(02-03-2021 09:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 08:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 08:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 07:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 12:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Since I hope to not be up at 6:30 tomorrow, I have to post this early.

whitmer wants lawyers disbarred

Seems to me to be another facet of the STFU movement in the (I am not allowed to say the name) party. But if you ignore it, I am sure you canhave a blissful day.

Night, yall.

What are general causes for disbarment? Did the lawsuits filed by these lawyers come close to meeting them?

If they did, why would you be against them being disbarred?

It seems like you’re jumping to the conclusion that there are no grounds for disbarment, but if that isn’t the case, you’re advocating for people to avoid the consequences for their actions.

A troubling trend im noticing on the right, especially politicians on the right, is the playing of the victim card when it comes to dealing with fallout from their actions. By defaulting the framing of this as the left trying to shut them up, provides cover for those on the right to avoid consequences.

The party of personal responsibility is quickly becoming the party of no responsibility.

I don't know the "general causes" for disbarment, ask one of the lawyers, but I do lnow being on the losing of a lawsuit is not one of them. Every civil suit has a plaintiff and defendant, and just because you do not like one side of another is not cause to disbar the lawyers representing either side.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the 15 democrats on the Mueller team has been disbarred, nor has it even been suggested. This is a uniquely 2020 Democratic move.

Gotcha - thought you might have an idea about the meritless nature of the disbarment since you seemed so against it.

Regarding the Mueller team, that seems like a really poor comparison. Those lawyers were assigned to the case, which was a federal investigation (which had merit, as we're discussing in another thread). Once again, you're using the results of an investigation as a means to discredit its merit, which is not always appropriate.

Of course I have an idea, from common sense, but I don't have legal arguments - do you?

Those lawyers were recruited to the case by Mueller, not assigned by any superior in the government. The investigation was meritless, again using common sense, and the results proved that.

Yeah, common sense would suggest to me that a lawyer that knowingly files lawsuits based on falsehoods would be a means for disbarment, but that is why I was asking.

And we'll have to agree to disagree with the meritless opinions. It seems to me that the rather voluminous report (448 pages!) clearly indicates the investigation wasn't meritless. Remember, this report said things like:

"They used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate."

"I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments — that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American."

So when it also said this

"While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. Among other things, the evidence was not sufficient to charge any Campaign official as an unregistered agent of the Russian government or other Russian principal. And our evidence about the June 9, 2016 meeting and WikiLeak’s release of hacked materials was not sufficient to charge a criminal campaign-finance violation."

It seems really clear there was merit to look, but the investigation did not find sufficient evidence to charge anyone with a crime.

Saying the investigation was meritless is saying there was no merit in investigating, which is patently false.