Jump to content

The Rudy Thread


Francisco 2.0

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

So the smoking gun is “evidence” Rudy got from Ukraine, after Ukraine was blackmailed by Trump, of which we have a phone call documented as evidence of the extortion. 
 

seems rock-solid. republicans will believe it anyway because they want to believe it. 

The-x-files-i-want-to-believe GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Dog said:

🤮

The last two cut off: 

...they were 16 but looked 20.

xii:   "I think of you as my daughter.  Is that weird?" - which Giuliani said will engaging in sexual contact with Ms. Dunphy.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Red Five said:

Some pretty good lines in there. I'm gonna give them a shot.

Even when I think about how smart you are, I get hard. 

There's a man who understands the female psyche and realizes how important it is to respect their mind and intellect. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2023 at 7:45 AM, Captainant said:

A buddy of mine who went to TCU bumped into her at a bar in FW and said she was actually pretty fun and had some funny stories about becoming a meme /csb

I was just reading up on her.  Didn't realize she's from Denton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
13 hours ago, Bookman said:

Further to this, here is the "opinion" of the DC Bar discipline committee.  https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23868906/2023-07-07-issuance-letter-and-hearing-committee-report-giuliani.pdf

It looks like the Board of Discipline has the opportunity to modify the findings of the committee before making a final ruling and then the Board's ruling is subject to court review.  But it's unclear what the standard of review may be, that is, a "do over" or a more restrained appeal-type review confined to error by the Committee or Board.

With these high-profile 1/6 lawyer disbarment proceedings, it has been interesting to see the "quasi judicial" processes of the various state bars.  It looks like DC and Cali (Giuliani and Eastman, respectively) have pretty judicial processes (formal hearings, rules of evidence, etc.) that are before "dedicated" (meaning discipline only) hearing panels.

Contrast this with Texas, which fairly recently switched its system to one of two tracks:  an informal hearing with a dedicated panel of attorneys and lay people, or, alternatively, a court trial in a district court of general jurisdiction (no special familiarity with the rules of conduct, etc.).

I didn't have a strong opinion on Texas' "new" system until this came up in the context of Sidney Powell's case.  I don't think I like it.  It seems to me that courts of general jurisdiction should have pretty limited involvement in disciplinary cases   Probably confined to a traditional appeal for legal and factual error.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Not a bad move for Rudy.  Certainly more rationale than the strategy he employed in the election challenges.  It might also be sane to argue against damages with something along the lines of, "Look, everybody knows I'm shithouse crazy, so nobody really believed my bullshit lies, and therefore you weren't damaged." 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

In other words, "look discovery would be incredibly fucking embarrassing and damaging so let's just all acknowledge that yes I defamed the shit out of y'all."

 

Legal questions: Is discovery required to occur?  Can this actually get him out of discovery?  Or can the judge require discovery even if the facts aren't disputed?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Legal questions: Is discovery required to occur?  Can this actually get him out of discovery?  Or can the judge require discovery even if the facts aren't disputed?

 

apparently up to the judge:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And holy shit- he is actually trying to say “OK, I lied my ass off, and none of this is true, but only for the purpose of this litigation…where I’m being sued for lying.”

That means the fucker will be saying it again the next chance he gets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

And holy shit- he is actually trying to say “OK, I lied my ass off, and none of this is true, but only for the purpose of this litigation…where I’m being sued for lying.”

That means the fucker will be saying it again the next chance he gets. 

is that like some weird double jeopardy bullshit he's trying to pull or something? is there any substance behind this tactic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without admitting to the truth of the allegations, I don’t contest the statements where the plaintiff says I lied…

I understand that he is doing this in an effort not to give up documents.   I don’t know if punitive damages are in play in this particular state, but if they are, the egregiousness of the defamation and the knowledge of untruth should go to damages.  It seems to me the documents he does not want to give them would be relevant, if only for damages.

I have not followed this one, but I would be disappointed if the plaintiffs and the judge let him off the hook like this. Lets see what he has. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...