Michael Gottlieb on that Giant Judgment Against Rudy Giuliani
Jan 9, 2024
auto_awesome
Michael Gottlieb, a litigation partner and national security lawyer, discusses his $148 million judgment against Rudy Giuliani on behalf of election workers. They explore using defamation law against disinformation, the impact of conspiracy theories and disinformation on democracy, and the shocking lies told by Giuliani. They also analyze Trump's remarks, the significance of the verdict, and the role of Fox News in disseminating false allegations.
Using defamation law can provide protection to individuals and send a message about the consequences of spreading lies and disinformation.
While defamation law can protect individuals, it has limitations and cannot address the broader issue of disinformation in political discourse and policy debates.
Deep dives
Summary of the Podcast Episode
The podcast episode features an interview with Michael J. Gottlieb, a litigation partner at the Wilkie Law Firm. Gottlieb discusses his involvement in a case against Rudy Giuliani on behalf of election workers Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss. The case focused on defamation and disinformation spread during the 2020 election. Gottlieb explains how the use of defamation law can provide protection to individuals and send a message about the consequences of spreading lies and disinformation. He also discusses the limitations of this legal strategy and highlights the importance of individual accountability in the face of disinformation campaigns.
The Case Against Rudy Giuliani
The case against Rudy Giuliani was filed in partnership with Protect Democracy and Law for Truth, an advocacy project aimed at combating disinformation. The lawsuit alleged defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy. Giuliani initially participated in the case but later stopped cooperating, leading to a stipulation of liability. The trial focused on determining the damages Giuliani would be liable to pay. The judgment reached was $148 million, and while Giuliani may declare bankruptcy, efforts will be made to collect a significant portion of the judgment.
Differentiating News Outlets
The strategy of using defamation law to combat disinformation has limitations. The decision to sue specific news outlets was based on their involvement in spreading false allegations about Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss. While Fox News may have reported on the allegations made by Giuliani and Trump, they were not directly involved in the defamation. The focus of the legal strategy is on protecting individuals from being scapegoated and holding accountable those who knowingly spread lies and falsehoods.
The Significance and Limitations of the Legal Strategy
The legal strategy of using defamation law serves to protect individuals from being targeted and defamed by powerful figures. It sends a message that those who spread lies and disinformation may face legal consequences. However, this strategy does not address the broader issue of disinformation in political discourse and policy debates. Defamation law is limited to addressing individual harm and does not have the power to stop the spread of disinformation altogether. Other tools and approaches are necessary to combat disinformation on a larger scale.
Michael J. Gottlieb is a litigation partner at the Willkie law firm. He is a long-time national security lawyer, served in Barack Obama's White House Counsel's office, and used to be the civilian lead on a task force that built rule of law institutions in Afghanistan.
Late last year, he won a $148 million dollar judgment against Rudy Giuliani on behalf of election workers Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman. He joined Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes to talk about the case, how he and the advocacy group Protect Democracy teamed up to use defamation law to fight disinformation and the big lie, what the use of defamation in this way can and cannot be expected to do, and how he went from building rule of law institutions in Afghanistan to representing people who have had their lives turned upside down by a toxic media ecosystem.