(05-06-2016 09:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'll apologize for the let him die part because I didn't mean to imply that you ever said anything like this, but many others here have continually called her a murderer and a butcher for not saving Stevens.

Apology accepted. You lied, you got called on it, and you admitted it.

Quote:However, you have absolutely insinuated that there is a deleted e-mail somewhere, a smoking gun, that proves that she could have stopped the attack. You've implied it on more than one occasion. I'm not going to search through the hundreds of Hillary-Benghazi threads to find it. I don't have that kind of time.

You don't have time to find it, because no such insinuation exists. In fact, I have consistently stated--and taken considerable flak from those on the right--that once the attack started, there was noting that she could have done to stop it. I believe my often repeated statement has been that if I had been the on-scene commander, there would have been a stand-down order, because I would have given it. The situation was beyond hopeless, and the idea that some sort of F-15 flyover--or any of the other options that were actually doable--could somehow have stopped it is ludicrous. What I have consistently criticized is the error of allowing the situation to develop in the first place. What was needed was an amphib sitting offshore with a company of Marines embarked. For allowing our ambassador to be in that situation in that place on that date, I have justifiably criticized Hillary and the intel community and the entire administration, and will continue to do so. But that criticism has never taken the position that you attribute to me, and I don't see any reason how it ever could have been interpreted as doing so. I will accept the possibility that you are mis-remembering here, as others have certainly said exactly what you are insinuating, and perhaps you are confusing me with them rather than outright lying. But I didn't and I haven't and you are simply wrong to suggest that I have.

Quote:Maybe when you finally apologize for your lie about this, I'll consider walking it back.

(03-10-2014 10:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tom, there are hundreds if not thousands of articles all over detailing ways in which Adegbile's behaviour regarding both the Jamal case and other cases went well over the line from what is normally considered ethical and appropriate conduct.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-680068-post-105...id10523724
Remember, you barely found one article much less any evidence of questionable behavior.

I'm not going to apologize, because it's not a lie. I will agree that there are not hundreds if not thousands of articles describing conduct which violates YOUR INTERPRETATION of what is or is not ethical conduct. But I don't accept your interpretation. And I am pretty sure there are hundreds if not thousands of articles confirming the unethical behavior to which I refer.

And attorney has two paramount and sometimes conflicting ethical obligations. As an advocate, he/she must represent his/her client's interests as vigorously as possible within the rules of the legal system. At the same time, as an officer of the court, he/she must see that justice is done. In the Jamal case, there was a lot of rabble rousing leading to threats of law breaking in an effort to exert outside pressure on the appellate action. Adegbile did not lead the rioters in committing unlawful acts (which, correct me if I am wrong, I would infer to be where you would draw the line on unethical conduct), we agree on that. I think we would also agree that Adegbile took a position of leadership in the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (I think that's the correct organization) while the Jamal case was still on appeal, and after taking that position there is no indication that he called out the mob actions as being inappropriate. I am pretty sure there are hundreds if not thousands of articles detailing those as factual occurrences. Those are the hundreds or thousands of articles to which I have referred. If I am wrong there, please provide support for any corrections.

My point is by explicitly or implicitly tolerating the mob threats in this case, he violated both key ethical principles I listed above. He acquiesced in going outside the rules of the legal system to bring improper influence upon a pending action, and he allowed such influence to interfere to the point that justice was undone. His client couldn't win playing by the rules, so he allowed his advocacy position to trump his officer of the court obligation, and that is unethical.

Our disagreement is not over what he did or did not do, or over what was reported about his actions or inactions in the news. We disagree over whether his action, or perhaps more properly his inaction, was in fact an ethical violation. My understanding of the canons of ethics of the legal profession says that it was a violation, and a particularly significant violation for one being considered for the position to which he was nominated. A majority of the US Senate appear to have agreed with me. You apparently disagree. We are not going to accomplish anything but to agree to disagree. I am not going to change my opinion or apologize for taking the position that I believe to be correct based upon my profession's rules and canons of ethics. Nor, I suspect, will you change your position, no matter how incorrect I believe into be. I do think it is well past high time for you to acknowledge that I have made my position on this matter consistently and repeatedly clear, and that I am not lying, but that we simply have a difference of opinion regarding what is or is not ethical behavior by an attorney.

For the record, I consider it equally unethical for lawyers representing Trayvon Martin's family not to have exerted strong influence to stop those threatening or committing violent acts of protest after George Zimmerman's acquittal, or for lawyers representing Michael Brown's family not to have exerted strong influence on those threatening or committing violent acts of protest following the no-billing of Darren Wilson. In both cases, I believe the lawyers actually did things which could have encouraged the disobedience, but that is not really critical to my point. I would infer (again, correct me if I am wrong) that you would not find those actions or inactions unethical. Legal proceedings must be decided in the courtroom, not in the streets.

I'm well aware that you've been on record as knowing that nothing could have been done once the attack started and I thank you for that honesty...but as I said in my other post, that's not was I was talking about in regards to what I believe you've previously said.

Your part was about the e-mails...and IIRC you've made remarks and insinuations about possible missing or purposely destroyed e-mails that could have shown she knew about increased dangers to him that she should have followed and either beefed up the security or gotten him out of there beforehand.

If I read your words incorrectly in that regard, I'm sorry. As I said...there's waaaaay too many threads on this topic to surf through much less remember to a T. Especially at my advancing age.

(05-06-2016 10:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Quote:And on Wednesday, a hacker claimed he had easily breached the server. Clinton's team called the hacker's claim "unfathomable," and law enforcement officials found no information that the hacker got access to the email server, CNN reported.

FBI interviewed Clinton aide Huma Abedin in email probe: report

/thread

You obviously don't know the proper use of /thread.

(05-06-2016 04:45 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'm well aware that you've been on record as knowing that nothing could have been done once the attack started and I thank you for that honesty...but as I said in my other post, that's not was I was talking about in regards to what I believe you've previously said.
Your part was about the e-mails...and IIRC you've made remarks and insinuations about possible missing or purposely destroyed e-mails that could have shown she knew about increased dangers to him that she should have followed and either beefed up the security or gotten him out of there beforehand.
If I read your words incorrectly in that regard, I'm sorry. As I said...there's waaaaay too many threads on this topic to surf through much less remember to a T. Especially at my advancing age.

You don't recall correctly. I accept your apology.

I don't think I've ever said anything that could be construed as insinuating that emails had been lost or destroyed. What I have said is that IF emails string information about his whereabouts were found on her server, and even more if it were determined that such server had been hacked, then there would be an argument that the charges against her would rise to the level of a capital offense. That's the only thing I recall saying that could possibly be construed as you have suggested, and I think even that is a major reach.