Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, wackawacka said:

Does this all absolve Mueller or implicate Mueller and his team for not pursuing a case against Trump and Co?

Not pursing obstruction of justice charges is on Mueller, Barr, Rosenstein, Garland and possibly Wray who let the statute of limitations run out on several overtly obstructive acts (firing the AG and FBI director).

 

Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Hard to know why someone like Powell remains unindicted.

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. 

Posted
11 hours ago, dcbc said:

Trump already tried to delay the trial date.  That pretty much guts any future speed trial claim on his part.  Powell, et al. got to play the speedy trial because of the threat to try all the defendants together, not that that ever was the real plan.  Anyway, she asked for a speedy trial, and she got one, and by virtue of that, she got the first opportunity to plead "guilty" and make a deal to testify against Trump.

uh, I was talking about Chesebro not Powel.  

Posted
2 hours ago, wackawacka said:

Does this all absolve Mueller or implicate Mueller and his team for not pursuing a case against Trump and Co?

Neither. Mueller didn’t believe he had the legal power to prosecute a sitting president. Whether or not he actually did is something that he theoretically could have challenged, but no DOJ prosecutor would ever do so.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TexasEd said:

Didn't they already get Scott Hall to plead too?  He's the bail bondsman, right?

This is correct.  I forgot about that a couple posts up thread as well.

Posted
Does pleading guilty to a felony get you disbarred? If not, what does?
in Louisiana it does.   It depends on the felony.   Non-lawyers here need to understand that there are a range of penalties employed to discipline attorneys. Which is a good thing, as there is a range of bad conduct that logically should result in differing penalties.  In Louisiana, which I assume is typical, an attorney’s conduct can result in a private admonishment.   A non-public slap on the wrist that, for lack of a better word, goes on their permanent record if something else comes up later. There is also a public admonishment.   The bar journal and newspapers print that the Supreme Court of Louisiana publicly admonished someone for doing something improper, and briefly states what that was. The offending attorney has to notify every court that they practice in of any discipline, which can result in separate disciplinary actions in each of the courts where that attorney practices.    So state A may have a different disciplinary result for that lawyer - for the same conduct - than is given in state B.   In addition, an attorney can be suspended for months or for  years, and that suspension can be totally suspended…or the attorney serve all or part of the suspension.  For instance, the attorney could be suspended for a year with the imposition of suspension suspended for six months…so the attorney would only be suspended six months.
A quirk of Louisiana discipline is that if you are suspended for more than a year, then you have to re-apply to the bar for admission, which may be problematic. If you were suspended for less than a year, once that suspension is over, and you have met certain terms you are automatically back in the club. 
Finally, there is disbarment. Which means a total revocation of the right  to practice law.   It is rare, but sometimes an attorney will be admitted again after being permanently disbarred.  You might see that were an attorney was addicted to drugs or alcohol, and his or her terrible conduct was related to the addiction. The damage done to the clients and public is so great they have to be disbarred, but once they conquered their demons and prove that for years they are no longer a threat to the public or clients, they can apply to the court for admission to the bar.
Which is all to say that there are lots of options available to the body that disciplines an attorney in any given state.     Something like what Chesbro pled to is an intentional breaking the laws felony, which, under Louisiana standards, should get the man disbarred. 
TL/DR: Maybe.  But here, should. 
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 hours ago, wackawacka said:

Does this all absolve Mueller or implicate Mueller and his team for not pursuing a case against Trump and Co?

Also given that all crimes charged against Trump other than in Manhattan occurred long after Muellers appointment and discharge as special counsel, it kinda has nothing to do with it. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Maybe put the abridged version in front?

I certainly could, but I would probably be the first poster on surly or shaggy that puts the TLDR comment at the start of the post.

 Or maybe you could see it’s a long verbose Ubet post and just skip it?

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

Does pleading guilty to a felony get you disbarred? If not, what does?

A felony conviction usually leads directly to disbarment or suspension for the term of any "deferred adjudication" arrangement, the suspension being of the type that requires reapplication for admission.

The one caveat being the type of felony, depending on the jurisdiction.

But, a felony conviction for filing false documents pretty seriously implicates one's honesty, especially in "official" matters, so odds are pretty good that that felony leads to disbarment/suspension.

 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I certainly could, but I would probably be the first poster on surly or shaggy that puts the TLDR comment at the start of the post.

 Or maybe you could see it’s a long verbose Ubet post and just skip it?

Just because everyone else does it wrong doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it right. 

Posted
You’re posting at a Texas longhorn football and Texas rangers basebal fan…
Is this post asking a poster, that thoroughly answered a complicated question, to post better? And a Rangers fan?
Posted
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

You’re posting at a Texas longhorn football and Texas rangers basebal fan…

IMG_1322.gif.7d2098eb6eaae5393da2202721eb9e37.gif

 

 

j/k. your point is strong. Texas football finally made it out of the wilderness tho….  Florida still wandering around like Cabeza de Vaca on mushrooms

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Born to Run said:
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:
You’re posting at a Texas longhorn football and Texas rangers basebal fan…

Is this post asking a poster, that thoroughly answered a complicated question, to post better? And a Rangers fan?

That post?  No. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

IMG_1322.gif.7d2098eb6eaae5393da2202721eb9e37.gif

 

 

j/k. your point is strong. Texas football finally made it out of the wilderness tho….  Florida still wandering around like Cabeza de Vaca on mushrooms

Let’s not talk about Billy Madison Napier. It’s too painful. 

Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

A felony conviction usually leads directly to disbarment or suspension for the term of any "deferred adjudication" arrangement, the suspension being of the type that requires reapplication for admission.

The one caveat being the type of felony, depending on the jurisdiction.

But, a felony conviction for filing false documents pretty seriously implicates one's honesty, especially in "official" matters, so odds are pretty good that that felony leads to disbarment/suspension.

 

The fact that a felony conviction does not automatically result in disbarment is a huge reason why our legal system is so flawed.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
Just now, 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.

It mostly does, with a small bit of wiggle room depending on the offense.

I was able to keep a good lawyer's license who had a deferred adjudication for a drug felony that she accepted because her dumbass criminal lawyer didn't think deferred would get her disbarred/suspended.

She had a drug problem, she knew it, she voluntarily shut down her practice because of it before any of this happened.  The drugs were her boyfriend's and she didn't want to have to testify against him, but he was pretty much a junkie piece of shit.

She got sober, got her shit together and has a thriving family law and probate practice now.

It was a good result.

So, yeah, take your black and white and cram it up your ass.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)

There is right.   There is wrong.   And then there are lawyers arguing semantics for billable hours.*

 

BTW, Twice, I really do appreciate your thoughts and input on these threads but the legal profession does as much CYA and protecting each other as any other.  And they get away with a shit ton.  

Edited by Macanudo
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It mostly does, with a small bit of wiggle room depending on the offense.

I was able to keep a good lawyer's license who had a deferred adjudication for a drug felony that she accepted because her dumbass criminal lawyer didn't think deferred would get her disbarred/suspended.

She had a drug problem, she knew it, she voluntarily shut down her practice because of it before any of this happened.  The drugs were her boyfriend's and she didn't want to have to testify against him, but he was pretty much a junkie piece of shit.

She got sober, got her shit together and has a thriving family law and probate practice now.

It was a good result.

So, yeah, take your black and white and cram it up your ass.

I 100% do not want her having a law license after that description so you can take that and shove it up your ass.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was able to keep a good lawyer's license who had a deferred adjudication for a drug felony that she accepted because her dumbass criminal lawyer didn't think deferred would get her disbarred/suspended.

Confused Little Girl GIF

Posted
38 minutes 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.

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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
26 minutes ago, G650 said:

I 100% do not want her having a law license after that description so you can take that and shove it up your ass.

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?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

There is right.   There is wrong.   And then there are lawyers arguing semantics for billable hours.*

 

BTW, Twice, I really do appreciate your thoughts and input on these threads but the legal profession does as much CYA and protecting each other as any other.  And they get away with a shit ton.  

Sorry, but, this strikes at the heart of something I am most passionate about, and that's giving addicts a break and a second chance.  Some other folks that have made galactic mistakes, also.

This is my greatest piece of 12th step work to date and I am proud of it.  Not a single solitary minute of this was billed to her, by me or the colleagues that helped me with it.  It was a labor of love (not for her).  I get kind of lathered up about it.  Thank God the republican Supreme Court was a lot saner then and thank God for Deborah Hankinson who assembled a majority that didn't include cunts Priscilla Owen, Greg Abbott, or Nathan Hecht.  Did include Cornyn, though, so he has a small lifetime break from me.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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?


she was part of a group / plan To over throw our government 

fuck her traitor ass. She should be swinging from a tree with her fellow traitors

shes far from a ‘good person’   

Edited by tx 3 putt
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


she was part of a group / plan To over throw our government 

fuck her traitor ass. She should be swinging from a tree with her fellow traitors

shes far from a ‘good person’   

Dude.  Pay attention.

  • Haha 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


she was part of a group / plan To over throw our government 

fuck her traitor ass. She should be swinging from a tree with her fellow traitors

shes far from a ‘good person’   

IMG_1817.thumb.jpeg.4b7c7ab0d485a57d4b304d73513d0258.jpeg

two different people, my brother. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
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.
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.

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.
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
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
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
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
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.

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
Posted
2 minutes ago, Satchel said:

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

This is a great point. But ain’t nobody thinks a former POTUS will be hanging out in a nasty ass cell. It’ll be more like:

 

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


×
×
  • Create New...