Impeachment hearings

[_SteelHead]

Good people don't defend a bad person.

https://johnpavlovitz.com/2018/01/12/good-people-dont-defend-bad-man

[_Res Ipsa]

Res,

Ok. I'll play. 1) because there is no case or precedent to establish your definition as actually including a member of congress. 2) Because in other areas of the code a "member of congress" is separately defined as a "United States Official." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/115 So you would be trying to add, when your definition does not specifically state, an already defined party to a separate and different definition outside of what they are already defined as. That ambiguity is unconstitutional until defined clearer. You know that. That would require some kind of serious case law to include those definitions rather than the code just stating law enforcement officer and any united states official. And I am saying that doesn't exist. 3) The plain meaning of law enforcement officer does not comply with our understanding of congress. When interpreting statutes the plain meaning is given weight over ambiguity.

Further, the part of the code I linked is close in kind to the infraction at issue between us. It doesn't make sense for the separate definitions to exist there but not in your portion of the code. It would have simply included United States Officials.

mikwut

You called me out for defending myself from being called out. You attempted to defend E with his stretch of an interpretation by circle jerking two definitions that do not apply and chastised me three times. You didn't check further definitions of members of congress in the code before doing so. A no no. As you said to me unfortunately.

Can you please explain how the code specifically defines a member of congress as a "United States Official" and does not refer to it in the portion of the code you are trying to squeeze it into but it still is somehow defined as a law enforcement officer? Especially when you know the code defines specific entities like congress or the President and would have no need to ambiguously squeeze the definition into law enforcement?

You pushed this, come back and finish it.

mikwut

mikwut,

I’m not your monkey — I don’t run on your schedule.

I’ll finish it. But you won’t like it.

[_Dr Exiled]

Good people don't defend a bad person.

https://johnpavlovitz.com/2018/01/12/good-people-dont-defend-bad-man

Suppose a prosecutor has lost three times to a rapist and tax cheating politician in three separate trials. The prosecutor went to the best universities and has had a distinguished career over 30 years where she expertly prosecuted some of the highest profile cases in the country and won every time. Yet, in these cases she couldn't convince a jury of what she knows is the truth. Interviews with the jurors after the fact say there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.

Angry at the fact that a known criminal is walking free, she comes up with a plan to frame the bad person. She and the police lure the bad person into a house of prostitution where an underage looking girl is waiting to do her thing. The girl is of age but it is unclear officially if she is of age due to poor records from her country of origin. Yet, the prosecutor knows the truth. Further, the plan is to drug the bad person and take him to where the police know that the local mob family is planning a hit on a rival mob family. Bad person is also known to have ties to the mob family that is planning the murder and the hope is to be able to pin a murder charge as well as the statutory rape charge on bad person.

Does bad person deserve a lawyer to defend him against the bogus charges? How about if in a different scenario where bad person is guilty of a lesser crime but is charged by the prosecutor with a higher crime as well in order to get a negotiating advantage as prosecutors routinely do? Does bad person deserve a defense in this case or should he just do more time than he should because he is a bad person?

[_Morley]

Good people don't defend a bad person.

https://johnpavlovitz.com/2018/01/12/good-people-dont-defend-bad-man

Suppose a prosecutor has lost three times to a rapist and tax cheating politician in three separate trials. The prosecutor went to the best universities and has had a distinguished career over 30 years where she expertly prosecuted some of the highest profile cases in the country and won every time. Yet, in these cases she couldn't convince a jury of what she knows is the truth. Interviews with the jurors after the fact say there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.

Angry at the fact that a known criminal is walking free, she comes up with a plan to frame the bad person. She and the police lure the bad person into a house of prostitution where an underage looking girl is waiting to do her thing. The girl is of age but it is unclear officially if she is of age due to poor records from her country of origin. Yet, the prosecutor knows the truth. Further, the plan is to drug the bad person and take him to where the police know that the local mob family is planning a hit on a rival mob family. Bad person is also known to have ties to the mob family that is planning the murder and the hope is to be able to pin a murder charge as well as the statutory rape charge on bad person.

Does bad person deserve a lawyer to defend him against the bogus charges? How about if in a different scenario where bad person is guilty of a lesser crime but is charged by the prosecutor with a higher crime as well in order to get a negotiating advantage as prosecutors routinely do? Does bad person deserve a defense in this case or should he just do more time than he should because he is a bad person?

Exiled, you know that he's not writing about a legal defense. Or did you miss the link?

[_Dr Exiled]

Exiled, you know that he's not writing about a legal defense. Or did you miss the link?

I read the link and was taking it a step further as legal defense is not far behind from political defense. It is implied as there is a tired trope of "hey lawyer, how can you defend criminals?" Some want to disbar Trump's lawyers, because, you know, how can a lawyer represent the accused? The prosecutor could never be wrong or even though Trump is a bad person, no self-respecting lawyer should ever represent him. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/480709-pelosi-says-trump-lawyers-have-disgraced-themselves-suggests-disbarment

[_Morley]

Some want to disbar Trump's lawyers, because, you know, how can a lawyer represent the accused? The prosecutor could never be wrong or even though Trump is a bad person, no self-respecting lawyer should ever represent him. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/480709-pelosi-says-trump-lawyers-have-disgraced-themselves-suggests-disbarment

That's not what Pelosi is saying in the link you provided. But you know that.

[_Morley]

I read the link and was taking it a step further as legal defense is not far behind from political defense.

You're kidding, right? Of course a moral or political defense is a long way from a legal defense.

[_Dr Exiled]

I read the link and was taking it a step further as legal defense is not far behind from political defense.

You're kidding, right? Of course a moral or political defense is a long way from a legal defense.

I beg to differ in this case. If I wanted to dissuade the bar from representing a bad person in round three of the attack, I would continue to hype or join in on the political and moral attacks while attempting to equate the moral taint to what a lawyer does in representing the accused. Attack the perp and his counsel and the jury will be more pliable when trial comes around, assuming the attacks are successful. Step one is to show how despicable the perp is and step two is to question the morals of anyone who legally defends such a horrible creature. In any case incompetent counsel can do so much to aid in conviction that the 6th Amendment is a thing.

How about this: assume there could never be a link to putting in the media how unethical it supposedly is to defend a criminal like Trump while the media says at the same time that it is morally and unethical to defend Trump politically. Would you agree that Trump deserves good and competent counsel?

[_Morley]

I beg to differ in this case. If I wanted to dissuade the bar from representing a bad person in round three of the attack, I would continue to hype or join in on the political and moral attacks while attempting to equate the moral taint to what a lawyer does in representing the accused. Attack the perp and his counsel and the jury will be more pliable when trial comes around, assuming the attacks are successful. Step one is to show how despicable the perp is and step two is to question the morals of anyone who legally defends such a horrible creature. In any case incompetent counsel can do so much to aid in conviction that the 6th Amendment is a thing.

A given attorney's tactics before a jury doesn't equal the idea that moral, political, and legal reasoning or defense are all the same thing.

For example. I might think that Bill Clinton's White House blowjob was indefensible from a moral standpoint. I might also think that it was indefensible politically (or I could make the case that it didn't matter politically). These opinions wouldn't preclude me from thinking that he was legally within his rights and should be defended by an attorney. (Actually, he should be defended whether or not he was acting legally.)

How about this: assume there could never be a link to putting in the media how unethical it supposedly is to defend a criminal like Trump while the media says at the same time that it is morally and unethical to defend Trump politically. Would you agree that Trump deserves good and competent counsel?

I agree that everyone deserves good and competent counsel. I have no idea what your "How about this" sentence is saying.

[_Morley]

Suppose a prosecutor has lost three times to a rapist and tax cheating politician in three separate trials. The prosecutor went to the best universities and has had a distinguished career over 30 years where she expertly prosecuted some of the highest profile cases in the country and won every time. Yet, in these cases she couldn't convince a jury of what she knows is the truth. Interviews with the jurors after the fact say there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.

Angry at the fact that a known criminal is walking free, she comes up with a plan to frame the bad person. She and the police lure the bad person into a house of prostitution where an underage looking girl is waiting to do her thing. The girl is of age but it is unclear officially if she is of age due to poor records from her country of origin. Yet, the prosecutor knows the truth. Further, the plan is to drug the bad person and take him to where the police know that the local mob family is planning a hit on a rival mob family. Bad person is also known to have ties to the mob family that is planning the murder and the hope is to be able to pin a murder charge as well as the statutory rape charge on bad person.

Your prosecutor, in this case, is also a bad person. She doesn't deserve being defended either morally or politically. But, of course, she should be defended legally by competent counsel.