Page 81 of 81 FirstFirst ... 3171767778798081
Results 801 to 806 of 806
  1. #801
    Senior Member Gold Poster Laphroaig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    4,539

    Default Re: US Elections 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by filghy2 View Post
    It may turn out to be a good thing that the Senate trial has been postponed until after Biden's inauguration because it gives Trump an incentive to behave. Even he must know that inciting more violence or pardoning the rioters would induce more Republican senators to vote for his conviction.
    Does the delay also mean that the trial will commence with a Democrat rather than Republican controlled Senate? I'm not sure how much difference it makes to the raw numbers though.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  2. #802
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Re: US Elections 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Laphroaig View Post
    Does the delay also mean that the trial will commence with a Democrat rather than Republican controlled Senate? I'm not sure how much difference it makes to the raw numbers though.
    Ossoff and Warnock get sworn in on January 22nd which means 50 Senators will be Democrats. To remove a President from office in the Senate (or keep him from running again), you need 2/3 vote, which is 67 Senators though. So even though time helps a little bit it's going to be difficult to move 17 Republicans given how few voted for impeachment in the House out of a much larger number.

    I'm interested but don't know how much control of the process Democrats will have. Last time Democrats' ability to call witnesses and present evidence was stymied by Republicans who did not want to cooperate. There is a benefit in being able to have a thorough public investigation, though I'm sure the Department of Justice will conduct its own as well for the purposes of criminal charges against anyone who should be prosecuted.


    2 out of 2 members liked this post.

  3. #803
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: US Elections 2020

    I have just read this very long, very detailed account of the campaign against the election mounted by lawyers Giuliani, Powell and Wood. It raises a simple question -why would lawyers for whom evidence is the key to judgment, make no attempt to verify their own claims so that they stand up to scrutiny? In the case of the voting machines, the evidence is either so absurd or non-existent one wonders how anyone can give it five minutes of credibility. In the case of Wood, he appears to be a deranged lunatic-when they sued him, members of his own law firm

    "..."quoted long passages of apparently taped phone calls in which Wood had repeatedly referred to himself as “Almighty Lin” and had hinted at a special relationship with God. “I represent Moses,” he told them. “I represent Ananias the believer. I’m like the power of King David.” ".

    It is a very detailed but fascinating study, but such are the intricacies of libel law in the US it is not clear out of the plethora of cases which, if any will result in firm convictions-.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rudy-...102628439.html



  4. #804
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Re: US Elections 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavros View Post
    It is a very detailed but fascinating study, but such are the intricacies of libel law in the US it is not clear out of the plethora of cases which, if any will result in firm convictions-.

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rudy-...102628439.html
    Libel law in the U.S. is different from libel law in the UK in at least two obvious ways. First, in the U.S., when the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the injurious statements were false. I've stated before but in my view this isn't the more significant difference because the burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence", which means more likely than not. But it matters a bit and matters in terms of who has to make their case and who merely defends.

    The more important difference I think is that when the plaintiff is a public figure, they also have to show the defendant acted with "actual malice". The standard of actual malice requires that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was false. This is the more significant hurdle because it's not enough that you made a false, reputation damaging statement and that the plaintiff proved it was. They also have to show that you either knew it was false or that it was so reckless that you should be liable. This link I provide says that the burden of proof for showing that they acted with "actual malice" is clear and convincing evidence.

    It's usually tough to show someone knew their statement was false but you can show they acted with reckless disregard if they based their statement on nothing. I would think Dominion is on fairly good footing legally but that doesn't mean everyone who deserves to win a lawsuit wins every time. That's why there are settlements but Dominion has said they are determined not to settle.

    This is a decent link for U.S. defamation law (libel and slander the two sub-sets) in case I didn't explain it well. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation


    Last edited by broncofan; 03-09-2021 at 07:23 PM.

  5. #805
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Re: US Elections 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by broncofan View Post

    The more important difference I think is that when the plaintiff is a public figure, they also have to show the defendant acted with "actual malice". The standard of actual malice requires that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was false. This is the more significant hurdle because it's not enough that you made a false, reputation damaging statement and that the plaintiff proved it was. They also have to show that you either knew it was false or that it was so reckless that you should be liable. This link I provide says that the burden of proof for showing that they acted with "actual malice" is clear and convincing evidence.
    I read the article you posted and it's a very good read. I see now that they did include the actual malice standard but I can add a little bit to it I think.

    They state the standard requires proof of reckless disregard for whether a statement is false and that this is a high standard. They are correct but saying it that way makes it seem like it's always a very tough affirmative showing. But contrast "reckless disregard" with a lower burden of fault such as "negligence". When someone is negligent they are merely careless. If someone makes a false statement and they are negligent about it being false that might mean they heard something and could have done some research to verify it but were too lazy or preoccupied. They then said it without putting much thought into it.

    On the other hand, someone who is reckless doesn't really care much about whether what they're saying is true. There is an assumption they're acting in bad faith and trying to cause damage. So maybe while you can't show they knew what they were saying is false, you can show they didn't care whether it was true or not. The number of false statements Trump's lawyers made, the fact that the statements were calculated for maximum damage to Dominion and political advantage for Trump, and were not even plausible makes reckless disregard seem like their exact mode of operating. That's my view but we'll see what comes out in court.



  6. #806
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,473

    Default Re: US Elections 2020

    Quote Originally Posted by broncofan View Post

    They state the standard requires proof of reckless disregard for whether a statement is false and that this is a high standard. They are correct but saying it that way makes it seem like it's always a very tough affirmative showing. But contrast "reckless disregard" with a lower burden of fault such as "negligence". When someone is negligent they are merely careless. If someone makes a false statement and they are negligent about it being false that might mean they heard something and could have done some research to verify it but were too lazy or preoccupied. They then said it without putting much thought into it.
    What I find interesting in your post and the section I highlighted in Bold, is that in the cases of Giuliani, Powell and Wood, they are lawyers of many years experience, so the assumption must be that they conducted due diligience on their cases before presenting them in Court, but in fact I think it can be proven they did not. In one astonishing case, Giuliani presented an Affidavit to a Court in Michigan detailing election fraud in counties that, as named, were in Minnesota not Michigan, if that is not negligence I don't know what is, but is this the kind of negligence that cannot be excused by Giuliani that a member of his staff was at fault not him?

    If they can be proven to have used the law for political reasons, and in the process violated basic legal practice, such as checking facts, due diligence on the ownership of the election machines, etc, would this not weaken their defence?



Similar Threads

  1. The Elections in France, 2017
    By Stavros in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-19-2017, 01:03 PM
  2. Midterm Elections 2014
    By AshlynCreamher in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-15-2014, 03:39 AM
  3. Insight into US Elections
    By Stavros in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-18-2013, 06:14 PM
  4. I was miss pageant in 2020 do u beleve that?
    By tsadriana in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-31-2011, 07:08 AM
  5. The Elections, So Far
    By hondarobot in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-08-2006, 06:13 AM

Posting Permissions

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