation campaign.” The company is seeking $651,735,000 in compensatory damages and the same amount in punitive damages.

During the “Save America” rally that preceded the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Giuliani told thousands of Trump supporters that he was about to blow the lid off Dominion’s alleged role in delivering Georgia to Biden. “Over the next 10 days,” he said, “we get to see the machines that are crooked, the ballots that are fraudulent. And if we’re wrong, we will be made fools of. But if we’re right, a lot of them will go to jail.” Giuliani claimed he had “conclusive proof” that “crooked Dominion machines” had switched Trump votes to Biden votes. “So let’s have trial by combat,” he said. “I’m willing to stake my reputation. The president is willing to stake his reputation on the fact that we’re going to find criminality there.”

The very next day, Trump’s attorneys dropped four lawsuits challenging Georgia’s election results, claiming they had reached “an out of court settlement agreement,” which was news to the state’s lawyers. What happened to Giuliani’s “conclusive proof”? The same thing that happened every time he and the rest of Trump’s legal team went to court, where they never alleged anything like the elaborate scheme that Giuliani and Powell repeatedly described in tweets, press conferences, interviews, and podcast monologues.

“Although he was unwilling to make false election fraud claims about Dominion and its voting machines in a court of law because he knew those allegations are false,” the company says, “he and his allies manufactured and disseminated the ‘Big Lie,’ which foreseeably went viral and deceived millions of people into believing that Dominion had stolen their votes and fixed the election. Giuliani reportedly demanded $20,000 a day for that Big Lie. But he also cashed in by hosting a podcast where he exploited election falsehoods to market gold coins, supplements, cigars, and protection from ‘cyberthieves.’ Even after the United States Capitol had been stormed by rioters who had been deceived by Giuliani and his allies, Giuliani shirked responsibility for the consequences of his words and repeated the Big Lie again.”

Trump “won that election,” Giuliani asserted on his WABC radio show last week. “You give me one hour. I will prove it to you with pictures, documents, votes and people we can call on the phone in five states.” That was a month after Dominion threatened to sue Giuliani and two weeks after his tall tale encouraged hundreds of deluded Trump followers to storm the Capitol in a vain effort to “stop the steal.”

Dominion says Giuliani hatched his disinformation scheme on the night of the election. “There’s no way he lost!” Giuliani told Trump campaign officials just after midnight, according to Axios. “This thing must have been stolen. Just say we won Michigan! Just say we won Georgia! Just say we won the election! He needs to go out and claim victory!” And that is what Trump did, beginning with the conviction that he must have won and then casting about for evidence to support it.

Two days after the election, the complaint says, Powell began encouraging the campaign to focus suspicion on Dominion. She found a receptive audience in Giuliani, who in turn encouraged Trump to echo the wild charges about massive, machine-based fraud. In November 12 interview on Lou Dobbs Tonight, Giuliani falsely claimed that Dominion is owned by Smartmatic, another company that figures in Powell’s fantasy. Giuliani said Smartmatic was created “in order to fix elections” for Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and had ties to billionaire George Soros, a major supporter of Democratic campaigns and causes. Dominion’s software, Giuliani averred, “really is Venezuelan” and is essentially the same as Smartmatic’s.

Giuliani continued to tell this weird story on Twitter, on his Common Sense podcast, on his radio show, in TV interviews, and in a bizarre November 19 press conference where he stood alongside Powell, representing the “elite strike force team…working on behalf of the president and the campaign.” Meanwhile, the claims of machine-based fraud were repeatedly debunked by leading election security experts, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, post-election audits and recounts, Republican election officials, Republican members of Congress, and Trump’s own attorney general. Although Giuliani never dared to float the Dominion allegations in court, Powell and another pro-Trump lawyer, Lin Wood, detailed the conspiracy theory in several suits, presenting highly dubious evidence that failed to impress a single judge.

“Plaintiffs append over three hundred pages of attachments, which are only impressive for their volume,” a federal judge in Arizona wrote in response to one of Powell’s lawsuits. “The various affidavits and expert reports are largely based on anonymous witnesses, hearsay, and irrelevant analysis of unrelated elections.” She noted that “the ‘expert reports’ reach implausible conclusions, often because they are derived from wholly unreliable sources.”

Ten days ago, the conservative website American Thinker, which Dominion threatened to sue for publishing articles that amplified Giuliani’s charges against the company, published a retraction and apology. “These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion’s supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion’s machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently,” it said. “These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims.”

Giuliani carried on as if none of that had happened, averring that the skeptics had not seen his secret “proof.” Last Tuesday, when a caller to Giuliani’s radio show referred to the purportedly stolen election, Giuliani replied: “I investigated it. I have the evidence. What am I supposed to say? Lie? I’m supposed to lie? I got the pictures of Atlanta, where they stole 30 to 40,000 votes right in front of your eyes. And I’m supposed to lie?”

Giuliani does seem to believe that is his function. It may end up costing him a lot more than he earned by representing Trump and hawking vitamin supplements.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3c9hR4g
via IFTTT