Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thank you for a good and reasonable post. Concerning this case and this very biased judge, my biggest problem with the judgment is the very exorbitant amount of the award. $149 million is just flat out ridiculous.How do you see things going differently had it been a different judge?
Judge's have to act in accordance with the law, and can't show political favoritism within their job capacity, but there's nothing that should suggest that a judge isn't allowed to have a political leaning. Our supreme court is full of people who have well-established political leanings.
(Spoiler alert, Clearance Thomas is conservative, Sotomayor is liberal.... shocking right?)
In this case involving Rudy, the facts are what they are.
He falsely accused 2 people of election fraud, by name (when they did no such thing), and it led to incessant harassment, death threats, and even threats to their children.
He admitted that he made the false statements about them
Rudy Giuliani concedes he made false statements about two Georgia election workers
Former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani admitted he made false statements about two Georgia election workers to resolve their litigation against him.www.usatoday.com
The judge's only role in this case was to determine liable or not liable for defamation, the jury decided the dollar amount.
It would seem that it wouldn't matter if the judge was Noam Chomsky or Ben Shapiro (guys who are on opposite ends of the political spectrum), if a person says "yeah I did it", there's only one logical conclusion there, he's liable.
If you want to make an argument that the media/academia/entertainment unfairly blasts conservatives for things and engages in double standards...I'd likely have some points of agreement with you on that. But if you're looking to prove that point in an objective manner, Rudy is the wrong horse to hitch your wagon to...just sayin'
It'd be like if a liberal wanted to make the case that their side is unfairly accused of cronyism, and decided to go "all-in" on defending Rod Blagojevich or Bob Menendez against allegations.
Thank you for a good and reasonable post. Concerning this case and this very biased judge, my biggest problem with the judgment is the very exorbitant amount of the award. $149 million is just flat out ridiculous.
Giuliani admitted he was guilty. He signed court papers to that affect. The judge simply accepted that admission. She had no decision to make. What could she have done? Tell Giuliani that he lied by pleading guilty? Charge him with perjury because he confessed?This is a lengthy post from Congresswoman Stefanik demonstrating why Judge Beryl Howell is very clearly the wrong judge to have been chosen to preside and judge this case against Rudy Giuliani. In my opinion, Judge Beryl Howell is little more than a partisan leftist liberal.
Thank you for a good and reasonable post. Concerning this case and this very biased judge, my biggest problem with the judgment is the very exorbitant amount of the award. $149 million is just flat out ridiculous.
Then why say that the judge was biased? There was nothing on which to base that. The defendant pleaded guilty and the jury awarded the damages. The judge had nothing to do. Your response has all the appearance of a knee jerk reaction. It was someone working for Trump...therefore anything that goes against him is automatically biased.Did I say she did?
I recall quoting someone's post saying that the federal jury set the award.
Maybe they should stop committing crimes and doing things for which they are being held liable?I miss the days when left wing liberals weren't prosecuting their political opponents
Just stop. It's embarrassing to read.thereby causing election interference.
But you accused her of being biased in this trial. That was simply not possible. There was no way for her bias to be exhibited. If you are basing it on what she said, then that is probably her warning Giuliani that he was on trial for making defamatory claims about the two women, he had pled guilty and he was repeating them outside the court.Her biases are very obvious based upon her own words. I'm done with this thread because the discussion is just going around in circles.
Unfortunately yes. Now that this idea has taken root, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even when people in Trump's camp plead guilty, all that means is that the deep state 'got to them'.Wow,
if there is ANY verdict against a trump supporter many people will be convinced that
the verdict clearly proves the "deep state" has "weaponized" the justice system to punish Trump supporters
I miss the days when Republicans didn't think they were above the law. Of course, that was when Lincoln was around, and I was barely crawling then.I miss the days when left wing liberals weren't prosecuting their political opponents thereby causing election interference.
I miss the days when the DoJ wasn't weaponized against one's political opponents.I miss the days when Republicans didn't think they were above the law. Of course, that was when Lincoln was around, and I was barely crawling then.
Just you wait. If Trump gets back in office, you ain't seen nothin' yet.I miss the days when the DoJ wasn't weaponized against one's political opponents.
I miss the days when the DoJ wasn't weaponized against one's political opponents.
Or alternately, when exactly were those days? J Edgar Hoover took over what became the FBI in 1924 and wasn't exactly known for his fair and open-minded approach towards dissidents.How can you miss those days when they are still here?
The DOJ didn't sue Rudy Giulani. Two individuals who were harassed into near hiding because of Rudy did.I miss the days when the DoJ wasn't weaponized against one's political opponents.
The jury looks at facts, not the lies, by their news media.If I was on the jury, I would have voted "not guilty." I don't believe that he lied. Because if someone believes that he, or she, is really telling the truth, then that person is not lying.... even if others believe that the "facts", or interpretation of the facts, are different than what the defendant believes is true.
Lock her up! Lock her up!I miss the days when the DoJ wasn't weaponized against one's political opponents.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?