newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
The fund took in another $630.00 since this morning (Eastern Time).
(Don't forget to use your fingers to make air-quotes when saying 'freedom fund'.)
Guiliani Suspended from Practicing Law
- Thread starter plague311
- Start date
(Don't forget to use your fingers to make air-quotes when saying 'freedom fund'.)
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
What was that I keep hearing about Trump voters not being stupid?
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
Ghouliani is forgetting one very important thing, he's useless to T****y now and T****y don't do nothing for you unless you can do ten times that for him.The New York Times reports on Giuliani outside the court at the conclusion of today's hearing.
View attachment 57891
................Giuliani outside court
Don't bet against him? Sad words, but quite possibly true.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
That's funny. He targeted those poor women for political ends.The New York Times reports on Giuliani outside the court at the conclusion of today's hearing.
View attachment 57891
................Giuliani outside court
Don't bet against him? Sad words, but quite possibly true.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
I think Giuliani understands that too well. trump has seemed to remain silent about Giuliani's troubles. CNN (and other news services) have reported:
But Rudy gives trump a pass.
One strategy Giuliani and others use is to imply -- "bringing this case was a complete abuse of process" -- the case with the Georgia women was brought by the Democrats in power to punish Giuliani for standing up to them and trying to reveal the 2020 election was a fraud. Of course, the case is actually a lawsuit, filed by the two women. It was a jury that found for them -- not a 'leftist' judge -- AND it was the jury that set the penalty at $148 million. Giuliani and others feed the magamutts the fiction that Biden got the case brought and the leftist judge set the penalty. The magamutts want to believe it so they do.
Armitage72
Philosopher
"Lord Trump doesn't need to save me, he just needs to redesign the legal system in a way that saves me "
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Since when does a US president have the ability to "straighten out the legal system"? Executive versus judicial, separation of powers and all that.
So...
Trumpy is going to be King-God-Emperor-Almighty, and his every word will be enacted without contradiction, applicable to every person in the world. Is...that what Rudy thinks will happen? I mean...Rudy is nuts, but he is also no legal dummy. Or...is he??
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 30,019
He is too old to expect anything but a miraculous save by the God for White Old Men
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Then he's done for. Even with total loyalty to Trump, Trump gives zero loyalty in return. When you are worth nothing to Trump, or Trump owes you money, you will get dumped. Bet on it.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
Rudy's GiveSendGo fund took in another $1,991.00 since yesterday morning (Eastern Time). He's up to $141,431 of the $250,000 goal.
Typical donor comments on the page:
What does God have to do with Giuliani lying about two election workers in Georgia?
MAGA!!!
Typical donor comments on the page:
Persevere and prevail
How dare they slander you! 1. Our prayers are with you. Thank you for your service to our country. Wothout[sic] restoring God, this country is gone.
What does God have to do with Giuliani lying about two election workers in Georgia?
MAGA!!!
Mojo
Mostly harmless
From the comment, I can only assume they thought they were donating to the election workers.Rudy's GiveSendGo fund took in another $1,991.00 since yesterday morning (Eastern Time). He's up to $141,431 of the $250,000 goal.
Typical donor comments on the page:
Persevere and prevail
How dare they slander you! 1. Our prayers are with you. Thank you for your service to our country. Wothout[sic] restoring God, this country is gone.
What does God have to do with Giuliani lying about two election workers in Georgia?
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Nothing. But stupidity does.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
Giuliani dodged another bullet. Kinda. He appeared in Manhattan court Monday to answer a contempt of court violation. That is based on Giuliani continuing to publicly defame the two plaintiffs who sued him and won a huge judgement against him, a judgement Giuliani has said he can't pay. Federal District Judge Beryl Howell had warned Giuliani he could face contempt charges if he didn't stop. He didn't and now he is.
A hearing was scheduled for December 2nd which Giuliani missed. He appeared yesterday and asked Judge Howell for "more time." He complained he can't get a law firm to represent him because they consider Judge Howell to be "biased and unreasonable." (Giuliani is currently represented by a Staten Island divorce lawyer named Joseph Cammarata.)
Judge Howell granted a continuance, giving Giuliani until January 2nd to file a response with the hearing scheduled for January 10th. Howell said she was doing this because of the “potential scope and severity” of the “arsenal of sanctions” he could face, including “compensatory and coercive fines, as well as imprisonment.” UK Independent news article link
A hearing was scheduled for December 2nd which Giuliani missed. He appeared yesterday and asked Judge Howell for "more time." He complained he can't get a law firm to represent him because they consider Judge Howell to be "biased and unreasonable." (Giuliani is currently represented by a Staten Island divorce lawyer named Joseph Cammarata.)
Judge Howell granted a continuance, giving Giuliani until January 2nd to file a response with the hearing scheduled for January 10th. Howell said she was doing this because of the “potential scope and severity” of the “arsenal of sanctions” he could face, including “compensatory and coercive fines, as well as imprisonment.” UK Independent news article link
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
Now we'll see just how committed he is to zero tolerance.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
That's what I'm wondering about. trump won't be sworn in until January 20th though. While this case is a civil action it was tried in a federal court. The judge is a federal judge. Giuliani has said trump owes him $2 million in legal fees. Giuliani is obviously trying to drag this case out.
Does this all connect? I guess we'll find out.
plague311
Great minds think...
But what would he pardon him from? I see the concern but I am also having troubles wrapping my head around this since he wasn't facing criminal charges or sanctions until he wouldn't shut up. Other than that it's all fiscal. Can people be pardoned in civil trials? Would he get his stuff back that he's already turned over? How would that even work? Lots of questions.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
I'm not thinking pardon, I'm thinking more like trump removing the judge. That ought to push the can down the road quite a bit. Then get a pro-maga judge appointed to the case. And don't forget, Giuliani still has an appeal pending. In fact the current judge, Beryl Howell, has stated she suspects a major reason Giuliani did not present an active defense in the trial was to limit the evidence and issues presented. That Giuliani was 'saving' his defense -- the issues he'll raise -- for the appeal case. Issues that were not litigated in the original trial for which the appeals judge can issue rulings.
plague311
Great minds think...
I didn't know that was an option. Why wouldn't an appeals judge just say, 'Why didn't you present this at trial?' From what I understand of the appeals process it's to address issues that happened during the trial. If Guiliani was denied the right to present evidence at trial, then that evidence could be raised, but it's pretty rare for an appeal trial to be used to present evidence for the first time. I don't know if that's a thing. I'm not saying you're wrong, I've just never heard of it being done before.
Rudy has already found to be liable and turned over items for compensation. I'm not sure how Trump could interfere, like you said he could put in a different judge but the civil trial is over. If an appeals court overturns the ruling then it would get appealed by the plaintiffs, obviously, but I don't think there's much saving Rudy here.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Federal judges can be removed from office only by Congress by impeachment. They can be recused from a case only by a motion from a party to the case that is adjudicated by the circuit court of appeals. I'm told these motions are nigh unto impossible to win, and you get on ly one shot to try in any case. The President has no official power to interfere in the operation of the judiciary.
Obviously pardon is not possible in a civil case, but a pardon for criminal contempt would be. The problem with contempt in this specific matter is that it's only possible as a criminal charge for constructive contempt. What we normally think of as sanctions for contempt are limited to coercive measures. A party or witness who disobey's a judge's order can be placed under sanction (including jail) until such time as the person agrees to comply. For example, if a witness refuses to testify—and has no constitutional right to withhold testimony, then that witness can be jailed until he or she agrees to testify, however long that takes. But here Giluiani has been ordered to refrain from doing something: namely, from continuing to defame the plaintiffs. You can't put someone in jail coercively until they stop doing a thing they occasionally do. You have to punish them criminally after the fact each time they do it. That's where the President can say, "No, I pardon Giuliani for that charge." In that way Giuliani can continue to defame the plaintiffs in defiance of a court order.
And no, you can present new facts on appeal only in extremely narrow circumstances. If you knew about them at trial and did not present them, they are not admissible on appeal. The appeals process can rule that facts at trial were inappropriately allowed or denied, and then the remedy there is to remand to the trail court for proceedings consistent with the court's ruling on the admissibility of the evidence. And certain errors at the trial level allow the appeals court to perform a de novo review of the facts presented at trial. But ordinarily you can't just try a different factual case on appeal.
Obviously pardon is not possible in a civil case, but a pardon for criminal contempt would be. The problem with contempt in this specific matter is that it's only possible as a criminal charge for constructive contempt. What we normally think of as sanctions for contempt are limited to coercive measures. A party or witness who disobey's a judge's order can be placed under sanction (including jail) until such time as the person agrees to comply. For example, if a witness refuses to testify—and has no constitutional right to withhold testimony, then that witness can be jailed until he or she agrees to testify, however long that takes. But here Giluiani has been ordered to refrain from doing something: namely, from continuing to defame the plaintiffs. You can't put someone in jail coercively until they stop doing a thing they occasionally do. You have to punish them criminally after the fact each time they do it. That's where the President can say, "No, I pardon Giuliani for that charge." In that way Giuliani can continue to defame the plaintiffs in defiance of a court order.
And no, you can present new facts on appeal only in extremely narrow circumstances. If you knew about them at trial and did not present them, they are not admissible on appeal. The appeals process can rule that facts at trial were inappropriately allowed or denied, and then the remedy there is to remand to the trail court for proceedings consistent with the court's ruling on the admissibility of the evidence. And certain errors at the trial level allow the appeals court to perform a de novo review of the facts presented at trial. But ordinarily you can't just try a different factual case on appeal.