This is separate from Rudy’s criminal trial with Trump, this was a civil trial between him and the election workers, where Rudy admitted that he lied about them.
This is separate from Rudy’s criminal trial with Trump, this was a civil trial between him and the election workers, where Rudy admitted that he lied about them.
It’s going to be interesting to see how “for purposes of this litigation only — does not contest the factual allegations” is going to fly in the criminal case.
I don’t think the court system allows you to admit you lied in one case and then go “No, no, that’s only for that ONE case… this criminal case is TOTALLY different…”
It kinda does though. Standards of proof are different between civil and criminal trials. Your “right to remain silent” is only relevant for criminal proceedings. This is why you will never be required to take the stand in your own criminal trial. This gives you coverage for shady law enforcement inferring criminal guilt based on your silence or reluctance to answer questions.
Contrast that with civil proceedings where you do not have the right to remain silent. In those if you refuse to answer a question, the judge/jury/finder of facts can legally infer a negative response. So if asked “Did you do the thing?” and you remain silent, they can assume you did the thing. In a criminal trial, they can’t assume you did the thing.
This brings us back to the standards of proof. For criminal it’s “beyond all reasonable doubt”. For civil it’s “a preponderance of the evidence”. Consider these to be effectively 100% and 50% respectively. Now why this makes sense in this case is he effectively admitted that there’s a better chance someone would think he’s lying than telling the truth. He’s admitting to the 50%, but not admitting it’s provable beyond all reasonable doubt at 100%.
Just to quibble, reasonable doubt is not 100% certainty.