Follow America’s fastest-growing news aggregator, Spreely News, and stay informed. You can find all of our articles plus information from your favorite Conservative voices.
On Friday, a jury in Washington, D.C., issued a significant judgment against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in a defamation case brought forward by two 2020 Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea “Shaye” Moss.
CNN reported that the unanimous verdict included damages for each of the plaintiffs who had accused Giuliani of falsely accusing them of aiding to steal the election from then-President Donald Trump. The lawsuit revealed that both Freeman and Moss experienced immense harassment, racist attacks, and death threats as a result of being falsely accused. This resulted in their need to flee their homes, resign from their positions as election workers, and fear using their real names.
The jury awarded them more than $148 million in damages.
Following the verdict, the former mayor had to also cover the attorney fees of both plaintiffs. He subsequently gave a statement to reporters.
“Possibly will move for a new trial, certainly will appeal,” Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, said. “The absurdity of the number merely underscores the absurdity of the entire proceeding where I’ve not been allowed to offer one single piece of evidence in defense, of which I have a lot.
“So I am quite confident when this case gets before a fair tribunal, it will be reversed so quickly. That will make your head spin. And the absurd number that just came in will help that, actually,” he added.
“Why did you think it was unfair?” one reporter asked.
“I cannot go into the details. I didn’t testify because the judge made it clear that if I made any mistake or did anything wrong, she was considering contempt,” Giuliani responded. “And this judge does have a reputation for putting people in jail. And I thought, honestly, it wouldn’t do any good.
“Do you still believe what you said about these two women in the wake of the 2020 elections?” another reporter asked.
“I have no doubt. I have no doubt that my comments were made,and they were supportable and are supportable today,” Giuliani added.
“I just did not have an opportunity to present the evidence that we offered,” he said.
“Did you notice we were not allowed to put in one piece of evidence in defense? Do you also realize that liability is not based on any trial? My ability is based on her disagreement with me on discovery, which is absurd. Get it? Because I believe the judge was threatening me with the strong possibility that I’d be held in contempt or that I’d even be put in jail,” he said.
“So, it didn’t seem like it was going to do much to persuade anybody, and it could give her what she seemed to be threatening. Do you believe the women’s testimony? All right. That’s all I have to say,” he added.
“Do you have regrets about some of the comments that the women received?” a reporter then asked.
“Well, of course the comments they received, I had nothing to do with those comments, [they] are abominable. They’re deplorable,” Giuliani insisted.
This $148 million verdict against Giuliani is just one among numerous lawsuits awaiting resolution over “false claims” associated with the 2020 election, Mediaite reported on Friday.
1st Amendment Praetorian, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting free speech rights, filed a defamation lawsuit on Wednesday against a former staffer for the Jan. 6 Committee and publishers of his insider story of the investigation that labeled the group of former veterans as “domestic violent extremists” and a “militant group,” and portrayed the nonprofit as responsible for the violence that erupted at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
News broke last month that a former senior adviser to the Jan. 6 Committee, Denver Riggleman, had penned a behind-the-scenes book purportedly detailing the inner workings of the Jan. 6 Committee. Riggleman’s book, “The Breach: The Untold Story of the Investigation Into January 6,” was released last month, with Esquire publishing an edited excerpt of it.
The book and the Esquire excerpt both spoke of “the militant groups that took part in the attack, namely the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and 1st Amendment Praetorian,” adding that the committee was looking at the storming of the building as a military operation. “The targets of our investigation were divided up into five major categories,” Riggleman wrote, with one group consisting of “domestic violent extremists,” which the former Jan. 6 staffer claimed, “included militant groups like Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and 1st Amendment Praetorian.”
Those statements were false and defamatory, according to the lawsuit filed by 1AP in a federal court in Virginia on Wednesday that named as defendants Riggleman; Hearst, which publishes Esquire; and the publishers of “The Breach,” the Holt and MacMillan publishing companies.
“Mr. Riggleman’s book pushes the Democrat talking point that military veterans who defend the First Amendment are violent extremists. We are not. We love America and it is our mission to guard its cherished values,” a representative of the 1AP told The Federalist. “Riggleman’s arrogance and reckless disregard of basic facts is not surprising. This book is low on intelligence and full on propaganda,” 1AP’s representative added.
Riggleman and the other defendants are not the first to falsely portray 1AP as “violent extremists” and “militant groups.” In July, The Federalist reported that in the days before the long Independence Day weekend, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., told The New York Times that when the Jan. 6 Committee reconvenes public hearings in July, “he intends to lead a presentation that will focus on the roles far-right groups like the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and 1st Amendment Praetorian played in the Capitol attack.” According to the Times, “Mr. Raskin has also promised to explore the connections between those groups and the people in Mr. Trump’s orbit.”
Raskin’s comments followed a year of the Jan. 6 Committee falsely portraying 1AP as “right-wing, paramilitary, or even a militia.” Lawyer Seth Abramson went further, claiming 1AP and its members were involved in the Capitol riot and are “insurrectionists” or “seditionists,” resulting in the group filing suit in a federal court in New Hampshire against Abramson for defamation.
Following Raskin’s comments, Leslie McAdoo Gordon, a lawyer representing 1AP in connection with the Jan. 6 Committee, corrected the record, telling The Federalist, “No matter what you think of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, 1st Amendment Praetorian in no way resembles those groups.” Rather, 1AP “provides pro bono security services at events to ensure a heckler’s veto does not interfere with the speakers’ constitutional right to express their viewpoint,” McAdoo Gordon explained.
McAdoo Gordon stressed these points in a letter to the Jan. 6 Committee in response to subpoenas issued to 1AP; its founder, Robert Lewis, a retired United States Army Green Beret and recipient of the Bronze Star; and 1AP member Philip Luelsdorff, who is a former U.S. Army Ranger. Among other things, the subpoenas demanded that 1AP provide “documents sufficient to identify all employees, officers, and board members” of the nonprofit, as well as “all agendas, minutes, notes, or other records related to meetings” of the nonprofit.
McAdoo Gordon rejected the committee’s demands, telling The Federalist that to use subpoenas “to demand financial and fundraising records (including bank account information) and ‘recruitment’ information from a nonprofit civic organization, especially a civil liberties group, is wholly unacceptable,” and “a gross affront to [the] First Amendment.” McAdoo Gordon stressed that her clients had nothing to do with the violence at the Capitol and were instead targeted because of the individuals with whom they associate.
The letter to the Jan. 6 Committee further detailed 1AP’s activities in D.C., noting that the group provided security for a rally held on Jan. 5, 2021, but the planned tasking to provide security in D.C. ended after that rally. While most members of 1AP left D.C. after the Jan. 5 rally, Lewis and Luelsdorff, who had remained, were asked to provide some additional protection services for the media outlets covering the protest at the Ellipse. They were later asked by the staff at the Willard Hotel to help “maintain order given the flood of people into the lobby and around the hotel after the Ellipse events ended.” They had nothing to do with what occurred at the Capitol.
Not only did the Jan. 6 Committee know these details in April, when McAdoo Gordon first responded to the committee’s subpoena, but by early July, the information was made public — well before the publication of Riggleman’s book and the Esquire excerpt. Nonetheless, the defendants called 1AP a “domestic violent extremist” and “militant” group.
In addition to the lawsuit against Riggleman and the publishers, an attorney for 1AP is calling for the Jan. 6 Committee to respond to the false claims pushed by their former adviser.
“If the J6 Committee had an ounce of integrity, it would denounce Riggleman’s lies and admit that there is no evidence that 1AP participated in a plot to attack the Capitol on January 6,” Virginia attorney Steven Biss told The Federalist.
With midterm elections less than a month away and the Jan. 6 Committee still pushing its partisan goals by subpoenaing former President Donald Trump, that outcome seems unlikely.
Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
Sarah Palin speaks during the “Climate Hustle” panel discussion at the Rayburn House Office Building on April 14, 2016 in (Getty Images)
Sarah Palin is suing The New York Times for defamation, according to documents filed in federal court Tuesday that were obtained by The Daily Caller.
The lawsuit has to do with an editorial the NYT ran on June 14 that falsely smeared Palin as inciting the 2011 shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords by a mentally ill man. There is no evidence to support the NYT’s implication that Palin played a role in inciting the Giffords shooting. (RELATED: NYT Uses GOP Shooting To Falsely Attack Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory)
“Mrs. Palin brings this action to hold The Times accountable for defaming her by publishing a statement about her that it knew to be false: that Mrs. Palin was responsible for inciting a mass shooting at a political event in January 2011,”Palin’s suit states.
“Specifically, on June 14, 2017, The Times Editorial Board, which represents the ‘voice’ of The Times, falsely stated as a matter of fact to millions of people that Mrs. Palin incited Jared Loughner’s January 8, 2011, shooting rampage at a political event in Tucson, Arizona, during which he shot nineteen people, severely wounding United States Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and killing six, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll and a nine-year-old girl.”
The lawsuit states that the paper “published and promoted its Editorial Board’s column despite knowing that the linchpin of its ‘sickening pattern’ of politically-incited shootings was the false assertion that Mrs. Palin incited Loughner to murder six people, among them a child and federal judge, and seriously wound numerous others.” (RELATED: NYT Has Been Pushing Palin-Giffords Falsehood For Years)
It goes on to state: “As the public backlash over The Times’ malicious column mounted, it responded by making edits and ‘corrections’ to its fabricated story, along with half-hearted Twitter apologies–none of which sufficiently corrected the falsehoods that the paper published. In fact, none mentioned Mrs. Palin or acknowledged that Mrs. Palin did not incite a deranged man to commit murder.”
Palin claims the editorial “exceeded the bounds of legality, decency and civility by publishing the false and defamatory column.”She is seeking a minimum of $75,000 in damages.
In the NYT’s editorial, which has since been updated, the editors claimed there was a “clear” link to incitement between Jared Loughner’s attempted assassination of Giffords, and a map Palin had created that placed crosshairs over districts that Republicans needed to flip in the 2012 election. No such link exists.
CNN’s Jake Tapper pointed out in response to the NYT editorial that “even way back in Jan 2011 we knew that Loughlin’s obsession began 3 years before the Palin map.”Tapper made that same exact point back in 2011 when he worked for ABC.
After harsh criticism in the media, the NYT finally added a correction that read: “An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.”
The NYT editorial followed the attempted mass assassination of Republican lawmakers by a left-wing Bernie Sanders supporter, who espoused anti-Republican rhetoric on his Facebook page and belonged to several anti-GOP groups on Facebook, including one titled, “Terminate The Republican Party.”
The Daily Caller is awaiting comment from the NYT.
This article has been updated with additional information.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
Reported by 
Peter Hasson | Associate Editor | 6:43 PM 06/27/2017
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.