US Presidential Election 2024

[firlandsfarm]

The judge said to Trump's legal team: I beseech you to control him if you can. If you can't, I will. I will excuse him and draw every negative inference that I can.

So the judge has declared his/her bias! How can he/she now conduct a fair trial? Is this the start of the uncovering of the stich-up?

[Derek27]

The judge said to Trump's legal team: I beseech you to control him if you can. If you can't, I will. I will excuse him and draw every negative inference that I can.

So the judge has declared his/her bias! How can he/she now conduct a fair trial? Is this the start of the uncovering of the stich-up?

Perfectly fair. I used to have a girlfriend who claimed to be 100% honest in that she never lied. But her alternative to lying was refusing to answer the question, changing or complicating the subject. I took the same view. If somebody is unable or not honest enough to answer a valid question it's perfectly reasonable to draw negative inferences. If you fully cooperated in a civil case and the other side refused to respond to the arguments you put forward you would expect no less.

[firlandsfarm]

Perfectly fair. I used to have a girlfriend who claimed to be 100% honest in that she never lied. But her alternative to lying was refusing to answer the question, changing or complicating the subject. I took the same view. If somebody is unable or not honest enough to answer a valid question it's perfectly reasonable to draw negative inferences. If you fully cooperated in a civil case and the other side refused to respond to the arguments you put forward you would expect no less.

I understand. But it works the other way, if someone openly shows they have a bias then the chances are they do have a bias! A judge should not put themselves in such a position.

BTW from your definition all politicians (of all parties) are likely liars!

[sionascaig]

"I beseech you to control him if you can. If you can't, I will. I will excuse him and draw every negative inference that I can."

This may demonstrate the opposite of bias.

"...it is appropriate for the court to draw adverse inferences in certain circumstances..."

So the the judge is giving the defendant & his lawyers advance warning that they are entering dangerous territory & an opportunity to fix it before it is too late...

Something similar happened in the Wagatha Christie trial re the phone that was "lost" in the North Sea )

[Derek27]

Perfectly fair. I used to have a girlfriend who claimed to be 100% honest in that she never lied. But her alternative to lying was refusing to answer the question, changing or complicating the subject. I took the same view. If somebody is unable or not honest enough to answer a valid question it's perfectly reasonable to draw negative inferences. If you fully cooperated in a civil case and the other side refused to respond to the arguments you put forward you would expect no less.

I understand. But it works the other way, if someone openly shows they have a bias then the chances are they do have a bias! A judge should not put themselves in such a position.

BTW from your definition all politicians (of all parties) are likely liars!

That wasn't a definition of a liar and the judge didn't show any bias.

There are some idiots that bin all their mail without reading it. They think if they bin their bills they won't have to pay it, or if they bin a court summoning they won't have to go to court. Likewise, people think by refusing to answer any questions they can't do themselves any harm. The judge was just warning him that that's not the case.

[Derek27]

60% of Americans can't afford diapers!

I looked them up, imagining a tin of fish - they're nappies.

[Derek27]

Religious nut, Senator Scott says, "you don't have to be Christian for America to work for you but America does not work without a faith-filled judale Christian foundation".

Vivek Ramaswamy called Nikki Hayley, Dick Cheney in 3-inch heels.

Nikki Hayley: They're 5-inch heels and they're not for fashion, they're ammunition.

[firlandsfarm]

Perfectly fair. I used to have a girlfriend who claimed to be 100% honest in that she never lied. But her alternative to lying was refusing to answer the question, changing or complicating the subject. I took the same view. If somebody is unable or not honest enough to answer a valid question it's perfectly reasonable to draw negative inferences. If you fully cooperated in a civil case and the other side refused to respond to the arguments you put forward you would expect no less.

I understand. But it works the other way, if someone openly shows they have a bias then the chances are they do have a bias! A judge should not put themselves in such a position.

BTW from your definition all politicians (of all parties) are likely liars!

That wasn't a definition of a liar and the judge didn't show any bias.

There are some idiots that bin all their mail without reading it. They think if they bin their bills they won't have to pay it, or if they bin a court summoning they won't have to go to court. Likewise, people think by refusing to answer any questions they can't do themselves any harm. The judge was just warning him that that's not the case.

Confirmation that LL's think their application of reasoning is 100% accurate and correct but another's application of the same reasoning that they don't agree with is out of order and totally wrong! You are of course entitled to your interpretation and I'm likewise entitled to think "just how gullible is this guy"!

[firlandsfarm]

60% of Americans can't afford diapers!

I looked them up, imagining a tin of fish - they're nappies.

And you feel qualified to comment on the US Election!

[Derek27]

I understand. But it works the other way, if someone openly shows they have a bias then the chances are they do have a bias! A judge should not put themselves in such a position.

BTW from your definition all politicians (of all parties) are likely liars!

That wasn't a definition of a liar and the judge didn't show any bias.

There are some idiots that bin all their mail without reading it. They think if they bin their bills they won't have to pay it, or if they bin a court summoning they won't have to go to court. Likewise, people think by refusing to answer any questions they can't do themselves any harm. The judge was just warning him that that's not the case.

Confirmation that LL's think their application of reasoning is 100% accurate and correct but another's application of the same reasoning that they don't agree with is out of order and totally wrong! You are of course entitled to your interpretation and I'm likewise entitled to think "just how gullible is this guy"!

Whether or not a judge can draw negative inferences is not a matter of reasoning, it's a matter of law and the rules of natural justice.

[Derek27]

60% of Americans can't afford diapers!

I looked them up, imagining a tin of fish - they're nappies.

And you feel qualified to comment on the US Election!

You don't need to be qualified to "comment" on anything, it's known as free speech!

[firlandsfarm]

That wasn't a definition of a liar and the judge didn't show any bias.

There are some idiots that bin all their mail without reading it. They think if they bin their bills they won't have to pay it, or if they bin a court summoning they won't have to go to court. Likewise, people think by refusing to answer any questions they can't do themselves any harm. The judge was just warning him that that's not the case.

Confirmation that LL's think their application of reasoning is 100% accurate and correct but another's application of the same reasoning that they don't agree with is out of order and totally wrong! You are of course entitled to your interpretation and I'm likewise entitled to think "just how gullible is this guy"!

Whether or not a judge can draw negative inferences is not a matter of reasoning, it's a matter of law and the rules of natural justice.

And yet another example of difficulties understanding what is said ... it's not a matter of law, it's a matter of opinion and bias can influence opinion which is why he/she should not have thought it let alone said it.

[firlandsfarm]

60% of Americans can't afford diapers!

I looked them up, imagining a tin of fish - they're nappies.

And you feel qualified to comment on the US Election!

You don't need to be qualified to "comment" on anything, it's known as free speech!

well yes but you need to be qualified to make a valued comment,

[Derek27]

Confirmation that LL's think their application of reasoning is 100% accurate and correct but another's application of the same reasoning that they don't agree with is out of order and totally wrong! You are of course entitled to your interpretation and I'm likewise entitled to think "just how gullible is this guy"!

Whether or not a judge can draw negative inferences is not a matter of reasoning, it's a matter of law and the rules of natural justice.

And yet another example of difficulties understanding what is said ... it's not a matter of law, it's a matter of opinion and bias can influence opinion which is why he/she should not have thought it let alone said it.

No, it is a matter of law. The law sets out when a judge or jury can make negative inferences if a defendant refuses to give evidence. In the case of Derek Chauvin, the jury was not allowed to take his refusal to testify into consideration. Judge's don't do what they feel is right, they have to apply the law to the case.

[Derek27]

And you feel qualified to comment on the US Election!

You don't need to be qualified to "comment" on anything, it's known as free speech!

well yes but you need to be qualified to make a valued comment,

Bollocks do you. Nobody on here's qualified in trading or growing tomatoes but you still get valued comments!