(02-03-2021 01:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 10:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 09:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 09:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  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.

Now see, I think saying there was merit in investigating is patently false.

I guess we could each hire lawyers to present the merits of our cases, with the losing lawyers being disbarred,.

I have watched a lot of trues crime on TV lately, what with so many shows being delayed in production due to Covid. It always impresses me (not necessarily positively) how many defense lawyers will cling to the belief their client is innocent, and how many prosecutors will cling to the idea that the defendant could have, indeed did, do the deed. Both often in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Never heard of one them being disbarred for taking a side. In fact, isn't the basis of our legal system a vigorous defense/prosecution?

Disbarring lawyers for filing cases you don't like sounds very Third World to me. But it is also where I think your party is taking us.

No, I don't think lawyers should be disbarred for taking and filing cases.

And who the **** said that?

Certainly not me.

A very healthy portion of your side is certainly taking that stance.

Interesting. Which Dems have been advocating for disbarring lawyers because they don’t like the cases?

whitmer wants lawyers disbarred


Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has called for Sidney Powell and three other attorneys to be disbarred after they filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn President Joe Biden's victory over former President Donald Trump in the state.