politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So, assuming the ability to recall emails that contain evidence of an intent to defraud or a crime does not exonerate people (eg, saying you don’t remember robbing the bank isn’t going to get you out of the video evidence of you doing so), what’s the procedure here?
Since this is a civil trial, can the court infer the intent to deceive based on the evidence presented? I know that taking the 5th in civil trials can be inferred as evasive and negative in some states for civil but not criminal trials, but I don’t know how that applies here.
Judge has already ruled that fraud was done. This part of the trial is just to figure out the penalties. The more they can muddy waters as to who, exactly did the fraud, the more they can hope the judge treats them like absurdly negligent morons rather than criminal masterminds.
It's like there's this committee of Trumps, and they're going one by one, asking "who shat in the punchbowl?" None of the kids can remember doing it, and their daddy just thinks it's a travesty that we're even talking about the steaming load. The evidence is all there, everyone knows what happened, but it's hard to know how much of a team effort it was and whom to punish.
As far as I know, the judge can directly compare the evidence to testimony and use it as part of the ruling.
So since she isn't providing anything to refute the evidence, the evidence is accepted as is?
Well, testimony can give context to evidence. The judge can infer a lot from what they won’t say.
These people aren’t secretaries or interns. They are top executives and they can’t seem to recall any of their duties that went into these evaluations. The judge is at least able to glean that they are incompetent and fraudulent when deciding damages.
yes.