Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 6
And so Giuliani travels yet another street in the town of Find Out on his pathetic journey as Trump's lying mouthpiece and attorney.
A federal judge on Wednesday issued a default judgment against former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and imposed sanctions on him in a civil conspiracy lawsuit filed by two Georgia election workers he had claimed mishandled ballots in the 2020 presidential contest.
Judge Beryl Howell sanctioned Giuliani for failing to comply with demands for documents and other evidence sought in the case by lawyers for the election workers, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea' ArShaye Moss.Next stop: the question of how much money in compensatory and punitive damages he should be ordered to pay as a result of the default judgment.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/30/judge-orders-defau...
No. of Recommendations: 4
Judge Beryl Howell sanctioned Giuliani for failing to comply with demands for documents and other evidence sought in the case by lawyers for the election workers, Ruby Freeman and Wandrea' ArShaye Moss.
-------------------
Two tiered system of justice on display!!
Swift accountability for Giuliani, as it should be, versus
The FBI, on many occasions, thwarting congressional oversight. My favorite, Christopher Wray for months, or was it years, denying the existence of a subpoenaed record, then after being backed into a corner, admits it exists and you can look at it but not make copies. LOL, if it weren't so serious.
Hillary wiping her serves before responding to subpoena.
Latest is national Archives failing to respond to FOIA request, recent headline
National Archives says it has 5,000 emails potentially linked to alleged Biden pseudonyms: Lawsuit
Nonprofit sues National Archives for records requested under FOIA 15 months ago
Has any Federal Government official anywhere, ever been sanctioned like Giuliani for withholding documents? If there was, it was probably a Republican being sanctioned.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Has any Federal Government official anywhere, ever been sanctioned like Giuliani for withholding documents? If there was, it was probably a Republican being sanctioned.
This is how they can make up and point to the bogus statistic that there are waaaaay more crooked Republicans than democrats and chant it to each other like a catechism. The truth is that low level democrats never bother to bring cases against higher level democrats.
Their party is just a legalized form of The Mob.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Has any Federal Government official anywhere, ever been sanctioned like Giuliani for withholding documents?
Different procedural contexts.
In a civil suit, you have an obligation to provide access to responsive documents requested by the opposing party - subject to sanctions within the context of that suit if you don't comply. Any party to any civil lawsuit will face discovery sanctions if they don't comply with discovery orders. This is civil procedure 101 type stuff - discovery sanctions are imposed every single day against party litigants.
Congressional subpoenas are an entirely different ball of wax, because (unlike a civil court judge) Congress doesn't have direct enforcement powers. Moreover, unlike Congressional subpoenas of private individuals, Congressional subpoenas of federal government officials are inextricably linked to separation of powers issues, and are thus never going to result in either a quick judicial resolution or criminal sanctions.
No. of Recommendations: 2
bighairymike: Swift accountability for Giuliani, as it should be...
Swift?
Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss filed their lawsuit against Giuliani in December 2021.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Congressional subpoenas are an entirely different ball of wax, because (unlike a civil court judge) Congress doesn't have direct enforcement powers. Moreover, unlike Congressional subpoenas of private individuals, Congressional subpoenas of federal government officials are inextricably linked to separation of powers issues, and are thus never going to result in either a quick judicial resolution or criminal sanctions. - albaby
----------------
OK, it is built in to the system. That said, the common man sees a two tiered system and is naturally losing confidence in government. You would think the bureaucrats and politicians would care about the corrosive effect on our country. But they don't and some almost revel in flaunting their being special. Christoper Wray could explain, I will not turn over that document and here is why, versus lying about it's very existence.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Case 1:21-cv-03354-BAH Document 93 Filed 08/30/23
"ORDERED that default judgment will be entered against defendant Rudolph W. Giuliani
on his liability for plaintiffs' defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil
conspiracy, and punitive damage claims, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(e)(2)(C)
and 37(b)(2)(A)(vi);"
"ORDERED that, as a sanction for defendant's failure timely to reimburse plaintiffs'
$89,172.50 in attorneys' fees by July 25, 2023, the jury will be instructed that they must, when
determining an appropriate sum of punitive damages, infer that he is intentionally trying to hide
relevant discovery about his financial assets for the purpose of artificially deflating his net worth,
unless he produces fulsome responses to plaintiffs' RFP Numbers 40 and 41 by September 20,
2023, in which case, the mandatory instruction may be converted to a permissive one."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscour...
No. of Recommendations: 2
bighairymike: That said, the common man sees a two tiered system and is naturally losing confidence in government. You would think the bureaucrats and politicians would care about the corrosive effect on our country.
Seriously? Trump spent over six years telling his cult that government is corrupt and elections republicans lose are rigged, at the same time demanding his justice department indict Clinton, Comey, Obama, and Biden.
bighairymike: Christoper Wray could explain, I will not turn over that document and here is why, versus lying about it's very existence.
Do you have a direct quote of Wray denying a document's existence? Link?
No. of Recommendations: 12
That said, the common man sees a two tiered system and is naturally losing confidence in government.
The "common man" is being told that there is a two-tiered system. As we have discussed over and over in these conversations, there are usually some pretty ordinary reasons why different cases end up having different results - reasons that have nothing to do with political affiliation.
For example, the primary reason that Steve Bannon was charged with contempt and Eric Holder wasn't is because Bannon failed to respond to a subpoena in his individual capacity for his private-party records, and Holder failed to respond to a subpoena in his governmental capacity as custodian for federal government records. There simply was no legal basis for Holder to be subject to personal criminal liability. Yet pundit after pundit, analyst after analyst, will go out there and tell the "common man" that this is proof that there is a two-tiered system....even though a short conversation with someone who knows about these things (or heck, even a Google search) would inform them that it's not.
Giuliani is being treated exactly the same way any other party would be treated if they failed to comply with discovery. It's not an example of a two-tiered system. If the "common man" believes this to be an example of a two-tiered system doesn't make it any less false - nor does that present any reason for government to change how it treats party litigants.
* * *
Look, there's a much simpler Occam's Razor type of explanation for much of this. Donald Trump was elected to office with absolutely no prior government experience. Almost all of his prior business experience was as the President/CEO of closely-held private companies. He's never had to deal with a board of directors - much less a board of directors as powerful and activist as Congress is to the Executive. He came into office with absolutely no background knowledge of the many, many rules that govern how public officials have to act - both the official ones, and the practical ones that help you navigate a world where most of the people you interact with and the records you generate aren't "your" employees or records, but are employees and records of the government. Not only did he have no idea where the "lines" were, he showed absolutely no interest in learning where the lines were or treating those lines as important - or hiring/listening to people who did.
That hampered the functioning of his Administration - he had numerous policy efforts struck down by the courts because he didn't understand that (unlike a CEO) the Executive has to "show their work" for new policies. And it's put him in criminal jeopardy. Cunning, experienced, and savvy political operatives who have spent a lifetime in government (Clinton, Holder, Biden) are able to get a lot of what they want done without exposing themselves to criminal jeopardy because they pay attention to what the rules are, have people around them to make sure that the rules are followed carefully, and listen to those people. Trump doesn't do any of that.
No. of Recommendations: 2
"The "common man" is being told that there is a two-tiered system. As we have discussed over and over in these conversations, there are usually some pretty ordinary reasons why different cases end up having different results - reasons that have nothing to do with political affiliation."
Usually allows for the fact that there in fact may be some cases where the ..unusual..happens as we are currently witnessing.
No. of Recommendations: 11
Usually allows for the fact that there in fact may be some cases where the ..unusual..happens as we are currently witnessing.
Not really. The cases we've been discussing here on these boards have all had ordinary explanations for why there were different outcomes.
For example, Bannon faced criminal contempt charges, while Holder did not. But that's because Bannon was subpoenaed in his private capacity for non-governmental records, while Holder was subpoenaed in his official capacity for governmental records. That means Holder has insurmountable defenses against criminal prosecution, while Bannon does not.
In this instance, Giuliani faced sanctions not because he's a Republican, but because he failed to comply with discovery orders in a civil suit - while someone like, say, Christopher Wray will almost certainly not face sanctions for his refusal to turn over FBI records that Congress wants. But again, that's because these are completely different situations. Refusing to comply with civil discovery will routinely result in sanctions against the party litigant; Federal government officials refusing to comply with a Congressional subpoena for government records until a court orders them to will never (as far as I'm aware) result in criminal penalties against that official.
I'm trying to think of a case where there wasn't a pretty ordinary explanation for the differences in outcome. Perhaps you could point me to one?
No. of Recommendations: 1
You should add to your list McConnell. He knew exactly where the lines were because he is a long-time politician. The left says it should have been criminal what he did, but technically it wasn't.
When I think of two-tiered, I think of the wealth divide. I'm much more likely to be able to get away with something because I can afford a good lawyer. Most of the country can't. And while public defenders may be well-intentioned, I suspect their case loads are too heavy to be able to spend the time on any one case. Unlike if I hire an attorney myself.
But left vs right? Complete BS.
No. of Recommendations: 0
You should add to your list McConnell. He knew exactly where the lines were because he is a long-time politician. The left says it should have been criminal what he did, but technically it wasn't.
Wait - McConnell? What did he do that's alleged to be criminal?
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I'm trying to think of a case where there wasn't a pretty ordinary explanation for the differences in outcome. Perhaps you could point me to one?"
Sure. DOJ decisions:
The decision to not have charged Hillary or Huma for classified material but to charge trump but not Biden.
The decision to raid Mar Lago but not Bidens garage
The decision to allow the statute of limitations run out on Hunters tax charge
The decision to all Hunters tax evasion to not be prosecuted (so much for everyone paying their fair share)
The decision to attempt to get a sweetheart slap on the wrist deal while others have gone to jail for the degree of Hunters
tax evasion
The attempt to get a pardon for Hunter for all past as well as any future crimes he may commit.
Two tiered justice writ large.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Boater: The decision to not have charged Hillary or Huma for classified material but to charge trump but not Biden.
Trump was charged with...
...violating the Espionage Act by illegally holding on to 31 classified documents containing national defense information after he left office.
...with a conspiracy to obstruct the government's repeated attempts to reclaim the classified material.
...attempting to 'alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal evidence.'
...inducing someone else to destroy, mutilate, or conceal evidence.
...and for showing a classified national security document to visitors at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J.
Clinton and Abedin did none of those things.
No. of Recommendations: 1
"violating the Espionage Act by illegally holding on to 31 classified documents containing national defense information after he left office."
Neither Hillary nor Huma were in any office when they were found to have classified documents on their home computers. And for that matter Biden had classified documents from when he was a Vice President that he had no authority to have taken home with him under any circumstances...no prosecution
No. of Recommendations: 10
Lets take them in turn:
The decision to not have charged Hillary or Huma for classified material but to charge trump but not Biden.We've talked about this at length on this board - I don't know if you followed those discussions or not. But the reason neither Hillary or Huma or Biden were charged "for classified material" is because their behavior did not violate any criminal statutes - and Trump's did. There's no crime in the books as general as "for classified material" - people can only be charged if they do (or do not do)
very specific things with classified material. Trump committed acts that violate a specific criminal statute - he refused to return classified information that he initially lawfully had in his possession upon the request of the federal government. Hillary, Huma, and Biden did not.
The decision to raid Mar Lago but not Bidens garageAgain, the decision to raid Mar A Lago stems from the fact that the government: i) had proof that classified documents were there; ii) had requested those documents; and iii) were lied to and told there were no documents present. None of those factors were present in Biden's garage.
The decision to allow the statute of limitations run out on Hunters tax charge
The decision to all Hunters tax evasion to not be prosecuted (so much for everyone paying their fair share)
The decision to attempt to get a sweetheart slap on the wrist deal while others have gone to jail for the degree of Hunters
tax evasionNone of those are particularly unusual.
More than 40% tax fraud offenders don't get jail time. Hunter's got many of the characteristics that would lead to sentencing on the lighter side: he repaid the amounts owed, he had no prior convictions, and he pled out. Combine that with having a lot of financial resources to fight prosecution (there certainly
is a difference in outcomes in the criminal justice system if you have money, versus if you're impovershed) and this is not that unusual an outcome.
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/resea...There's no reason to believe that Hunter Biden's getting any different a deal than a Donald Trump, Jr. would have gotten in 2019 if
he had a tax fraud charge that he pled out, with no priors and full repayment, and the financial ability to fully lawyer up.
The attempt to get a pardon for Hunter for all past as well as any future crimes he may commit.I think you're using "pardon" incorrectly, in place of immunity. Note that the DOJ refused to give that to him, and vigorously disagreed - in open court - that that's what the deal actually meant.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Boater: Neither Hillary nor Huma were in any office when they were found to have classified documents on their home computers.
They were not classified at the time but were later up-classified except for three documents that but were classified but not correctly marked as classified. They were not on "home computers" but on an email server. "Having" the documents wasn't an issue and wouldn't have been an issue for Trump, either. His indictments are for refusing to return the documents, destroying evidence, obstruction, and other crimes.
No. of Recommendations: 1
" More than 40% tax fraud offenders don't get jail time. "
Thus 60 % do, particularly if the amount evaded is of the magnitude that Hunter had to pay.
No. of Recommendations: 1
" They were not on "home computers" but on an email server. "Having" the documents wasn't an issue and wouldn't have been an issue for Trump, either. His indictments are for refusing to return the documents, destroying evidence, obstruction, and other crimes."
They were found to be on Huma's husband Anthonys personal laptop computer . As for destroying evidence I haven't heard about Trumps use of bleachbit and hammers to destroy anything , have you?
No. of Recommendations: 0
What did he do that's alleged to be criminal?
The left was saying that McConnell wasn't allowed to steal the SCOTUS seats from Obama. But, in actuality, he was. It was a bit corrupt, but legal, and shrewd politicking. I think the allegations were more along the lines of failure to perform Constitutional duties, or some such.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Thus 60% do, particularly if the amount evaded is of the magnitude that Hunter had to pay.
Again, Hunter was pleading guilty, had no prior offenses, and had repaid all of the money (with penalties). His amount was large, but not ridiculously large - per the fact sheet, it wouldn't be in the top 20% of cases.
All of that makes it pretty unlikely that an "ordinary" person in Hunter's position would end up with jail time. Someone who had a large (but not enormous) tax obligation, but who agreed to plead guilty and pay back the money and had no priors, would probably be in the 40% who didn't get jail time, not the 60% who do.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The left was saying that McConnell wasn't allowed to steal the SCOTUS seats from Obama. But, in actuality, he was. It was a bit corrupt, but legal, and shrewd politicking. I think the allegations were more along the lines of failure to perform Constitutional duties, or some such.
None of that is criminal. At all. The Constitution isn't a penal code, and violating the Constitution (other than Treason) isn't a crime. There are plenty of things that are prohibited by the Constitution that are also prohibited by criminal statute (ie. if you enslaved someone), but nothing that McConnell did would run afoul of anything like that.
No. of Recommendations: 0
True. Which is why he wasn't charged. But the left (or at least many on the left) thought he must have been violating some law.
There're also allegations about doing some favors for relatives (his wife?), which led to the moniker "Moscow Mitch". But, again, he didn't (to my knowledge) explicitly violate any law, because he was too smart to do that. Compare and contrast to Trump, who didn't know where the lines were, and didn't seem to care. To your point, experience vs inexperience.
No. of Recommendations: 5
But the left (or at least many on the left) thought he must have been violating some law.
Honestly, I don't really remember it that way. I recall a lot of, "there oughta be a law" lamentations that McConnell shouldn't be allowed to do what he did - but nobody really putting forth an argument that what he was doing violated some statutory obligation he had.
No. of Recommendations: 2
So has the hurricane given you a few days off? You were evidently quite busy the last few weeks. You obviously have power if you're posting. Seems like it struck the west coast of FL, based on the maps of the storm track I've seen.
No. of Recommendations: 1
So has the hurricane given you a few days off? You were evidently quite busy the last few weeks. You obviously have power if you're posting. Seems like it struck the west coast of FL, based on the maps of the storm track I've seen.
Things have slowed a bit. The hurricane mostly missed us - we lost power for ten minutes - but over here in Miami we were well outside of its path.
Idalia ended up making landfall in perhaps the best possible spot to minimize threats to life and property - it jogged to the west and hit in the Big Bend, where there's very little construction on the coast and most of the area is environmental preserve. Had it jogged to the east by a similar amount, it would have been much worse.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thus 60 % do, particularly if the amount evaded is of the magnitude that Hunter had to pay
You're just guessing boater.
In fact, the IRS cannot send you to jail, or file criminal charges against you, for failing to pay your taxes. There are stipulations to this rule though. If you fail to pay the amount you owe because you don't have enough money, you could be in the clear. But if your reason for not paying is because you didn't file or you committed a form of tax fraud (you intentionally lied on your return or tried to deceive the IRS), you could find yourself behind bars. (Some law site source)
In addition the IRS likes to see a 3 year pattern, with the same fraud being committed in all three years. You have to get the IRS District Counsel to accept the case criminally - hard to do.
No. of Recommendations: 5
That said, the common man sees a two tiered system and is naturally losing confidence in government.
Generalizing.
Some do. I don't know what percentage, but the partisan conspiracy theories put forth by the MAGAs and TeaParty as their reasons for distrust are not mine.
Mine point more to the increasing disparity in wealth. Wealthy people (corporations being people too)are all too often able to finance lengthy judicial exercises that swamp 'the common man.'
Another reason is the ability of wealthy "people" to fund lobbyists PACS and agents of gerrymandering that overwhelm the 'voice' of the actual 'people.'
