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
4 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

only this dumb ass could fuck up being born with one hell of a silver spoon in his mouth, he's the dumbest mother fucker alive. the perfect cult leader for the group of american's, that can easily be labled - the dumbest mother fuckers breathing ....

At least he's going to fully bring the racists out of the woodwork so everybody can easily identify them.

  • Haha 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

At least he's going to fully bring the racists out of the woodwork so everybody can easily identify them.

I think it's pretty easy by now there chief 

Posted
7 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

"Espionage" seems to be an odd way to describe what Trump did.  He wasn't acting as a spy.  He was acting as POTUS and disclosing state secrets to foreign adversaries.  

The "package" of legislation that the Espionage Act was originally part of was known as the "Alien and Sedition Act," passed during/after WWI.

Great lots of the Alien and Sedition Act didn't pass constitutional muster and was a rather dark chapter in the sometime-fascist history of the US.

So a lot of it was repealed and the remainder labeled the more palatable "Espionage Act."  And a lot of it is useful for snaring spies.

18 USC 793 that he would be charged with reads on a lot of espionage activities. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

 

Posted
6 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

That, and, as POTUS and commander in chief, absent a declaration of war from Congress I don't know that you could even say he was disclosing secrets  (since he can declassify just about anything) to an adversary (since POTUS can conduct foreign policy). /twicehorn.

Never said anything like that in relation to Espionage Act.

I have pointed out that that is pretty much a requirement for treason, that whole war/enemies thing.

Posted
4 hours ago, Hermanator said:

I think it's pretty easy by now there chief 

There's probably 15-20 percent that we can be a little on the fence about.

And MTG is helping him out, as are some other Republicans such as Tucker.

They were holding out on us, but no more!

Posted

I wish I had a nickel….for every $$ Trump has spent on lawyers….and another nickel for every $$ Trump refused to pay lawyers or others who did work for him…..I could still retire very comfortably.

P.S.  You clowns just keep sending money into Trump’s campaign!

Posted
15 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

Trump: I’m scared to go to Ireland.
 

What an alpha. 

We just got back from Ireland last month, and a big surprise was on the way driving back to Dublin, our gas gauge was at 3/4 full, so my wife was panicking about petrol.  We pulled off at Moneygall, and were delighted to end up at the Obama Travel Plaza.  It was totally unexpected and fucking great.  Would love to see one in Waco.

https://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obama-plaza-ireland-themed-service-station-bizarre-2019-12

I'm hoping Biden gets his own Plaza. 

5dfcb551855cc24e043db532?width=1100&form

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
Posted

That's such a crazy fun idea. It's a shame that the journalist approaches it so humorlessly. It's great that the Black American president has roots right in the middle of Ireland. The station appreciates the unspoken visual absurdity of the fact while embracing the truth of it.

Seems like the best of the Irish to me. I suspect that any tendency towards absurdism or irony in me is firmly rooted in the same sod.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Never said anything like that in relation to Espionage Act.

I have pointed out that that is pretty much a requirement for treason, that whole war/enemies thing.

It was a joke.

Posted

 

So @lawdogs correct me if I'm wrong, but the attorney for the fake electors was told by the judge to offer her clients immunity, presumably so they could give up somebody higher up (DOtarD maybe?), and she not only didn't offer that deal to her clients, but she also lied to the court about it?

 

So, we have both lying to the court, and not representing her clients in their best interest.

 

Cherry on the shit sundae, she is being paid by the Georgia GOP, not her clients. Obviously the Georgia GOP has hired her to cover for their and DoTArd's illegality, not to actually represent her clients.

 

If this lawyer doesn't get sanctioned and disbarred, the entire attorney/state bar system needs to be burnt to the ground.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

So @lawdogs correct me if I'm wrong, but the attorney for the fake electors was told by the judge to offer her clients immunity, presumably so they could give up somebody higher up (DOtarD maybe?), and she not only didn't offer that deal to her clients, but she also lied to the court about it?

 

So, we have both lying to the court, and not representing her clients in their best interest.

 

Cherry on the shit sundae, she is being paid by the Georgia GOP, not her clients. Obviously the Georgia GOP has hired her to cover for their and DoTArd's illegality, not to actually represent her clients.

 

If this lawyer doesn't get sanctioned and disbarred, the entire attorney/state bar system needs to be burnt to the ground.

 

 

Yes, but... /twice

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
3 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

If this lawyer doesn't get sanctioned and disbarred, the entire attorney/state bar system needs to be burnt to the ground.

 

 

I've got news for you.  The legal profession isn't very big on actually holding its members accountable for this kind of behavior.

  • Rage+1 3
Posted
4 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

So @lawdogs correct me if I'm wrong, but the attorney for the fake electors was told by the judge to offer her clients immunity, presumably so they could give up somebody higher up (DOtarD maybe?), and she not only didn't offer that deal to her clients, but she also lied to the court about it?

That’s what it looks like. But I’m also assuming the immunity offer negates the ability to self incriminate, so they couldn’t take the fifth 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
58 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

I've got news for you.  The legal profession isn't very big on actually holding its members accountable for this kind of behavior.

You’re not wrong, but failing to communicate an immunity offer in a criminal case/investigation is about as egregious as commingling client funds (which is one offense they actually do disbar attorneys for)

Posted
7 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You’re not wrong, but failing to communicate an immunity offer in a criminal case/investigation is about as egregious as commingling client funds (which is one offense they actually do disbar attorneys for)

So is lying to the court.  Direct, provable lies, as in "Did Ms. Debrow communicate the prosecutions offer of immunity to you?" 

Representing 10 similarly situated defendants is bad idea jeans from the ethical perspective.  Heretofore, rather common when Trump pays the bills, but quite the potential jackpot for the lawyer (NCFOM jackpot, not gambling jackpot).

Posted
4 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Yes, but... /twice

I note that the person who told the court the immunity offer had been conveyed was some associate.

It is not completely foreign for partners in some firms to throw the younger associates under the ethics bus so that the partners have some kind of plausible deniability when shit goes south. Not saying that is what happened,  but just sayin’….

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
4 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

So @lawdogs correct me if I'm wrong, but the attorney for the fake electors was told by the judge to offer her clients immunity, presumably so they could give up somebody higher up (DOtarD maybe?), and she not only didn't offer that deal to her clients, but she also lied to the court about it?

 

So, we have both lying to the court, and not representing her clients in their best interest.

 

Cherry on the shit sundae, she is being paid by the Georgia GOP, not her clients. Obviously the Georgia GOP has hired her to cover for their and DoTArd's illegality, not to actually represent her clients.

 

If this lawyer doesn't get sanctioned and disbarred, the entire attorney/state bar system needs to be burnt to the ground.

 

 

Well you see unless they have her on tape saying “I failed to tell my clients about the offer of immunity and lied to the court about it in order to protect the Georgia GOP and Trump from legal repercussions,” the prosecutor’s and state bar’s hands are tied

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Well you see unless they have her on tape saying “I failed to tell my clients about the offer of immunity and lied to the court about it in order to protect the Georgia GOP and Trump from legal repercussions,” the prosecutor’s and state bar’s hands are tied

Judges have the inherent power to prevent fraud upon their court, and the court might have the clients come in to ask them if the immunity offer was conveyed.  I have no idea what Georgia law says, but I doubt that the attorney client privilege can be used by an attorney to block any discussion of whether that attorney intentionally disregarded an order of the court and failed to disclose the immunity offer

You are sort of conflating the issues a bit. The court is concerned that it’s orders are followed. The bar is concerned if professional rules of conduct are violated. It is not the bar’s mission to see if GOP shit heads are behind this.  Say some doctor had an improper undisclosed interest in some diagnostic business where he sent clients, including clients not needing the tests to the clinic where he had that interest.  That states’s medical board would investigate the doctor for breaches of professional conduct. That medical board would not go on some investigation trying to figure out who the silent partners of the bad doc clinic were. They would sanction the doctor and let it go with that.

 

Posted
21 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I note that the person who told the court the immunity offer had been conveyed was some associate.

It is not completely foreign for partners in some firms to throw the younger associates under the ethics bus so that the partners have some kind of plausible deniability when shit goes south. Not saying that is what happened,  but just sayin’….

Perhaps worth noting that it only says "no offer of immunity was brought to clients in 2022."

Not sure that's the way I'd phrase my pleading if the offer was NEVER brought. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Say some doctor had an improper undisclosed interest in some diagnostic business where he sent clients, including clients not needing the tests to the clinic where he had that interest.

That doctor would have federal and possibly state charges brought against them and a guilty plea or conviction for a Texas doctor would result in permanent loss of their license. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

https://www.fultonclerk.org/DocumentCenter/View/1905/SPGJ-MOTION-TO-DISQUALIFY-ATTY-KIMBERLY-BOURROUGHS-DEBROW

 

The full pleading for your perusal.

Edit: every time they say, “Rules of professional conduct”,  DRINK!!

Yeah I read it.  The part about the immunity offer is soft-pedaled more than is related in that tweet.

There may be some wiggle room regarding the judge's instruction to discuss immunity versus actual offers of immunity, which some of the witnesses said they didn't receive.  I think the discussion of potential offers of immunity was designed to suss out conflicts.

She's going to get DQ'ed, no question.  That may be cause for a bar referral, but the fucking judge approved it, which is nearly unfathomable to me, but I guess the "discuss offers of immunity" was thought to be a "cure."

10 people, all defendants in the same scheme are just fucking bound to get their interests misaligned at some point.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

That doctor would have federal and possibly state charges brought against them and a guilty plea or conviction for a Texas doctor would result in permanent loss of their license. 

I should’ve left out the not needed part. Yeah, insurance and Medicaid fraud is a different beast. I was trying to convey that a breach of professional responsibility by the doctor would not necessarily lead to a criminal investigation of who was responsible by the local medical board.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Perhaps worth noting that it only says "no offer of immunity was brought to clients in 2022."

Not sure that's the way I'd phrase my pleading if the offer was NEVER brought. 

That’s a good point. I guess I read that as referencing the time when the order was issued, and when the court was informed that the immunity offer offer had been conveyed.   They should have added “and never conveyed subsequently” or some such. 

Posted
Just now, Gatorubet said:

I should’ve left out the not needed part. Yeah, insurance and Medicaid fraud is a different beast. I was trying to convey that a breach of professional responsibility by the doctor would not necessarily lead to a criminal investigation of who was responsible by the local medical board.  

Clearly what is being described is both a breach of professional responsibility and a criminal act (lying to the court) so apples to apples from a logical standpoint. Any criminal act related to the practice of law should cost you your license. Hell you lose your medical license in Texas for any felony conviction, and some misdemeanors related to healthcare or moral turpitude 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Perhaps worth noting that it only says "no offer of immunity was brought to clients in 2022."

Not sure that's the way I'd phrase my pleading if the offer was NEVER brought. 

Yeah that whole thing is more a potential impropriety than straight-up alleged.

Their clients are, after all, Georgia Republicans, so they're prima facie morons.  They may not have understood what the lawyer told them.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Clearly what is being described is both a breach of professional responsibility and a criminal act (lying to the court) so apples to apples from a logical standpoint. Any criminal act related to the practice of law should cost you your license. Hell you lose your medical license in Texas for any felony conviction, and some misdemeanors related to healthcare or moral turpitude 

And so do Texas lawyers, automagically.  With a few exceptions.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Clearly what is being described is both a breach of professional responsibility and a criminal act (lying to the court) so apples to apples from a logical standpoint. Any criminal act related to the practice of law should cost you your license. Hell you lose your medical license in Texas for any felony conviction, and some misdemeanors related to healthcare or moral turpitude 

The Bar is not the party to do criminal investigations. They will investigate to see if the rules of professional conduct were violated.  

Attorneys who commit criminal acts may be disbarred because of those acts, because they are also violations of the rules of professional conduct.

You wanting the bar to go after the GOP shitheads who are funding the lawyer is a bridge too far. Unless of course, the GOP shitheads also happen to be lawyers.

Look on the bright side, the GOP saved all that money not having independent counsel for each of the electors.  Top. Men. 

 

 

Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Well you see unless they have her on tape saying “I failed to tell my clients about the offer of immunity and lied to the court about it in order to protect the Georgia GOP and Trump from legal repercussions,” the prosecutor’s and state bar’s hands are tied

Does it really bother you that professional violations have to be proven?

Because that pleading doesn't really allege one, even, and does not supply sufficient facts to show that a) any offers of immunity were in fact not communicated to clients and b) that anyone lied to the court about it.

This is a classic case of assuming what is stated in a Tweet is a legally provable fact.  The motion states on page 3 that the court instructed Pierson to discuss the issue of potential grants of immunity with the "defendants," and that she reported to the court that she did so.

On the following page, it says "no potential offer of immunity was ever brought to them in 2022," according to only some of the electors.  And doesn't say a damn thing about it for the next eight pages.

Nor does it allege that Pierson, or Debrow lied to the court.  It raises the above "factoids," in mushy language without ever cutting to the chase to allege either of them actually failed to communicate immunity offers or lied to the court about having done so.

That's not exactly high precision stuff there, as Foosters points out.  And the motion doesn't ask for any relief on that basis.

So, there's not really even an allegation here, just an inference.  

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

You wanting the bar to go after the GOP shitheads who are funding the lawyer is a bridge too far

No I was responding to the person who said she should be disbarred for her criminal as well as professional misconduct

 

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And so do Texas lawyers, automagically.  With a few exceptions.

Good to know 



×
×
  • Create New...