Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

The reason people think you lack credibility is that virtually everything you say is made up and wrong.

No. You find one thing that’s wrong and jump all over it and ignore the rest.

Someone else does this... But I can’t recall the person’s name. Gimme a minute... It’ll come to me.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You seem to want to play the star chamber that decides what can and cannot be used as a defense.

I'm just a guy on the Internet, calling you out when you're full of shit. If that feels like a star chamber to you, I'm not sure what to tell you.

ETA: It just struck me — you want to debate the morals. You’re annoyed that your assessment of what clearly ought to happen, using your view of right and wrong, isn’t succeeding.

You like to resort to this because it suggests that everyone has different truths, and no one is right, which means there should be no questioning your bullshit. We were talking about credibility, not morals. There simply is no evidence that Schiff "orchestrated" the whistleblower's testimony. None. Morals don't play into it. When you suggest there is, you lose credibility.

ETA2: Snowden would return for trial on one condition. In defense, he be allowed to argue his acts were justified, in the public interest. DOJ refuses. Insists on strict liability. If Putin sends him back and he’s tried on strict liability and his defense counsel raises arguments cleverly conveying a justification defense to the jury, and selects jurors on likeliness to nullify, is that counsel acting unethically? Your cite to that rule and your naive application of it show a mind caught in the rule book, missing the broader practical reality (and the other more important rules conflicting with your narrow view of the one you cited).

"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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Pretty sure he means Sondland (because he made this credibility point on FB).

Sondland would definitely have been a more helpful witness had he fessed up the first time, but having changed his story to (1) incriminate himself, and (2) match other witnesses who also incriminated him and the president, I don't think we're in "no credibility" territory.

Oh, and this isn't a court case and it's a political, not legal, process.

Sondland is flirting with perjury, admitting only what he has to, and changing his testimony when other witnesses expose him. Read his transcript, and you can seeing his lawyer (from Paul Hastings) reeling him back in when he goes too far. If Sondland were the only witness on a particular point, he'd be risky, but he's doing his best to avoid that.

[Pretty Little Flower]

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

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.

Sometimes I wonder what you'd be like if you weren't Minnesota Nice.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm just a guy on the Internet, calling you out when you're full of shit. If that feels like a star chamber to you, I'm not sure what to tell you.



You like to resort to this because it suggests that everyone has different truths, and no one is right, which means there should be no questioning your bullshit. We were talking about credibility, not morals. There simply is no evidence that Schiff "orchestrated" the whistleblower's testimony. None. Morals don't play into it. When you suggest there is, you lose credibility.



"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.

Calling me out on what? I’m saying there’s enough to with a straight face, without lying, say, “We need to look into Schiff.”

You’re saying there isn’t. You’re not the judge. You’re not the final say on anything. I disagree. I can make that argument all day, without lying.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Calling me out on what?

While it would give me immense pleasure to explain in detail all the full-of-shitness that he has called you out on in the last week or so, I'm just starting a dopamine fast and need to stay disciplined.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

While it would give me immense pleasure to explain in detail all the full-of-shitness that he has called you out on in the last week or so, I'm just starting a dopamine fast and need to stay disciplined.

No worries, I got this one.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’m saying there’s enough to with a straight face, without lying, say, “We need to look into Schiff.”

Sure, it's easy to say that without lying. But you also said that there's evidence that Schiff orchestrated the whistleblower's complaint, and that is either a lie or reckless stupidity.

Since some of us bother to pay attention to what you say and respond to it as if you mean it, it's not clear who you think you're fooling when you change your tune like Mick Mulvaney. Yourself?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Atrios:

There are, of course, reasons for consensus and compromise. That legislation will endure and both people and politicians are broadly invested in its success are reasons. This was part of the not-crazy-for-a-time reason for the bipartisan ACA process. I don't want to debate what law Barack Obama really and truly wanted, or what fantasy bill could have been achieved some other way, but there was a process designed to get both parties on board. Lots of Republican amendments. And at the end of the process, Dems still had to ram it through, and Republicans still want to destroy it (or at least pretend to, some of both).

In the age of Trump, and in some imagined age of post-Trump, the only way to imagine that some other president can achieve consensus on the types of things that Barack Obama couldn't is that you, or Mayor Pete, or Barack Obama's best friend, think that that there was something special about Barack Obama that prevented him from doing it.

Might be true, but spell it out.

This is my biggest problem with the prospect of a Biden presidency. Hope is not a plan. He lived through the Obama presidency, but what lessons did he take from it? I'd like to think he is a lot cagier than he sounds, but what if he isn't?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Sure, it's easy to say that without lying. But you also said that there's evidence that Schiff orchestrated the whistleblower's complaint, and that is either a lie or reckless stupidity.

Wrong. There was:

1. A conversation between Schiff's committee's office and WB in advance of the filing;
2. Schiff stated he was not aware of the filing in advance, then later changed that story;
3. Schiff has been seeking to oust Trump for the past three years.

There, you have a conversation between people connected to Schiff and WB the contents of which have not been explored in detail, in a deposition. (They have only reported second hand by the media). You have Schiff taking action which can be seen to have sought to hide the initial communication. And you have extreme bias against the President.

You may suggest that all of these facts can be brushed away. But in doing that, you're elevating yourself to the position of fact-finder.

You can say none of this matters because Trump has released a transcript of his transgressions, and witnesses have corroborated a quid pro quo (it's actually extortion, but whatever). But Trump will use a lack of intent defense (among many others). And under that defense, the argument will be made that this complaint, and Schiff's tailoring of questions to elicit certain testimony from witnesses, is done with a premeditated aim toward falsely proving intent where in fact Trump just made another mistake. (This is why I think it's error to allow Schiff to play the role of prosecutor, particularly in closed door sessions.)

That's but one angle from which I could - indeed anyone can - without lying at all, or "getting away with it" by skirting ethical rules, drag the argument that Schiff coordinated this attack into the case.

And keep in mind, this isn't even a legal case. But to counter your argument (which would likely fail in court, but works here, among fellow travelers, and I think you know that) that there exists no basis sans lies on which to examine Schiff, I'm adhering to a courtroom standard.

Since some of us bother to pay attention to what you say and respond to it as if you mean it, it's not clear who you think you're fooling when you change your tune like Mick Mulvaney. Yourself?

An argument made against Trump right now is that, when the Democrats offer 30 pieces of evidence against him, he finds one flawed one and seeks to make it the whole case. Sound familiar? I don't think you do that all the time, but I think you do it when you're frustrated. You know the argument against Schiff can be made. But I made an error in blustering about the RPC. (Not really a substantive error, because the RPC does require a lawyer do all he can for a client, and lawyers violate the rule you narrowly cited every day, in every courthouse, but whatever...).

I won't bother looking for it, but a few pages back you even acknowledged that in total, the argument I'm offering has merit, and your criticism was only aimed at my comment about the RPC.* Fair enough.

Take my argument as this and nothing more: I think you are wrong when you say there is no evidence upon which Schiff can credibly be accused of coordinating or orchestrating. You can disagree. You can call me crazy. What you can't credibly do is say that can only be done via lies. Because you don't know. The only way you could find out is if Schiff or whoever in his office spoke with the whistleblower went under oath regarding the contents of the conversation they had. And if Schiff went under oath about why he first stated he had no advance notice of the complaint, then later acknowldged he did. But neither of those things can ever happen because that would then make Schiff a target of the "counter-investigation" in this debacle. It's a Catch 22. I don't know who wins. But I suspect you suspect Trump will skate, and this offends you. You've reverence for The Processes. I don't. I think it's just more comedy of the absurd, and a brilliant demonstration for the public of just how fucked up the two party system has become.

______
* Of course, you insisted on the caveat that it is predicated on lies, despite being unable to prove that.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Not really a substantive error, because the RPC does require a lawyer do all he can for a client . . . .

Incorrect. The reason people think you lack credibility is that virtually everything you say is made up and wrong.

Oh fuck, now I have to start the fast over, and it's almost the weekend.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Atrios:



This is my biggest problem with the prospect of a Biden presidency. Hope is not a plan. He lived through the Obama presidency, but what lessons did he take from it? I'd like to think he is a lot cagier than he sounds, but what if he isn't?

Isn't the unstated assumption that they work with someone who isn't a black man?

I don't know if Biden actually believes that but I'm certain some voters do. Heck, I'm not even sure what I think about it. I guess I don't think they will be eager to work with any Dem, and that it's naive to think they will be meaningfully more cooperative with a Biden administration, but I also think they were especially hostile because of Obama's race.

[LessinSF]

Progressive / Liberals / Democrats' hero - John Bolton! The irony is so rich.


LessinBahrain

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why do you think Taylor is not credible?

Now, I remember. Before, not so much.