Trump's Lawyers should have known better

Excellent article about Trump's lawyers

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-lawyers-known-better-122832512.html

At a pivotal moment during one of the Watergate hearings in 1973, President Richard Nixon’s counsel, John Dean, asked a question that still resonates: “How in God’s name could so many lawyers get involved in something like this?”

In the aftermath of Nixon’s resignation, the issue posed by Dean’s bracing question triggered a revolution in the legal profession. With so many lawyers involved in the Watergate criminal scheme, the American Bar Association started requiring law schools to provide ethics instruction or risk losing their accreditation. Exams began testing law students’ knowledge of intricate ethical rules.

It wasn’t enough, if the past few weeks are any guide. In Fulton County, Georgia, three of former President ’s lawyers, Kenneth Chesebro, Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis have now pleaded guilty to crimes in service of Trump’s scheme to overturn the 2020 election and stay in the White House. All three have agreed to cooperate with prosecutors in the sprawling state RICO case against Trump. Two other Trump lawyers, Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, still face criminal charges in the Georgia case. They, along with Chesebro and Powell, have also been identified as unindicted co-conspirators in the related federal prosecution of Trump, which will probably benefit from the guilty pleas in Georgia.

 

Something like what? You mean in denying elections?

 

No, like in engaging in ILLEGAL behavior in order to overturn an election.

There is no arguing that Trump won in 2016, aided by Russian propaganda campaigns. Even the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee acknowledged that Putin interfered in the 2016 election in Trump's favor.

 

But it was ok for one of America’s worst enemies to meddle in the election because Trump would have won anyway and besides, it helped the Republican candidate.

 

LOL. Talk about election denials.

 

Interesting read. I love to get into a mode pointing out fallacies coming from folks that have their JDs, like the author of this piece who somehow seems unaware of the disdain with which many if not most folks in the US hold the "profession".

So, everyone should behave ethically, but to do so apparently requires knowledge of "intricate" ethical rules. Check - got it. Wait, what? Nope, it seems I may have missed something if everyone should be expected to behave ethically, but doing so requires intricate knowledge of what it means to do so.

A friend of mine lives in Sacramento. He's an avid exerciser and I've often observed that this dude must have a third lung, or the equivalent lung capacity. Commuting to work on his bicycle one day he was edged off the road and crashed into someone's front yard landscaping. The driver of the car did not remain at the scene and my friend was ordered by the court to pay to fix the damage to the landscaping.

The Golden Rule certainly has its limits, but with respect to ethics it seems to me there is a need to establish also morality and for the life of me I cannot think of anything more bedrock to morality than the Golden Rule. Which simply falls apart and is of almost no value whatsoever to decide super complex matters of law.

Monopolies for example. How possibly could the Golden Rule be applied to contests between the "people", represented by the government, and a business enterprise seeking to corner a market? I don't see the path, would very much be interested to read thoughts about this abstract question.

Regarding the specific case in point, ah, it's all pathetic in context. Trump's legal support races toward the bottom with every passing day in the US, and his support among voters reflects their disdain of the law in the US, and in many cases I would agree, rightfully so. It couldn't be a more classic example imo of the adage that two wrongs don't make a right.

Supposing that the US has fallen so far that the Federal government no longer serves to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, it seems plain to me that entrusting the fix to Trump and the crazed evangelical Taliban like Right is only going to go from the proverbial frying pan into the fire.

What is their philosophy for caring for babies that they supposedly hold so sacrosanct? Women shall bear their pregnancies to term and the child thus born shall then be cared for in what manner by the public that has mandated its birth - the answer seems to be, not at all, not the public's problem. Absolutely pathetic. This party wishes to mandate births whilst simultaneously negating responsibility to see to it that the civilization it's shaping provides a society conducive to raising children.

What would be the logical accompaniment to forced carry to term policy? I would say that at a minimum to go with such a policy would be public daycare and healthcare for these children.

This that follows here is the rhetoric of DDE, under whose leadership the MIC became inescapably cemented into the most fundamental foundation of the US Federal Government. DDE spoke out of one side of his mouth with this speech whilst enabling and supporting the very thing he opposes in this speech:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road. the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

“Part of the reason Trump had to resort to attorneys to attempt the overthrow of the election was because the military was not available to him,” said Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

 

Since when is questioning election results illegal?

 

Questioning them is not.

Attempting to overturn them is.

Question all you want. Once you start engaging in activity meant to illegally overturn them then you have crossed the line.

 

What election am I denying?

Trump won in 2016 with help from the Russians.

 

What illegal behavior did trump engage in to overturn the election?

 

Right and Biden won the election with help from the democrats cheating.

 

Really? And just how did the "democrats cheat"?

 

They introduced fraudulent ballots into the count.

 

Nope

 

You have zero proof that anything Russia did changed even one vote.

 

Filing a lawsuit to challenge an election isn't illegal. Lawsuits are literally protected by the 1st Amendment. The amendment states specifically that it's protected.

 

So what you're saying is the 2016 election was stolen.

Do progressive liberals actually understand the shameless hypocrisy and double standards involved to say such a thing?
Image courtesy of @eohrnberger

 

Lols! They actually voted of course!

 

And they did do that and lost 60 cases

 

“Influenced” might be a better term.

 

How and where

 

Show me a signature verification audit of one full county and I’ll show you otherwise.

 

Really not that difficult.

The democrats picked these mail-in super districts. One where they take multiple districts and put them together for one mail in ballot center. They then used their contacts within the party to gain templates of the ballots. They produced tens of thousands of them and placed them into boxes which were identical to the boxes the legitimate ballots were in.

They then place one or two people in in the counting centers as volunteers. One of whom’s job it was to legitimately move votes from the drop off point to the counters. The counters then fed the fraudulent ballots (which at that point are indistinguishable from the legitimate ballots) into the counting machines along with the legitimate ballots Over the course of the night or during one of those huge batches of votes at 3am

 

Losing a lawsuit isn't a crime...lol

 

How funny the lefty's just doesn't get it...

Fanni is 0-4 Deferred = 0 convictions = NOT CONVICTED
withhold adjudication and the case is automatically sealed.
No judgement of guilt
They must testify honestly and openly which they have to do anyway in any court of law.
They asked for first offender, so once they completes the first offender requirements they can honestly say they have not been convicted of any charge..
So they will NOT BE CONVICTED of any crime at the end if they play the rejected NYC cabby's game.
If they do their community service, pays their fines, spends 5 years on probation the felony disappears and they are not a convicted citizens. They pled guilt to disappearing charges..