Jump to content
Jordan Washington chats with Bobby for Burnt Ends ×

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

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 30715

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I know you wrote that her answer to the judge indicates no other agreements, but how formal does an agreement have to be for her to answer "yes?"

Is it possible that she has reached an understanding of some sort with the fed prosecution, but it's not in the interest of the feds to have that revealed just yet? Is there a technicality in language that would allow that?

I'm a layman, but it seems to me that if Powell would jump at the first chance to avoid felony conviction and jail in Georgia, she would also have a similar motivation to have the same plan at the federal level. Now that I write this, I wonder if this could be the reason she remains unindicted in the federal case. At the moment, there evidently couldn't be a plea deal in the fed case as she is unindicted.

Perhaps, she is to become the key witness to meetings we know about and those we do not know about.

As a former federal prosecutor, she surely knows how to play the game to keep her ass out of the slammer. 

Yes that's possible.  But a verbal agreement, even with the feds, isn't worth the paper it's written on.  And the more concrete the understanding, the more likely it would have been mentioned in her plea colloquy.  The state has a vital interest in getting those agreements before the court, because a plea is ultimately a contract:  she breaches any of those agreements, the plea is set aside and the full charges reinstated.

She may just have been gambling to avoid a felony conviction now and take her chances with the feds later on.

This is all pretty rank speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 28.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

Chewbacca

Chewbacca 7612

Posted
Posted
Jesus, your simplistic takes are a beating. Let’s say a lawyer has a second DUI, which is deemed a felony on the second conviction.  Let’s also say that each time there was no accident involved - and the lawyer, was barely over the legal limit - like a .06.
You’re take is that the lawyer should be automatically disbarred for that, cause “felony”.  You just advocated for treating a rapist murderer the same as the unfortunate two DUI guy. That is a truly ridiculous take. Which is why every felony is not an automatic disbarment.  That would be just as nonsensical is everyone who commits a felony should have the same automatic 30 years in jail. 
While a bar disciplinary procedure is not a criminal proceeding, the criminal process is a good analogy. In both of them, there are a broad range of bad acts.  So in both of them there are a range of penalties. It is basic common sense and basic fairness.
Keep fucking that chicken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 30715

Posted
Posted
Just now, Chewbacca said:
1 hour ago, Macanudo said:
The fact that a felony conviction does not automatically result in disbarment is a huge reason why our legal system is so flawed.

But, but, let Twice give you all the reasons why it's proper.

Oh fuck off.  It's not proper in every case just like automatic anything is rarely propert in every case.

About 99% of the time, at least in Texas, it's automatic.  Most felons have no desire or ability to challenge it, or the grounds to do so.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nothing To Add

Nothing To Add 81

Posted
Posted

I think at this point Trump would gladly spend a night in prison.  He already has his version of Mein Kampf ghostwritten and would be selling it within minutes of his release.  "The greatest book every written...only the Holy Bible comes close.  But that Jesus guy was a Jew and never really had any money so not really a good comparison.  Crying men have come to me and said it changed their lives.  Get it at the introductory price of $39.95 and for an extra $300 I will have someone forge my signature on your copy."

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

Gatorubet 29391

Posted
Posted
Keep fucking that chicken.
Chewy, you never seem to want to offer any alternatives when people tell you how something works and hearing that news annoys you.  So if you disagree with what I said, why don’t you give us some idea of why that policy is wrong - or what policy would be better in your opinion.    
Generally, somebody who bitches about something but can’t seem to offer any ideas on a better system, well, people usually give that comment the consideration it deserves.  And I’d like to hear your thoughts on why punishment flexibility is bad. 
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45055

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Nothing To Add said:

I think at this point Trump would gladly spend a night in prison.

Why do people keep saying this?  He's the biggest pussy in America.  He's absolutely terrified of prison, or even jail.

His hubris and narcissism and history of getting away with everything leads him to believe he has no risk of time behind bars.  FAFO, Donald.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 29391

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oh fuck off.  It's not proper in every case just like automatic anything is rarely propert in every case.

About 99% of the time, at least in Texas, it's automatic.  Most felons have no desire or ability to challenge it, or the grounds to do so.

Yeah.  My point was directed to the automatic, disbarment part, and was not meant to suggest that lawyers shouldn’t be disbarred for most felonies, or to suggest that they aren’t disbarred for most felonies.

We also have a few people around here who were asleep in civics class when due process was discussed.    You have to let people have a chance to defend themselves, even if they are guilty as shit.  An “automatic”disbarment would be much like “automatic prison” before you had your trial.    I honestly do not understand what’s so fucking hard to understand about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6889

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why do people keep saying this?  He's the biggest pussy in America.  He's absolutely terrified of prison, or even jail.

His hubris and narcissism and history of getting away with everything leads him to believe he has no risk of time behind bars.  FAFO, Donald.

Plus he’s a germaphobe and would spaz out over the nasty cell. 

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

TwiceHorn 30715

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Macanudo said:

the legal profession does as much CYA and protecting each other as any other. 

This is a really popular theme out there, maybe "as any other" makes it accurate.

I'm sure anyone has proffered even an anecdote that this is true.

I've seen lawyers severely disciplined (disbarred and suspended) in cases where I thought it was unwarranted.  I've seen others receive less severe sanctions that I thought were waayyy to lenient, but, hearteningly followed shortly thereafer by disbarment because the dufuses in question just couldn't help themselves.

The Sidney Powell case does not support this notion.  She's going through the same process that any other lawyer subject to discipline undergoes, with generally the same diligence.  It does seem the Bar fucked up the case against her, somewhat inexplicably.  But it's not some vast conspiracy to protect Trumpist lawyers.  It's mostly because it's a unique case and not the kind of thing the Bar is used to proving up.

Some lawyers, being lawyers, are going to push the Bar to its limits in defending/opposing discipline, probably moreso than any other profession except maybe doctors.  The bulk of them take their lumps in silence, due to shame or a simple inability to fight.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CTC2

CTC2 2626

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is a really popular theme out there, maybe "as any other" makes it accurate.

I'm sure anyone has proffered even an anecdote that this is true.

I've seen lawyers severely disciplined (disbarred and suspended) in cases where I thought it was unwarranted.  I've seen others receive less severe sanctions that I thought were waayyy to lenient, but, hearteningly followed shortly thereafer by disbarment because the dufuses in question just couldn't help themselves.

The Sidney Powell case does not support this notion.  She's going through the same process that any other lawyer subject to discipline undergoes, with generally the same diligence.  It does seem the Bar fucked up the case against her, somewhat inexplicably.  But it's not some vast conspiracy to protect Trumpist lawyers.  It's mostly because it's a unique case and not the kind of thing the Bar is used to proving up.

Some lawyers, being lawyers, are going to push the Bar to its limits in defending/opposing discipline, probably moreso than any other profession except maybe doctors.  The bulk of them take their lumps in silence, due to shame or a simple inability to fight.

Anecdotally, I’ve served on the grievance committee and can say that probably 90% of the time it was on the level. 

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

Chewbacca 7612

Posted
Posted
Oh fuck off.  It's not proper in every case just like automatic anything is rarely propert in every case.
About 99% of the time, at least in Texas, it's automatic.  Most felons have no desire or ability to challenge it, or the grounds to do so.
Let me know when the Kraken loses her license. Until then, I don't want to hear it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chewbacca

Chewbacca 7612

Posted
Posted
Chewy, you never seem to want to offer any alternatives when people tell you how something works and hearing that news annoys you.  So if you disagree with what I said, why don’t you give us some idea of why that policy is wrong - or what policy would be better in your opinion.    
Generally, somebody who bitches about something but can’t seem to offer any ideas on a better system, well, people usually give that comment the consideration it deserves.  And I’d like to hear your thoughts on why punishment flexibility is bad. 
If you're a felon, you shouldn't be a lawyer. I don't care why you are a felon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 88750

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why do people keep saying this?  He's the biggest pussy in America.  He's absolutely terrified of prison, or even jail.

His hubris and narcissism and history of getting away with everything leads him to believe he has no risk of time behind bars.  FAFO, Donald.

Yep, and he's a control freak and does not like people telling him what to do.  No way he'd want to do even a night in a jail.  His bone spurs would also probably act up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hermanator

Hermanator 6562

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Chewy, you never seem to want to offer any alternatives when people tell you how something works and hearing that news annoys you.  So if you disagree with what I said, why don’t you give us some idea of why that policy is wrong - or what policy would be better in your opinion.    
Generally, somebody who bitches about something but can’t seem to offer any ideas on a better system, well, people usually give that comment the consideration it deserves.  And I’d like to hear your thoughts on why punishment flexibility is bad. 

Could be automatically disbarred upon felony conviction with the chance to reapply and start over from the beginning (as in the need to pass the exam again) upon successful completion of probation and treatment. Although on application would need to make an argument for why they should be reinstated and give examples/evidence of what changes have been made that could make them successful this time. 

This option only allowed under certain circumstances and not if the attorney stole from a client or otherwise had negligent actions that harmed their client. And definitely not if the attorney attempted to overthrow the US government so Cheeeeeesebro should be fucked anyway. 

  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 44917

Posted
Posted

Why is everyone so concerned about being disbarred?  Oh noes, I can’t lawyer anymore!

Doesnt stop them from grifting or continuing their path of the destruction of democracy. Disbar, don’t disbar, I don’t give a fuck. 
 

How about put them in god damn prison?  That would actually be meaningful. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 30715

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

If you're a felon, you shouldn't be a lawyer. I don't care why you are a felon.

What about drug crimes that probably shouldn't be felonies, or maybe crimes at all?

What about the ones where the prosecution/court sees fit to grant deferred adjudication, where if "probation" is completed successfully it's not a conviction at all, much less a felony?

Is there any nuance in your world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 30715

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Why is everyone so concerned about being disbarred?  Oh noes, I can’t lawyer anymore!

Doesnt stop them from grifting or continuing their path of the destruction of democracy. Disbar, don’t disbar, I don’t give a fuck. 
 

How about put them in god damn prison?  That would actually be meaningful. 

Well, as we've established, some of this stuff just doesn't fit squarely into crimes.

So, it is a form of punishment.  I certainly get that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 30715

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Sorry, best I can do is a $5000 slap on the wrist for defying a court order for the umpteenth time

Except this isn't factually correct.

The order was entered in response to the post he failed to take down in one place.

Any court is going to have to work its way up by progressive sanctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16643

Posted
Posted
Well you'd be wrong, because she's never had any more trouble with the law or the bar and she's been practicing 20 years since.  She's a good person and a good lawyer.
And she wasn't entirely freed of discipline, it just wasn't "compulsory discipline" with no further questions asked.  She went before a grievance committee that found she hadn't been practicing law actively (working as a paralegal) since before the arrest and conviction and hadn't done any of the shit that drug addicts are liable to do and had about five years of solid recovery and sobriety by the time they got to it.
Black and white justice is no justice at all.
You know I generally like and respect you, but you've been quite a dick lately.  Everything ok in your life?

……You fuck one goat….
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16643

Posted
Posted
What about drug crimes that probably shouldn't be felonies, or maybe crimes at all?
What about the ones where the prosecution/court sees fit to grant deferred adjudication, where if "probation" is completed successfully it's not a conviction at all, much less a felony?
Is there any nuance in your world?

Should cops be allowed to be felons?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 26861

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Except this isn't factually correct.

The order was entered in response to the post he failed to take down in one place.

Any court is going to have to work its way up by progressive sanctions.

Yeah we just can't be sure if those verifiable lies he and his attorneys filed in court are actually lies or not. Or if his attempts to destroy democracy were ACTUALLY in bad faith, or just some silly lawyer pranks right?

I guess I'm just going crazy from seeing crimes happening in the open since 2016 and a fuckload attorneys desperately trying to justify why we're slow rolling prosecuting the worst attack on our democracy since the civil war. Constant kid gloves and slaps on the wrist. 

Funny how courts only seem to use this progressive punishment system on rich and powerful people. Thank God for our two tier justice system! It keeps our lawyers in jobs where they can keep doing the Lord's work

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45055

Posted
Posted (edited)

In the vast majority of states, convicted felons can't vote.  It doesn't matter what the crime is, they can't vote, espcially while in the joint (except in a few states).  Some states reinstate the right to vote upon release, some do the same and automatically re-register the felon, and some don't reinstate w/o a governor's pardon or other state action.

I could see disbarment happening at the state's discretion, in similar ways.

Edited by jimmyjazz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23245

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Honestly, that's a decent epitaph for the trump presidency

I often think about future scholars in a hundred years researching the Trump presidency and having to read the text of one of his many incoherent speeches and then immediately questioning their own reality. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 29391

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Captainant said:

1) FIRST IGNORANT THING

Yeah we just can't be sure if those verifiable lies he and his attorneys filed in court are actually lies or not. Or if his attempts to destroy democracy were ACTUALLY in bad faith, or just some silly lawyer pranks right?

2) SECOND IGNORANT THING

I guess I'm just going crazy from seeing crimes happening in the open since 2016 and a fuckload attorneys desperately trying to justify why we're slow rolling prosecuting the worst attack on our democracy since the civil war. Constant kid gloves and slaps on the wrist. 

3) THIRD IGNORANT THING

Funny how courts only seem to use this progressive punishment system on rich and powerful people. Thank God for our two tier justice system! It keeps our lawyers in jobs where they can keep doing the Lord's work

TL;DR Version - Ant keeps saying  “I didn’t make the JV cheer squad” sad feelings shit, because he was asleep in civics and refuses to accept explanations on things he is ignorant about.  He also apparently wants to give Trump the best shot at beating conviction. 

As to your first ignorant thing, prior to January 6 they were about 60 cases decided by the courts quickly debunking every attempt to show the election was stolen. Which is why the chucklehead defendants came up with the alternative electors scheme. The reason they came up with the scheme is because the courts, in fact, did determine quickly that what he was saying was a lie, and they all ruled accordingly. Short version; you’re full of shit.

In your second ignorant thing, you again ignore the fact that the DOJ for a half century had a memo saying you can’t indict a sitting president for criminal actions while he is an office. While I think that was wrongly issued, that explains the delay from 2016 until early 2021 when Biden’s DOJ was free to pursue stuff.   You have been told that numerous times, but refuse to accept it, and you link that DOJ memo’s delay to some cosmic lawyer planned scheme to delay criminal actions against Trump. It is a very MAGA-esque conspiracy theory. While you can argue that Garland should’ve been quicker, he appointed Jack and Trump is now facing multiple trials in multiple venues, and will be fucked in all of them.   And here is another point for those who flunked civics class: whether it was the worst attack on democracy, the worst serial killer in the world, or the worst anything, the speed in which the trials happen are the same as if it were a lesser offense. That is due process, and the right to do all the things that defendants do when they file various motions that may late in the trial is a right afforded to every defended everywhere no matter what the crime.   We do not say due process does not apply if it’s the most serious of crimes. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. For the most serious of crimes prosecutors want to be sure they got it right and so spend extra time prior to bringing charges to make sure they have every single T crossed, and I dotted.  

As to the last ignorant thing, can rich people who have better attorneys who can spend more money and time on a case, and file more motions given the greater resources, prolong the inevitable conviction? Yes, but I don’t know how we can create a system that says that rich people with lots of money can’t hire more lawyers that may slow down things a bit.  See again, due process.    Our democracy is annoying like that but also singularly impressive and that we have due process.  If you have been holding back Captainant’s solution to wealth inequality in the world, please let us know the solution.   Some of us recognize that aspect, something we call “reality”, but you do you.

Finally, although all the Trump appointed judges in district courts and courts of appeal did not rule in his favor on the stolen election shit, that does NOT mean they all became progressive judges  Admittedly, on that  important fake election issue siding with Trump was a Bridge Too Far - even for them.   It is an entirely different matter for a Trump judge on a court of appeal reviewing, whether Trump should be sanctioned or convicted criminally.   Literally the smartest and best way to assure that any contempt order or conviction stands on appeal or eventually with POTUS is to take conservative incremental steps in contempt actions.   The district court judges trying these cases know that the best way to ensure that the contempt orders against Trump will be validated on appeal is to appear the opposite of hot-headed.  This means not whacking Trump to the best of your contempt powers on his first or second violation, however, annoying that may look to you.  You see, it is not just Trump that appellate courts look to to see if there were lesser options available before whatever contempt was imposed. This view has nothing to do with Trump, but is a view expressed by appellate courts because there are a lot of hotheaded lower court judges who improperly use their content powers. Time has shown that a lower court being cautious when issuing contempt rulings is the very best way to ensure that ultimate contempt sanction is affirmed on appeal.    

I know you want to immediately have prosecutors file and try cases - and you want the first time Trump does something egregious to have him slapped with the worst contempt sanctions possible.     What you are asking for is the greatest likelihood that Trump will win on these things, and that the trial will be lost. The DOJ is notoriously slow, but when the DOJ and dates you are usually Uber fucked because of the thoroughness.     So fuck you in your urging a policy that is more likely to help trump in the long run and allow him to evade justice.  Justice not being swift is still justice. Eliminating any and all avenues of Trump overturning his convictions on appeal is the only fucking thing I care about. Why?  Because as an attorney, I know that is the best way to convict a motherfucker and make it stick.  Feel free to keep complaining that we did not hang him from a tree the first day.  While I like that idea, I wasn’t asleep in civics class, and in 30 years of being a trial lawyer I understand how courts work and the best way to get appellate courts to uphold the lower courts.  Everything I’m saying is 100% true. So feel free to continue hating the truth and wanting to create an alternate universe where lawyers are not trying to get Trump. The DOJ and district courts are trying to get Trump, but they are trying to do it intelligently.    You are advocating that they do it quickly and stupidly because you are ignorant about the judicial process, and because you have sad feels.  It annoys me to hear you bitch about a process that is being smart and increasing the odds of convicting him. Jesus, you post this days after Sidney and Chesbro flip.  That is HUGE!!!  But I guess that, to you, is Trump winning.  

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chewbacca

Chewbacca 7612

Posted
Posted
What about drug crimes that probably shouldn't be felonies, or maybe crimes at all?
What about the ones where the prosecution/court sees fit to grant deferred adjudication, where if "probation" is completed successfully it's not a conviction at all, much less a felony?
Is there any nuance in your world?
Man, you guys will bend over backwards to defend shitheads, and then you wonder why the public has so little trust in your profession.

Being a lawyer isn't a right, it's a privilege, and should be treated as such.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 26861

Posted
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

In your second ignorant thing, you again ignore the fact that the DOJ for a half century had a memo saying you can’t indict a sitting president for criminal actions while he is an office. While I think that was wrongly issued, that explains the delay from 2016 until early 2021 when Biden’s DOJ was free to pursue stuff.   You have been told that numerous times, but refuse to accept it, and you link that DOJ memo’s delay to some cosmic lawyer planned scheme to delay criminal actions against Trump. It is a very MAGA-esque conspiracy theory.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/08/bill-barr-donald-trumpjustice-department-mueller-obstruction-memo

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/crew-gets-secret-barr-memo-on-trump-obstruction/

Again, not a theory of conspiracy. We know it fucking happened. Stop telling me to not believe my lying eyes. 

I think the problem of the legal system is that it treats prior filings as serious documents even after it is thoroughly demonstrated it was bullshit. DOJ under Garland continued to not prosecute because he's an institutionalist and wouldn't want DOJ of the past to look bad. Even though it was an overt twisting of facts and tortured reasoning to justify non-action by Barr's DOJ. 

Its not a conspiracy of the legal profession to go soft on trump, but rather it's a fucking flaw in the system that's being exploited by our enemies. And I'm tired of people missing the forest for the trees because they know a bunch of Latin phrases and lack the curiosity to actually interrogate the past justifications before accepting them. 

Edited by Captainant
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 53625

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

An “automatic”disbarment would be much like “automatic prison” before you had your trial.    I honestly do not understand what’s so fucking hard to understand about this.

Maybe the fact that it's actually "automatic”disbarment AFTER BEING CONVICTED OF A FELONY IN A COURT OF LAW."  And seeing as how that's a lawyer's home field...seems like that's your trial.

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


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...