Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

moniss

(6,205 posts)
17. The full Brookings article
Fri Nov 8, 2024, 05:50 AM
Nov 8

covers that highlighted language and goes into some of the cases. Also remember that there is no precedent for the pardon being used in civil cases. Going into the civil arena opens things up to a President doing things on the level of divorce judgements etc. whereas the the case law considers the word "offences" to mean crimes. There is however criminal defamation and civil defamation with the important distinction of knowledge and intent. Defamation that includes intent to harm and knowledge beforehand of the statements being false is looked at more seriously and is considered a harm to society (against the United States by definition) and can be prosecuted as criminal by a US Attorney, District Attorney etc. The case is US v or State of v etc. and the defamed party might be a witness but is not the plaintiff. The purpose and penalties in the case is for punishment of the defamer and might include fines and jail time. The criminal action is not about paying damages to the defamed party.

The civil case on the other hand is brought by the defamed party as the plaintiff and is for compensation for harm/damages caused to the defamed party. The case of Ruby Freeman and her daughter is civil and one could argue that it could have been criminal but because it wasn't filed that way by a prosecutor it's too late now.

https://www.jsrohilla.com/difference-between-criminal-and-civil-defamation/

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

OOOOHHHHH!!!! A SCOLDING!!!! SoCalDavidS Nov 7 #1
Yeah... the poor, old bastard. 3Hotdogs Nov 7 #8
Oh no! A scolding! n/t kirby Nov 7 #2
The judge should order federal marshals to accompany Rudy to wherever he's got his stuff hidden Vinca Nov 7 #3
Judges are usually nice to white rich males. Irish_Dem Nov 7 #11
If this is the kind of enforcement of a judgement he's going to get LiberalLovinLug Nov 7 #4
This appears to be the plan. Irish_Dem Nov 7 #12
Judge Liman- You are weak, timid and not doing your job. Rudy is laughing in your face. Resign already. Evolve Dammit Nov 7 #5
Hey judge, jail him for contempt until you are satisfied with his compliance, or RockRaven Nov 7 #6
Bailiff, whack his pee-pee! JoseBalow Nov 7 #7
Scolding are such cruel and unusual punishments. Autumn Nov 7 #9
He's such a... 2naSalit Nov 7 #10
So the judge gave him another deadline moniss Nov 8 #13
For anybody worried about the Orange Ruski giving Ghooliani moniss Nov 8 #14
Well the SCOTUS pretty much declared BumRushDaShow Nov 8 #15
The full Brookings article moniss Nov 8 #17
Oh I know what they are asserting BumRushDaShow Nov 8 #19
That's why I included the mention of Cash and Carry Clarence. nt moniss Nov 8 #20
Scolded? Old Crank Nov 8 #16
The judge will have the choice of criminal contempt moniss Nov 8 #18
Well, tow it away! What is the problem here? travelingthrulife Nov 8 #21
"scolds", how about jail time for non-compliance ? republianmushroom Nov 8 #22
Hey, According to SCOTUS, tonekat Nov 9 #23
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Judge scolds Giuliani for...»Reply #17