In her decision, Howell also accused Giuliani of destroying evidence relevant to the case.
Well, that’s interesting. I wonder if he’s destroyed evidence in any other cases he might be involved in. (That’s rhetorical, btw - if he’s done it here, then of course he’s done it in the much more serious January 6th case.)
I am deeply curious to know what prompted the judge to include that accusation. Such an accusation, without sufficient evidence to support it, could definitely (and ironically) be defamatory.
I mean, who wouldn’t? Most people don’t commit crimes, which is of course the right way. But if you do, only idiots create any evidence in the first place, but only complete idiots leave that evidence around for law enforcement to find.
Agreed. But most people were never the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who specialized in taking down hard-to-get-at groups using RICO laws - someone who knows in exacting detail what those laws are and how they can be applied. He knew better than to leave evidence in the first place, and doubly knew that getting rid of it was an especially bad idea of the investigation was at all serious.
I mean he failed to comply with discovery subpoenas. To me that says that he was more concerned with what might turn up than he was with having to pay damages in this case. If he loses this but avoids larger legal cases because of it that may be shady but I wouldn’t call it stupid.
True. But Iirc (it’s hard to keep track) he’s an unnamed coconspirator in one of the federal cases, and I think destroying that evidence works more against him there.
He is obviously an idiot, because he’s creating evidence left and right. With these people I think it’s a mix of stupidity and hubris. They got away with so much crap, they think they’ll get away with everything.
Well, that’s interesting. I wonder if he’s destroyed evidence in any other cases he might be involved in. (That’s rhetorical, btw - if he’s done it here, then of course he’s done it in the much more serious January 6th case.)
I am deeply curious to know what prompted the judge to include that accusation. Such an accusation, without sufficient evidence to support it, could definitely (and ironically) be defamatory.
I mean, who wouldn’t? Most people don’t commit crimes, which is of course the right way. But if you do, only idiots create any evidence in the first place, but only complete idiots leave that evidence around for law enforcement to find.
Agreed. But most people were never the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who specialized in taking down hard-to-get-at groups using RICO laws - someone who knows in exacting detail what those laws are and how they can be applied. He knew better than to leave evidence in the first place, and doubly knew that getting rid of it was an especially bad idea of the investigation was at all serious.
I mean he failed to comply with discovery subpoenas. To me that says that he was more concerned with what might turn up than he was with having to pay damages in this case. If he loses this but avoids larger legal cases because of it that may be shady but I wouldn’t call it stupid.
True. But Iirc (it’s hard to keep track) he’s an unnamed coconspirator in one of the federal cases, and I think destroying that evidence works more against him there.
He is obviously an idiot, because he’s creating evidence left and right. With these people I think it’s a mix of stupidity and hubris. They got away with so much crap, they think they’ll get away with everything.