CSNbbs

Full Version: Trump Administration
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
(03-26-2018 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 10:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 10:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]So your argument is that the world of litigation is, and I quote, "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat."

But it is not so "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" that someone would either threaten physical harm or hire someone to do the same? So that is the line in "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" environment that wouldn't be crossed?

Yes, that's exactly correct.

I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?

They get a deservedly bad rap for being "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat." Duh. Next question?

But they have such strong moral fibers that they would never cross the line we're discussing. Got it.

Are you really dissing lawyers as a whole, when most of the top people in your party are lawyers?

I routinely see lawyers on TV advertising themselves as mean and tough. I never realized before you brought it to my attention that what they are really advertising is the willingness to break some legs.

Now, for some levity:

What is the difference between a dead snake in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?

There are skid marks in front of the snake.
(03-26-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 10:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 10:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]So your argument is that the world of litigation is, and I quote, "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat."

But it is not so "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" that someone would either threaten physical harm or hire someone to do the same? So that is the line in "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" environment that wouldn't be crossed?

Yes, that's exactly correct.

I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?

I'm sorry that the answer disappoints you, but it's correct. Why does that bother you so much?
(03-26-2018 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 10:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, that's exactly correct.

I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?

They get a deservedly bad rap for being "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat." Duh. Next question?

But they have such strong moral fibers that they would never cross the line we're discussing. Got it.

Are you really dissing lawyers as a whole, when most of the top people in your party are lawyers?

I routinely see lawyers on TV advertising themselves as mean and tough. I never realized before you brought it to my attention that what they are really advertising is the willingness to break some legs.

Now, for some levity:

What is the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?

There are skid marks in front of the skunk.

What a strange road to wander down, and one I really have no urge to go down. I mean really, trying to get me to start defending/attacking lawyers based on the profession of a number of people in the DNC that are lawyers?

What I'm doing is making the point that refutes the idea that Daniel's story is complete fiction, which had been done on this board. I am not saying that what Daniel's said is fact, but that there is no real reason to believe it is complete fiction, as was suggested.

I mean, do you really think that there is no chance a lawyer has not crossed the line Tanq has suggested they wouldn't? There are enough unethical people in EVERY profession that it's difficult to just write off brash and aggressive language and not suggest that it provides evidence that someone was willing to take things a bit too far.
(03-26-2018 11:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 10:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 10:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]So your argument is that the world of litigation is, and I quote, "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat."

But it is not so "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" that someone would either threaten physical harm or hire someone to do the same? So that is the line in "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" environment that wouldn't be crossed?

Yes, that's exactly correct.

I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?

I'm sorry that the answer disappoints you, but it's correct. Why does that bother you so much?

Because I know it's BS, George. No industry is only made up of completely ethical individuals. There are always those who will bend the rules and wade into areas where ethics and the law are not on their side. Engineering has those issues (just look at the recent Schlitterbahn news story) and I'm sure law does too.

It bothers me that it seems inconceivable to think that someone who would act in such a rather aggressive manner would definitely, 100%, not cross the line into ethically muddy waters. It bothers me that this isn't even a possibility, based on the response I received.
(03-26-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 10:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 10:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]So your argument is that the world of litigation is, and I quote, "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat."

But it is not so "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" that someone would either threaten physical harm or hire someone to do the same? So that is the line in "pretty fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat" environment that wouldn't be crossed?

Yes, that's exactly correct.

I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?

I'm sorry that the answer disappoints you, but it's correct. Why does that bother you so much?

Because I know it's BS, George. No industry is only made up of completely ethical individuals. There are always those who will bend the rules and wade into areas where ethics and the law are not on their side. Engineering has those issues (just look at the recent Schlitterbahn news story) and I'm sure law does too.

It bothers me that it seems inconceivable to think that someone who would act in such a rather aggressive manner would definitely, 100%, not cross the line into ethically muddy waters. It bothers me that this isn't even a possibility, based on the response I received.

For Pete's sake, nothing is 100% and I'm not sure anyone is saying it is. What everyone is saying is that the fact that an attorney is aggressive, abrasive and metaphorically cut-throat in litigation posture is NOT evidence -- not in the slightest -- that they would be physically violent. In other contexts (such as a shouting match at a bar or on a ballfield), experience teaches us that aggressive language may well be a precursor to physical attack. In law, experience teaches exactly the opposite: aggressive language is commonplace but is so unlikely to prefigure physical attack that the possibility can effectively be discounted -- in fact the cases to the contrary are so exceptional as to be famous. Hence, the inference that metaphorically cut-throat legal posturing reasonably prefigures literal cutting of throats is incorrect. Every attorney knows this; it is understandable that you do not, which is why we are trying to explain it you, but you seem to be resisting the explanation.
(03-26-2018 12:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 10:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, that's exactly correct.

I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?

I'm sorry that the answer disappoints you, but it's correct. Why does that bother you so much?

Because I know it's BS, George. No industry is only made up of completely ethical individuals. There are always those who will bend the rules and wade into areas where ethics and the law are not on their side. Engineering has those issues (just look at the recent Schlitterbahn news story) and I'm sure law does too.

It bothers me that it seems inconceivable to think that someone who would act in such a rather aggressive manner would definitely, 100%, not cross the line into ethically muddy waters. It bothers me that this isn't even a possibility, based on the response I received.

For Pete's sake, nothing is 100% and I'm not sure anyone is saying it is. What everyone is saying is that the fact that an attorney is aggressive, abrasive and metaphorically cut-throat in litigation posture is NOT evidence -- not in the slightest -- that they would be physically violent. In other contexts (such as a shouting match at a bar or on a ballfield), experience teaches us that aggressive language may well be a precursor to physical attack. In law, experience teaches exactly the opposite: aggressive language is commonplace but is so unlikely to prefigure physical attack that the possibility can effectively be discounted -- in fact the cases to the contrary are so exceptional as to be famous. Hence, the inference that metaphorically cut-throat legal posturing reasonably prefigures literal cutting of throats is incorrect. Every attorney knows this; it is understandable that you do not, which is why we are trying to explain it you, but you seem to be resisting the explanation.

But physically violence never occurred. So your logic (which I agree with regarding actually physically harming someone) doesn’t really refute whether someone would cross the line and threaten physical harm. Because, after all, isn’t that just posturing too?
(03-26-2018 12:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 10:56 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, that's exactly correct.

I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?

I'm sorry that the answer disappoints you, but it's correct. Why does that bother you so much?

Because I know it's BS, George. No industry is only made up of completely ethical individuals. There are always those who will bend the rules and wade into areas where ethics and the law are not on their side. Engineering has those issues (just look at the recent Schlitterbahn news story) and I'm sure law does too.

It bothers me that it seems inconceivable to think that someone who would act in such a rather aggressive manner would definitely, 100%, not cross the line into ethically muddy waters. It bothers me that this isn't even a possibility, based on the response I received.

For Pete's sake, nothing is 100% and I'm not sure anyone is saying it is. What everyone is saying is that the fact that an attorney is aggressive, abrasive and metaphorically cut-throat in litigation posture is NOT evidence -- not in the slightest -- that they would be physically violent. In other contexts (such as a shouting match at a bar or on a ballfield), experience teaches us that aggressive language may well be a precursor to physical attack. In law, experience teaches exactly the opposite: aggressive language is commonplace but is so unlikely to prefigure physical attack that the possibility can effectively be discounted -- in fact the cases to the contrary are so exceptional as to be famous. Hence, the inference that metaphorically cut-throat legal posturing reasonably prefigures literal cutting of throats is incorrect. Every attorney knows this; it is understandable that you do not, which is why we are trying to explain it you, but you seem to be resisting the explanation.

Furthermore every attorney knows that crossing that line will undeniably subject *your* client to an almost insurmountable disadvantage. Any rational attorney with even a quarter brainpower understands that.

And *once* that line is crossed, *every* client you have has that disadvantage tagged to them during your representation, albeit not to the extent that the original one had.

One *could* cross that line, but once you do you pretty much sink your current client base and have a huge disadvantage in obtaining new clients. So the ones that do pretty much 'disappear'. Kind of a neat 'self-regulation' at work; very Darwinistic, but massively effective.
(03-26-2018 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?

I'm sorry that the answer disappoints you, but it's correct. Why does that bother you so much?

Because I know it's BS, George. No industry is only made up of completely ethical individuals. There are always those who will bend the rules and wade into areas where ethics and the law are not on their side. Engineering has those issues (just look at the recent Schlitterbahn news story) and I'm sure law does too.

It bothers me that it seems inconceivable to think that someone who would act in such a rather aggressive manner would definitely, 100%, not cross the line into ethically muddy waters. It bothers me that this isn't even a possibility, based on the response I received.

For Pete's sake, nothing is 100% and I'm not sure anyone is saying it is. What everyone is saying is that the fact that an attorney is aggressive, abrasive and metaphorically cut-throat in litigation posture is NOT evidence -- not in the slightest -- that they would be physically violent. In other contexts (such as a shouting match at a bar or on a ballfield), experience teaches us that aggressive language may well be a precursor to physical attack. In law, experience teaches exactly the opposite: aggressive language is commonplace but is so unlikely to prefigure physical attack that the possibility can effectively be discounted -- in fact the cases to the contrary are so exceptional as to be famous. Hence, the inference that metaphorically cut-throat legal posturing reasonably prefigures literal cutting of throats is incorrect. Every attorney knows this; it is understandable that you do not, which is why we are trying to explain it you, but you seem to be resisting the explanation.

But physically violence never occurred. So your logic (which I agree with regarding actually physically harming someone) doesn’t really refute whether someone would cross the line and threaten physical harm.

Threatening physical harm to obtain a settlement is a felony *even* aside from the illegality of the bald threat. Actually physically harming to obtain a settlement is a a felony *even* aside from the illegality of the actual assault. Both actions subject the attorney to the same legal penalty, state bar action, and professional hit.

They are the exact same line in every substantive manner. Your counter-argument above doesnt hold water.
(03-26-2018 12:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sorry that the answer disappoints you, but it's correct. Why does that bother you so much?

Because I know it's BS, George. No industry is only made up of completely ethical individuals. There are always those who will bend the rules and wade into areas where ethics and the law are not on their side. Engineering has those issues (just look at the recent Schlitterbahn news story) and I'm sure law does too.

It bothers me that it seems inconceivable to think that someone who would act in such a rather aggressive manner would definitely, 100%, not cross the line into ethically muddy waters. It bothers me that this isn't even a possibility, based on the response I received.

For Pete's sake, nothing is 100% and I'm not sure anyone is saying it is. What everyone is saying is that the fact that an attorney is aggressive, abrasive and metaphorically cut-throat in litigation posture is NOT evidence -- not in the slightest -- that they would be physically violent. In other contexts (such as a shouting match at a bar or on a ballfield), experience teaches us that aggressive language may well be a precursor to physical attack. In law, experience teaches exactly the opposite: aggressive language is commonplace but is so unlikely to prefigure physical attack that the possibility can effectively be discounted -- in fact the cases to the contrary are so exceptional as to be famous. Hence, the inference that metaphorically cut-throat legal posturing reasonably prefigures literal cutting of throats is incorrect. Every attorney knows this; it is understandable that you do not, which is why we are trying to explain it you, but you seem to be resisting the explanation.

But physically violence never occurred. So your logic (which I agree with regarding actually physically harming someone) doesn’t really refute whether someone would cross the line and threaten physical harm.

Threatening physical harm to obtain a settlement is a felony *even* aside from the illegality of the bald threat. Actually physically harming to obtain a settlement is a a felony *even* aside from the illegality of the actual assault. Both actions subject the attorney to the same legal penalty, state bar action, and professional hit.

They are the exact same line in every substantive manner. Your counter-argument above doesnt hold water.

The physical threat was in 2011, years before then NDA and settlement.
(03-26-2018 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?

They get a deservedly bad rap for being "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat." Duh. Next question?

But they have such strong moral fibers that they would never cross the line we're discussing. Got it.

Are you really dissing lawyers as a whole, when most of the top people in your party are lawyers?

I routinely see lawyers on TV advertising themselves as mean and tough. I never realized before you brought it to my attention that what they are really advertising is the willingness to break some legs.

Now, for some levity:

What is the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?

There are skid marks in front of the skunk.

What a strange road to wander down, and one I really have no urge to go down. I mean really, trying to get me to start defending/attacking lawyers based on the profession of a number of people in the DNC that are lawyers?

What I'm doing is making the point that refutes the idea that Daniel's story is complete fiction, which had been done on this board. I am not saying that what Daniel's said is fact, but that there is no real reason to believe it is complete fiction, as was suggested.

I mean, do you really think that there is no chance a lawyer has not crossed the line Tanq has suggested they wouldn't? There are enough unethical people in EVERY profession that it's difficult to just write off brash and aggressive language and not suggest that it provides evidence that someone was willing to take things a bit too far.

And there is no real reason to not believe it is not real fiction as well. But you miss that side of the coin in your explanation, dont you? But, I would hazard a guess that you are not completely unbiased here, so that possibility never really entered into it for you, did it?

Your 'evidence' of Cohen's previous statements has no bearing on the matter, as much as you wish it to.
(03-26-2018 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Because I know it's BS, George. No industry is only made up of completely ethical individuals. There are always those who will bend the rules and wade into areas where ethics and the law are not on their side. Engineering has those issues (just look at the recent Schlitterbahn news story) and I'm sure law does too.

It bothers me that it seems inconceivable to think that someone who would act in such a rather aggressive manner would definitely, 100%, not cross the line into ethically muddy waters. It bothers me that this isn't even a possibility, based on the response I received.

For Pete's sake, nothing is 100% and I'm not sure anyone is saying it is. What everyone is saying is that the fact that an attorney is aggressive, abrasive and metaphorically cut-throat in litigation posture is NOT evidence -- not in the slightest -- that they would be physically violent. In other contexts (such as a shouting match at a bar or on a ballfield), experience teaches us that aggressive language may well be a precursor to physical attack. In law, experience teaches exactly the opposite: aggressive language is commonplace but is so unlikely to prefigure physical attack that the possibility can effectively be discounted -- in fact the cases to the contrary are so exceptional as to be famous. Hence, the inference that metaphorically cut-throat legal posturing reasonably prefigures literal cutting of throats is incorrect. Every attorney knows this; it is understandable that you do not, which is why we are trying to explain it you, but you seem to be resisting the explanation.

But physically violence never occurred. So your logic (which I agree with regarding actually physically harming someone) doesn’t really refute whether someone would cross the line and threaten physical harm.

Threatening physical harm to obtain a settlement is a felony *even* aside from the illegality of the bald threat. Actually physically harming to obtain a settlement is a a felony *even* aside from the illegality of the actual assault. Both actions subject the attorney to the same legal penalty, state bar action, and professional hit.

They are the exact same line in every substantive manner. Your counter-argument above doesnt hold water.

The physical threat was in 2011, years before then NDA and settlement.

Which does not matter at all. If an attorney employs threat of physical violence, or uses physical violence in the course of a representation, the same result holds.

Next illusory statement?
(03-26-2018 12:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]They get a deservedly bad rap for being "fing brash, abrasive, and cut throat." Duh. Next question?

But they have such strong moral fibers that they would never cross the line we're discussing. Got it.

Are you really dissing lawyers as a whole, when most of the top people in your party are lawyers?

I routinely see lawyers on TV advertising themselves as mean and tough. I never realized before you brought it to my attention that what they are really advertising is the willingness to break some legs.

Now, for some levity:

What is the difference between a dead skunk in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?

There are skid marks in front of the skunk.

What a strange road to wander down, and one I really have no urge to go down. I mean really, trying to get me to start defending/attacking lawyers based on the profession of a number of people in the DNC that are lawyers?

What I'm doing is making the point that refutes the idea that Daniel's story is complete fiction, which had been done on this board. I am not saying that what Daniel's said is fact, but that there is no real reason to believe it is complete fiction, as was suggested.

I mean, do you really think that there is no chance a lawyer has not crossed the line Tanq has suggested they wouldn't? There are enough unethical people in EVERY profession that it's difficult to just write off brash and aggressive language and not suggest that it provides evidence that someone was willing to take things a bit too far.

And there is no real reason to not believe it is not real fiction as well. But you miss that side of the coin in your explanation, dont you? But, I would hazard a guess that you are not completely unbiased here, so that possibility never really entered into it for you, did it?

Your 'evidence' of Cohen's previous statements has no bearing on the matter, as much as you wish it to.

Nope - I don’t miss that side of the coin. But I was responding to an initial comment about the accusation being false. It very well could be made up, but it was my opinion that the languages Cohen had used was enough evidence to not throw out Daniel’s claim. It certainly doesn’t be prove it true, but I was only trying to defend it being well within the realm of possibility.
(03-26-2018 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]For Pete's sake, nothing is 100% and I'm not sure anyone is saying it is. What everyone is saying is that the fact that an attorney is aggressive, abrasive and metaphorically cut-throat in litigation posture is NOT evidence -- not in the slightest -- that they would be physically violent. In other contexts (such as a shouting match at a bar or on a ballfield), experience teaches us that aggressive language may well be a precursor to physical attack. In law, experience teaches exactly the opposite: aggressive language is commonplace but is so unlikely to prefigure physical attack that the possibility can effectively be discounted -- in fact the cases to the contrary are so exceptional as to be famous. Hence, the inference that metaphorically cut-throat legal posturing reasonably prefigures literal cutting of throats is incorrect. Every attorney knows this; it is understandable that you do not, which is why we are trying to explain it you, but you seem to be resisting the explanation.

But physically violence never occurred. So your logic (which I agree with regarding actually physically harming someone) doesn’t really refute whether someone would cross the line and threaten physical harm.

Threatening physical harm to obtain a settlement is a felony *even* aside from the illegality of the bald threat. Actually physically harming to obtain a settlement is a a felony *even* aside from the illegality of the actual assault. Both actions subject the attorney to the same legal penalty, state bar action, and professional hit.

They are the exact same line in every substantive manner. Your counter-argument above doesnt hold water.

The physical threat was in 2011, years before then NDA and settlement.

Which does not matter at all. If an attorney employs threat of physical violence, or uses physical violence in the course of a representation, the same result holds.

Next illusory statement?

Ok. Your initial statement had to do with using violence to obtain a settlement. I was clarifying that the physical threat wasn’t associated with the settlements. Sorry for clarifying that for you.
(03-26-2018 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 10:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote: "In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford," Michael Cohen said in a statement. "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly."

Why would Cohen need to offer himself up as the person who paid for the agreement?

Why dont you look at who are the named Parties to the NDA. It will be self-evident when you do. The NDA is in the public domain presently.

That also goes as to the structure of the settlement I talked about previously.

I know about the named parties. The named parties are DD (David Dennison) and PP (Peggy Peterson), which were used to keep the two parties anonymous. A side-letter indicated who DD and PP actually were.

That does not make it self-evident why Michael Cohen, the personal lawyer for Trump, would make the payment out of pocket. Do most NDAs result in the lawyer for one-side making the payment out of pocket? I would imagine that either a different intermediary would be used (like an LLC) or, if anything, the payment would not being coming out of the pocket of anyone outside of the client being represented.

The NDA precludes any party from naming either party, and precludes any party from stating that the NDA even exists.

An astute lawyer recognizes that a payment from Trump to Daniels blows that out of the water.

An even more astute lawyer recognizes that a payment from a third party for the settlement is not within the confines of the attorney client privilege, and could be disclosed. In some cases, that third party might *have* to be disclosed. Easy peasy to link Trump to most third parties given that.

An even more and more astute lawyer recognizes that a wash-through payment from Trump through the attorney runs a more limited risk, but a risk nonetheless.

At this juncture, note what Cohen said, and didnt say. He said no payments came from Trump-related organizations. He can say that, he doesnt represent those entities. He *never* acknowledged who the client was; he is precluded from doing so. We all know as a matter of public knowledge that he represents Trump in a personal basis.

The *only* absolutely safe play with the payment is for the attorney to make the payment with no explicit back end promises.

Now let's look at reality. The 130k probably represents about 1/50th of the total billings to Trump on an annual basis. Would I make a 2% hit on a payment to keep that client? You bet your sweet ass I would.....

Given the structure of the NDA, and the actions surrounding it, I am utterly convinced that Cohen is a lawyer worth every fing penny....
(03-26-2018 12:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]But physically violence never occurred. So your logic (which I agree with regarding actually physically harming someone) doesn’t really refute whether someone would cross the line and threaten physical harm.

Threatening physical harm to obtain a settlement is a felony *even* aside from the illegality of the bald threat. Actually physically harming to obtain a settlement is a a felony *even* aside from the illegality of the actual assault. Both actions subject the attorney to the same legal penalty, state bar action, and professional hit.

They are the exact same line in every substantive manner. Your counter-argument above doesnt hold water.

The physical threat was in 2011, years before then NDA and settlement.

Which does not matter at all. If an attorney employs threat of physical violence, or uses physical violence in the course of a representation, the same result holds.

Next illusory statement?

Ok. Your initial statement had to do with using violence to obtain a settlement. I was clarifying that the physical threat wasn’t associated with the settlements. Sorry for clarifying that for you.

My statement explicitly noted both physical violence and the threat. I may have edited one in. My apologies for any timing mismatch. Your comment on 2011 and the temporal differences make absolutely no difference in any context or representation.
(03-26-2018 12:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm glad that the legal profession is made up of completely honorable people full of integrity who would never cross certain lines. Man, they must get a bad rap for nothing then, huh?

I'm sorry that the answer disappoints you, but it's correct. Why does that bother you so much?

Because I know it's BS, George. No industry is only made up of completely ethical individuals. There are always those who will bend the rules and wade into areas where ethics and the law are not on their side. Engineering has those issues (just look at the recent Schlitterbahn news story) and I'm sure law does too.

It bothers me that it seems inconceivable to think that someone who would act in such a rather aggressive manner would definitely, 100%, not cross the line into ethically muddy waters. It bothers me that this isn't even a possibility, based on the response I received.

For Pete's sake, nothing is 100% and I'm not sure anyone is saying it is. What everyone is saying is that the fact that an attorney is aggressive, abrasive and metaphorically cut-throat in litigation posture is NOT evidence -- not in the slightest -- that they would be physically violent. In other contexts (such as a shouting match at a bar or on a ballfield), experience teaches us that aggressive language may well be a precursor to physical attack. In law, experience teaches exactly the opposite: aggressive language is commonplace but is so unlikely to prefigure physical attack that the possibility can effectively be discounted -- in fact the cases to the contrary are so exceptional as to be famous. Hence, the inference that metaphorically cut-throat legal posturing reasonably prefigures literal cutting of throats is incorrect. Every attorney knows this; it is understandable that you do not, which is why we are trying to explain it you, but you seem to be resisting the explanation.

But physically violence never occurred. So your logic (which I agree with regarding actually physically harming someone) doesn’t really refute whether someone would cross the line and threaten physical harm. Because, after all, isn’t that just posturing too?

No, threatening physical harm is not simply another form of litigation posturing. Let me clarify further: every attorney knows that aggressive language in a legal matter does not prefigure physical attack or even the threat of physical attack.
Threatening physical violence is at least a high misdemeanor, sometimes a felony. Period. Don't try to squeeze that into 'posturing'. The same action coupled with the 'or else settle' is felony extortion. Period.

One *could* posture in this manner, but that would be screwing the hell out of the client (and any career) if one does so.

If one wants a fast track to disbarment on the pronto highway, this would be a picture perfect way to do it. For multiples of ethical violations and bar violations.
(03-26-2018 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ][qu

What a strange road to wander down, and one I really have no urge to go down. I mean really, trying to get me to start defending/attacking lawyers based on the profession of a number of people in the DNC that are lawyers?

Bill and Hillary Clinton, for example, and Barrack Obama.

I was pointing out that lawyers make up a sizable proportion of the leaders of the Demcratic party, not just the DNC, and therefore impugning lawyers in a general manner impugns your own leadership.

Not to mention that trial lawyers is one of the biggest groups that support the Dem. Party.
(03-26-2018 12:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Threatening physical violence is at least a high misdemeanor, sometimes a felony. Period. Don't try to squeeze that into 'posturing'. The same action coupled with the 'or else settle' is felony extortion. Period.

One *could* posture in this manner, but that would be screwing the hell out of the client (and any career) if one does so.

If one wants a fast track to disbarment on the pronto highway, this would be a picture perfect way to do it. For multiples of ethical violations and bar violations.

To the latter, doesn't Cohen's admitted action of paying the NDA settlement out of his own pocket risk his disbarment? My understanding is that him paying Daniels for Trump would be a clear ethics violation and would be a fast-track to disbarment. So if, based on his own admissions, he is willing to do something that would result in him being disbarred, why would the risk of disbarment deter him from other actions (e.g. being involved in the threats to Daniels)? Now, the question (which I asked earlier), is why he would have said he did this, and not taken another route.

And, I get the point y'all are trying to make about not using the language in the email to the Newsweek journalist to indict Cohen for the accusation leveled by Daniel's. I was unaware of just how far some lawyers were willing to go when threatening people to do what they wanted, and that the threat of physical violence is such a red line that you wouldn't use threats like what Cohen made as evidence that someone was willing to go further.
(03-26-2018 01:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-26-2018 12:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Threatening physical violence is at least a high misdemeanor, sometimes a felony. Period. Don't try to squeeze that into 'posturing'. The same action coupled with the 'or else settle' is felony extortion. Period.

One *could* posture in this manner, but that would be screwing the hell out of the client (and any career) if one does so.

If one wants a fast track to disbarment on the pronto highway, this would be a picture perfect way to do it. For multiples of ethical violations and bar violations.

To the latter, doesn't Cohen's admitted action of paying the NDA settlement out of his own pocket risk his disbarment? My understanding is that him paying Daniels for Trump would be a clear ethics violation and would be a fast-track to disbarment. So if, based on his own admissions, he is willing to do something that would result in him being disbarred, why would the risk of disbarment deter him from other actions (e.g. being involved in the threats to Daniels)? Now, the question (which I asked earlier), is why he would have said he did this, and not taken another route.

And, I get the point y'all are trying to make about not using the language in the email to the Newsweek journalist to indict Cohen for the accusation leveled by Daniel's. I was unaware of just how far some lawyers were willing to go when threatening people to do what they wanted, and that the threat of physical violence is such a red line that you wouldn't use threats like what Cohen made as evidence that someone was willing to go further.

There is a slight risk.

The actual rule is Rule 1.8 of New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides that “While representing a client in connection with contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer shall not advance or guarantee financial assistance to the client.”

There has to be a complaint filed, by a person with interest. Tell me who would qualify to file that complaint?

Further, the specific terminology is 'advance'. If I make a payment on behalf of a client, with *no* expectation of payback, that is, by definition, not an 'advance'.

If he was paid by Trump previously, then the passthrough doesnt meet the criteria either.

The rule is put into place specifically to keep an attorney from having an undue leverage over the client on a matter. I utterly fail to see where this in any way would be applicable here.

It just doesnt seem to meet either the wording, or the intent, of the rule to me. I dont see this as anywhere near a "clear" ethics violation in the slightest, let alone an ethics violation in the most general sense.

And he would have to do it because of the Canon of Ethics and the attorney duty to keep confidences, he cannot even identify Trump as a client in the matter. Let alone that any identification of Trump would breach the NDA itself since the NDA states that the parties cannot even admit they are parties to the agreement, let alone that they know of its existence.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656
Reference URL's