Rudy Giuliani admits it was all a lie.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(07-31-2023, 08:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Agreed. After reading through the filing there is no admission of knowingly making false statements. Giuliani states that he made statements that are false, but he does not stipulate when he knew them to be false. Could that be something that is drug out of him? Potentially. He could of course take the Fifth in such a case, though if a prosecutor were to offer him immunity for his testimony against Trump then the Fifth would no longer be on the table.

It's all such a good time.

Not so fast my friend! In #4 of Rudy's No Contest stipulation he concedes. 

 4) Defendant Giuliani DOES NOT CONTEST the INTENTIONAL INFLICTION of harm or other related tort claims.


Black's Law Dictionary defines “knowingly” as “[w]ith knowledge; consciously; intelligently; willfully; intentionally.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720/gov.uscourts.dcd.238720.84.2.pdf

[*pally*]

New

Rudy Giuliani's admissions that his smears of Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss were false have too many "caveats and limitations," a federal judge says.

She ORDERS him to clarify his "unsworn" statement with something more useful by Aug. 8.

Background https://t.co/yIYmxjN9gO pic.twitter.com/5C0eOqqnKg

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) August 4, 2023

[Dill]

(08-04-2023, 04:09 PM)pally Wrote:

New

Rudy Giuliani's admissions that his smears of Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss were false have too many "caveats and limitations," a federal judge says.

She ORDERS him to clarify his "unsworn" statement with something more useful by Aug. 8.

Background https://t.co/yIYmxjN9gO pic.twitter.com/5C0eOqqnKg

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) August 4, 2023

NOW maybe we'll get the document that BigD wants!

No weaseling out of "intent" this time.

[hollodero]

Why does it even matter to anyone outside the courts if Rudy admitted to lieing or not. He's clearly a regular liar regardless.

[Dill]

(08-04-2023, 10:58 PM)hollodero Wrote: Why does it even matter to anyone outside the courts if Rudy admitted to lieing or not. He's clearly a regular liar regardless.

Intent is important in defamation suits, and this one will be connected to Trump's indictment on several fronts.

E.g., it is also a test of the "free speech" defense (and counters to it) we expect Trump's lawyers to employ.

Also a question about how and whether legal language can actually stretched to both admit
falsehood and elide intent, as occurs in Rudy's stipulation. 

So for many (including me) the interest is not in whether Rudy, the person, is a liar.

It's about the ability of our legal system to hold Rudy/Trump style of freewheeling political disruption 
accountable without also depriving the rest of us of 1st Amendment rights.

[grampahol]

Trump should change his name to Jack Smurch because Jack Smith is about to push him out the proverbial window..

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(08-04-2023, 10:40 PM)Dill Wrote: NOW maybe we'll get the document that BigD wants!

No weaseling out of "intent" this time.

I would argue that Rudy has admitted to the facts of the complaint levied against him; however, I respect the judge's ruling to make Rudy clarify his stipulations.  

Really, I think the public needs to see this and to know without any doubt that a child would also understand the fraud Donald Trump and his cronies tried to pull on our Democratic republic, so kudos to the judge!

[hollodero]

(08-04-2023, 11:35 PM)Dill Wrote: Intent is important in defamation suits, and this one will be connected to Trump's indictment on several fronts.

E.g., it is also a test of the "free speech" defense (and counters to it) we expect Trump's lawyers to employ.

Also a question about how and whether legal language can actually stretched to both admit
falsehood and elide intent, as occurs in Rudy's stipulation. 

So for many (including me) the interest is not in whether Rudy, the person, is a liar.

It's about the ability of our legal system to hold Rudy/Trump style of freewheeling political disruption 
accountable without also depriving the rest of us of 1st Amendment rights.

OK, sure, I see the legal ramifications. I have to say though, I hope the question whether Trump knew he was lying or not is not central in his trial. I find it tricky to prove that he knew things. This is the man who believed Putin over his own intelligence, it seems quite feasible that he would also believe some internet guys over his own security apparatus. The Helsinki tape could be a great defense for him in that regard and that's not even a joke.

I'd hope it plays little part in anything. Eg. Trump did call state secretaries and pressured them to find him votes. It seems that is illegal no matter what Trump did or did not believe while doing things like that.

[Dill]

(08-05-2023, 02:15 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, sure, I see the legal ramifications. I have to say though, I hope the question whether Trump knew he was lying or not is not central in his trial. I find it tricky to prove that he knew things. This is the man who believed Putin over his own intelligence, it seems quite feasible that he would also believe some internet guys over his own security apparatus. The Helsinki tape could be a great defense for him in that regard and that's not even a joke.

I'd hope it plays little part in anything. Eg. Trump did call state secretaries and pressured them to find him votes. It seems that is illegal no matter what Trump did or did not believe while doing things like that.

It will not be so difficult to prove Trump knew things in the sense that he was getting direct reports from his own staff that that there was no fraud--especially in Georgia--and then turned around and tweeted the opposite of what he'd been told. That he did repeatedly.

That's why I find the Indictment such interesting reading. I thought I had been following the case, but it looks like there's more out there than
I suspected. He and his people were directly trying to get state legislatures to declare the election invalid in their states. It seems Majority leaders and speakers refused to a man. How could they act without proof? A dozen or more Pences out there.

I.e., Trump is told they cannot find fraud, that what he thinks was fraud (e.g. the Freeman and Moss video) was not, and yet he still pushed/demanded/ coerced declarations of fraud. He kept claiming that fraud had been proven, long after his staff had verified it had not been. This is more than coercing people to find votes when linked to pressure on state legislatures and his own DOJ. 

Most interesting, and scary, is how Fox News is beginning to spin this into an alternative narrative. E.g., not a crime to ask Pence to de-certify. Free speech. 
The "timing" of the indictments to distract from this or that HB "bombshell."  Ramaswamy insists that anyone else who tried a Green Bay Sweep and sicced a mob on the Capitol would never have been indicted (?!?). It's all about keeping Trump from running.  

But the first page of the Indictment says Trump has the right say the election was a fraud, even falsely, and to pursue legal means to challenge, which did and which all failed. From the prosecution side, it is really not about whether Trump lied. It's about he DID illegal things and led others to do so.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(08-05-2023, 04:09 PM)Dill Wrote: It will not be so difficult to prove Trump knew things in the sense that he was getting direct reports from his own staff that that there was no fraud--especially in Georgia--and then turned around and tweeted the opposite of what he'd been told. That he did repeatedly.

That's why I find the Indictment such interesting reading. I thought I had been following the case, but it looks like there's more out there than
I suspected. He and his people were directly trying to get state legislatures to declare the election invalid in their states. It seems Majority leaders and speakers refused to a man. How could they act without proof? A dozen or more Pences out there.

I.e., Trump is told they cannot find fraud, that what he thinks was fraud (e.g. the Freeman and Moss video) was not, and yet he still pushed/demanded/ coerced declarations of fraud. He kept claiming that fraud had been proven, long after his staff had verified it had not been. This is more than coercing people to find votes when linked to pressure on state legislatures and his own DOJ. 

Most interesting, and scary, is how Fox News is beginning to spin this into an alternative narrative. E.g., not a crime to ask Pence to de-certify. Free speech. 
The "timing" of the indictments to distract from this or that HB "bombshell."  Ramaswamy insists that anyone else who tried a Green Bay Sweep and sicced a mob on the Capitol would never have been indicted (?!?). It's all about keeping Trump from running.  

But the first page of the Indictment says Trump has the right say the election was a fraud, even falsely, and to pursue legal means to challenge, which did and which all failed. From the prosecution side, it is really not about whether Trump lied. It's about he DID illegal things and led others to do so.

Well, that's tabloid dipstick news for ya.  It seems as if the right is making their arguments as if he was charged with insurrection in regard to the speech he gave right before the attack on our Capitol in an attempt to subvert democracy.  He's not being charged with insurrection.  

As you well know, 1st Amendment protections do not apply under the crime-fraud exceptions.

I slammed a right winger today with the scenario of a bank robber passing the teller a note saying:

Roses are red, violets are blue, 
gimme the combination to your safe, 
or I'll shoot you.

The police arrive before the robber is able to leave with the money, so since the bank didn't experience a loss, therefore there wasn't a crime.  I mean by FOX using this 1st Amendment argument,  the robber had a right to free speech and now the police are trying to make writing poetry a crime.   WTF?!?!

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-06-2023, 10:41 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Well, that's tabloid dipstick news for ya.  It seems as if the right is making their arguments as if he was charged with insurrection in regard to the speech he gave right before the attack on our Capitol in an attempt to subvert democracy.  He's not being charged with insurrection.  

As you well know, 1st Amendment protections do not apply under the crime-fraud exceptions.

I slammed a right winger today with the scenario of a bank robber passing the teller a note saying:

Roses are red, violets are blue, 
gimme the combination to your safe, 
or I'll shoot you.

The police arrive before the robber is able to leave with the money, so since the bank didn't experience a loss, therefore there wasn't a crime.  I mean by FOX using this 1st Amendment argument,  the robber had a right to free speech and now the police are trying to make writing poetry a crime.   WTF?!?!

All he did was lie and try to overthrow the will of the people to seize control illegally from the highest position of power in the country... Talk about over reaction and violating the poor guys 1st amend...

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(08-05-2023, 04:09 PM)Dill Wrote: It will not be so difficult to prove Trump knew things in the sense that he was getting direct reports from his own staff that that there was no fraud--especially in Georgia--and then turned around and tweeted the opposite of what he'd been told. That he did repeatedly.



But the first page of the Indictment says Trump has the right say the election was a fraud, even falsely, and to pursue legal means to challenge, which did and which all failed. From the prosecution side, it is really not about whether Trump lied. It's about he DID illegal things and led others to do so.

You made me do some homework and Jack Smith will not need to prove what Trump's mind was thinking in order to secure a conviction.  This is due to the Doctrine of WILLFUL BLINDNESS and the SCOTUS recently decided this in 2011, citing well-established case law with several cases going back over 100 years. Citing https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-6P.ZO

The doctrine of willful blindness is well-established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. The traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge. 

Edwards, The Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 Mod. L. Rev. 294, 302 (1954) (hereinafter Edwards) (observing on the basis of English authorities that “up to the present day, no real doubt has been cast on the proposition that [willful blindness] is as culpable as actual knowledge”). It is also said that persons who know enough to blind themselves to direct proof of critical facts in effect have actual knowledge of those facts. See United States v. Jewell , 532 F. 2d 697, 700 (CA9 1976) (en banc).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Jack Smith will not need to prove what was in Trump's mind.  Smith will have the testimony of VP Pence, Chris Krebs, Wm Barr, Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow, and the legal opinions of over 60 courts ruling, by many Trump-appointed, that there was zero merit to any widespread election fraud claims.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

I started a thread b/c I'm sure this is going to bring a fruitful discussion and it's not about the disgraced former mayor of NYC.

[Dill]

(08-08-2023, 02:23 AM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: You made me do some homework and Jack Smith will not need to prove what Trump's mind was thinking in order to secure a conviction.  This is due to the Doctrine of WILLFUL BLINDNESS and the SCOTUS recently decided this in 2011, citing well-established case law with several cases going back over 100 years. Citing https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-6P.ZO

The doctrine of willful blindness is well-established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. The traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge. 

Edwards, The Criminal Degrees of Knowledge, 17 Mod. L. Rev. 294, 302 (1954) (hereinafter Edwards) (observing on the basis of English authorities that “up to the present day, no real doubt has been cast on the proposition that [willful blindness] is as culpable as actual knowledge”). It is also said that persons who know enough to blind themselves to direct proof of critical facts in effect have actual knowledge of those facts. See United States v. Jewell , 532 F. 2d 697, 700 (CA9 1976) (en banc).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Jack Smith will not need to prove what was in Trump's mind.  Smith will have the testimony of VP Pence, Chris Krebs, Wm Barr, Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow, and the legal opinions of over 60 courts ruling, by many Trump-appointed, that there was zero merit to any widespread election fraud claims.

Yes, if you read the indictment it's pretty damning. 

The only people who could officially determine whether fraud occurred repeatedly tell him it didn't in state after state, and as that info comes in, he goes public claiming thousands of dead people voted and voting machines switched votes and 50,000 votes were thrown in a river, etc. 

Also he clearly asked people to break the law, and the defense can't be he didn't know the law because his lawyers were right there telling him what it was.

The question behind all this is why would anyone want to elect a guy who can't tell accurate advice from crazy BS conspiracy crackpot speculation?

THAT'S the guy you want assessing security threats? 

[Mickeypoo]

(07-28-2023, 06:35 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: R= Rump as in jackass, as in buttocks

That's something my kids would have done when they were like 5.