• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bill Barr: The Cover-Up General

DistrictDeacon said:
Big deal - they are just calling a meeting. If they were brave they would each be sacrificing their first born.
Click to expand...

A meeting presumably to do something is more than nothing.

But yeah, it will probably result in a strongly worded letter. I don’t expect lawyers who believe in the system to take action to fix it. This is not just a Barr issue.
 
PhDeac said:
A meeting presumably to do something is more than nothing.

But yeah, it will probably result in a strongly worded letter. I don’t expect lawyers who believe in the system to take action to fix it. This is not just a Barr issue.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a coup is the only option.
 
Using sarcasm to deflect from the fact you have no ideas isn’t a good look.
 
Ph... do you think that a doctor should be able to choose to directly harm a patient if they know that patient is a criminal and/or a bad person? Some professions have a client relationship which requires that they act in a certain manner. They can choose to step away from the client, but they can not actively work to harm that client. It is ok if you were not aware of this, but your persistence in holding your position is bordering on ridiculous at this point.
 
Who is the client?

It seems like some people here are using rules meant to protect powerful people as a reason to protect powerful people. We don't typically don't think heroes are people who follow the rules while society suffers.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
Who is the client?

It seems like some people here are using rules meant to protect powerful people as a reason to protect powerful people. We don't typically don't think heroes are people who follow the rules while society suffers.
Click to expand...

Doctors and lawyers follow similar guidelines. Doesn't matter who the client is, the relationship is the same. Is it ok for a doctor to harm a patient?
 
redwing42 said:
Doctors and lawyers follow similar guidelines. Doesn't matter who the client is, the relationship is the same. Is it ok for a doctor to harm a patient?
Click to expand...

You seem to be saying that the DOJ lawyers are working for someone who would be harmed if the DOJ lawyers acted in a just manner, so they resigned.

Is that correct?
 
That's an even worse comparison. Are you trying to make the argument that DOJ lawyers quitting a case is meaningful or are you just trying to own ol' Ph?

You all need to figure out what your point is beyond arguing with me.
 
I’m not being sarcastic.

Stay on point. Make your case about the DOJ lawyers, not me.
 
It’s a sadly common problem with the boards. Instead of arguing about the topic, some people try to make it about the person they’re arguing with. Weird tactic on an anonymous message board but I guess that’s all some people have.
 
PhDeac said:
You seem to be saying that the DOJ lawyers are working for someone who would be harmed if the DOJ lawyers acted in a just manner, so they resigned.

Is that correct?
Click to expand...

Generally yes. If these lawyers came out and said "we are recommending that the sentence be reduced because the defendant is a friend of the president," that not only looks bad, but puts evidence of corruption in the legal record books. Moreover, though, a lawyer can not release information to the court without their client's permission. Rather than lie for the government, they recused themselves from the case.

Ultimately, the mere act of all four recusing themselves was a big enough deal that it has snowballed into a major push against Barr, so I think their actions carried significant weight and that further action would not have yielded anything more significant. Attorney-client privilege is a fundamental part of being an attorney, just as the Hippocratic oath is a part of being a doctor. You never did answer my question, but this is essentially the heart of the argument anyway.
 
perpetual motion is purportedly impossible but if we could somehow harness the power of an argument between Ph vs Junebug we could probably supply all the energy needs until the end of time
 
Thank you to the lawyers for explaining this to my satisfaction.

Tag: arrogant lawyer talk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top