Since both you folks are West Coasters, you may need context for "America's Mayor" soubriquet after 9-11, when he was barely 40% as NYC mayor on 9-10.
Let's re-rake the table pre- 9-11...
~ Giuliani was all about receiving lobbyist dollars from entertainment/restauranteurs to revive the Times Square district.
[ASIDE - When growing up as NYC teen, Times Square was a wonderful learning experience for those of us wanting to walk in the footsteps of Holden Caufield and all the uncaring public houses not giving a fiddler's fuque about imbibers being age-18 in the 1960s.
Unfortunately, kids today wouldn't be able to do since "Catcher In The Rye" has probably been banned in 2/3rds of 'Merican states.]
~ "Game, my ass. Some game. If you get on the side where all the hot-shots are, then it’s a game, all right—I’ll admit that. But if you get on the other side, where there aren’t any hot-shots, then what’s a game about it? Nothing. No game.” ~ Holden Caufield
~ My brother Dr. David Wood, the famous doctor to the homeless of Manhattan became a major anti-Rudy guy since the douche-in-chief's plan was to handle the homeless by simply moving them across the East River to Queens County.
Likewise, Dr. Dave (who was eventually at the scene of the Towers after he and his medical-bus driver went to the westside on the East Side, after seeing the second plane hitting the towers.
~ Not an important issue given important shrift was that Mayor Rudy made the "political" decision to unify all NYC public service agencies' communications in the Twin Towers, despite of all those agencies explaining to Giuliani that coalescing such communications going down simultaneously would be catastrophic.
~ RUDY'S THEN REALITY - Planes destroy the Twin Towers, the multiagency response teams not able to communicate because the communications central in the towers goes down; he steps forward and works the media in NYC, while "Cowboy-Up Americans" are all about 'we versus them."
Well guys, I've learned the lesson since the beginning of the Trump era, to not be too excited no matter WHAT is announced by the media. I'm finding that if I put a mental filter that announcements, proclamations and click bait titles are 99% bullshit, then my blood pressure does much better.
And since Ken has left Twitter, I hardly go there anymore and miss all the crapola proclaimed there. In fact, it turns out I can do as much good fighting political bs even if I don't keep UP TO DATE on every little thing. Which leads to this podcast...with Josh and Ken doing one for years, it's a great way to learn stuff without overkill.
Ken mentioned how the lawsuit more or less seemed “too easy” to be truly believable, at least at face value. I was wondering about the emails she claimed to have. She claimed to have been given access to all of his emails. Does this enable her to share said emails to anyone like say, prosecutors? I was speculating this is why she filed the lawsuit...she can name all of the assets she has (which she claims she has legally acquired due to his negligence) that could mean trouble for Giuliani or any of his clients. That would be a strong incentive for him to settle and make her go away. I could be totally off base or missing key details here so thought I’d ask.
Absent a crime for simple nonconsensual touching (maybe I just can't find it) this seems like it might put Guilliani (defamation per se) or the police in a worse position. The behavior doesn't seem to reach the threshold for menacing in NY either.
However, totally plausible I just don't know the correct term.
This is a bit theoretical but can one sovereign (state/federal) who wants to protect an individual from prosecution by the other compel their testimony in a way that then makes it virtually impossible for the other sovereign to prosecute?
Say California wants to stop Texas from prosecuting people for some act in TX (say giving people money/advice to help them get abortions in another state). Could the CA legislature pass a law saying that you have to testify before the CA legislature no ifs ands or buts and then demand the orgs/individuals testify about exactly what will cause trouble for TX?
If a politician engages me in response to comments about a political topic on a social platform or in public, do I then get granted the same protections as politicians to "embellish" facts under free speech doctrine?
Looking forward to Ken's commentary next episode on whether or not it's ever a good idea to accuse a judge at your sentencing of running their courtroom like a Kafka novel. Perhaps he has some recommendations on other pieces of classical literature that would be even worse to make allusion to. Animal Farm?
In all seriousness, though, how much 'covering-your-own-ass' would Rhodes' lawyer have done in recommending against his client making those submissions? Then again, is it likely that his speech actually moved the judge to increase the ultimate sentence much more than had he just remained silent? Might it have been a calculated risk on his part that any increase in sentence might be worth the outside chance his speech might earn him a pardon out of a Trump 2024 presidency?
Re Trump's trial lawyer who went on CNN and discussed the workings of Trump's legal team: Could this actually be evidence of trying to help his client vs. evidence of some sort of unethical disclosure (or maybe both)? If this lawyer is being prevented from directly giving advise to Trump, talking about it publicly might be the only way for him to get the message to Trump.
I am still wondering what legal avenues E Jean Caroll can avail herself of to get Trump to stop defaming her. It seems like harassment and $5 million is obviously not enough of a deterrent
Also why does Gill need to prove damages? Didn't Guilliani accuse him of committing a crime he didn't commit making this defamation per se? (whether or not the touch was itself a crime didn't Guilliani essentially claim he committed a different crime)?
As a Frenchman, I resent the 'flopping' comment. Brazilians and Politicians are much worse and a better analogy. :)
Since both you folks are West Coasters, you may need context for "America's Mayor" soubriquet after 9-11, when he was barely 40% as NYC mayor on 9-10.
Let's re-rake the table pre- 9-11...
~ Giuliani was all about receiving lobbyist dollars from entertainment/restauranteurs to revive the Times Square district.
[ASIDE - When growing up as NYC teen, Times Square was a wonderful learning experience for those of us wanting to walk in the footsteps of Holden Caufield and all the uncaring public houses not giving a fiddler's fuque about imbibers being age-18 in the 1960s.
Unfortunately, kids today wouldn't be able to do since "Catcher In The Rye" has probably been banned in 2/3rds of 'Merican states.]
~ "Game, my ass. Some game. If you get on the side where all the hot-shots are, then it’s a game, all right—I’ll admit that. But if you get on the other side, where there aren’t any hot-shots, then what’s a game about it? Nothing. No game.” ~ Holden Caufield
~ My brother Dr. David Wood, the famous doctor to the homeless of Manhattan became a major anti-Rudy guy since the douche-in-chief's plan was to handle the homeless by simply moving them across the East River to Queens County.
Likewise, Dr. Dave (who was eventually at the scene of the Towers after he and his medical-bus driver went to the westside on the East Side, after seeing the second plane hitting the towers.
~ Not an important issue given important shrift was that Mayor Rudy made the "political" decision to unify all NYC public service agencies' communications in the Twin Towers, despite of all those agencies explaining to Giuliani that coalescing such communications going down simultaneously would be catastrophic.
~ RUDY'S THEN REALITY - Planes destroy the Twin Towers, the multiagency response teams not able to communicate because the communications central in the towers goes down; he steps forward and works the media in NYC, while "Cowboy-Up Americans" are all about 'we versus them."
Well guys, I've learned the lesson since the beginning of the Trump era, to not be too excited no matter WHAT is announced by the media. I'm finding that if I put a mental filter that announcements, proclamations and click bait titles are 99% bullshit, then my blood pressure does much better.
And since Ken has left Twitter, I hardly go there anymore and miss all the crapola proclaimed there. In fact, it turns out I can do as much good fighting political bs even if I don't keep UP TO DATE on every little thing. Which leads to this podcast...with Josh and Ken doing one for years, it's a great way to learn stuff without overkill.
Happy vacation, Josh and Sara Fay, happy work, Ken.
Ken mentioned how the lawsuit more or less seemed “too easy” to be truly believable, at least at face value. I was wondering about the emails she claimed to have. She claimed to have been given access to all of his emails. Does this enable her to share said emails to anyone like say, prosecutors? I was speculating this is why she filed the lawsuit...she can name all of the assets she has (which she claims she has legally acquired due to his negligence) that could mean trouble for Giuliani or any of his clients. That would be a strong incentive for him to settle and make her go away. I could be totally off base or missing key details here so thought I’d ask.
Love the reference to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCXTq-fWWio, perhaps the best Cohen Brothers' scene in all of cinema.
Regarding the claim in the episode about touching Guilliani as constituting assault (or was it battery?) the internet tells me NY doesn't have a battery crime or assault and battery and that NY's assault statute requires either intent to cause harm or actual harm (https://www.martinkanelaw.com/criminal-defense/how-is-assault-and-battery-defined-in-new-york/ )
Absent a crime for simple nonconsensual touching (maybe I just can't find it) this seems like it might put Guilliani (defamation per se) or the police in a worse position. The behavior doesn't seem to reach the threshold for menacing in NY either.
However, totally plausible I just don't know the correct term.
This is a bit theoretical but can one sovereign (state/federal) who wants to protect an individual from prosecution by the other compel their testimony in a way that then makes it virtually impossible for the other sovereign to prosecute?
Say California wants to stop Texas from prosecuting people for some act in TX (say giving people money/advice to help them get abortions in another state). Could the CA legislature pass a law saying that you have to testify before the CA legislature no ifs ands or buts and then demand the orgs/individuals testify about exactly what will cause trouble for TX?
Where is the most recent Serious Trouble podcast?
If a politician engages me in response to comments about a political topic on a social platform or in public, do I then get granted the same protections as politicians to "embellish" facts under free speech doctrine?
Seriously Troubled People may be interested in this week’s On The Media, which covers media coverage of the student loan debt cancellation case, the Supremes beat, and how copyright law fails hip hop artists. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?i=1000615486838
Looking forward to Ken's commentary next episode on whether or not it's ever a good idea to accuse a judge at your sentencing of running their courtroom like a Kafka novel. Perhaps he has some recommendations on other pieces of classical literature that would be even worse to make allusion to. Animal Farm?
In all seriousness, though, how much 'covering-your-own-ass' would Rhodes' lawyer have done in recommending against his client making those submissions? Then again, is it likely that his speech actually moved the judge to increase the ultimate sentence much more than had he just remained silent? Might it have been a calculated risk on his part that any increase in sentence might be worth the outside chance his speech might earn him a pardon out of a Trump 2024 presidency?
Re Trump's trial lawyer who went on CNN and discussed the workings of Trump's legal team: Could this actually be evidence of trying to help his client vs. evidence of some sort of unethical disclosure (or maybe both)? If this lawyer is being prevented from directly giving advise to Trump, talking about it publicly might be the only way for him to get the message to Trump.
Josh, make Ken explain why navigable waters means waters of the United States which apparently doesn’t mean non-water dry land.
I am still wondering what legal avenues E Jean Caroll can avail herself of to get Trump to stop defaming her. It seems like harassment and $5 million is obviously not enough of a deterrent
Also why does Gill need to prove damages? Didn't Guilliani accuse him of committing a crime he didn't commit making this defamation per se? (whether or not the touch was itself a crime didn't Guilliani essentially claim he committed a different crime)?