Dr Exiled wrote: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. These opinions don't preclude me from thinking that he was legally within his rights and should be defended by an attorney.
Dr Exiled wrote: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.
Well, not everyone can make the distinction.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Quote: 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.
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
Dr Exiled wrote:Well, not everyone can make the distinction.
You seem to be suggesting that you, yourself, don't make the distinction. Or do I have that wrong?
My point is that there is a problem with pre and post trial publicity, especially for those who are "bad people." The problem lies with public prosecutor type figures like Nancy Pelosi trying to equate politics (not voting for someone or wanting them convicted) with the right to a competent legal defense. She says Trump's legal counsel should be disbarred merely for representing him. https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/31/pelosi-questions-why-the-presidents-lawyers-are-not-disbarred/. Yes, the original article cited above didn't say anything about my issue, but Pelosi did and articles like the one cited above would be part of Pelosi's attempt to tie the two (the article is entitled "Good People Don't Defend a Bad Man" which seemingly includes his lawyers). While Pelosi's arguments could be viewed as a similar species or perhaps where she wants a certain species to evolve, doesn't necessarily mean that just because someone posts that it is immoral to support Trump, necessarily, the same person would espouse Pelosi's views on it being immoral to legally represent the "bad person." There is an obvious distinction but not everyone gets it as the "how can you as an attorney represent such criminals" is a tired but constantly recycled meme.
Does this satisfy you?
Last edited by Guest on Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Dr Exiled wrote:My point is that there is a problem with pre and post trial publicity, especially for those who are "bad people." The problem lies with public prosecutor type figures like Nancy Pelosi trying to equate politics (not voting for someone or wanting them convicted) with the right to a competent legal defense. She says Trump's legal counsel should be disbarred merely for representing him. https://jonathanturley.org/2020/01/31/pelosi-questions-why-the-presidents-lawyers-are-not-disbarred/.
Pelosi's saying the attorneys should be disbarred for what they're saying, not because they represented Trump.
Nancy Pelosi wrote:I don’t know how they can retain their lawyer status, in the comments that they’re making.”
It's not that I think she should be making that argument, but there's a huge difference.
Dr Exiled wrote:Yes, the original article cited above didn't say anything about my issue, but Pelosi did and articles like the one cited above would be part of Pelosi's attempt to tie the two. While Pelosi's arguments could be viewed as a similar species or perhaps where she wants a certain species to evolve, doesn't necessarily mean that just because someone posts that it is immoral to support Trump, necessarily, the same person would espouse Pelosi's views on it being immoral to legally represent the "bad person." There is an obvious distinction but not everyone gets it as the "how can you as an attorney represent such criminals" is a tired but constantly recycled meme.
I'm not defending the tactics. I'll note however that you're on Pelosi's case but not Trump's for doing the same thing.
I certainly agree with your last sentence. That behavior is stupid and counterproductive to our democracy.
Nancy Pelosi wrote:I don’t know how they can retain their lawyer status, in the comments that they’re making.”
It's not that I think she should be making that argument, but there's a huge difference.
I'm not defending the tactics. I'll note however that you're on Pelosi's case but not Trump's for doing the same thing.
One doesn't get disbarred for pushing questionable legal positions like the imperial presidency argument Nixon started and every president since has added to, including Trump. If Trump has done the same thing as Pelosi, then he is equally wrong, too.
Trump should be impeached and convicted on other counts not discussed such as murdering Solemani, covering for the Kashoghi murder, as well as the emoluments clause. However, sadly, the Democrats didn't push those theories that I think the public would have bought.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Dr Exiled wrote:One doesn't get disbarred for pushing questionable legal positions like the imperial presidency argument Nixon started and every president since has added to, including Trump. If Trump has done the same thing as Pelosi, then he is equally wrong, too.
Trump should be impeached and convicted on other counts not discussed such as murdering Solemani, covering for the Kashoghi murder, as well as the emoluments clause. However, sadly, the Democrats didn't push those theories that I think the public would have bought.
Dr Exiled wrote:One doesn't get disbarred for pushing questionable legal positions like the imperial presidency argument Nixon started and every president since has added to, including Trump. If Trump has done the same thing as Pelosi, then he is equally wrong, too.
Trump should be impeached and convicted on other counts not discussed such as murdering Solemani, covering for the Kashoghi murder, as well as the emoluments clause. However, sadly, the Democrats didn't push those theories that I think the public would have bought.
Agreed.
There is absolutely nothing that would or will get Trump impeached. He could skull “F” a baby seal to death on live tv, brag about it on Twitter, and cockgoblins on the Right would still think he’s a god. I use god, by the way, because it’s clear to me this has become a cult of personality where any sort of understanding about a functioning democratic republic has been replaced by a religious fervor not seen since the children’s crusades.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:There is absolutely nothing that would or will get Trump impeached. He could skull ____ a baby seal to death on live tv, brag about it on Twitter, and cockgoblins on the Right would still think he’s a god. I use god, by the way, because it’s clear to me this has become a cult of personality where any sort of understanding about a functioning democratic republic has been replaced by a religious fervor not seen since the children’s crusades.
- Doc
I think or at least hope there is some line that even the evangelicals would not cross. I can imagine Trump having the kind of Satanic sex with underage girls that some accused his buddy Epstein of and then the evangelicals reluctantly moving away from Trump after the allegations were verified as true by Fox and Alex Jones.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen