Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Options
1…160161163165166…1190

Comments

  • Options
    #4862
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,065 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Y'all Qaeda still flogging the dead horse.

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-supporter-warns-cnns-donie-osullivan-of-future-civil-war-if-trump-is-not-reinstated-this-summer-you-guys-are-going-down/

    You know, because they love the Constitution so god damn much that if we don't violate it for them they have threatened to kill us all. Good stuff.


  • Options
    #4863
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,065 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Mic 1972 wrote: »
    On a side note: The film, released less than a fortnight before the election, ends with an instruction for viewers to vote.

    ... okay?


  • Options
    #4864
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Thousands of Lawyers knowingly & repeatedly lie through their teeth on National Television for months every year in an effort to overthrow the constitutionally elected President??

    Somehow I don't think a lawyer going on local news and saying "My Client is innocent" when they know full well that they aren't, is really the same.
    I don't know about that as it sounds awfully convoluted to say he was merely refused bail. They are taking his livelihood away from him without a fair trial or due process. Sure sounds like they've made themselves prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

    Forget the local news versus national news, as that's irrelevant. If a lawyer goes on TV and says my client was a subject of police brutality, and it is proven not to be the case... is it not the same thing?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #4865
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,037 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Forget the local news versus national news, as that's irrelevant. If a lawyer goes on TV and says my client was a subject of police brutality, and it is proven not to be the case... is it not the same thing?

    Rudy’s problem is that he was saying one thing in public, that there was voter fraud, but arguing something completely different in court. None of his court submissions actually allege any fraud and are all based on procedural issues.

    That’s what’s led to him being suspended.


  • Options
    #4866
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Forget the local news versus national news, as that's irrelevant. If a lawyer goes on TV and says my client was a subject of police brutality, and it is proven not to be the case... is it not the same thing?
    Actively deliberately lying would be unacceptable, in this case he lied in a courtroom so not even simply lying on a tv. Plus creating baseless lawsuits etc. Pretty much abused his role entirely. On top of that he's facing charges on other things including illegal lobbying.



    https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2018/december-2018/when-is-it-okay-for-a-lawyer-to-lie--/


    https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/rudy-giuliani-s-law-license-suspension-likely-won-t-teach-n1272308


    So you say his civil rights have been violated, if he doesn't take a successful case will you accept his rights were not violated?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4867
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    Rush’s problem is that he was saying one thing in public, that there was voter fraud, but arguing something completely different in court. None of his court submissions actually allege any fraud and are all based on procedural issues.

    That’s what’s led to him being suspended.

    If that were the case ObamaCare should have been killed. Obama was selling ObamaCare to the people as it not being a tax, but when his lawyers went to court for him they were arguing to the courts it was a tax, and therefore allowed. Seems to me it's what is said in court, not out in public, that really matters.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #4868
    Smee_Again
    Registered Users Posts: 2,037 ✭✭✭Smee_Again


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If that were the case ObamaCare should have been killed. Obama was selling ObamaCare to the people as it not being a tax, but when his lawyers went to court for him they were arguing to the courts it was a tax, and therefore allowed. Seems to me it's what is said in court, not out in public, that really matters.

    Not even remotely comparable.


  • Options
    #4869
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I don't know about that as it sounds awfully convoluted to say he was merely refused bail. They are taking his livelihood away from him without a fair trial or due process. Sure sounds like they've made themselves prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

    Forget the local news versus national news, as that's irrelevant. If a lawyer goes on TV and says my client was a subject of police brutality, and it is proven not to be the case... is it not the same thing?

    he did get a fair trial. he had representation. if he fails to meet the ethic standards of his profession then he doesn't deserve to continue in that profession. Don't worry there will be a full trial soon at which I'm sure Rudy will blind us all with a magnificent defence.


  • Options
    #4870
    francois
    Registered Users Posts: 3,469 ✭✭✭francois


    Rudi is toast. I'd pick another hill to die on.


  • Options
    #4871
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Actively deliberately lying would be unacceptable, in this case he lied in a courtroom so not even simply lying on a tv. Plus creating baseless lawsuits etc. Pretty much abused his role entirely. On top of that he's facing charges on other things including illegal lobbying.



    https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2018/december-2018/when-is-it-okay-for-a-lawyer-to-lie--/


    https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/rudy-giuliani-s-law-license-suspension-likely-won-t-teach-n1272308


    So you say his civil rights have been violated, if he doesn't take a successful case will you accept his rights were not violated?

    Lawyers sue for police abuse all the time as a counter suit. When it is proven to be false, should their license be suspended?

    I'm not understanding your 'if he doesn't take a successful case.' It might be merely a phrase in your country I'm not familiar with.

    But honestly, I don't much trust the court system in New York. If he is disbarred unfairly, can he take it to the New York Court of Appeals, then the 2nd Federal District Court of Appeals and finally the US Supreme Court?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4872
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Lawyers sue for police abuse all the time as a counter suit. When it is proven to be false, should their license be suspended?

    I'm not understanding your 'if he doesn't take a successful case.' It might be merely a phrase in your country I'm not familiar with.

    But honestly, I don't much trust the court system in New York. If he is disbarred unfairly, can he take it to the New York Court of Appeals, then the 2nd Federal District Court of Appeals and finally the US Supreme Court?

    yeah, those lefty new york courts.


  • Options
    #4873
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    he did get a fair trial. he had representation. if he fails to meet the ethic standards of his profession then he doesn't deserve to continue in that profession. Don't worry there will be a full trial soon at which I'm sure Rudy will blind us all with a magnificent defence.

    I don't believe he got a fair trial as all the issues were not explored. Also, disbarment are almost always reserved for lawyers convicted of a crime, and seemingly never for a lawyer making statements in public. But I can see them disbarring him, as it seems to be merely a kangaroo court hell bent on a witch hunt against anyone brave enough to align themselves with Trump in a liberal state.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #4874
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Lawyers sue for police abuse all the time as a counter suit. When it is proven to be false, should their license be suspended?

    I'm not understanding your 'if he doesn't take a successful case.' It might be merely a phrase in your country I'm not familiar with.

    But honestly, I don't much trust the court system in New York. If he is disbarred unfairly, can he take it to the New York Court of Appeals, then the 2nd Federal District Court of Appeals and finally the US Supreme Court?
    Knowingly lying is different to representing a client. Giuliani lied in court, multiple times. He opened multiple cases based on lies.



    Examples of multiple lies included here..



    https://www.factcheck.org/2021/06/rudy-giulianis-bogus-election-fraud-claims/


  • Options
    #4875
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Smee_Again wrote: »
    Not even remotely comparable.
    How so?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #4876
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I don't believe he got a fair trial as all the issues were not explored. Also, disbarment are almost always reserved for lawyers convicted of a crime, and seemingly never for a lawyer making statements in public. But I can see them disbarring him, as it seems to be merely a kangaroo court hell bent on a witch hunt against anyone brave enough to align themselves with Trump in a liberal state.

    do you have a source for the part in bold?


  • Options
    #4877
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Knowingly lying is different to representing a client. Giuliani lied in court, multiple times. He opened multiple cases based on lies.



    Examples of multiple lies included here..



    https://www.factcheck.org/2021/06/rudy-giulianis-bogus-election-fraud-claims/

    I would like to respond but we're not allowed to talk about those type of things in the past election, you know.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #4878
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    do you have a source for the part in bold?

    Of course...

    https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2021/0625/Witch-hunt-or-justice-Rudy-Giuliani-s-law-license-suspended

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #4879
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,635 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I don't believe he got a fair trial as all the issues were not explored. Also, disbarment are almost always reserved for lawyers convicted of a crime, and seemingly never for a lawyer making statements in public. But I can see them disbarring him, as it seems to be merely a kangaroo court hell bent on a witch hunt against anyone brave enough to align themselves with Trump in a liberal state.

    There you go again with statements as if you actually have any idea what you are talking about.

    What, in particular, did this court do that made the ruling unlawful, outside norms or a 'kangaroo court' as you alledge?

    Almost always, so not always and in that there are probably cases such as Guilianis. Have you checked that this the only time it has happened?

    This 'kangaroo court that is hell bent on a witch hunt'? Who else have the nailed. I mean, with that level of power and corruption then I assume anybody even remotely related to Trump is done.

    It wasn't that he made statements in public. He brought frivolous lawsuits, and knew they were frivolous.


  • Options
    #4880
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I would like to respond but we're not allowed to talk about those type of things in the past election, you know.

    how convenient for you. we will just have to accept the judges opinion that Rudy lied many many times both in public and in court and continued to repeat those lies after he was warned he faced disbarment. If he had just shut up they wouldn't have suspended his licence before the full hearing.


  • Options
    #4881
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,635 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Of course...

    https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2021/0625/Witch-hunt-or-justice-Rudy-Giuliani-s-law-license-suspended

    God, you can't even that get right. It isn't disbarment that is unusal
    Interim suspensions are often a precursor to disbarment but are typically “reserved for lawyers convicted of a crime,” said Bruce Green, a former federal prosecutor who directs the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics at the Fordham University School of Law. “It’s rarely done in cases involving lying lawyers.”

    So its rarely done, which means it is perfectly within the rules and remit of the court. That you think it is unfair is of no relevance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4882
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    There you go again with statements as if you actually have any idea what you are talking about.

    What, in particular, did this court do that made the ruling unlawful, outside norms or a 'kangaroo court' as you alledge?

    Almost always, so not always and in that there are probably cases such as Guilianis. Have you checked that this the only time it has happened?

    This 'kangaroo court that is hell bent on a witch hunt'? Who else have the nailed. I mean, with that level of power and corruption then I assume anybody even remotely related to Trump is done.

    It wasn't that he made statements in public. He brought frivolous lawsuits, and knew they were frivolous.

    not forgetting the lies he told in both oral and written submissions to courts.


  • Options
    #4883
    Tippex
    Registered Users Posts: 2,918 ✭✭✭Tippex


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    God, you can't even that get right. It isn't disbarment that is unusal


    So its rarely done, which means it is perfectly within the rules and remit of the court. That you think it is unfair is of no relevance.

    Not the first time the poster has linked to an article that doesn’t state what they think it states


  • Options
    #4884
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I would like to respond but we're not allowed to talk about those type of things in the past election, you know.
    He lied and that's why he's been disbarred. He's also in trouble for illegal lobbying. So you're claiming his civil rights are being abused... They're not and he's not the first lawyer to be disbarred for lying. Good riddance to trash. The fact you can't even argue your claim without going into conspiracy theories is telling. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #4885
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    not forgetting the lies he told in both oral and written submissions to courts.

    If one side wins and one loses in a lawsuit, it probably means one side has lied some throughout the process (the losing side). Funny, I don't see half the lawyers getting their licenses suspended or disbarred.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #4886
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If one side wins and one loses in a lawsuit, it probably means one side has lied some throughout the process (the losing side). Funny, I don't see half the lawyers getting their licenses suspended or disbarred.

    He told outright lies in court. lies that can be proven. many many lies. just so many lies.


  • Options
    #4887
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Deleted User wrote: »
    He lied and that's why he's been disbarred. He's also in trouble for illegal lobbying. So you're claiming his civil rights are being abused... They're not and he's not the first lawyer to be disbarred for lying. Good riddance to trash. The fact you can't even argue your claim without going into conspiracy theories is telling. :rolleyes:

    I’ve found accusations of conspiracy theories flow quick and freely from people like you regarding anything associated with Trump. But we do know from experience the truth takes longer. Remember back to... There was no Russian collusion. Or the Trump campaign was spied on. Both “conspiracy theories” according to your side, which happened to be TRUE given proper time to investigate.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #4888
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Tippex wrote: »
    Not the first time the poster has linked to an article that doesn’t state what they think it states

    Then please explain rather than merely making those accusations without supporting evidence.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #4889
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I’ve found accusations of conspiracy theories flow quick and freely from people like you regarding anything associated with Trump. But we do know from experience the truth takes longer. Remember back to... There was no Russian collusion. Or the Trump campaign was spied on. Both “conspiracy theories” according to your side, which happened to be TRUE given proper time to investigate.
    What will you say if they fail with a civil rights case? :pac:


  • Options
    #4890
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,440 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    The post below, that you somehow missed, explains why you are wrong in your assertion.
    notobtuse wrote: »
    Then please explain rather than merely making those accusations without supporting evidence.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    God, you can't even that get right. It isn't disbarment that is unusal
    Interim suspensions are often a precursor to disbarment but are typically “reserved for lawyers convicted of a crime,” said Bruce Green, a former federal prosecutor who directs the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics at the Fordham University School of Law. “It’s rarely done in cases involving lying lawyers.”
    So its rarely done, which means it is perfectly within the rules and remit of the court. That you think it is unfair is of no relevance.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4891
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Then please explain rather than merely making those accusations without supporting evidence.

    Isn't that what you just did?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement