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 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

we've been saying this for nearly a decade. when the fuck is this orange pustule finally going to face some consequences?

Will Ferrell Crazy Pills GIF

This afternoon or Monday, because the jury is coming back quick, with massive damages on this one.  The next week we will also get his civil penalties.  It's happening.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yes, thank you. That is well put and I’m aware. But that’s hard to accept outside the legal realm for many because most of us are required to adhere to a higher standard. For example, if you work for a major corporation in America, particularly in management, your first duty is (at least implicitly) to the company. However- you are also bound by written standards of business conduct that prohibit actions analogous to what @Gatorubet describes. And while we can all think of spectacularly bad behavior by employees and officers of major corporations, the reason why we can do that was that it was newsworthy, they broke their own rules, and they were fired when it got out.

What you call duty is scandalous for the rest of us, and I’m glad it is.

This is not intended to be argumentative.  But what is the lawyer equivalent of Enron or the 2008 Housing Crisis in terms of its financial effect on society?  Obviously, there are plenty of lawyers out there who operate on the fringe to the detriment of others (O'Quinn comes to mind).  But which ones caused the broadest demonstrative damage?  

Posted
1 minute ago, dcbc said:

This is not intended to be argumentative.  But what is the lawyer equivalent of Enron or the 2008 Housing Crisis in terms of its financial effect on society?  Obviously, there are plenty of lawyers out there who operate on the fringe to the detriment of others (O'Quinn comes to mind).  But which ones caused the broadest demonstrative damage?  

Ted Bundy?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

This afternoon or Monday, because the jury is coming back quick, with massive damages on this one.  The next week we will also get his civil penalties.  It's happening.  

I doubt she will ever see a dime.  The appeals will outlive both of them. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, dcbc said:

This is not intended to be argumentative.  But what is the lawyer equivalent of Enron or the 2008 Housing Crisis in terms of its financial effect on society? 

Lawyer on the bench issuing horrific rulings (Citizens United, etc.)?

Probably not what you were angling for.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Lisa Rubin was saying that she expects this to be in the $100 million range. Followed by panel commentary that Dotard is acting like a fool on purpose because he wants the number to be as large as possible. So he can say "See! Look at what they're doing to me." Not sure I buy that logic. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Nothing like hiding behind """fiduciary duty""" to excuse wildly unethical behavior 

It certainly can be, that's a fact.

But, it is also an "analytical tool" that explains some things without necessarily excusing them.

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I doubt she will ever see a dime.  The appeals will outlive both of them. 

Trump posted a $5M appeal bond, so, if she prevails on the appeal, it's hers.

The appeals will be exhausted after the Second Circuit, because the Supremes are not going to grant cert in a case like this.

However, as mentioned previously, the appeal raises some interesting points about excluding evidence and this is, objectively, a weird-ass case not only in terms of the lack of Trump evidence, but the sparing evidence supporting Carroll.  Can't say how that's going to go.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I doubt she will ever see a dime.  The appeals will outlive both of them. 

I'm not sure where a judgment falls in terms of lien order on things, but the fact that he is facing liquidation by the state on his other assets probably means she can be tied to all that, somewhere in the liens.  First would be taxes and penalties to the government, second creditors tied to assets, third would be everything else.  If there is anything left over, I would presume she falls in the 3rd category (I may well be wrong).  So if there is anything left over after the first two (a big if in my mind), she'll get it.  

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Lawyer on the bench issuing horrific rulings (Citizens United, etc.)?

Probably not what you were angling for.

 

No, I think that's fair.  And it definitely was based on predictably-incorrect assumptions that led to a lot of unethical shit that affects this country and, in turn, the world.  So we agree that the ruling is horrific.  And I'm asking because I don't know.  Did it stem from unethical conduct.  Or is it just a bad ruling.  I never saw Kennedy as a hard-liner, certainly not by today's standards (how far we've fallen).

 

That is all to say that sometimes, well-meaning appellate justices get it horribly wrong, but not necessarily for unscrupulous reasons. 

 

As for what I was angling for, it was discussion.  Because if we can agree that there are plenty of shady lawyers out there, we also need to agree that there is a larger problem of "greedy fucks," the Venn diagram for which, only partially is made up of shady lawyers.

 

Edited to add that ideologues' being appointed to the high court is a problem with the system as a whole.  And an ideologue in that position can do a tremendous amount of damage when precedent is ignored or the guide for that person's interpretation of the law skews from established, judicial norms.  That said, writing judicial opinions at that level is a monumental task and requires a talent most lawyers do not possess.  So when a justice and those who sign onto the opinion are talking out of their respective asses, it's usually pretty obvious inasmuch as they are required to explain their reasoning, even if that explanation displays a lack thereof.   

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

There's the problem right there. 

 

As a defense attorney, should my obligation be to the truth? If I come into possession of material that tends to show guilt, should I have a duty to disclose that to the court and the prosecuting attorney? If I urge the jury to vote "not guilty" should I be jailed for perjury? 

Obviously I'm a bad person for choosing a job that requires something other than the zealous pursuit of the truth, but I'd like to know how the non-lawyers think the criminal justice system should work.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, dcbc said:

This is not intended to be argumentative.  But what is the lawyer equivalent of Enron or the 2008 Housing Crisis in terms of its financial effect on society?  Obviously, there are plenty of lawyers out there who operate on the fringe to the detriment of others (O'Quinn comes to mind).  But which ones caused the broadest demonstrative damage?  

@Wulaw Horn has a law degree and he damaged that bridge and rv pretty good. 

  • Haha 6
Posted
3 hours ago, Goredho said:

Trump is the ultimate sovereign-none-of-your-rules-apply-to-me-citizen.

I'm buying a round for the room if we get to see him tazed during a courtroom outburst.

Negronis are currently my favorite cocktail.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

My point is, I do not have a duty to tell the court “I’ve heard some bad stuff about my client, and I think he might be lying about some things”. It is not my job to have a trial within the trial and render judgment on who is telling the truth.   

TL: DR.   people don’t get that there are a large number of very nuanced and sophisticated duties owed to a number of people - duties that often directly conflict. 

That is why lawyers have drug and alcohol and divorce problems greater than the average Joe

Agree 100 percent with this.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

@Wulaw Horn has a law degree and he damaged that bridge and rv pretty good. 

Lies.  That 100 year old bridge laughed at my RV.  Maybe a tiny little chip in those old iron hang down rails.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Lies.  That 100 year old bridge laughed at my RV.  Maybe a tiny little chip in those old iron hang down rails.  

It was an ugly bridge and/or it was low and was asking for it (to keep with the perpetual defendant's defensive theory du jour in this case).  When you're famous, they let you get away with ramming bridges.  Something, something, sex tent.

Edited by dcbc
Posted
12 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Lies.  That 100 year old bridge laughed at my RV.  Maybe a tiny little chip in those old iron hang down rails.  

The damage was mostly structural (mental/emotional for the metaphor).  Some scars you cannot see, sir.

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, Foosters said:

As a defense attorney, should my obligation be to the truth? If I come into possession of material that tends to show guilt, should I have a duty to disclose that to the court and the prosecuting attorney? If I urge the jury to vote "not guilty" should I be jailed for perjury? 

Obviously I'm a bad person for choosing a job that requires something other than the zealous pursuit of the truth, but I'd like to know how the non-lawyers think the criminal justice system should work.

Look, you just have to understand that everyone knows who is guilty and who is not and the lawyers just screw it all up with the Constitution and ethics and stuff.  The non-lawyers should just be able to post about how clear everything is on a centralized message board so the criminal can go straight from booking to prison or lethal injection or set free after fingerprinting. The non-lawyers are really the only ones who see through the bullshit and get it right. You see people released from prison decades after the lawyers and judges wrongfully convict. If we're not going to do the centralized message board thing, we should at least let some reasonable number of non-lawyers listen to the actual evidence and decide guilty or not guilty. That way the correct decision will always be made and innocent people won't spend decades behind bars.    

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

As a defense attorney, should my obligation be to the truth? If I come into possession of material that tends to show guilt, should I have a duty to disclose that to the court and the prosecuting attorney? If I urge the jury to vote "not guilty" should I be jailed for perjury? 

Obviously I'm a bad person for choosing a job that requires something other than the zealous pursuit of the truth, but I'd like to know how the non-lawyers think the criminal justice system should work.

 

You can urge, argue, advocate, counsel, whatever. But its really simple: You cannot lie. Period. Full stop. You lie, you get sanctioned. You cannot lie to the judge, to the jury, to your client, to the defendant, to the media. 

Why is this so hard?

 

And yes. If you know for a fact they person committed the crime, saying that person did not commit the crime is a lie, therefore, egro sum ipso whatver the fuck, you should be sanctioned. 

And if you have possession of material that shows guilt, then that sounds like evidence. Are attorneys somehow allowed to withhold evidence? If so that sounds like attorneys are above the law. Are attorneys above the law? 

If defense attorneys are allowed to withold evidence, are prosecutors given the same luxury?

 

I see a bunch of lawyers up in here saying that all the abuses to the system Trump and his attorneys are committing, all the lies they are telling, without sanction, without penalty, are the system working BECAUSE the common man would get the same privileges. That is a bunch of fucking HORSESHIT. Look at all the Jan 6 insurrectionists- did the system that is protecting trump protect them? Would it protect some black dude who got busted selling crack? Fuck no it wouldn't. 

Habba lies and says she is sick. We know its a lie, the judge knows its a lie. Nothing happens. Delay for three days. 

If the attorney for one of those insurrectionists says they fell sick, would that trial be delayed? And then delayed again for some other bullshit? and again? and again? Fuck no it wouldn't. 

 

You say that the judge is just making sure trump has no basis for appeal by not calling out Habba on her lies. If calling the defense counsel a liar and saying fuck no we are not delaying "because you feel sick" is grounds for an appeal, THEN THE SYSTEM IS FUCKED. 

You fuckers spend hours explaining how the system works. I know how the system works-- I see it working every fucking time I turn on the news. It works for Turmp. It has been working for trump since the day his mother shat him out into the world. BUT IT DOESN"T WORK FOR EVERYBODY. 

 

Its shit like this, fucked systems that only work for some, that got trump elected in the first place, because people voted for someone they thought would "blow it all up". And the system "working like it should" is going to allow to allow that orange fuckface to continue to escape consequences until the day he fucking dies. 

 

To directly answer your questions: 

 

As a defense attorney, should my obligation be to the truth? YES

 If I come into possession of material that tends to show guilt, should I have a duty to disclose that to the court and the prosecuting attorney? YES

 If I urge the jury to vote "not guilty" should I be jailed or somehow sanctioned for perjury? YES, if you know your client is guilty. Counsel him to plead guilty. Argue for extenuating circumstances, plead for mercy from the court, look for police or prosecutorial misconduct. But lie? NO. 

but I'd like to know how the non-lawyers think the criminal justice system should work. THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY WITH NO LIES. 

 

 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

You can urge, argue, advocate, counsel, whatever. But its really simple: You cannot lie. Period. Full stop. You lie, you get sanctioned. You cannot lie to the judge, to the jury, to your client, to the defendant, to the media. 

Why is this so hard?

 

And yes. If you know for a fact they person committed the crime, saying that person did not commit the crime is a lie, therefore, egro sum ipso whatver the fuck, you should be sanctioned. 

And if you have possession of material that shows guilt, then that sounds like evidence. Are attorneys somehow allowed to withhold evidence? If so that sounds like attorneys are above the law. Are attorneys above the law? 

If defense attorneys are allowed to withold evidence, are prosecutors given the same luxury?

 

I see a bunch of lawyers up in here saying that all the abuses to the system Trump and his attorneys are committing, all the lies they are telling, without sanction, without penalty, are the system working BECAUSE the common man would get the same privileges. That is a bunch of fucking HORSESHIT. Look at all the Jan 6 insurrectionists- did the system that is protecting trump protect them? Would it protect some black dude who got busted selling crack? Fuck no it wouldn't. 

Habba lies and says she is sick. We know its a lie, the judge knows its a lie. Nothing happens. Delay for three days. 

If the attorney for one of those insurrectionists says they fell sick, would that trial be delayed? And then delayed again for some other bullshit? and again? and again? Fuck no it wouldn't. 

 

You say that the judge is just making sure trump has no basis for appeal by not calling out Habba on her lies. If calling the defense counsel a liar and saying fuck no we are not delaying "because you feel sick" is grounds for an appeal, THEN THE SYSTEM IS FUCKED. 

You fuckers spend hours explaining how the system works. I know how the system works-- I see it working every fucking time I turn on the news. It works for Turmp. It has been working for trump since the day his mother shat him out into the world. BUT IT DOESN"T WORK FOR EVERYBODY. 

 

Its shit like this, fucked systems that only work for some, that got trump elected in the first place, because people voted for someone they thought would "blow it all up". And the system "working like it should" is going to allow to allow that orange fuckface to continue to escape consequences until the day he fucking dies. 

 

To directly answer your questions: 

 

As a defense attorney, should my obligation be to the truth? YES

 If I come into possession of material that tends to show guilt, should I have a duty to disclose that to the court and the prosecuting attorney? YES

 If I urge the jury to vote "not guilty" should I be jailed or somehow sanctioned for perjury? YES, if you know your client is guilty. Counsel him to plead guilty. Argue for extenuating circumstances, plead for mercy from the court, look for police or prosecutorial misconduct. But lie? NO. 

but I'd like to know how the non-lawyers think the criminal justice system should work. THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY WITH NO LIES. 

 

 

 

4c9.jpg

 

Posted
41 minutes ago, dcbc said:

This is not intended to be argumentative.  But what is the lawyer equivalent of Enron or the 2008 Housing Crisis in terms of its financial effect on society?  Obviously, there are plenty of lawyers out there who operate on the fringe to the detriment of others (O'Quinn comes to mind).  But which ones caused the broadest demonstrative damage?  

I think that's a great example of what I'm talking about. The actions of Enron execs put them in prison and destroyed their company along with billions of dollars in shareholder value. The financial crisis caused huge, wholesale changes in the regulatory environment and severely punished whole economies, While at the individual level many of those who benefit from special treatment thanks to the duty owed to them by their counsel and social ties to power got away with their actions (see below), we mostly correctly attribute guilt to the guilty and largely shame those who deserve it. 

Couldn't we argue that January 6th and its attendant violence was a result of and enabled by legal chicanery? But more to the point, can't we see how that chicanery undermines the law?  Part of why I keep saying the legal profession is in ethical crisis is because it can't seem to reckon with the duty of care it owes to itself. In other words, it struggles to fully accept the role legal professional standards play in the crucial function of the courts and the administrative function of the law, which after all is what civilized societies rely on in place of violence. Undermine it, and we are left with what? Force majeure?

Let me give you a counter example of what I mean and respond to @TwiceHorn about the "higher standard" you both likely take issue to. I mentioned I worked for an industrial giant, and we did business in every country in the world where we were not prohibited from doing it by legal sanction, which takes you to some pretty uncivilized places, many dealing with the transition to a market economy. We built factories, we sold product, and the normal course of business in some of those places involves the enrichment of officials high and low, not to mention unofficials. Doing business in the local manner was undoubtedly in the best interest of our shareholders. Nevertheless, we not only required all employees, in the United States and elsewhere, to adhere to the laws of the United States and our own standards of business conduct even when it increased costs, slowed down projects, or prevented deals altogether. Not only that, but we put independent whistleblower mechanisms in place and used them, and punished bad actors swiftly, including very senior, high performing executives.  Call it risk management, call it reputation management and question the motives all you want.  I'm not saying that corporations don't do things that are bad for society. But mostly they avoid doing things that are bad for business. At the professional level, most big companies and every outfit I've ever been a part of has a set of clear ethical standards and hiding behind the best interests of shareholders has never been even an acceptable excuse, let alone good reason to violate them or do business the wrong way. 
 

Posted
6 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

You can urge, argue, advocate, counsel, whatever. But its really simple: You cannot lie. Period. Full stop. You lie, you get sanctioned. You cannot lie to the judge, to the jury, to your client, to the defendant, to the media. 

Why is this so hard?

 

And yes. If you know for a fact they person committed the crime, saying that person did not commit the crime is a lie, therefore, egro sum ipso whatver the fuck, you should be sanctioned. 

And if you have possession of material that shows guilt, then that sounds like evidence. Are attorneys somehow allowed to withhold evidence? If so that sounds like attorneys are above the law. Are attorneys above the law? 

If defense attorneys are allowed to withold evidence, are prosecutors given the same luxury?

 

I see a bunch of lawyers up in here saying that all the abuses to the system Trump and his attorneys are committing, all the lies they are telling, without sanction, without penalty, are the system working BECAUSE the common man would get the same privileges. That is a bunch of fucking HORSESHIT. Look at all the Jan 6 insurrectionists- did the system that is protecting trump protect them? Would it protect some black dude who got busted selling crack? Fuck no it wouldn't. 

Habba lies and says she is sick. We know its a lie, the judge knows its a lie. Nothing happens. Delay for three days. 

If the attorney for one of those insurrectionists says they fell sick, would that trial be delayed? And then delayed again for some other bullshit? and again? and again? Fuck no it wouldn't. 

 

You say that the judge is just making sure trump has no basis for appeal by not calling out Habba on her lies. If calling the defense counsel a liar and saying fuck no we are not delaying "because you feel sick" is grounds for an appeal, THEN THE SYSTEM IS FUCKED. 

You fuckers spend hours explaining how the system works. I know how the system works-- I see it working every fucking time I turn on the news. It works for Turmp. It has been working for trump since the day his mother shat him out into the world. BUT IT DOESN"T WORK FOR EVERYBODY. 

 

Its shit like this, fucked systems that only work for some, that got trump elected in the first place, because people voted for someone they thought would "blow it all up". And the system "working like it should" is going to allow to allow that orange fuckface to continue to escape consequences until the day he fucking dies. 

 

To directly answer your questions: 

 

As a defense attorney, should my obligation be to the truth? YES

 If I come into possession of material that tends to show guilt, should I have a duty to disclose that to the court and the prosecuting attorney? YES

 If I urge the jury to vote "not guilty" should I be jailed or somehow sanctioned for perjury? YES, if you know your client is guilty. Counsel him to plead guilty. Argue for extenuating circumstances, plead for mercy from the court, look for police or prosecutorial misconduct. But lie? NO. 

but I'd like to know how the non-lawyers think the criminal justice system should work. THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY WITH NO LIES. 

 

 

 

ok cool, i'll pass along

Posted
42 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Negronis are currently my favorite cocktail.

Same. Can't remember if you've made it by Via Triozzi yet. By far the best Negroni I've ever had. In fact, in the last five minutes I just ordered a 2-liter white oak barrel for the house so I can try and age a Negroni like they supposedly do. It brings the "tartness" down.

image.png.5407c726dc7badf60028209574dcbf1b.png

  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trump posted a $5M appeal bond, so, if she prevails on the appeal, it's hers.

The appeals will be exhausted after the Second Circuit, because the Supremes are not going to grant cert in a case like this.

However, as mentioned previously, the appeal raises some interesting points about excluding evidence and this is, objectively, a weird-ass case not only in terms of the lack of Trump evidence, but the sparing evidence supporting Carroll.  Can't say how that's going to go.

 

Where TF did he get $5m from?

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Same. Can't remember if you've made it by Via Triozzi yet. By far the best Negroni I've ever had. In fact, in the last five minutes I just ordered a 2-liter white oak barrel for the house so I can try and age a Negroni like they supposedly do. It brings the "tartness" down.

image.png.5407c726dc7badf60028209574dcbf1b.png

Yes and yes.  I was the one who told you to check with Resy (or Open Table whatever they use for their online reservations) to update for a better time.

The key to a Negroni isn't aging it so much IMO but the brand of sweet vermouth.  Carpano Antica makes ALL the difference.  If I'm in a new (to me) bar or restaurant I'll ask what they have.  If no Carpano Antica (or comparable) I'll order something else.

Also, lots of bartenders don't measure out the components, which can make a huge difference in the taste.  Too much gin or Campari will ruin the drink.  You can go a little heavy on the vermouth (which has a similar effect as aging it I suspect).

Also this time of year I'll sometimes opt for a Boulevardier (but only if they pour with Rye) or what I call an Irish Negroni (swap Irish Whiskey for Gin).  Gives the drink a slightly softer and warmer flavor.

Last thought about aging in an oak barrel is that you're going to want to keep that somewhere cool/refrigerator temperature.  Vermouth is like wine.  Once opened you need to refrigerate it or it will go stale pretty quickly.  

 

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I doubt she will ever see a dime.  The appeals will outlive both of them. 

Somebody posted a chart of how much Trump has been paying people for last year or so to defend him. It was a shit ton of money. It costs a ton of money to keep fighting your creditors all around your far-flung, so-called Empire. I definitely want her to get paid, but I have the consolation that it is costing that cheap narcissistic fuck a ton of money to attempt to overturn the judgment on appeal  - And to keep her from filing collections, actions in many states once her adjustment is final. 

When he flees to Russia or dies she may get some. 

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Yes and yes.  I was the one who told you to check with Resy (or Open Table whatever they use for their online reservations) to update for a better time.

The key to a Negroni isn't aging it so much IMO but the brand of sweet vermouth.  Carpano Antica makes ALL the difference.  If I'm in a new (to me) bar or restaurant I'll ask what they have.  If no Carpano Antica (or comparable) I'll order something else.

Also, lots of bartenders don't measure out the components, which can make a huge difference in the taste.  Too much gin or Campari will ruin the drink.  You can go a little heavy on the vermouth (which has a similar effect as aging it I suspect).

Also this time of year I'll sometimes opt for a Boulevardier (but only if they pour with Rye) or what I call an Irish Negroni (swap Irish Whiskey for Gin).  Gives the drink a slightly softer and warmer flavor.

Last thought about aging in an oak barrel is that you're going to want to keep that somewhere cool/refrigerator temperature.  Vermouth is like wine.  Once opened you need to refrigerate it or it will go stale pretty quickly.  

 

Good info on the barrel. Maybe I shouldn't have got the 2-liter to make sure it fits in our garage fridge. Oh well. Most of the online aging recipes I've seen for the Negroni don't mention keeping the vermouth cool. One I found said age it for at most a month or so and then run it through a coffee filter into a container that can be kept (and refrigerated) indefinitely.

I assume they're using Carpano Antica at Triozzi? Can I readily find it at Spec's or Pogo's or Total Wine? I was going to sneak out to pick up some campari and vermouth this afternoon. (EDIT: Looked at the menu and it appears they use Cocchi di Torino.)

Edited by C-Man
Posted
12 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Good info on the barrel. Maybe I shouldn't have got the 2-liter to make sure it fits in our garage fridge. Oh well. Most of the online aging recipes I've seen for the Negroni don't mention keeping the vermouth cool. One I found said age it for at most a month or so and then run it through a coffee filter into a container that can be kept (and refrigerated) indefinitely.

I assume they're using Carpano Antica at Triozzi? Can I readily find it at Spec's or Pogo's or Total Wine? I was going to sneak out to pick up some campari and vermouth this afternoon. (EDIT: Looked at the menu and it appears they use Cocchi di Torino.)

I know they carry it at Total Wine.  I can't recall if they have it at Spec's or Sigel's.  Medallion in Lakewood (on Live Oak at Skillman) has the best price in town by a lot (I think it's under or around $40 for the 1 L size) and the 750ml is at least that much most everywhere else.  Just don't buy all of them out from under me. :) 

Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think that's a great example of what I'm talking about. The actions of Enron execs put them in prison and destroyed their company along with billions of dollars in shareholder value. The financial crisis caused huge, wholesale changes in the regulatory environment and severely punished whole economies, While at the individual level many of those who benefit from special treatment thanks to the duty owed to them by their counsel and social ties to power got away with their actions (see below), we mostly correctly attribute guilt to the guilty and largely shame those who deserve it. 

Couldn't we argue that January 6th and its attendant violence was a result of and enabled by legal chicanery? But more to the point, can't we see how that chicanery undermines the law?  Part of why I keep saying the legal profession is in ethical crisis is because it can't seem to reckon with the duty of care it owes to itself. In other words, it struggles to fully accept the role legal professional standards play in the crucial function of the courts and the administrative function of the law, which after all is what civilized societies rely on in place of violence. Undermine it, and we are left with what? Force majeure?

Let me give you a counter example of what I mean and respond to @TwiceHorn about the "higher standard" you both likely take issue to. I mentioned I worked for an industrial giant, and we did business in every country in the world where we were not prohibited from doing it by legal sanction, which takes you to some pretty uncivilized places, many dealing with the transition to a market economy. We built factories, we sold product, and the normal course of business in some of those places involves the enrichment of officials high and low, not to mention unofficials. Doing business in the local manner was undoubtedly in the best interest of our shareholders. Nevertheless, we not only required all employees, in the United States and elsewhere, to adhere to the laws of the United States and our own standards of business conduct even when it increased costs, slowed down projects, or prevented deals altogether. Not only that, but we put independent whistleblower mechanisms in place and used them, and punished bad actors swiftly, including very senior, high performing executives.  Call it risk management, call it reputation management and question the motives all you want.  I'm not saying that corporations don't do things that are bad for society. But mostly they avoid doing things that are bad for business. At the professional level, most big companies and every outfit I've ever been a part of has a set of clear ethical standards and hiding behind the best interests of shareholders has never been even an acceptable excuse, let alone good reason to violate them or do business the wrong way. 
 

Congrats, you being able to work for the unicorn company.  But like the guy who says there is no global warming because it’s snowing at my house, you’re very valid individual experience does not transfer to how the rest of the world works.    But no Snark, I can see how your very laudatory company’s ethics and culture bring you to a worldview where you think that is the norm and that lawyers are the outliers.

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, gernblansten said:

Look, you just have to understand that everyone knows who is guilty and who is not and the lawyers just screw it all up with the Constitution and ethics and stuff.  The non-lawyers should just be able to post about how clear everything is on a centralized message board so the criminal can go straight from booking to prison or lethal injection or set free after fingerprinting. The non-lawyers are really the only ones who see through the bullshit and get it right. You see people released from prison decades after the lawyers and judges wrongfully convict. If we're not going to do the centralized message board thing, we should at least let some reasonable number of non-lawyers listen to the actual evidence and decide guilty or not guilty. That way the correct decision will always be made and innocent people won't spend decades behind bars.    

Well done.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

 

I wondered what happened to the Dogs Playing Poker artist.

Just realized who tweeted that. The man is a national treasure.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted

I don't think it would be a great system but you certainly could structure it so that there are two advocates who owe primary duty to some pre-defined definition of justice or truth.

The potential for collusion and injustice and the death of truth in such a system would be greater than the current system.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

Congrats, you being able to work for the unicorn company.  But like the guy who says there is no global warming because it’s snowing at my house, you’re very valid individual experience does not transfer to how the rest of the world works.    But no Snark, I can see how your very laudatory company’s ethics and culture bring you to a worldview where you think that is the norm and that lawyers are the outliers.


After 25 years of doing business all over the world in multiple industries I appreciate a lawyer educating me about business norms, so thank you, but, and I hate to break this to you,  it is the norm. You just work at the wrong end of things. Generally, businesses and business people are protective of the business environment. In other words, you’re working with the unicorns. That’s why this seems weird. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I hate to break this to you, but it is the norm. You just work at the wrong end of things. Generally, businesses and business people are protective of the business environment. In other words, you’re working with the unicorns. That’s why this seems weird. 

Yup.  I remember when the startup I co-founded went public, and we were all dealing with stock selling plans and whatnot.  I made some flippant comment in a meeting and the CFO looked at me and said "I don't think you'd look very good in stripes".  Point taken.  We tried very hard to toe the line in all business practices.

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Counterpoint—You cannot suborn perjury and owe a duty of candor to the court. 

This is the subject of most of DJT's legal woes.  He lies constantly regardless of oath.

  • I didn't steal anything from the Whitehouse, those TS/SCI papers are my personal effects
  • I didn't tell those people to go to the capitol and make Mike Pence do the right thing
  • No, there really was election fraud, I'll give you the evidence in two weeks
  • I did not orchestrate a plan to overturn a free and fair election and insert myself as a dictator

All of these things are observable.  We have video, audio, multiple witness testimony, tweets, texts, and expert witnesses all agreeing that all of those things happened, he knew it was against the law but because he not only believed the law does not apply to him but because his fucked up sociopathic mindset puts himself first above everything else he is compelled to do it.   No restraint at all.

 

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
19 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

.We tried very hard to toe the line in all business practices.

You have to, its part of the fiduciary duty to the company

Posted
2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Yes and yes.  I was the one who told you to check with Resy (or Open Table whatever they use for their online reservations) to update for a better time.

The key to a Negroni isn't aging it so much IMO but the brand of sweet vermouth.  Carpano Antica makes ALL the difference.  If I'm in a new (to me) bar or restaurant I'll ask what they have.  If no Carpano Antica (or comparable) I'll order something else.

Also, lots of bartenders don't measure out the components, which can make a huge difference in the taste.  Too much gin or Campari will ruin the drink.  You can go a little heavy on the vermouth (which has a similar effect as aging it I suspect).

Also this time of year I'll sometimes opt for a Boulevardier (but only if they pour with Rye) or what I call an Irish Negroni (swap Irish Whiskey for Gin).  Gives the drink a slightly softer and warmer flavor.

Last thought about aging in an oak barrel is that you're going to want to keep that somewhere cool/refrigerator temperature.  Vermouth is like wine.  Once opened you need to refrigerate it or it will go stale pretty quickly.  

 

Do you have a gin preference?

I’m not a gin drinker but I suppose Tanqueray is the standard. I tried Esme gin and noticed a not insignificant flavor difference. Also, Tanqueray has 7% more ABV than Esme.



×
×
  • Create New...