America just won

[Weyoun]

You have a strange notion of "winning"

I can't say I'm the least surprised that you're willing to support a convicted criminal as long as he has an R next to his name. I'd have hoped that you'd draw the line at a convicted felon, but I knew better. --Bob

Oh bless your heart. You won't mind if I pass on your razor sharp legal analysis - at least until you're able to understand your own oath.

I do enjoy how you are telling an actual lawyer how to lawyer. It would be like Bob telling you how to dumbass.

[Weyoun]

My 2 cents: This isn't going to make a dime's worth of difference in the outcome of the election. Those who support Trump will only be more steadfast in their support. I don't think that the verdict will sway many undecided voters, whose concerns are more personal - housing costs, inflation, unemployment, and so forth.

There is a truth for that. They’re also some people, as seen above, who believe this is all a conspiracy and would never believe any conviction against Trump was legitimate.

[tlynn78]

My 2 cents: This isn't going to make a dime's worth of difference in the outcome of the election. Those who support Trump will only be more steadfast in their support. I don't think that the verdict will sway many undecided voters, whose concerns are more personal - housing costs, inflation, unemployment, and so forth.

I agree. It isn't about making a difference. It's about giving Biden a slogan.

[tlynn78]

I can't say I'm the least surprised that you're willing to support a convicted criminal as long as he has an R next to his name. I'd have hoped that you'd draw the line at a convicted felon, but I knew better. --Bob

Oh bless your heart. You won't mind if I pass on your razor sharp legal analysis - at least until you're able to understand your own oath.

I do enjoy how you are telling an actual lawyer how to lawyer. It would be like Bob telling you how to dumbass.

Again with the lack of comprehension. Where did I tell Bob how "to lawyer"?
On a side note, I found it interesting enough, a while back, when someone mentioned lack of civility, name-callinf, or some such, that I did a little digging. Guess who authored the earliest post I could find in the Lounge here calling someone else a name? I'll give you a hint: the name was dumbass. Not directed at me, that time.

[Weyoun]

Oh bless your heart. You won't mind if I pass on your razor sharp legal analysis - at least until you're able to understand your own oath.

I do enjoy how you are telling an actual lawyer how to lawyer. It would be like Bob telling you how to dumbass.

Again with the lack of comprehension. Where did I tell Bob how "to lawyer"?
On a side note, I found it interesting enough, a while back, when someone mentioned lack of civility, name-callinf, or some such, that I did a little digging. Guess who authored the earliest post I could find in the Lounge here calling someone else a name? I'll give you a hint: the name was dumbass. Not directed at me, that time.

Aside from the fact there was engagement on the main board before the lounge existed, and plenty of name-calling happened there, who cares? You’re doing it too. It’s not like this makes you a better person or something, or somehow in the right.

I’ve never claimed to be above it all, only that my missives are directed toward your actions here, and not what you do outside of here. But I will always be happy to call a clown a clown. So get your big red shoes on!

[tlynn78]

I do enjoy how you are telling an actual lawyer how to lawyer. It would be like Bob telling you how to dumbass.

Again with the lack of comprehension. Where did I tell Bob how "to lawyer"?
On a side note, I found it interesting enough, a while back, when someone mentioned lack of civility, name-calling, or some such, that I did a little digging. Guess who authored the earliest post I could find in the Lounge here calling someone else a name? I'll give you a hint: the name was dumbass. Not directed at me, that time.

Aside from the fact there was engagement on the main board before the lounge existed, and plenty of name-calling happened there, who cares? You’re doing it too. It’s not like this makes you a better person or something, or somehow in the right.

I’ve never claimed to be above it all, only that my missives are directed toward your actions here, and not what you do outside of here. But I will always be happy to call a clown a clown. So get your big red shoes on!

Focus, boo. Where did I tell bob how to lawyer?

[Weyoun]

Again with the lack of comprehension. Where did I tell Bob how "to lawyer"?
On a side note, I found it interesting enough, a while back, when someone mentioned lack of civility, name-calling, or some such, that I did a little digging. Guess who authored the earliest post I could find in the Lounge here calling someone else a name? I'll give you a hint: the name was dumbass. Not directed at me, that time.

Aside from the fact there was engagement on the main board before the lounge existed, and plenty of name-calling happened there, who cares? You’re doing it too. It’s not like this makes you a better person or something, or somehow in the right.

I’ve never claimed to be above it all, only that my missives are directed toward your actions here, and not what you do outside of here. But I will always be happy to call a clown a clown. So get your big red shoes on!

Focus, boo. Where did I tell bob how to lawyer?

You told a lawyer that he did not understand his own oath. Do I have to cut the words up into little pieces and feed them to you one at a time, sweetie?

[tlynn78]

Aside from the fact there was engagement on the main board before the lounge existed, and plenty of name-calling happened there, who cares? You’re doing it too. It’s not like this makes you a better person or something, or somehow in the right.

I’ve never claimed to be above it all, only that my missives are directed toward your actions here, and not what you do outside of here. But I will always be happy to call a clown a clown. So get your big red shoes on!

Focus, boo. Where did I tell bob how to lawyer?

You told a lawyer that he did not understand his own oath. Do I have to cut the words up into little pieces and feed them to you one at a time, sweetie?

Well, I mean, he did claim when he took his oath, he "didn't swear to uphold any laws" as he's not a prosecutor. So yeah, I'd say he doesn't understand his own oath. Boo.

[silverscreenselect]

Well, I mean, he did claim when he took his oath, he "didn't swear to uphold any laws" as he's not a prosecutor. So yeah, I'd say he doesn't understand his own oath. Boo.

Here's the oath of admission to the California Bar:

OATH (to be taken before a Notary or other authorized administering officer): I, (licensee name) solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor at law to the best of my knowledge and ability. As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity.

It mentions the US and California constitutions and says to "support" them but not "uphold" and doesn't mention any other state or federal laws.

[tlynn78]

Well, I mean, he did claim when he took his oath, he "didn't swear to uphold any laws" as he's not a prosecutor. So yeah, I'd say he doesn't understand his own oath. Boo.

Here's the oath of admission to the California Bar:

OATH (to be taken before a Notary or other authorized administering officer): I, (licensee name) solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor at law to the best of my knowledge and ability. As an officer of the court, I will strive to conduct myself at all times with dignity, courtesy and integrity.

It mentions the US and California constitutions and says to "support" them but not "uphold" and doesn't mention any other state or federal laws.

From Quora: "Understanding the Oath: The Attorney's Oath is a pledge to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and California. It's a solemn promise to conduct oneself ethically and with integrity in the legal profession." emphasis added. Of course, that first word, "Understanding," is the one you may have a problem with.

[flockofseagulls104]

Yes, Democrats will arrest their political opponents.

Yes, they will seize power. Permanently.

Yes, they will set themselves up as dictators.

booby's dream.

You leftists, be warned. We, the true people of America, will NEVER submit to your 'transformation' of our country.

To you 'centrists': If you have any doubt, the extreme left and what they are doing to our country and our system of justice should be a wake-up call to you. To convict their political opponent in an obviously fixed and orchestrated 'trial' over a bookkeeping entry? Is that what you want this country to become?

Trump will be elected in November, whether he is in jail or not, unless the leftists running this country now realize that their political assassination will not work and they take it one step further. They have shown no regard for boundaries. And you bored lefties will probably applaud that, too.

[wbtravis007]

Yes, Democrats will arrest their political opponents.

Yes, they will seize power. Permanently.

Yes, they will set themselves up as dictators.

booby's dream.

You leftists, be warned. We, the true people of America, will NEVER submit to your 'transformation' of our country.

To you 'centrists': If you have any doubt, the extreme left and what they are doing to our country and our system of justice should be a wake-up call to you. To convict their political opponent in an obviously fixed and orchestrated 'trial' over a bookkeeping entry? Is that what you want this country to become?

Trump will be elected in November, whether he is in jail or not, unless the leftists running this country now realize that their political assassination will not work and they take it one step further. They have shown no regard for boundaries. And you bored lefties will probably applaud that, too.

You’re onto us! Dang!

Sorry. Gotta go with whatever is available. Believe you me, it’s not like we wanted to go with a bookkeeping entry. We just didn’t have him on lying about a blow job.

Or investing in white waters, for that matter.

I get your point about the trial being “fixed and orchestrated,” though. I kept up with it pretty closely, and am almost positive that they never let him get close enough to the jury to grab any of the ladies by their pussy. NOT FAIR!!!!

All he needed was one, after all.

[silverscreenselect]

You leftists, be warned. We, the true people of America, will NEVER submit to your 'transformation' of our country.

Out of curiosity, Flock, how many Trump steaks do you still have in your freezer? Do you have a diploma from Trump University there as well? I understand that qualifies you to be an expert witness in any upcoming election denial case.

[silverscreenselect]

From Quora: "Understanding the Oath:

I would hate to be the first attorney who tries to use Quora as a source in any legal brief.

[tlynn78]

From Quora: "Understanding the Oath:

I would hate to be the first attorney who tries to use Quora as a source in any legal brief.

So you contend lawyers aren't swearing to uphold the laws of the United States and their state when they take their oath?

[silverscreenselect]

So you contend lawyers aren't swearing to uphold the laws of the United States and their state when they take their oath?

No, a lawyer's duty is to represent their client. They may argue that certain laws don't apply to their client, or that the facts of their client's case don't fall within aa legal prohibition, or that the law itself is not valid. They are bound by ethical rules as to exactly how far they may go in arguing for their client, but you wouldn't have any defense attorneys if they were bound to uphold the law. Attorneys are bound to support the Constitution, not individual laws.

According to the Georgia Code of Professional Responsibility:

A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the law, the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other
lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer’s duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action,
it is also a lawyer’s duty to uphold legal process.

Uphold the legal system, not individual laws.

[Bob78164]

Weyoun, I'm thinking you've never been a juror. I was on a murder trial. It was excrutiating.
With that said our instructions were not 55 pages long. I feel sorry for them.

I’m sure they were under incredible pressure to say no for any number of reasons, given the stakes involved. Yet they were unanimous.

God bless America

What do you figure the over/under is on the number of jurors who are SWATted in the next six months? I'm guessing two. --Bob

I recommend taking the over.

I wonder if the Republican politicians who are falling all over themselves to condemn a duly obtained felony conviction as a lawless act will act with alacrity to condemn this conduct. I won't hold my breath. And that's why the Republican Party deserves to be politically bulldozed until its officeholders are down to a handful of dogcatchers in a few scattered towns. --Bob

[Beebs52]

There's not much space between support and uphold, if you look beyond stuff you want to nitpick about. So.

[Beebs52]

I’m sure they were under incredible pressure to say no for any number of reasons, given the stakes involved. Yet they were unanimous.

God bless America

What do you figure the over/under is on the number of jurors who are SWATted in the next six months? I'm guessing two. --Bob

I recommend taking the over.

I wonder if the Republican politicians who are falling all over themselves to condemn a duly obtained felony conviction as a lawless act will act with alacrity to condemn this conduct. I won't hold my breath. And that's why the Republican Party deserves to be politically bulldozed until its officeholders are down to a handful of dogcatchers in a few scattered towns. --Bob

You are sorta, um, not particularily rational about all this. Are you and doc conversing?

[Bob78164]

What do you figure the over/under is on the number of jurors who are SWATted in the next six months? I'm guessing two. --Bob

I recommend taking the over.

I wonder if the Republican politicians who are falling all over themselves to condemn a duly obtained felony conviction as a lawless act will act with alacrity to condemn this conduct. I won't hold my breath. And that's why the Republican Party deserves to be politically bulldozed until its officeholders are down to a handful of dogcatchers in a few scattered towns. --Bob

You are sorta, um, not particularily rational about all this. Are you and doc conversing?

Are you saying that attempts aren't already being made to doxx jurors, the first step to harassing them and intimidating future jurors? Or are you saying that I'm mistaken and that Republican politicians have already fallen all over themselves to condemn this conduct, and I somehow missed it?

You served on a murder jury once, right? How would you have felt if friends of the convicted defendant very publicly published your home address? --Bob

[Beebs52]

I recommend taking the over.

I wonder if the Republican politicians who are falling all over themselves to condemn a duly obtained felony conviction as a lawless act will act with alacrity to condemn this conduct. I won't hold my breath. And that's why the Republican Party deserves to be politically bulldozed until its officeholders are down to a handful of dogcatchers in a few scattered towns. --Bob

You are sorta, um, not particularily rational about all this. Are you and doc conversing?

Are you saying that attempts aren't already being made to doxx jurors, the first step to harassing them and intimidating future jurors? Or are you saying that I'm mistaken and that Republican politicians have already fallen all over themselves to condemn this conduct, and I somehow missed it?

You served on a murder jury once, right? How would you have felt if friends of the convicted defendant very publicly published your home address? --Bob

I have no idea if jurors are being doxxed. Do you? If I'd been doxxed then I wouldn't have known what it meant. Plus it was pretty cut and dried. Care to discuss?

[Bob78164]

You are sorta, um, not particularily rational about all this. Are you and doc conversing?

Are you saying that attempts aren't already being made to doxx jurors, the first step to harassing them and intimidating future jurors? Or are you saying that I'm mistaken and that Republican politicians have already fallen all over themselves to condemn this conduct, and I somehow missed it?

You served on a murder jury once, right? How would you have felt if friends of the convicted defendant very publicly published your home address? --Bob

I have no idea if jurors are being doxxed. Do you? If I'd been doxxed then I wouldn't have known what it meant. Plus it was pretty cut and dried. Care to discuss?

Follow the link in my post. If it hasn't already been accomplished, it's not for want of trying.

And the issue isn't whether your verdict was cut and dried. It's whether you'd have been worried about retaliation if friends of the defendant published your address. Because that's exactly what's being attempted here, to the sound of crickets from Republican officeholders. --Bob

[tlynn78]

I recommend taking the over.

I wonder if the Republican politicians who are falling all over themselves to condemn a duly obtained felony conviction as a lawless act will act with alacrity to condemn this conduct. I won't hold my breath. And that's why the Republican Party deserves to be politically bulldozed until its officeholders are down to a handful of dogcatchers in a few scattered towns. --Bob

You are sorta, um, not particularily rational about all this. Are you and doc conversing?

Are you saying that attempts aren't already being made to doxx jurors, the first step to harassing them and intimidating future jurors? Or are you saying that I'm mistaken and that Republican politicians have already fallen all over themselves to condemn this conduct, and I somehow missed it?

You served on a murder jury once, right? How would you have felt if friends of the convicted defendant very publicly published your home address? --Bob

I think to Beebs' point, there are bad actors across the spectrum. Your rather extreme position is that the Republican party should dry up and blow away because of your wild imagining. I don't recall you calling for the abolishing if the Dem party following any of the left-leaning lunacies. You and the doc appear to whip up fantasies in your head, and then hold the right responsible for your imagining. It’s weird.

[Bob78164]

I think to Beebs' point, there are bad actors across the spectrum. Your rather extreme position is that the Republican party should dry up and blow away because of your wild imagining. I don't recall you calling for the abolishing if the Dem party following any of the left-leaning lunacies. You and the doc appear to whip up fantasies in your head, and then hold the right responsible for your imagining. It’s weird.

As usual, you miss my point, but given your demonstrated limitations I expect nothing more from you.

The same Republicans who are vocally defending a convicted felon (and one who provoked an insurrection) have said NOTHING about the threats against the jurors. I'm pretty sure you were among the people rather insistent that elected Democrats condemn the violence that occurred in the wake of the George Floyd murder (which many of them did, by the way). But you're secretly (or perhaps not so secretly) hoping that future jurors who sit in judgment over Donny will be intimidated so you're just fine with the treatment starting to be doled out to the New York jurors.

You're an elected Republican official. Will you publicly condemn the attempts to doxx, harass, and threaten the New York jurors with a fervor equal to that you've directed against the verdict they duly reached? I look forward to your press release to that effect. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

a duly obtained felony conviction

That 'trial' was as much of a high-tech lynching as the Thomas confirmation hearings. Both orchestrated by the same guy.