Thread by @Brandi_Buchman

Hello from Washington, D.C. where we have cotton candy colored skies to kick off another day of Rudy Giuliani's civil defamation trial to determine damages owed to GA election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. I will report and live tweet today for @lawcrimenews.

Humphreys gives example: if 30% of your coworkers think you stole money - a minority may think that - but that 30% may still continue to spread rumors, challenge your integrity, make false claims etc - it still has an impact on reputation

Humphreys is explaining the traditional media model and the social media model to jurors, showing how quickly information can disseminate on social media vs older method; i.e. from a few hundred to a few thousand in moments...
its called an "information cascade" or "going viral"

Humphrey's says there's studies done on true/false information being shared on social media. Politically false information spreads 3x faster, she said.
False information is more novel/interesting and people want to share it more quickly, she says.

What are filter bubbles?
Humphreys: When we're on social media, we choose where we're going to get our info from pretty specifically. People we choose to follow will give that information to us. We tend to follow people who are like us....

Howell interrupts briefly.
Howell asks again - politically false information spreads 3x faster? So if you take politically false out, and just false -- ?
False info travels faster than any kind and politically false travels even faster, Humphreys tells her

Do people's preexisting beliefs or prior beliefs have an impact on kind of info they're willing to believe when seeing it first time?
H: People are more likely to believe a new piece of info if it aligns with what they already believe (filter bubble concept)

Influencers on social media capitalize on this filter bubble dynamic, Humphreys explains.
ATTY: are some ppl influencers just cus they're famous?
Yes
Is it a business for some?
Yes
How?

H: We trust info that comes from a source like us. So an influencer will accept money to share particular influences.
Do some influencers make a lot of $?
Yes they do; typically company asks influencer to share a msg in certain way on certain platform, and # of times

Humphreys: There are influencers for almost any category and have become more important to companies and how they share information,
Now, moving onto Humphrey's estimate of the reputational repair needed for Freeman/Moss

Reputational repair can be accomplished through "strategic communications" or the purposeful use of comms to fulfill a certain goal or mission; it defines a target audience, the msg, what do you want to tell them and the source (who to share it) and channel (how to share)

Does the extent of damage you're trying to repair influence how a repair campaign is put together?
H: Yes, if its a large target audience or if its a msg that maybe they [audience] aren't inclined to believe, that would increase the cost

Are there companies that engage in strat comms plans free? No.
What do companies do to decide how much /who to target/resources to use? I.e. do you want to use mostly TV or social media to repair reputation etc

The cost can vary widely for reputational repair.
It can be tens of thousands, I mean, it can be a million dollars, Humphreys says.

A slide comes up on the screen that shows an "impression model" that shows how statements from Giuliani describing Ruby Freeman as a "known vote scammer" flowed in instances and impressions in different media channels

An impression is one person seeing a statement one time online.
So, impressions are the total number of times a post or other piece of content has been displayed to users.
Does the # of impressions calculated for a particular statement equate to an exact # of individuals?
No.

One person could see a statement more than once.
Humphrey's accounted for this in her analysis and determined how many times a typical person might have seen content and she's confident that a large number of views means high impressions and vice versa

Humphrey's looked at 2 kinds of statements from
Dec. 2020 - The defamation statements and then the emotional harm statements.
Another slide comes up on the screen. Its a set of statements ranging from Dec 23 2020 to Jan 12, 2022

These are 16 stmts published by Giuliani or the Trump campaign, Humphreys said.
Another slide comes up. Here Humphreys has categorized how statements defaming Moss/Freeman appeared on various platforms and the instances it appeared. There were 91 instances

Giuliani's atty objects as Humphreys is testifying about the emotional harm statements but he's hard to hear and I couldn't catch what he was objecting to.
Apparently, its not just me.
Howell: I cant hear you, why dont we get on the phone.
They do and husher is on/off in a min

Now a doc appears on screen. Its labeled "strategic communications plan giuliani presidential legal defense team"
Humphreys analyzes it. notes there's a goal at top of plan to "educate public on fraud"
There's a target (Swing state senators etc)
And a set of msgs to share

Humphreys said while analyzing the Giuliani strategic communications plan, she notes the campaign identified influencers, mega/micro influencers/left or right to disseminate fraud msging
1st on Rudy's list is Candace Owens.

Does a size of influencers reach make them more expensive to hire?
Yes

Moving on. we see more of the strategic comms plan. As bullet points, there's recs to talk about suitcase stuffing of ballots (What Giuliani accused Freeman/Moss of doing falsely) and more

I didn't catch the front end of what Humphrey's said, but fairly certain I heard her say that it could cost $5 to $8M to hire these influencers to disseminate these messages about voter fraud

Now video plays on screen in courtroom.
Its a video of Giuliani from his podcast. Video is hard to hear but transcript beneath it indicates he's discussing his claims of the "quite clear... cheating" by Freeman and Moss. (There was no cheating)

Humphreys explains how podcasts appear across multiple platforms, making reach exponential with audio/visual components. The podcast accusing Freeman/Moss of cheating was shared widely. Nearly 10K impressions on Giuliani's pod website and roughly the same impressions on OAN.

This isn't particularly sexy information, perhaps, but this is important for Freeman/Moss' attorneys to argue; it shows the vast reach of Giuliani's defamatory remarks

Humphreys notes that the impressions she estimated from Giuliani's website and OAN on defamatory stmts aren't the total number of impressions rec'd, just a segment of what she tracked, but she expects the number is far larger

Reach of Giuliani's defamatory Dec 23, 2020 statements:
YouTube, 448K impressions
Rumble: 8400 impressions

Humphreys didnt have access to Apple pod platform data so she couldn't analyze but says Giulianis team may have that.

Analyzing impressions on social media like Facebook can be more difficult. Not all of your followers see what you post. They may not sign on that day. Lots of competing factors. So, she estimates # impressions by # of followers. Less prominent user - users see less

Bigger accounts have bigger impressions tho it can depend. Smaller accounts the low range estimate impression would be 5% of person's followers, high range would be 20%.
Humphreys estimates Giuliani, with 1M followers 20% would be min. Her calcs, however, put...

...the rate at 27% for Giuliani's defamatory comments.

So, to sum it up she's saying: of the defamatory stmts Giuliani made on social media, at least 27% of his followers saw them online. So 27% of 1M (Give or take)

Short morning break and then we will return.

The jury is back.
We resume with more testimony from Humphreys about her analysis of Giuliani's defamatory statements and their proliferation on social media and elsewhere

Did Humphreys analyze any content for impression models of defamatory stmts disseminated through presidential tweets or Trump campaign tweets -

She did.
They were sent through Trump's twitter account and his campaign on 12/23 and 12/24 and a FB post on 12/24

Trump had 88M followers on Twitter when he shared the defamatory messages about Freeman/Moss, the msg might not have reached all followers of course, but the model she used- based on engagement with tweet - impression rate was likely greater than 20%.
So 20% of 88M.

Now, defamatory msgs sent across the Trump campaign side -what was the impression rate of those?
Humphreys said low range was 8M impressions, highest range was 18M impressions

Humphreys also analyzed the Jan 2 2021 call Trump had with Brad Raffensperger where he said:
"Her reputation is deva - she's known all over the internet, Brad. She's known all over. I'm telling you. Where's Ruby was one of the hot items, Ruby, they knew her, where's Ruby?"

So this was a phone call, yes, but the call went public in media and was widely shared everywhere. It was shared repeatedly. And it was called fake news, Gottlieb notes.
Recall, his pt earlier: "fake news" travels even faster than factual news.

Humphreys also notes in her analysis that she calculated a "bounce rate" for impressions. In short, not every person who is a subscriber of NYT, for example, who heard the call, is likely to believe what Trump says
13.7% of NYT audience are trump supporters, for example....

How many impressions did Trump's call to Raffensperger have?
Roughly 1.9 million receptive impressions online news; 3.8M receptive impressions for TV; online video via YouTube and Rumble 4.8M receptive impressions.

So how many instances of the Trump-Raffensperger call were incorporated into the model? 46 across web, TV, online, social media, pod/print. The total RECEPTIVE impressions was 11.7M

Howell interrupts and asks if they were to look at these stats today, it would likely be that the impressions/views have only gone up on materials.
Humphreys says yes, she stopped counting beyond the window required for court

So, all told - what were the TOTAL impressions across all media sources for 91 instances involving all defamatory statements: 35M impression low, 56M impression high.

Emotional harm statements analysis - there were more of these than defamatory. Humphreys analyzed 27 by Giuliani, 12 by Donald Trump and 12 by the Trump campaign across Twitter, FB, YT, podcasts, audio, radio (52 total)

A slide on the screen shows plaintiffs exhibits: a series of social media posts demonstrating the emotional harm statements. They are from Twitter. From Giuliani, Trump or Trump team. Same methodology used here as before to assess.

Humphreys used same low/high range estimates for emotional harm statements.
For all 52 emotional harm statements, she found total receptive impressions of 111M on low end to 249M on the high end
How does she explain the large number?

These stmts were shared very very widely across many media channels, Humphreys said.
And Trump had a large number of followers at this time?
Correct.
Was this information, about the 2020 election, widely consumed in early Dec 2020?
Yes, from what I've seen

How do you square impression with total population of US?
Impressions does not equal people. It is possible 1 person rec'd multiple impressions but it gives you sense of scale and spread for this information

Humphreys is NOT saying every person in America saw these tweets.
This is what she would consider "viral" information

Now moving onto impact assessment of defamatory stmts made against Moss/Freeman
She explains: there was a quantitative component, so, search trends and related search terms to plaintiffs names

Then there's qualitative analysis. She notes that before 12/4/20, no search traffic on Google for Ruby Freeman.
That changed quickly. And trends show upticks in december and again on Jan. 4

Before 12/4, no interest in the name Ruby Freeman.

Humphreys explains why she used Freeman Google Trend data instead of Shaye Moss -- there was "too much noise" around that name, she says, due to spellings of it varying et

The trend shows the search for Ruby Freeman skyrocketed after reports of Trump's call with Raffensperger circulated.

There's also qualitative analysis on direct engagement of Giuliani's statements. That required Humphreys to analyze comments posted under material she accounted for, so comments under Rudy's tweets, podcast or videos.

(No offense to Dr. Humphreys but her job is not one I would ever want)

Now we look at impact analysis of a statement from a Dec. 25 2020 podcast episode where Giuliani said "Ruby Freeman and her crew" were committing fraud and it was caught on video etc. There were thousands of reshares, views, tons of endorsements in comments including...

messages demanding Freeman/Moss be executed for treason....

These responses showed up in comments UNDER Giuliani's video.
H: These comments endorse content of video and those comments are endorsed by others with likes, shares, replies etc

Humphreys said that after the sharing of this content from Giuliani, it negatively impacted Freeman/Moss reputation based on her analysis;

Humphreys also looked at analysis from a security firm known as Jensen Hughes that established impact on social media of defamatory statements against Freeman Moss by Giuliani

A slide on screen shows 7 social media comments that were in the Jensen Hughes security report - she does not have an opinion on whether they are defamatory - but she found that the impact on Moss/Freeman reputation....

....was significant - there were a lot of threats.

And the mentions havent stopped.

The May 2023 Jensen Hughes report found that from Nov 2021 to May 2021 there were 710K+ mentions of Freeman and Moss.
In August 2023, Jensen Hughes found there were 317k+ mentions

Is Humphreys aware whether Giuliani is still making defamatory statements about Moss/Freeman?
Yes
Does it have an affect on their reputations?
H: What ive seen previously, anytime a statement is made in public sphere it raises these associations yet again in social media.

Would Giuliani apologizing have an effect on the receptive audience? Howell asks.
Humphrey starts to say it might but Giuliani's lawyer objects, saying question requires Humphreys to speculate. Howell overrules him.
We will return to this later.

To repair reputational harm is not easy, Humphreys says.
Earlier she emphasized that sometimes reputations can be damaged generationally, long outliving the person defamed.

Now to the damages model, i.e. how to figure out cost to repair the reputational harm done to Freeman/Moss? A repair campaign would include mass media advertising, hiring influencers, circulating stmts in press, targeted msging/ multiple exposures to msging, long running campaign

Humphreys testifies about "attitude change multiplier" for the damages model.
Her analysis affirms that a person's belief is not changed by a single impression. Research shows multiple impressions are needed to positively change attitudes

Sometimes people won't change minds at all.
People with strong attitudes may need to see a message multiple times. In that case, they may need to see a message 5 to 7 times to have an attitude shift.

Oh, quick fix: in earlier tweet, I wrote:
"The May 2023 Jensen Hughes report found that from Nov 2021 to May 2021 there were 710K+ mentions of Freeman and Moss. In August 2023, Jensen Hughes found there were 317k+ mentions"

That should be Nov 2021 thru May 2023

@plain_me9 In fact I believe it was to 2023.

Final estimates from Humphreys to repair the reputation of Moss/Freeman on defamatory statements alone (she's factored in high/low impression rates and based on positive attitude multipliers)
Cost to repair high impression : $28M. Low $17M
High multipliers $47M, low would be $29M

So the takeaway here: It can cost A LOT of money to repair your reputation and it can cost even more money to repair your reputation among ppl who would not be easily swayed even WITH repeated exposure to positive messaging

In conclusion:
Humphreys says: with impression model, she measured reach of defamation stmts and found they rec'd 35.5M impressions and 56.6M reception impressions

Emotional harm statements reached 111M people on low end, high end 250M people.
impact assessment - stmts in this case reflected significant, long lasting impact of reputations
And to damages...

Based on impressions, Humphreys says the campaign to repair Moss/Freeman's reputation would cost anywhere from $17.8M to $47M.
But she adds, she'd air on higher side of expense given what happened specifically to Moss/Freeman. So to repair would cost $28.4M to $47M.

We are now on a lunch break until 1:20PM.

And now we are back!

We resume with cross-examination of Dr. Humphreys by Rudy's lawyer Joe Sibley.
He asks if she considers herself a scientist or if she used scientific methodology; she does and she did; Sibley points out language in a report that says "with a reasonable degree of certainty" ...

He asks her what that might mean scientifically. Humphreys says she would need to see the exact quote he's looking for. He asks her again. She tells him again, she'd need to see what he's talking about.
Sibley says "I dont know what that means..." and moves on.

Sibley approaches Humphreys with a document with Judge Howell's permission. Howell asks if its been marked for identification. SIbley says it has not. Howell grimaces slightly.
I guess we can make it defendant exhibit 1, your honor, sibley says.

Humphreys now reviews the document. She recognizes it.
Was that a supplement to her report on damages finding? Yes.
She had a damages range in that report of up to $74 million?
She asks for more specifics. Sibley hedges a bit but we get there, yes that number is in the report

17M-47M in damages were assessed in Humphrey's repair scope;
Sibley says the number fluctuates. Why is that?
There are different instances, she says, so it may require the numbers to fluctuate
SIbley: But this is science right?

On the point of false news traveling faster than regular news - Sibley asks Humphreys who determines that. She explains, researchers who compiled it, fact checkers
"Today's misinformation might be tomorrow's truth," he says.
Then brings up Covid-19, Hunter Biden's laptop

There's an objection for relevance, If my ears didn't deceive me, and its granted by Judge Howell who tells Sibley that she doesnt know where he's going with this, move on

Sibley; Did you do any impressions based work on the Alex Jones case?
She didnt complete her analysis, she says, but she did work on it.
That's not what I asked you, Sibley says, trying desperately to "Gotcha" her without much success at all thus far

Sibley cannot help but giggle to himself aloud as he brings up a defamation case involving an entity who went by the name "Milky Mama LLC"....

Humphreys did analysis on E. Jean Carroll defamation case; there was another Trump-related defamation case she worked on. Sibley says she's involved in a case against Gateway Pundit.
That's right, she says. Same nature of work there that she's done for others, she adds.

She'd have to consult her records, but doesnt recall exactly how many hours she's spent on the Gateway Pundit case. Sibley asks how much she's been paid for this case. Offhand, she doesnt know # of hours, but as she already said, her rate is $350/hr

Sibley asks if she's a retained expert in Gateway Pundit case. She affirms.
Has she reviewed the complaint/petition in GP case?
I have reviewed the case, Humphreys said.
Sibley enters Giuliani's second exhibit.

Humphreys says it's been sometime since she's held the document but she recognizes it.
There's a brief sidebar with Howell and all parties.
Then Sibley says, isnt this Gateway case similar to Freeman/Moss?
Humphrey asks to specify in what way -
That it is a defamation case.

I had a hard time hearing the start of this exchange, but Sibley asks about a lawsuit filed by Freeman in St. Louis; she's also working on another defamation case involving James O'Keefe and Project Veritas; Sibley asks her why she's an expert - there's a bit of back/forth

I honestly could not follow the point Sibley was trying to make, so I apologize I can't clear that up more.
But Howell did note, after the back and forth and an objection from prosecutors that the scope of his questions was very broad

Sibley asks if she relied on Jensen Hughes report for her analysis - she did.
The impact analysis - she wanted to understand descriptively how the reputations of Moss/Freeman had changed over time, so she consulted data they collected.

Sibley: Would her analysis have changed if she didnt rely on the Jensen Hughes report?
Not substantially no, Humphreys says.
Sibley: You didn't read the Great Gatsby in connection with your report did you? Because it had nothing to do with your report?

Had she not consulted Jensen Hughes, it would have changed the social media commentary findings maybe but it wouldnt have changed the impression numbers, she says.

When were you contacted about working on this case?
H: I don't recall, I'd have to consult my records
Who contacted you?
I dont recall
How were you contacted?
I believe by one of the plaintiff's attorneys
Can't give me a timeframe?
She apologizes, can't recall.

Sibley: You keep looking at the attorneys. Do you have any money riding on this?

Of course she does not, but its a cheap shot that doesnt go far; as he starts to pontificate about philosophy and science majors ....

He's met people who are scientists and they are so detail oriented, why cant she recall these details about her experience?

Judge Howell then cuts in to refocus Sibley.

Let me describe Sibley to you today:
He wears a dark colored suit, maybe even a 3 piece, it appears there's a lighter colored vest. He's got dark slicked back hair, thick facial hair and as he stands right now to ask Humphreys questions, he rubs his hands together briefly, slowly

Sibley is asking her if she prepared for trial.
She did.
Did that include reviewing documents?
It did.
And for today's testimony, she reviewed her expert report, supplement report, a print out of her slides

Howell's face is expressive. Her eyebrows are arched often, her head is cocked to the side, listening. She has eyes focused on Sibley when he speaks; she turns to face the witness when witness speaks. Very attentive and close listener.

Sibley: Are you aware in Gateway Pundit case that youve been retained on, there were stmts about plaintiffs re: election fraud that were false.
Yes.
In plaintiffs petition in that case, GP was first news org to ID plaintiffs by name and how to contact them through LinkedIn?

Humphreys says she cant recall, but Sibley says document will prove that. In the GP case, it would be the "Exact same analysis" in their case as it was in Freeman/Moss case, he asks.

Sibley says, if gateway pundit says these women didnt commit election fraud, that has no effect on what mr giuliani said about them?
Humphreys is not sure what he's asking.

Sibley: Whats the value $ to change public perception - that's your damages model, correct??
H: My damages model is tied to statements and impressions in this particular case... if GP ran a corrected campaign, it would restore damage done by Gateway Pundit

Sibley says in 3 years since "unfortunate events" happened to Moss/Freeman -- hasnt there been a campaign, effectively, stating they did not commit fraud?
Back and forth. Howell cuts in, a bit annoyed
"Reminding the jurors again, questions are not evidence."

Humphreys noted that 1 in 3 people still believe 2020 election was fraudulent.
Sibley: Thats my point, well, the state of Georgia issued a report saying claims against Moss/Freeman were not true.....

Humphreys' doesnt have info on that report she can testify about right now.
There's back and forth, and then objection by Sibley against Humphreys as non-responsive, twice. Howell tells Sibley his question is compound, he's burying it and needs to ask the question again.

Sibley asks court to read his question back. Howell says no, rephrase your question.
He tries to rephrase, cannot do it successfully. Howell asks him to try again.
He says, let's move on.
A moment passes. Howell now asks if she wants to rehear the question he asked. He says no

Bringing up Giuliani's strategic communications plan (The one where he aimed to promote claims of fraud) Sibley says the dates are Dec 27 to Jan 6 timeline of statements.
(Believe his suggestion is that Moss/Freeman's assertions came before his strat comm plan)

Howell to Sibley: I thought you were going to use the projector so we could all see the documents?
Sibley: I thought someone was going to put it up here
Howell furrows her brow, but says nothing as Sibley puts it on the screen
H: Now we can all see what you're trying to show us

S: I forgot to ask you this question - are you aware of any situation where person was defamed and your methodology was deployed? Any example?
Im not aware of any cases like that, Humphreys says
So you're only one who ever advanced this theory?

There's been judgment based on this methodology, she says.
That was in the Trump case? (E Jean Carroll)
Yes.
S. asks if shes 1st person in history to use this model?
She doesnt know all cases in history nor details of many defamation cases, so, that she's aware of, yes sure.

Is it more important for a person with a higher profile to repair their reputation? Sibley asks, line of questioning suggests he thinks it is
Humphrey says no.

OAN was sued by Moss/Freeman.
Giuliani made a statement on OAN.
Humphreys says she's aware there was some of agreement struck.
Theres objection over the scope of the question. Howell says this information came in before. As Sibley sputters through question, Howell says...

OK, let's just talk, Judge Howell says, and she picks up the phone and the attorneys hop on with her. Husher is on and off within a moment or two and questions resume.

Sibley: All right... Um... (there's a long pause)
Are you aware of - Eric Coomer?
nytimes.com/2021/08/24/mag…

Sibley What knowledge of all do you have of success of a campaign to repair a reputation of a private individual after being defamed? Any case studies you've looked at?
Humphreys: Of private individuals? No.
S: So you agree companies and individuals are different?
H: What way?

Sibley says companies advertise, people dont. Humphrey disagrees, an individual can advertise or promote.
Sibley, snidely, so a person would just advertise their number on a billboard to meet?

Sibley, snidely, again asks Humphrey if she knows what an advertisement is?

She's got a doctorate in marketing from Medill.

So you cant give me one example of a successful repair campaign by a private individual?
Humphreys: No
SIbley: Does a retraction or apology by defamer, does that help repair a plaintiffs reputation?

H: as discussed previously, that can help.
Are you aware that OAN took down the statements about Moss/Freeman?
H. can't recall.
Moss said yesterday they did.
Wouldnt it have been helpful for her to know that they published an apology/retraction and how successful that was?

Humphrey says no, her job was to assess statements from Giuliani about Moss/Freeman that were defamatory.
But some of those statements were made on OAN? Wouldnt that help you have better understanding/likelihood of success for reputation repair?
H: No its a diff set of stmts

Here's that statement from OAN that they posted on Twitter admitting they lied about Freeman/Moss.
Note how they promoted it on Twitter. Just a link. No description.
And the statement Sibley thinks absolves Giuliani today? It lasted 30 SECONDS.

https://x.com/OANN/status/1523814132197122048?s=20

Sibley asks for a restroom break, noting he's almost done with the witness. We break shortly.

And we are back. Sibley says he has a few follow up questions for Humphreys.
She said earlier she was working with plaintiffs counsel in previous case. That was Rich v. Potowski (Spelling). This was also a defamation case, she's fuzzy on details.

S: Are you aware of whether plaintiffs have spent any money or engaged in any efforts that are part of your damages model?
She's not aware.
Why not?
H: There's not been judgment in case.
S: So they need money to do it?
h: Yes you'd need money to run this campaign.

Sibley asks if they (Moss/Freeman) would use the money to repair the damage to their reputations, and Humphrey says they are free to do with the money whatever they want.

Moss sits at back o table on her side; Freeman sits to her side. Moss has her chin resting on her hand for a moment, Freeman has hands down at her sides as she's seated. She wears a red turtleneck and white blazer.
Giuliani at his table, slouched a bit, resting on head on hand

Sibley: is it common to have your work peer reviewed?
Humphreys says no, her work is based on peer reviewed methodology
Objection overruled
s: Has there been peer review of your methodology?
H: All of my work is based on peer review methodology
Objection overruled

Sibley: you dont think its important you have a peer review your work to determine its reliability?
H: All of my methodology is based on peer reviewed work.
S: I've asked if her work has in fact been peer reviewed
Objection overruled.
Sibley: Lets fast forward this your honor

Sibley done.
We are onto redirect from Mike Gottlieb. He asks her if she recalls Sibley's remark that the more prominent you are, the more important it is to repair your reputation. Do you agree?
No.

Gottlieb: Does reputational harm impose costs on anyone who is harmed?
Humphreys: Yes we all have reputations and they can all be harmed

Gottlieb asks how it is that people with money and power have greater resources to fix their reputation... then asks Humphreys if she knows that Giuliani still has a spokesman? (He sure does!)

Gottlieb elicits testimony that repair campaigns are not just run by companies, but by individuals as well.
He asks her for one example; Martha Stewart's insider trading scandal prompted a repair campaign for her as an individual, she hired agencies to help her

Gott: Sibley said no individual would take out ad or billboard. Ever see billboard for a solo attorney?
Sibley objects. Misstates prior question and testimony.
Overruled.
G: The point being youve seen ads taken out by a single individual to improve brand/image?
H: yes

Gottlieb asks Humphreys if she recognizes a document he's provided to her. Its the complaint underlying the Project Veritas defamation case where she is also serving as an expert.
Sibley objects.
Howell puts parties on the phone. Husher on.

Husher off.
Are you aware who the plaintiff in Weisenbach v. Project Veritas case voted for?
He voted for Trump. He raised defamation claims.
So when Sibley was asking you all these questions insisting you're only taking cases against Trump, wouldn't apply here?
Correct

Humphreys testifies that she has not sought out any engagements or rejected any for political reasons. If GOP member wanted to hire her, she would accept depending on case and caseload, she testifies.

Gottlieb: You recall Sibley asked you about changing analysis in your report. He asked about stmts in Dec. supplemental report and whether they were same as those used in July report.
H affirms, adds, there were addl news articles, publications, but methodology never changed.

Gottlieb: Recall how Sibley said damages range had changed after initial report? What was different in Oct report and first report?
H: in one report, provided add'l damages number based on emotional harm statements

G: You havent even recommended to jury that they award damages for cost to repair emotional damages. The only thing that's changed, since original cost to repair campaign in July and 1 rec'd today, you have additional instances of 1/12/21 Trump call to report?
H: Yes

Is an investigative report same as strategic communications plan? No, reaches different audience. But Humphreys says sometimes they can rely on each other.

Is there an award in Gateway Pundit case?
No
So all hypothetical questions Sibley asked were that, hypothetical?
Humphreys: Yes
(Jurors love aimless hypotheticals, right?)
Gottlieb: And if no award in that case, that means plaintiffs wouldnt have any money?
H: Correct

NOW: Ruby Freeman is testifying.

Ruby Freeman is sworn in. She wears a white blazer, lightly patterned, bright reddish orange turtleneck, black pants. Hair is pulled back and she has dangling earrings. A binder sits before her containing exhibits her attorneys will reference as they conduct direct examination.

Freeman states her name for the record. She introduces herself to the jury as Lady Ruby (this is the nickname) she has used for a longtime. She's a mother, daughter,a proud American citizen and a christian. She had a traveling boutique.
What does Lady Ruby mean to her?

Freeman: It meant classy, unique, I'm a lady.
Does she still go by that?
No, I don't. I can't use my name anymore. I'm no longer Lady Ruby. Sometimes I don't know who I am. (Her voice cracks)

She likes her last name because it symbolizes being a "Freed" person during slavery.
She was raised in Georgia. Her mother, whom she refers to as mama, was strict. She worked ironing clothes. In a tobacco field. She was very protective.
I was like her youngest, Freeman says

What did they do together when she was a child? Mama made candy for me in different colors and she'd sell it at school. When kids didnt have a nickel, Freeman said she'd ask to cell it for a penny or a few cents. Candy stockings were big.

Candy has been a big part of her life, Freeman says.
This is leading toward testimony about the Ginger Mint.

Giuliani accused Freeman/Moss of passing USB with "stolen" votes. Closer inspection debunked that lie. The mother and daughter were passing a ginger mint.

Freeman left her segregated school in the south as a child to attend an integrated school.
it was hard, you know. It was different. We were with white students now. I remember one incident, it was a set of twins, they were white, and IDK what brought it on, but they called me...

F. cont:.. the n-word. I had never been called that or heard it used. We were christian. mama didn't use those words. I went home, told mama and she told me to stay away from them.

A lesson used all her life?
F: Yeah, ppl who have audacity to use n-word, dont associate w/them.

Freeman started selling clothing as a street vendor at Braves stadium in the late 1980s. She enjoyed it. She had the official merchandise. People would come to games and look for me. batting coaches, players would come to her for the real goods at lesser price.

She loved doing this. People would get to know her, offer to watch her table when she'd use restroom etc.
After a certain point, everybody had Braves merchandise, so she changed to different sales, selling under Ruby's Unique Treasures. She did trade shows, conventions etc

Her goal was to have a brick and mortar and Freeman testifies that she can't do that anymore because she can't advertise Lady Ruby
"Yeah, can't do that," she says, her voice quieting, trailing off a bit

Moss was born in 1984. They moved to metro ATL area, lived in Cobb County, Powder Springs.
She lived at her home on Memorial Lane for 22 years. It was a nice neighborhood. Quiet. Multiracial.
Everybody minded their own business, and in her area, she was only single lady so...

people watched out for her... she got to know people in her neighborhood, came to know cleaners, the people at the grocery store. It was a good neighborhood.
She moved there in 2000. Lived there for 20 years.

Shaye went onto college, graduated in 2001 and came home and blessed me with a grandson, Freeman says.
After college, Moss started working at Fulton County voters registration. Freeman had worked in the dept for 11 years, another for several more.

Freeman volunteered to work on 2020 election.
Why?
When she worked at police dept (911 dispatch) Fulton County "was so special to me" so when it was time for the election, she decided to get involved with volunteering.

She never considered herself a political person. Just voted.
She worked at the Fulton County government center prior to volunteering in 2020 election.
At any point would she have thought to double check ballots?
Nope, Freeman says, the ballots were sealed in an envelope.

Freeman says no, shakes her head softly when asked if she ever double checked ballots at Fulton County.

How were days running up to election day 2020 any different?
There were ppl everywhere. Cameras. Reporters. Observers. A very busy day, Freeman says

Did anything memorable happen after election day?
No.
Did there come a time where that changed?
Dec 3 at night, going into Dec 4 early morning, Freeman testifies
Now we see Giuliani tweet from early morning 12/3/20 promoting baseless claims of fraud at State Farm Arena

An email appears next on screen from 12/4/20. It's from wee hours.

The subject line says 'someone's interested in LaRuby's Unique treasures"
It is targeting Freeman, calling her a criminal, a felon, the c-word, accused of treason

Full email to Ruby: "Cheating ass piece of shit. hope they lock you up and throw away the key you disgusting bitch traitor. stealing people's votes and selling out your country. what a cunt. karma, bitch. sucked in. not just a criminal, a felon. a dumb criminal, you are scum"

Next email. I'm posting them so you can see what she had to deal with. No sanitizing:
"You are dead. Your family and you are now criminals and traitors to the union.... BLM wants the cops to go away. good they are in the way of my ropes and your tree"

Freeman testifies she understood that this was meant as a threat to lynch her.

Another email. This time email handle is from "Grand Wizard"
Freeman: "You dont mess with KKK living in GA. That's a side of town you didnt go to. So to get an email from that was horrible"

Next email:
We are coming for you and your family. Ms Ruby safest place for you right now is in prison. Or you will swing from the trees.
Next email to Ruby Freeman:
I pray I will be sitting close enough to hear your neck snap

How did she feel when she got these messages where people used her name. It was jarring, she explains, and notes that she was wearing a shirt that night in the arena with her name on it, so that's how people knew to target her/call her by name

She got letters, emails, containing these threats.
How many?
Hundreds of communications like this, hundreds, I rec'd so many on my phone that at one time, my phone crashed. It just died, she testifies

Now jurors see messages Freeman rec'd on IG.
"Go after ruby freeman, the owner of ruby unique treasures, she's the lady in the purple shirt from the video where she took ballots out of the suitcase. Lock her up."

Now jurors see a Facebook message from a user "Jeremy Hughes"
The message says: You better get on the phone with Uncle Rudy Giuliani and cut a deal. It might keep you out of the big house.

In a text jurors see someone telling Freeman "we know where you sleep."
This was sent to her personal cell phone.
Another IG msg now.
"Pack your shit. They are coming for you. I'm no far behind. I'm coming for you also. Trash will be taken to the street in bags" (She chokes up)

Freeman says she understood this threat to mean people were "going to come cut me up and put me in the street."

Now, a physical letter she got.
Ruby reads it aloud in court. It calls her fat, ugly, n-word etc.
She is emotional, but not overcome completely.
Now, she loses it more, pulling out a letter with a picture of a "demonic monkey" she says.
Above it it says "Laruby's father"

She rece'd a picture in mail of roadkill with a balloon tied to it that said "get well"
I felt horrible, I was terrorized. I was scared. I thought people were coming to kill me. They had my address, phone number....

Now a threatening voicemail is played in court for jurors. Attorney says it will be difficult to hear.
I can't make it all out, but its an unending stream of curses, that is clear, calling her a fucking piece of shit etc.
Ruby looks up at ceiling when it is played. Jaw tight.

It was horrible. It was horrible somebody calling me and saying this about me and my daughter. It was horrible. it was racist. It was scary, Freeman says of the threatening voicemail she rec'd.
And it wasn't the only call she got.
Jurors see 3 back to back VMs from Dec 2020

Prosecutors are going to play the voicemails Freeman rec'd. She warns again they are hard to hear.
I can't hear them from the media room. It's very muffled but at 1 pt hear a man sing-songing 'n-word'
As it plays, I can see Ruby though and she is upset, chewing her lips

F: It was horrible. I was getting all these msgs I wasn't answering the phone at this pt. There's a lot of racist people out there who just really don't like... it started with this one person and then it seems like half the world is against me because they think I did something

She reported these messages on 12/4 to police. While she was with police, her phone was ringing, ringing, ringing, non stop, she says. Cops told her to turn her phone off, she did. She made a police report and later...

The next day on 12/5, she called police because people started coming to the house with bullhorns.
She is emotional.
"You know, they was just coming to get me," she shrugs her shoulder, emotional.

In Giuliani's strategic communications plan, there's a line that says Freeman was "under arrest and providing against against GA SOS Stacy Abrams and DC..."
She never was arrested. Never. Not once in her life.

Freeman says of Rudys mention of her in strat comms plan: "This was the plan, if no. 45 didn't win, they had already set this plan up. Now that my name is on the shirt, they can fill in the spaces. This is what they were going to do, saw my shirt, and they filled in the blanks."

I call him the former president. I dont even like to call his name, Freeman says when prosecutor asks her who no. 45 is and why she calls him this?

Now audio of Trump plays from GA call where he accuses Ruby of stealing votes. Howd she feel?
"The former president? Talking about me? How mean. How evil. I was devastated. We didn't do nothing. It just made me feel like, you dont care. You're just trying to execute your plan"

When Trump talked about ballot stuffing in suitcase on GA call, Freeman testifies that Trump said that and she believed he didnt know what he was talking about. he was just trying to pull a name out of a hat, essentially.
.

When Trump told Raffensperger that Freeman's reputation was devastated. What was her thought?
My own reputation, she sighs, what I took out was also all over the internet. you put me on blast, messed up my reputation. she grimaces and shakes her head, face pained

When Trump said "Where's Ruby" in that call - it was terrifying for her.
It made her think people would come looking for her and then they did. They came to her home. People started coming with bullhorns, looking for her.
I was just scared yall, she says, smiling gently at jury

Freeman: I couldnt imagine this happening to anyone. They were coming to get me. This all started with one tweet. No. 45 campaign just messed me up, (cries) messed up my name, my business, they got my daughter involved. It was just - it was horrible.

Freeman sobs as she recounts how she lost her ability to use her name. She doesnt introduce herself to neighbors, she panics at times figuring out what name to use, she cant participate in community functions.
"I have a home, but I cant do nothing, i cant say who I am. "

Freeman says she missed her old neighborhood. At least there, if she couldnt use her name, people still knew her.
No more.
She is racked with sobs.
When she watched TV on Jan. 6, she thought, that could have been me. She felt so bad for ppl who got killed and beaten...

If the FBI hadn't told me to leave (my home), that could have been me, Ruby Freeman says today, reliving what it was like to watch Jan. 6 on TV after all the threats and harassments she personally rec'd pushed her to leave her home of 20 years

Freeman is really sobbing hard.

She rec'd a call saying she was on a death list, she testifies.

Here that is.
That was Oath Keeper Thomas Caldwell.

https://x.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1606132268732334080?s=20

On cross, Sibley has no questions. Just says its nice to finally meet her.
Freeman says nothing.
On redirect, attys for Freeman note she incurred over 24k+ in expenses after she was forced to move

The plaintiffs case in chief is over, prosecutors have rested.
Tomorrow we start with the defense's case. Meaning Giuliani will likely testify. Jurors will come back in at 10AM.

I will be back in court tomorrow for @lawcrimenews

@lawcrimenews @threadreaderapp unroll please

lawandcrime.com/high-profile/t…