Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
Well, the BAR association could, I dunno, disbar them?
Yes but we all know that's not going to happen.
Tbf giuliani was disbarred
Yeah but that bar is so low only James Cameron has seen that shit.
Gat-dayum!
Oh because he like to explore the deep ocean, ehh, okay.
Can’t. They’re rich.
Umm the legal profession should respond by doing their job and not lying to the court room and breaking the law.
Whoa whoa whoa, you gotta write hundreds of pages and exhaust every single other alternative before you can think about resorting to common sense human decency like that if you ever want to be a successful and influential lawyer under this legal system
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.
This seems like it's more or less working as intended. Trumps lawyers fucked around, and now they're finding out. We might wish that this all occurred a little faster or was a little more automatic, but at the end of the day they're being punished for breaking the rules.
The real failure here if there is one is entirely on the executive and legislative side of things not the judicial (well, the Supreme Court is an issue, but that's also a symptom of the current fuckery in the executive and legislative branches).
We might wish that this all occurred a little faster or was a little more automatic, but at the end of the day they’re being punished for breaking the rules.
What bothers me is that all these accountability efforts depend on people within the system standing up, knowing that they're going to be doxxed, hounded relentlessly by deranged cultists, have their lives and the lives of their loved ones threatened, and their jobs threatened - simply for trying to hold people accountable. It depends on the efforts of extraordinary people who are in the right place, and it shouldn't have to. Especially as the cultists become more deranged and threatening.
The headline is a bit rubbish. The article is more about the circumstances that motivated an allowed these lawyers to act in a way that bring The Law into disrepute - how it might be prevented.
It touches on ‘lone wolf lawyers’. - who are not answerable to partners like in a big firm, it touches on how Lawyers are educated, and it hints heavily toward the fact that there is no restriction on money for such political cases - because they fall out with the rules on declaring campaign funds.
Any lawyer who represents Trump should have their head examined. He lies to them, blames them when the lies don't work, and then stiffs them on the bill. It's just stupid to represent him. The really good lawyers already know this and decline representation. The ones who stupidly take his cases get what they deserve.
Incarcerating them will be a good start.