1. #85381
    Herald of the Titans
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by masterhorus8 View Post
    Pretty sure, in the court of law, not contesting them as a fact makes it a fact, so legally, it is admitting it.
    No, it actually explicitly does not mean that. He is claiming that it is not relevant. If, once the trial starts, it becomes relevant he has given up his ability to make claims against it. But if it came up again in a different trial, his lack of contesting them in this one would not prevent him from attempting to contest them in a second one.

    Edit: In fact, another possible reason he may not contest it is that he wants to avoid having 'proven liar' on the court record.
    Last edited by Lynarii; 2023-07-27 at 09:13 PM.

  2. #85382
    Pandaren Monk masterhorus8's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    No, it actually explicitly does not mean that. He is claiming that it is not relevant. If, once the trial starts, it becomes relevant he has given up his ability to make claims against it. But if it came up again in a different trial, his lack of contesting them in this one would not prevent him from attempting to contest them in a second one.

    Edit: In fact, another possible reason he may not contest it is that he wants to avoid having 'proven liar' on the court record.
    But if it's an uncontested fact, then it's a fact, not a claim, not an accusation.
    10

  3. #85383
    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/27/thir...ents-case.html

    A third defendant was added Thursday to the criminal case accusing Donald Trump of multiple felonies in connection with his retaining classified documents at his Florida residence after leaving the White House.

    The defendant, Carlos Deoliveira, joins Trump and the ex-president’s valet Walt Nauta as defendants in the case in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

    Details of the criminal charge or charges against Deoliveira were not immediately available. But his name was added to the docket of defendants in the case.

    Deoliveira reportedly is a worker at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida. Trump stored hundreds of government documents at Mar-a-Lago after he left office.

    Trump and Nauta have pleaded not guilty in the case, which is being prosecuted by Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith.

    Smith separately is overseeing a criminal investigation of Trump related to his efforts to undo his 2020 electoral loss to President Joe Biden. The special counsel last week informed Trump that he is a target in that probe, a notification that typically occurs before the target is charged in a case.
    Huh, it seems working for Trump or his businesses now might be an actual legal liability.

  4. #85384
    Elemental Lord unfilteredJW's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    8,939
    Quote Originally Posted by CastletonSnob View Post
    I'm tired of people saying, "We just have to vote out every Republican!".

    Because fascists are well-known for respecting election results, right?
    Then do something about it.

    Or whine more. You’ll whine more.
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Their enemies are busy labeling people "shitheads," dodging all the tough arguments (to the extent they acknowledge contrary arguments existing), and going over all the prejudices that make them believe they're arguing with bad people.
    "Dodge tough questions" types the poster with people on ignore who he couldn't handle the tough questions of.

  5. #85385
    Quote Originally Posted by masterhorus8 View Post
    Pretty sure, in the court of law, not contesting them as a fact makes it a fact, so legally, it is admitting it.
    "No contest" isn't an admission of guilt. And annoying as hell.

  6. #85386
    https://apnews.com/article/trump-cla...14387c67ce4316

    Former President Donald Trump is facing accusations that he and aides asked a staffer to delete camera footage at his Florida estate in an effort to obstruct the classified documents investigations.

    The allegations were made Thursday in an updated grand jury indictment that adds new charges against Trump and adds another defendant to the case.

    A Trump spokesperson dismissed the new charges as “nothing more than a continued desperate and flailing attempt” by the Biden administration “to harass President Trump and those around him” and to influence the 2024 presidential race.
    And obstruction charges added to the list.

  7. #85387
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://apnews.com/article/trump-cla...14387c67ce4316



    And obstruction charges added to the list.
    Wow he really did try to go for the all time high score record on breaking laws. It puts a smile on my face that each day the chances of seeing this piece of shit in handcuff's just goes up.
    Check me out....Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing, Im └(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐ Dancing.
    My Gaming PC: MSI Trident 3 - i7-10700F - RTX 4060 8GB - 32GB DDR4 - 1TB M.2SSD

  8. #85388
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,550
    Another charge? I need this man to run just to seem him juggle campaign dates with court dates.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  9. #85389
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Another charge? I need this man to run just to seem him juggle campaign dates with court dates.
    And we haven't even seen the GA indictment yet, which is reportedly (again) possibly happening soon. Or anything else as there may very well be more federal charges stemming from his attempts to overturn the election.

  10. #85390
    Herald of the Titans
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by masterhorus8 View Post
    But if it's an uncontested fact, then it's a fact, not a claim, not an accusation.
    That's not how the legal system works. Something has to be proven to be a documented fact. In the case of 'no contest', courts say "This will be treated as fact for the purposes of this trial". It's veracity can still be tested or disputed at a later date, just not in that specific trial. Whereas if something is proven factual in a trial, then future trials can all point at it and say "This has already been litigated, we know the answer"

  11. #85391
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,206
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Another charge? I need this man to run just to seem him juggle campaign dates with court dates.
    I'd love him to skip court dates, again, and let his lawyers flail ineffectually.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  12. #85392
    Pandaren Monk masterhorus8's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    That's not how the legal system works. Something has to be proven to be a documented fact. In the case of 'no contest', courts say "This will be treated as fact for the purposes of this trial". It's veracity can still be tested or disputed at a later date, just not in that specific trial. Whereas if something is proven factual in a trial, then future trials can all point at it and say "This has already been litigated, we know the answer"
    That's such bullshit and completely ruins the meaning of "fact", wtf.... (it's bullshit, not you or your response)
    10

  13. #85393
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    40,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    One thing I'm going to have to correct you on here is that Giuliani did not actually admit to anything. What he did was say that he wouldn't be contesting the facts. Which is slightly different, it's less "I admit to doing this" and more "This isn't relevant to my defense".
    Yeah, see, when articles like this Forbes article say this:

    After about a year and a half of battling in the courtroom, Rudy Giuliani stated late Tuesday night that he lied about two Georgia election workers stuffing ballots and committing election fraud, but did not say that he had caused any damages to them, despite harassment the two faced—this case is part of a string of 2020 presidential election fraud cases.
    and this:

    Giuliani said in court filings late Tuesday that he made false accusations about two Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, by accusing them of interfering with election counts.
    and this:

    Giuliani’s political advisor, Ted Goodman, said that although he may have admitted that the statements were false, his actions were not an attempt to move on to dismissal of the case and that the case was more of a legal issue than a factual one.
    then I don't feel bad about saying "Giuliana admitted he lied". If there are a ton of credible sources all saying "Giuliani admitted he lied" then I'm going to say the same.

    Now, what you are talking about is legal-ese similar to what Giuliani actually signed which contains terms like

    IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, solely for the purposes of this litigation that Defendant Giuliani, for the purpose of deciding this case on the legal issues, and recognizing that all other defendants previously identified in the complaint have resolved their claims with all plaintiffs and without admitting to the truth of the allegations, hereby does not contest the following allegations:

    1. Defendant Giuliani concedes solely for purposes of this litigation before this Court and on Appeal: that Defendant Giuliani made the statements of and concerning Plaintiffs, which include all of the statements detailed in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, ECF No. 22 at §§57-101 and he does not dispute for purposes of this litigation, that the statements carry meaning that is defamatory per se;
    So what we have here is very similar to the Trump defamation case's latest update. Trump tried to countersue her for saying she raped him, when a jury did not conclude rape. The judge said "They found you liable for sexual assault, which is commonly viewed as close enough".

    I believe we're at the same position here. While Giuliani did not utter the words "I lied" what he did was easily close enough for any sane American. The difference in a court of law between "I admit I lied" and "I do not contest that I lied" won't help him either.

    So, we're both right. And Giuliani is fucked either way.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Another charge?
    No. Other charges, plural. @Edge- mentioned obstruction, but failed to mention

    The new charges against Trump include an additional count of willfully retaining national defense information related to a presentation about military activity in another country.
    which directly stems from Trump taking the document and showing it to two reporters.

    By the way, remember when Trump said he hadn't been given notice? Yeah, I think we can safely call that a lie at this point.

  14. #85394
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    By the way, remember when Trump said he hadn't been given notice? Yeah, I think we can safely call that a lie at this point.
    Haven't his lawyers been having meetings with the Justice Department, recently?

  15. #85395
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    40,216
    Ladies and gentlemen, my whore of a Representative, Elise Stefanik.



    I have to admit "our justice system is broken, let's impeach Joe Biden for Hunter Biden" is an interesting take.

    But the main takeaway is "it is no coincidence". When, just so we're clear, Trump was warned before this that he was a target, and a judge Trump appointed threw out the deal. If it's a conspiracy theory, it's Trump's doing.

    I also want to point out that she calls one man "President Trump" which, yes, the title is retained after you attempt a violent coup and fail, sure. She does not call him "President Biden". I think the evidence says that Stefanik thinks Trump won 2020. In other words, she's wrong, and insane.

  16. #85396
    Quote Originally Posted by masterhorus8 View Post
    That's such bullshit and completely ruins the meaning of "fact", wtf.... (it's bullshit, not you or your response)
    If it helps, think of it as an uncontested claim rather than an uncontested fact. He's not saying "yes I did it," he's just saying "I won't deny it."

  17. #85397
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    40,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Haven't his lawyers been having meetings with the Justice Department, recently?
    Are you talking about the meeting that was literally today? Or other meetings, like June 5th or October?

    Because the answer is "yes". Trump was flat-out told he was a target. Trump is lying.

  18. #85398
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Ladies and gentlemen, my whore of a Representative, Elise Stefanik.

    Wait, is Biden's kid getting the regular treatment wealthy people who run afoul of the law receive "one of the biggest political corruption scandals of all time"?

    And didn't the Trump-appointed prosecutor recently tell Jim Jordan that he had full autonomy and faced no pressure from the DoJ at any time?

    Nice catch on the really boring "trick" of referring to Trump as president and Biden as not. Sure sounds like she still things Trump is president, how embarrassing.

  19. #85399
    Void Lord Breccia's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    40,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Sure sounds like she still things Trump is president, how embarrassing.
    I would love to throw that question at her at one of her town halls.

    She hasn't had one since 2018, about the time she found out what Trump's dick tasted like in exchange for votes.

    Like other cultists, she knows she can't handle a fair question and instead throws these "Trump won, Biden is corrupt" messages from DC. I am not sure if she's even been back to the state she represents in the last six years.

  20. #85400
    Herald of the Titans
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    I believe we're at the same position here. While Giuliani did not utter the words "I lied" what he did was easily close enough for any sane American. The difference in a court of law between "I admit I lied" and "I do not contest that I lied" won't help him either.

    So, we're both right. And Giuliani is fucked either way.
    Oh I agree that he's fucked. While legalese he's leaving it ambiguous, the public perception is absolutely on the side of admission. And without being able to claim "I thought I was telling the truth" in court, I can't imagine any other defense that he could put up that has a hope of working. And he's not exactly been known lately for putting forth sound and reasoned legal arguments.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •