Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"Cleverly" conveying a nullification defense means staying on the right side of the ethics rules so you get away with it. If you want to sneer at me for looking at what ethics rules actually say, recall that I only did it because you brought up ethics when you invented a lawyer's obligation to try a nullification defense. I haven't "applied" the rule at all, naively or otherwise, except to say that what you said about it is wrong. As I said about "the broader practical reality," it's no secret to anyone that the President and his defenders are willing to lie to defend him. We all understand that. What's not credibile is your pretending that the lies aren't lies.
|
You're a small-minded man with a small penis who shoved an ethics rule book up his ass. A lawyer has an ethical duty to lie on behalf of the client if the lawyer believes it is more likely than not that the judge will believe the lie. And while a lawyer may not be permitted to outright ask for nullification, the lawyer
can do so if the lawyer asks in Pig Latin, while winking. [Ury-jay Ullification-nay???
] In fact, the lawyer has an ethical duty to do so, or the lawyer will be subject to mandatory disbarment proceedings. You don't believe me? Shove your tiny head up your ass and read for yourself.
