Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

only this dumb ass could fuck up being born with one hell of a silver spoon in his mouth, he's the dumbest mother fucker alive. the perfect cult leader for the group of american's, that can easily be labled - the dumbest mother fuckers breathing ....

At least he's going to fully bring the racists out of the woodwork so everybody can easily identify them.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

"Espionage" seems to be an odd way to describe what Trump did.  He wasn't acting as a spy.  He was acting as POTUS and disclosing state secrets to foreign adversaries.  

The "package" of legislation that the Espionage Act was originally part of was known as the "Alien and Sedition Act," passed during/after WWI.

Great lots of the Alien and Sedition Act didn't pass constitutional muster and was a rather dark chapter in the sometime-fascist history of the US.

So a lot of it was repealed and the remainder labeled the more palatable "Espionage Act."  And a lot of it is useful for snaring spies.

18 USC 793 that he would be charged with reads on a lot of espionage activities. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

That, and, as POTUS and commander in chief, absent a declaration of war from Congress I don't know that you could even say he was disclosing secrets  (since he can declassify just about anything) to an adversary (since POTUS can conduct foreign policy). /twicehorn.

Never said anything like that in relation to Espionage Act.

I have pointed out that that is pretty much a requirement for treason, that whole war/enemies thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I had a nickel….for every $$ Trump has spent on lawyers….and another nickel for every $$ Trump refused to pay lawyers or others who did work for him…..I could still retire very comfortably.

P.S.  You clowns just keep sending money into Trump’s campaign!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

Trump: I’m scared to go to Ireland.
 

What an alpha. 

We just got back from Ireland last month, and a big surprise was on the way driving back to Dublin, our gas gauge was at 3/4 full, so my wife was panicking about petrol.  We pulled off at Moneygall, and were delighted to end up at the Obama Travel Plaza.  It was totally unexpected and fucking great.  Would love to see one in Waco.

https://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obama-plaza-ireland-themed-service-station-bizarre-2019-12

I'm hoping Biden gets his own Plaza. 

5dfcb551855cc24e043db532?width=1100&form

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

That's such a crazy fun idea. It's a shame that the journalist approaches it so humorlessly. It's great that the Black American president has roots right in the middle of Ireland. The station appreciates the unspoken visual absurdity of the fact while embracing the truth of it.

Seems like the best of the Irish to me. I suspect that any tendency towards absurdism or irony in me is firmly rooted in the same sod.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So @lawdogs correct me if I'm wrong, but the attorney for the fake electors was told by the judge to offer her clients immunity, presumably so they could give up somebody higher up (DOtarD maybe?), and she not only didn't offer that deal to her clients, but she also lied to the court about it?

 

So, we have both lying to the court, and not representing her clients in their best interest.

 

Cherry on the shit sundae, she is being paid by the Georgia GOP, not her clients. Obviously the Georgia GOP has hired her to cover for their and DoTArd's illegality, not to actually represent her clients.

 

If this lawyer doesn't get sanctioned and disbarred, the entire attorney/state bar system needs to be burnt to the ground.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

So @lawdogs correct me if I'm wrong, but the attorney for the fake electors was told by the judge to offer her clients immunity, presumably so they could give up somebody higher up (DOtarD maybe?), and she not only didn't offer that deal to her clients, but she also lied to the court about it?

 

So, we have both lying to the court, and not representing her clients in their best interest.

 

Cherry on the shit sundae, she is being paid by the Georgia GOP, not her clients. Obviously the Georgia GOP has hired her to cover for their and DoTArd's illegality, not to actually represent her clients.

 

If this lawyer doesn't get sanctioned and disbarred, the entire attorney/state bar system needs to be burnt to the ground.

 

 

Yes, but... /twice

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

If this lawyer doesn't get sanctioned and disbarred, the entire attorney/state bar system needs to be burnt to the ground.

 

 

I've got news for you.  The legal profession isn't very big on actually holding its members accountable for this kind of behavior.

  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

So @lawdogs correct me if I'm wrong, but the attorney for the fake electors was told by the judge to offer her clients immunity, presumably so they could give up somebody higher up (DOtarD maybe?), and she not only didn't offer that deal to her clients, but she also lied to the court about it?

That’s what it looks like. But I’m also assuming the immunity offer negates the ability to self incriminate, so they couldn’t take the fifth 

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

58 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

I've got news for you.  The legal profession isn't very big on actually holding its members accountable for this kind of behavior.

You’re not wrong, but failing to communicate an immunity offer in a criminal case/investigation is about as egregious as commingling client funds (which is one offense they actually do disbar attorneys for)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You’re not wrong, but failing to communicate an immunity offer in a criminal case/investigation is about as egregious as commingling client funds (which is one offense they actually do disbar attorneys for)

So is lying to the court.  Direct, provable lies, as in "Did Ms. Debrow communicate the prosecutions offer of immunity to you?" 

Representing 10 similarly situated defendants is bad idea jeans from the ethical perspective.  Heretofore, rather common when Trump pays the bills, but quite the potential jackpot for the lawyer (NCFOM jackpot, not gambling jackpot).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Yes, but... /twice

I note that the person who told the court the immunity offer had been conveyed was some associate.

It is not completely foreign for partners in some firms to throw the younger associates under the ethics bus so that the partners have some kind of plausible deniability when shit goes south. Not saying that is what happened,  but just sayin’….

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

So @lawdogs correct me if I'm wrong, but the attorney for the fake electors was told by the judge to offer her clients immunity, presumably so they could give up somebody higher up (DOtarD maybe?), and she not only didn't offer that deal to her clients, but she also lied to the court about it?

 

So, we have both lying to the court, and not representing her clients in their best interest.

 

Cherry on the shit sundae, she is being paid by the Georgia GOP, not her clients. Obviously the Georgia GOP has hired her to cover for their and DoTArd's illegality, not to actually represent her clients.

 

If this lawyer doesn't get sanctioned and disbarred, the entire attorney/state bar system needs to be burnt to the ground.

 

 

Well you see unless they have her on tape saying “I failed to tell my clients about the offer of immunity and lied to the court about it in order to protect the Georgia GOP and Trump from legal repercussions,” the prosecutor’s and state bar’s hands are tied

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Well you see unless they have her on tape saying “I failed to tell my clients about the offer of immunity and lied to the court about it in order to protect the Georgia GOP and Trump from legal repercussions,” the prosecutor’s and state bar’s hands are tied

Judges have the inherent power to prevent fraud upon their court, and the court might have the clients come in to ask them if the immunity offer was conveyed.  I have no idea what Georgia law says, but I doubt that the attorney client privilege can be used by an attorney to block any discussion of whether that attorney intentionally disregarded an order of the court and failed to disclose the immunity offer

You are sort of conflating the issues a bit. The court is concerned that it’s orders are followed. The bar is concerned if professional rules of conduct are violated. It is not the bar’s mission to see if GOP shit heads are behind this.  Say some doctor had an improper undisclosed interest in some diagnostic business where he sent clients, including clients not needing the tests to the clinic where he had that interest.  That states’s medical board would investigate the doctor for breaches of professional conduct. That medical board would not go on some investigation trying to figure out who the silent partners of the bad doc clinic were. They would sanction the doctor and let it go with that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I note that the person who told the court the immunity offer had been conveyed was some associate.

It is not completely foreign for partners in some firms to throw the younger associates under the ethics bus so that the partners have some kind of plausible deniability when shit goes south. Not saying that is what happened,  but just sayin’….

Perhaps worth noting that it only says "no offer of immunity was brought to clients in 2022."

Not sure that's the way I'd phrase my pleading if the offer was NEVER brought. 

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

6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Say some doctor had an improper undisclosed interest in some diagnostic business where he sent clients, including clients not needing the tests to the clinic where he had that interest.

That doctor would have federal and possibly state charges brought against them and a guilty plea or conviction for a Texas doctor would result in permanent loss of their license. 

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

43 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1905/SPGJ-MOTION-TO-DISQUALIFY-ATTY-KIMBERLY-BOURROUGHS-DEBROW

 

The full pleading for your perusal.

Edit: every time they say, “Rules of professional conduct”,  DRINK!!

Yeah I read it.  The part about the immunity offer is soft-pedaled more than is related in that tweet.

There may be some wiggle room regarding the judge's instruction to discuss immunity versus actual offers of immunity, which some of the witnesses said they didn't receive.  I think the discussion of potential offers of immunity was designed to suss out conflicts.

She's going to get DQ'ed, no question.  That may be cause for a bar referral, but the fucking judge approved it, which is nearly unfathomable to me, but I guess the "discuss offers of immunity" was thought to be a "cure."

10 people, all defendants in the same scheme are just fucking bound to get their interests misaligned at some point.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

That doctor would have federal and possibly state charges brought against them and a guilty plea or conviction for a Texas doctor would result in permanent loss of their license. 

I should’ve left out the not needed part. Yeah, insurance and Medicaid fraud is a different beast. I was trying to convey that a breach of professional responsibility by the doctor would not necessarily lead to a criminal investigation of who was responsible by the local medical board.  

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



×
×
  • Create New...