Somewhat of a side track: Regarding the Kushner Russia back-channel thing, the administration's seemingly "shady" explanations are actually a common legal practice called arguing in the alternative. It looks something like this:
"My client isn't the guy and if he is, he didn't do it. And if he did do it, it wasn't his fault. And if it was his fault, he shouldn't be punished. And if he is punished, please be gentle."
Personally, I can't stand this kind of argument (pick a position, already!!), but the legal system has deemed it standard practice. So, while the administration's statement(s) look wishy-washy, all they did is have a lawyer involved in writing the statement(s). You can't read more into it. Well, you can do anything you want, but...
Sure I can. If he's lawyered up in that way, then it means that he's not even pretending to offer a good faith justification of his actions.
I have no problem concluding that if he had a good faith explanation, he would offer it. Ergo,...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he's lawyered up in that way, then it means that he's not even pretending to offer a good faith justification of his actions.
I have no problem concluding that if he had a good faith explanation, he would offer it. Ergo,...
No, your conclusion doesn't follow. Hiring a lawyer to navigate legal issues for you does not mean that you are guilty of something. There are a lot of thing's I'd accept of evidence of his culpability, but hiring a lawyer isn't one of them.
If I were being investigated for a crime, I'd hire a lawyer too. The legal system is not just, as we can see from so many people being convicted of crimes they were later exonerated for. If you have the money to hire a lawyer when you know you're under investigation, then it's sensible to do exactly that, not matter what the truth of your guilt or innocence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, legally it doesn't.
As a politician, in PR terms it looks bad.
Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. If someone I knew was being investigated for a crime, I'd judge them as fairly stupid if they *didn't* hire an attorney.
If you're under investigation, going lawyer-free doesn't signal innocence. It can also signal being naive to the point of endangering yourself.
He's done a lot of stupid, naive things, but hiring a lawyer while he's being investigated isn't one of them. It doesn't look bad at all; in fact, it looks smart.
As it would if a friend was being investigated for marijuana use. No matter how trivial the crime, assuming that the investigators are looking for "truth" and "justice" is a good way to get yourself convicted and locked away, no matter how innocent you are.
It doesn't look bad to know that and act on that knowledge. It looks like you understand reality
No, your conclusion doesn't follow.If he's lawyered up in that way, then it means that he's not even pretending to offer a good faith justification of his actions.
I have no problem concluding that if he had a good faith explanation, he would offer it. Ergo,...
Yes, it does. Anyone who "argues in the alternative" on the witness stand, or even allows his lawyer to do so in the presence of the jury, has just destroyed any credibility he might have. Similarly, anyone who argues in the alternative in public statements has just destroyed any credibility he might have in the event that facts do proceed to a stage where testimony is necessary.
And witness credibility is a very real part of any legal proceeding that involves witnesses.
If I were being investigated for a crime, I'd hire a lawyer too.
I'm sure you would. I hope you'd be smart enough to hire a lawyer with enough skill to make sure that he's not going to destroy your credibility before you even receive a summons to testify, though.
If you have the money to hire a lawyer when you know you're under investigation, then it's sensible to do exactly that,
... but not to let him write public copy for you. If you're expecting trouble, you shut the hell up, or you offer a good faith explanation of what's going on. He's done neither, which strongly suggests to me -- and to almost anyone else -- that he can't do either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... but not to let him write public copy for you.
Have you ever actually worked with a criminal defense lawyer*, either on your own behalf or on the behalf of someone you care about?
I don't think you have any actual experience in the criminal defense part of the legal system or as a politician. Because what you are saying makes no sense in that situation.
*If we're going to wave credentials around, I'll explain that in college I interned as a legal assistant for the state appeals court legal aid office. And I am a former elected official. What you are suggesting is naive, at best.
If you have the money to hire a lawyer when you know you're under investigation, then it's sensible to do exactly that, no matter what the truth of your guilt or innocence. And you don't make any public statements that she hasn't vetted or written herself
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you don't make any public statements that she hasn't vetted or written herselfWell that bit of advice Trump isn't going to follow.
Yep in which case you tweet "We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!" after the White House and Justice Department attorneys have argued the executive order is not a "ban."
Yep in which case you tweet "We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!" after the White House and Justice Department attorneys have argued the executive order is not a "ban."
It must be very aggravating to work for someone that obtuse.
... but not to let him write public copy for you.
Have you ever actually worked with a criminal defense lawyer*, either on your own behalf or on the behalf of someone you care about?
I don't think you have any actual experience in the criminal defense part of the legal system or as a politician. Because what you are saying makes no sense in that situation.
*If we're going to wave credentials around, I'll explain that in college I interned as a legal assistant for the state appeals court legal aid office. And I am a former elected official. What you are suggesting is naive, at best.
If you have the money to hire a lawyer when you know you're under investigation, then it's sensible to do exactly that, no matter what the truth of your guilt or innocence. And you don't make any public statements that she hasn't vetted or written herself
Orf just said something to the effect of hiring a lawyer is sensible, but hire one that doesn't produce defenses and statements that make you look less trustworthy.
Orf just said something to the effect of hiring a lawyer is sensible, but hire one that doesn't produce defenses and statements that make you look less trustworthy.
This is what he said
If he's lawyered up in that way, then it means that he's not even pretending to offer a good faith justification of his actions.
I have no problem concluding that if he had a good faith explanation, he would offer it. Ergo,...
If you "lawyered up" then you don't have a good explanation.
I'm saying that if you have any experience with the criminal justice system or if you have any experience being a politician, then you would know how wrong that statement is.
"Lawyering up" is not an admission of guilt. Nor are the perfectly normal statements that the lawyer offered. Even if you have a "good faith justification" or a "good faith explanation" you would behave this way. You can't conclude that he doesn't have a good explanation just because he has a competent lawyer
Can I conclude that he doesn't have a good explanation because he's describing using Russian diplomatic facilities to communicate with the Kremlin to avoid monitoring by the US during the Trump administration's transition as "using back channels" when that's not what using back channels means?
He said "lawyered up in that way." The "in that way" was, I believe, a reference to Mike J's comment about arguing in the alternative.
Which is perfectly normal. There's nothing unusual about a competent lawyer behaving that way. In fact, it would be gross incompetence if he didn't do that for a client.
And, if you have any experience as a politician, you know that once you've got a defense lawyer, you let them do their job. It isn't "bad PR" to have a competent lawyer making statements on your behalf. That's what you pay them to do.
"Bad PR" is the initial behavior that got you involved in the investigation.
they should be asking why Trump is hiring a lawyer because, from what I've seen, they're pretty quiet on the subject at the moment.
I think it's Jared Kushner that's being discussed, but the principle is the same.
If hiring a defense lawyer is prima facie evidence of wrong-doing, then people who believe that can certainly be called out for not applying the same standard to people they support
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It must be very aggravating to work for someone that obtuse.
{steps up to open mike} Ahem.
Yo PotUS so obtuse, he gives migraines to Hounds of Tindalos.
The "Justice System" is in many ways a tool wielded by the wealthy and powerful to maintain their wealth and power. Accusations and indictments are absolutely meaningless. Even convictions, especially when a plea bargain are involved, are highly questionable.
Anyone can accuse anyone of anything.
You can investigate anyone or anything.
You can indict a ham sandwich.
None of that stuff necessarily means anything more then someone with a little power has an ax to grind.
AFAIK, Clinton never really lawyered up for any of her investigations and look how she was pilloried even so.
It should be noted that Hillary and Bill are (or at least were) both lawyers. I would imagine that they also know one or two lawyers who would be willing to help out. For example, Bill met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch while Hillary was under investigation.* In my opinion, that counts as being "lawyered up".
* Link is to Real Clear Politics site - I forget offhand if that is a trustworthy source.
If hiring a defense lawyer is prima facie evidence of wrong-doing,
Nobody said that hiring a defense lawyer is prima facie evidence of wrong-doing.
However, if you hire a lawyer, and the best argument they can or do make is a set of inconsistent "arguments in the alternative," then THAT is prima facie evidence of wrong-doing.
Essentially, arguing in the alternative is, in criminal defense, a defense of desperation. (Of course, most defense lawyers have desperate cases, so it's commonly used -- but it's a very bad strategy if one has any other choices.) There's a common maxim in the legal profession: "Amateurs discuss burden-of-proof; professionals discuss 'theory of the case.'" The most effective strategy, inside or outside the courtroom, is to have a sensible and supportable narrative describing what, exactly, happened, and why what happened is within the law.
As a simple example, if you're on trial for defending yourself when someone tried to punch you in a bar, your "theory of the case" should [probably] be self-defense. If your lawyer tries to argue in the alternative that a) you weren't in the bar (when you demonstrably were), then both you and he lose credibility when someone produces your credit card receipt for the drinks you bought, with your signature on it. If your lawyer tries to argue b) that you never punched anyone, both you and he lose credibility when someone produces a bad cell phone video showing you and another person exchanging punches. Having lost all this credibility, neither the judge nor the jury is likely to believe that c) the other guy threw the first punch and you were just defending yourself.... why should that statement be true when you've already offered two palpable falsehoods in your own defense?
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.
And, yes, I've done quite a bit of work with lawyers -- criminal, civil, administrative, you name it -- in a number of jurisdictions. Which is why I infer that the administration is blatantly culpable in this instance. If there were an actual explanation -- a "theory of the case" -- a competent lawyer would have presented it in an attempt to control the overall narrative. That's both more effective and less risky.
It's also officially "best practice" for lawyers: "CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS for the DEFENSE FUNCTION," courtesy of the ABA: "Defense counsel should work diligently to develop, in consultation with the client, an investigative and legal defense strategy, including a theory of the case. As the matter progresses, counsel should refine or alter the theory of the case as necessary, and similarly adjust the investigative or defense strategy."
So Trump's lawyer is supposed to have (and use) a theory of the case. He is not doing so, and instead is surrendering the opportunity to control the public narrative. From that, I have no problem inferring that he has no useful theory-of-the-case, which means that Trump can't explain the actions even to the satisfaction of his own lawyer.
There's nothing unusual about a competent lawyer [arguing in the alternative]. In fact, it would be gross incompetence if he didn't do that for a client.
No. A lawyer's duty to this client is to present the best and most effective representation. Arguing in the alternative is rarely the best and most effective representation -- unless you've got a case where you can't come up with a narrative of your own that makes sense, in which case, you've got a case where the defendant has no useful justification for his or her actions.
Orf just said something to the effect of hiring a lawyer is sensible, but hire one that doesn't produce defenses and statements that make you look less trustworthy.
Yeah, basically, this. There are hundreds of things that a lawyer could say that wouldn't amount to an admission that even the lawyer can't justify his client's behavior.
This is probably going to surprise a few folks, but...good. Chemical weapons need to be an absolute no-no. I actually wish Obama had done this last time around.who are you and what have you done wit' bugleyman
Kilt him real good! ;-)
. Essentially, arguing in the alternative is, in criminal defense, a defense of desperation.
I agree wholeheartedly. But saying that his lawyer can't construct a reasonable narrative is quite different from saying that "lawyering up" is guilty behavior
. Essentially, arguing in the alternative is, in criminal defense, a defense of desperation.I agree wholeheartedly. But saying that his lawyer can't construct a reasonable narrative is quite different from saying that "lawyering up" is guilty behavior
Good thing that the only people who said that "lawyering up" is guilty behavior exist only in your imagination, then. I said, and I stand by,
If he's lawyered up in that way, then it means that he's not even pretending to offer a good faith justification of his actions.
Oddly enough, the emphasis in that sentence is by you yourself. Which, in turn, means that you not only knew the exact words I used, but deliberately chose to ignore the ones on which my entire argument turns. (And, yes, I think I may have more experience in criminal defense law than you do.....)
Yeah, but your opinion has nothing to do with reality.
Fair enough. Our perceptions of reality are all unique and subjective afterall.
...more...
This kind of thing is not how Hillary Clinton dealt with her investigations, regardless of how evil you think she is.
My point was that Clinton often got special treatment, so she was not required to jump through hoops like a less connect and powerful person.
I don't really care about the whole email thing, but it sounds like a case where Clinton was able to get special treatment.
Why Hillary Clinton’s E-Mail Scandal ‘Lawyers’ Are So Problematic
Honestly I can't really bring myself to care about the details, but pretending that Clinton was so clean she never had to hire a lawyer is laughable.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I can't really bring myself to care about the details, but pretending that Clinton was so clean she never had to hire a lawyer is laughable.I'm pretty sure that wasn't not my point.
More that we're here insisting that Trump get the benefit of the doubt while lawyering up and having his flunkies (like Flynn) take the fifth and all the other things for which they should certainly not be legally judged, but for which I argue that we should be free to judge them politically. Meanwhile, Clinton testified for hours for congressional committees, answered questions about all the various scandals she was accused of and was still not given the same public benefit of doubt. If she'd taken the same steps Trump and his gang are, she'd have been torn apart in the media. It would have been treated as an admission of guilt.
Well, yes of course, that's because she was guilty of being Hillary Clinton. No matter how many times she was proven free of wrongdoing in a particular "scandal", and the people accusing her were caught red-handed doing exactly what she was accused of, it never really mattered. Once you accept that she is Hillary Clinton, you know she's guilty, the trick is just finding the particular crime she's guilty of. Any day now.
Musical interlude: take the blue pill
Whistle-blowing that reveals treason or similar perfidy should be protected under all whistle-blower protection statutes.
I can't tell if this is a leak that would qualify as such, nor is their any indication in the article of an attempt to escalate up her chain of command.
When the state acts to cover up perfidy and/or treason, leaks are necessary, patriotic and as we have seen of late quite possibly the only way to reveal crimes far more egregious than the act(s) that reveal them.
So, just so I'm clear what's happening, this thread has gone from the Trump bombing Al Sharyat to just the Trump Show in general?
Just checking.
I'm not sure why it has - did the 'future of the Democratic party' thread get itself locked?
No its still there I think everyone just moved over here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just think of that other thread as being "okay how do we kick Trump out and get more democrats in Congress", versus this being a general "okay what international norm did Trump violate this week"
Violate I hate that that is the most appropriate word to describe what our president is currently doing in office.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you leak classified info, make sure its worth it, because you do so at the cost of your own freedom potentially.
Given that Trump has continued to claim that Russia did not meddle in the election and has been looking to reverse sanctions and asset forfeitures the Obama administration imposed based on the election meddling... release of this additional proof that Russia did indeed seek to undermine our electoral process shows that Trump has been actively working against the nation's best interests.
A hostile foreign power is seeking to control our government... and the primary beneficiary of that effort is covering this up by trying to shut down investigations and telling the public that it didn't happen.
That comes damned close to treason even if he didn't know in advance and/or collude with them. He is helping them get away with it now.
So yeah, I can see where someone might consider letting people know that the future of American democracy is under threat being worth their freedom.
What's left of them, according to some. They need an ironclad case for impeachment. Were it not for the stunning loyalty his lackeys Cabinet and Vice-Lizardent are showing him, I'd give greater odds to Article IV, 25th Amendment happening first.
Then again in this coo-coo crazy topsy-turvy administration, one just never really knows...
|
If you leak classified info, make sure its worth it, because you do so at the cost of your own freedom potentially.Given that Trump has continued to claim that Russia did not meddle in the election and has been looking to reverse sanctions and asset forfeitures the Obama administration imposed based on the election meddling... release of this additional proof that Russia did indeed seek to undermine our electoral process shows that Trump has been actively working against the nation's best interests.
A hostile foreign power is seeking to control our government... and the primary beneficiary of that effort is covering this up by trying to shut down investigations and telling the public that it didn't happen.
That comes damned close to treason even if he didn't know in advance and/or collude with them. He is helping them get away with it now.
So yeah, I can see where someone might consider letting people know that the future of American democracy is under threat being worth their freedom.
I can agree with that. However, I don't think this document does enough. Though I suppose it has to start small somewhere.
|
|
What's left of them, according to some. They need an ironclad case for impeachment. Were it not for the stunning loyalty his
lackeysCabinet and Vice-Lizardent are showing him, I'd give greater odds to Article IV, 25th Amendment happening first.Then again in this coo-coo crazy topsy-turvy administration, one just never really knows...
They need to build momentum among the GOP for this to happen. Unfortunately, damn near every single one of them tossed aside their better judgment and morals to get on the Trump wagon. Allowing or helping him get impeached would be party/career suicide. They basically made their bed and they are content to lie in it; even if it smells like S!@t.