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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Thanks for clarifying the kind of nonsense you're peddling. Go ahead and assert whatever you want, but one of the risks of making those kinds of arguments is that you lose all credibility. That doesn't trouble people who argue in bad faith, and it doesn't seem to trouble you.

The people making the argument Do Not Care About Credibility. Their measurement is effectiveness.

But, even in that realm, the pretext must be adequate enough to sound possible. Saying Schiff coordinated or orchestrated is something that has just enough patina of possibility to meet that standard. So a GOP operative says, “Hey, this Schiff thing is worth looking into” in a show on a large media platform. Then the media, looking for controversy and desiring a horse race discusses it, and voila - no more credibility is needed. But again, the initial story can’t be crazy. It can’t be Pizzagate. It’s got to be something technically defensible.

TM misses one important fact: Not all of the R senators are from states filled near entirely with dumb people. Some are from states where they’ll need cover, like Toomey in PA, or Snowe in Maine.

If you want to call people credible or not credible, this situation is not a good one for you to assess.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Was there enough there there to warrant looking? Yup. And was the absence of 30k emails enough to allow Rs to say, “We’ll never know what was there”? Yup. And was the fact the server was bleached enough to allow Rs to suggest bad intent? Credibly so.

And so they did. And did it work?

I think you’re frustrated your side can’t seem to win. It can and will win if it focuses on issues and the election. Instead, it plays the GOP’s game, and it doesn’t play it very well.

Stop thinking and Follow Nancy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Seems like maybe Rudy has the brainworms too?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

TM misses one important fact: Not all of the R senators are from states filled near entirely with dumb people. Some are from states where they’ll need cover, like Toomey in PA, or Snowe in Maine.

Whatever. This shit is pointless.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The people making the argument Do Not Care About Credibility. Their measurement is effectiveness.

But, even in that realm, the pretext must be adequate enough to sound possible. Saying Schiff coordinated or orchestrated is something that has just enough patina of possibility to meet that standard. So a GOP operative says, “Hey, this Schiff thing is worth looking into” in a show on a large media platform. Then the media, looking for controversy and desiring a horse race discusses it, and voila - no more credibility is needed. But again, the initial story can’t be crazy. It can’t be Pizzagate. It’s got to be something technically defensible.

TM misses one important fact: Not all of the R senators are from states filled near entirely with dumb people. Some are from states where they’ll need cover, like Toomey in PA, or Snowe in Maine.

If you want to call people credible or not credible, this situation is not a good one for you to assess.

I was talking about you, not them.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Whatever. This shit is pointless.

TM

2

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I was talking about you, not them.

I’m irrelevant. I’m not working for anyone involved. I’m in the stands, with you.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If the whistle blower worked for an Administration that had any integrity at all, they would have brought the complaint through normal channels.

And in fact, he did but didn't get any traction.

But really, if he worked for an administration with any integrity at all and a clue, this thing likely could already have been over with a simple mea culpa.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I was talking about you, not them.

The person you were talking about Does Not Care About Credibility.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

The person you were talking about Does Not Care About Credibility.

How can I lack credibility here? I'm suggesting a political/legal strategy. TM and Adder have said it's dumb. They don't agree that Trump needs a pretext like the allegations against Schiff. That's a fair assessment. It might be unnecessary. But I think it's just being careful -- that one should avail himself of all possible excuses the Senate might use to acquit where one has done something as clearly inappropriate and possibly qualifying as a high crime and misdemeanor as Trump.

You can I say I'm wrong, in your opinion. That's fair. But you can't say I lack credibility where I'm only advocating a super-careful approach.

This place is bizarre. I am arguing Trump may be in more jeopardy than others, and they're telling me that argument lacks credibility. Yet the same people will cite stories stating that Trump is in even more trouble than I think he is. Which is it? Is he doomed, or is a cynical Senate cure to acquit? Or, most likely, do we just not know? And if we don't know, isn't being careful the best practice for him to follow?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

The person you were talking about Does Not Care About Credibility.

Yeah, but I see a bunch of stories that presumably will be read by those in the center that are holding Taylor's testimony up as the possible proverbial back-breaking hair, and that is rank idiocy. To cite to Taylor is to invite distracting opposition based on his absolute now lack of credibility. The point should be the ever-increasing weight of evidence and not this particularly weak part thereof.

LessinManama, Bahrain

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How can I lack credibility here? I'm suggesting a political/legal strategy. ...
This place is bizarre. I am arguing Trump may be in more jeopardy than others, and they're telling me that argument lacks credibility.

The reaction is not to your overall argument, but to specific things you say. For example, you said (and I'm paraphrasing) that a lawyer has an ethical duty to argue for jury nullification if it's there. That's silly. For context, here's a DC bar opinion on the point:

A lawyer defending a criminal case may zealously advocate for the acquittal of his client using any evidentiary argument for which he has a reasonable good faith basis. Current legal standards strongly disfavor jury nullification and prohibit express exhortations that a jury nullify the law. Accordingly, a lawyer may not, consistent with the rules of professional conduct, expressly urge a jury to disregard the law. Nor may a lawyer disregard a ruling of the tribunal limiting the scope of permissible argument. The legal system continues, however, to permit juries to exercise the power to nullify. A lawyer may, therefore, within the bounds of zealous advocacy, advance arguments that have a good faith evidentiary basis even though those same arguments may also heighten the jury’s awareness of its capacity to nullify.

In brief, a lawyer needs to stick to arguments for which there is a good-faith evidentiary basis. There is no good-faith evidentiary basis to suggest that Schiff orchestrated the whistleblower's complaint. The fact that the whistleblower went to committee staff to ask how to lodge his or her complaint leaves a political opinion for unscrupulous advocates to suggest there was more. If your political analysis is that there is no defense for the substance of what Trump did, and so Republicans will resort to lies and conspiracy theories in order to keep the base on his side and to pressure Senate Republics to stay in line, that's pretty uncontroversial and you won't get much argument here. No one is arguing with that because it's obviously true. You lose your credibility when you bend over backwards to find some truth in the lies.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Yeah, but I see a bunch of stories that presumably will be read by those in the center that are holding Taylor's testimony up as the possible proverbial back-breaking hair, and that is rank idiocy. To cite to Taylor is to invite distracting opposition based on his absolute now lack of credibility. The point should be the ever-increasing weight of evidence and not this particularly weak part thereof.

LessinManama, Bahrain

Why do you think Taylor is not credible?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why do you think Taylor is not credible?

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The reaction is not to your overall argument, but to specific things you say. For example, you said (and I'm paraphrasing) that a lawyer has an ethical duty to argue for jury nullification if it's there. That's silly. For context, here's a DC bar opinion on the point:



In brief, a lawyer needs to stick to arguments for which there is a good-faith evidentiary basis. There is no good-faith evidentiary basis to suggest that Schiff orchestrated the whistleblower's complaint. The fact that the whistleblower went to committee staff to ask how to lodge his or her complaint leaves a political opinion for unscrupulous advocates to suggest there was more. If your political analysis is that there is no defense for the substance of what Trump did, and so Republicans will resort to lies and conspiracy theories in order to keep the base on his side and to pressure Senate Republics to stay in line, that's pretty uncontroversial and you won't get much argument here. No one is arguing with that because it's obviously true. You lose your credibility when you bend over backwards to find some truth in the lies.

Who decides what can and can’t be argued in good faith? You never how how much heft an accusation has until the judge rules on it. You say Schiff is an off limits defense. I say those same ethical rules you cite also require a lawyer to do all he can for a client. This means using any theory the judge allows you to use. OJ argued the police framed him. Was that Cochran violating ethics rules? I’d say it’s Cochran doing his job.

You seem to want to play the star chamber that decides what can and cannot be used as a defense. That’s an arrogant position, also a frustrated one. You don’t wear the robe. Know your place in the process, counselor.

In choosing juries, people assess possible nullification and select jurors on their likely ability to engage in it All The Time. Are these thousands of defense lawyers all unethical?

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. That’s why you keep trying to tease out what I “believe,” or my desired result. You want to appear detached, intellectual, but you’re irritated, and you can’t think beyond one side, one ethos, versus another.

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).

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I say those same ethical rules you cite also require a lawyer to do all he can for a client.

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