politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Serious question: Why are so many of these trials starting with the judge deciding guilt before any evidence or testimony? I mean, obviously, Fuck Giuliani, but this is not the way I remember due process working, and I would hate for it to become normal to go... "Ehh, we're sure enough that he's guilty, so we don't have to decide that at trial." There are so, so many cases where that's the wrong answer, and it's not obvious until evidence comes out at trial, and this kind of "the judge thinks you're guilty, so fuck you" process is only one step removed from "the cop told the judge you're guilty, so fuck you."
What are you talking about? Giuliani admitted he made false statements and was subsequently found guilty of defamation back in August of this year. There was then a different trial to determine damages, which the jury decided came to $148 million, which he now must pay.
He committed a crime, was found guilty in court, and now has to pay for it. Thats the justice system still working as intended.
Are you confusing this with Trumps fraud trial, where his lawyers fucked up and did not request a jury trial, so he had a bench trial, where the judge found him guilty of fraud? Which also is now having a second trail to determine damages, just like this one?
Both of the men mentioned had trials and were found guilty, then had trials to determine damages, showing the justice system is working exactly like it always has. What are you rambling on about?
Actually, there was never any option for a bench trial there. The media saw the submission form, which had an unchecked box for "jury trial", but it's a standard form that covers multiple types of trials. Like when you go to DMV and get your driver's license renewed, there are all sorts of options for commercial and motorcycle licenses as well but you never check those sections because they're not applicable to you.
The article I saw on the situation didn't mention the previous trial, or his failure to comply with discovery obligations, just that a judge ruled he was liable before this trial. Now that I realize the story is "lawyer fails to defend himself properly, so his defense goes poorly", it makes a lot more sense.
I haven't followed the nuances of these trials as well as I could have, but someone suggested that Guiliani has a Catch-22: he's being sued in civil court for defaming two Georgian election workers; and at the same time he's being prosecuted in criminal court for interfering with the Georgian election. Anything he offers in defense at the civil trial could be used by the prosecution at the criminal trial.
I recommend you start getting your news from other sources, preferably multiple sources. What trials have started with a judge deciding guilt before evidence or testimony? I am not aware of any such case. If your source says that is happening, then it is a very unreliable source.
In this defamation trial, Giuliani had every opportunity to prove his case and chose not to do so. Here is some reading from the past few months with details you seem to have missed.
7/26/23 - Giuliani concedes he made defamatory statements about Georgia election workers - "Rudy Giuliani concedes he made defamatory statements about Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss in an effort to resolve their lawsuit against him and to satisfy a judge who has considered sanctioning him." After accepting Giuliani's concession, the judge ordered him to turn over financial information and pay Freeman and Moss' attorney fees.
8/30/23 - Giuliani loses defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers - Loses case because he failed to respond to subpeonas and admitted that he "could no longer contest that he made false and defamatory statements about Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss."
9/21/23 - (Rudy Giuliani snubbed judge’s order in defamation case, election worker says)[https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/giuliani-snubbed-judges-order-defamation-case-election-worker-says-rcna111484] - He was ordered to provide financial information and pay attorney's fees and failed to do so.
None of these stories are hard to find. If you have not been seeing them, they you need to get out of your bubble and find some real news sites to visit.
Something something ~~directed verdict~~ default judgement. I don't think Guiliani comported with his discovery obligations (didn't hand over requested evidence and documents) so there doesn't seem to have been much or a defense.
If you don't defend yourself show up to court or you refuse to play the game at all, you've in some sense waived all that and you don't get any of the fruits of those benefits