121
Trump’s Lawyers Face Sanctions, Discipline, and Indictment – How Should the Legal Profession Respond?
(www.justsecurity.org)
this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2023
121 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2708 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can tell you're being facetious, but you're 100% right. You do, indeed, need to give every benefit of the doubt in our legal process. That is what is meant by "innocent until proven guilty." They must make it so there is no foothold for appeal. No "well you didn't tell me..." or "you should have had a firm definition for..." No, if the legal system wants to take someone down, REALLY take them down, they must do it with every ounce of assurance and with no room for doubt that this person explicitly broke a law, in full knowledge and with warning, that they can be convicted to the full extent of said law.
This is looking at lawyers who have already been proven to or admitted misconduct, so none of this really applies.
But while we're at it - pretty funny how when it's a question of powerful people being held accountable there's this "no, we must move more slowly and get this exactly right" nonsense, but when it's poor people in criminal court judges are all "the fact that the officer's testimony deviated from their written report in a couple small details isn't important, let's move on" and we have to wait a decade for the Innocence Project to come along
You're absolutely correct, and we should fight to ensure that the law is presented equally to all charges. That doesn't refute my point. This is the core foundation of British Common Law, that only a sure and clear conviction may be justly carried out. Any doubt leaves injustice as the outcome as sure as you claim it to be so for the poor. If we rewrite the rules or even disregard existing precident on the grounds that "well they wouldn't be just if it was us at the noose," then we are pushing for the type of system you (rightfully) claim to be unequally unjust.
The bar association is a private group, not a government organization. They can do whatever they want. They're a group of lawyers. Why would they be afraid of someone suing them? They live in court.
They don't want to disbar people who are politically connected. It might lose them business. That's the answer.