Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

thethe said:
In a normal situation I agree. This case is not normal by any means and mueller should have done everything possible to eliminate speculation.
Click to expand...

Trumpophiles will find cause to complain about Mueller's team even if they were all purer than the driven snow.

But there is one interesting detail in this situation. His legal advisers have taken the public position that it is in his interest to cooperate with and expedite Mueller's investigation. I guess not all of his supporters have gotten that memo.
 
nsacpi said:
There is also the small matter that ultimately the findings of Mueller and company will be judged by the court of public opinion (and Congress if it comes to impeachment) and the judges that the cases get assigned to (plus juries and appellate courts and so forth).

I understand there is also a political contest going on. Trump and his partisans want to undermine any negative findings and these allegations of COI help them. And of course he is getting Benghazied by his opponents on a grand scale. That's how politics gets played.

The big question is whether he fires Mueller before he can wrap up his investigation. I think the odds are better than 50% he will. And if he does, it won't be because of COI, though that might be used as a convenient fig leaf.
Click to expand...

I don't get the Benghazi reference.
 
nsacpi said:
Trumpophiles will find cause to complain about Mueller's team even if they were all purer than the driven snow.

But there is one interesting detail in this situation. His legal advisers have taken the public position that it is in his interest to cooperate with and expedite Mueller's investigation. I guess not all of his supporters have gotten that memo.
Click to expand...

Yeah because we are making up the obvious bias of the team? Are you even being serious right now?
 
thethe said:
Yeah because we are making up the obvious bias of the team? Are you even being serious right now?
Click to expand...

Of course I'm being serious. If this whole thing is a nothing burger, even a partisan witch hunt (where have I heard that phrase) will not make it into something like a conspiracy with the Russians. It seems evident to me. If it is a nothing burger, Trump's lawyers are correct and Trump's interests lie in helping the investigation. Even if it is being conducted by conflicted liberal lawyers.
 
Hawk said:
I don't get the Benghazi reference.
Click to expand...

it is just a pet phrase I've adopted just because I like the sound of it, especially when used as a verb...to Benghazi someone...to poke someone up the ass with a sharp object...that's all I mean by it
 
nsacpi said:
Well multiple readings have not helped me in that regard. I guess I need to take Remedial Reading Comprehension 101.
Click to expand...

No need. Here's a quick primer.

1. A lawyer should self-determine if there is a COI that affects the "exercise of independent professional judgment".
2. Lawyers often assume that COI don't exist. Or they forget.
3. The ABA recommends using conflict-checking software to avoid this trap.

I guess since Mueller's investigation is operating on a such shoe-string budget he couldn't afford to license the software.

Relevant highlights:

Figuring out whether you have a conflict is often the most difficult step. As noted previously, you must determine whether external interests—your own or those of other clients or third persons—are likely to impact your exercise of independent professional judgment. Information is the key to this analysis. Lawyers must have access to good information regarding their own interests (investments, etc.) and the interests of their families, other clients, and relevant third parties. This can be difficult enough for a single lawyer but is even more difficult for lawyers in firms because they must have access to this information for partners, associates, and staff members as well.

It is surprising how many lawyers play ostrich when it comes to conflicts, simply ignoring potential problems. Others assume that they remember all past and current clients and can anticipate conflicts from memory. Both approaches are dangerous; even for lawyers in solo or small firm practice, relying on memory is simply not adequate. All lawyers should adopt and use conflict-checking systems appropriate to the size and type of their practice. Conflict-checking software can be run in conjunction with case management and time and billing software, making it relatively easy to check for potential problems.

[...]

Wherever a lawyer’s ability to recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for a client may be materially limited by the lawyer’s other responsibilities or interests, a conflict of interest may exist. Although conflicts are often unique and fact-specific, some common conflicts can be identified. One obvious is conflicts created by the lawyer’s own interests. Do a lawyer’s personal beliefs present a conflict when they disagree with a client’s objectives? Can a lawyer take a “piece of the action”—for example, an interest in a business being formed—as part of the fee? What if the opposing party or attorney is a close personal friend of the lawyer or the lawyer’s spouse? These situations present potential conflicts but do not necessarily preclude representation.

[...]

Another category of conflicts often arises as a result of current or past representation of other clients. A lawyer cannot represent both sides in a contested matter or sue a current client, even in an unrelated matter; but the lawyer can, with appropriate care, represent multiple parties with similar interests. Representation of co-plaintiffs or co-defendants is common, although particular caution is needed in criminal cases. Representing clients who merely compete with one another does not present a legal conflict, but practical considerations may dictate that the lawyer decline such representation. Similarly, most issue or positional conflicts—arguing one legal position in Case A and a contrary position in Case B—are permissible, although the clients may not be happy with the situation.

[...]

Former clients can also pose conflict challenges for an attorney. Although the duty of loyalty diminishes significantly once representation is concluded, some degree of residual loyalty prevents a lawyer from attempting to “undo” what was accomplished for the client. But the duty of confidentiality continues after the representation is over and arguably remains forever. Even though you may no longer have any recollection of the matter, the law presumes that you do. As a result, lawyers are prohibited from representing materially adverse to (which includes suing) a former client in a substantially related matter.
 
nsacpi said:
it is just a pet phrase I've adopted just because I like the sound of it, especially when used as a verb...to Benghazi someone...to poke someone up the ass with a sharp object...that's all I mean by it
Click to expand...

I like this definition: "forced sharp-object sodomy as a consequence for negligently allowing innocents to be slaughtered"
 
Can I Represent Despite the Conflict?

The existence of a conflict or potential conflict does not always mean you cannot undertake or continue representation, but it does require you to take certain steps before doing so. Initially, determine whether the conflict is one of the few that absolutely prohibits representation under any circumstances. For example, a lawyer cannot represent both sides in the same or related litigation. Most conflicts can be waived—but the fact that you legally can undertake representation doesn’t necessarily mean you should.

In assessing whether to seek consent to a potential conflict, review the practical and business issues as well as legal and ethical considerations. How will seeking consent and engaging in potentially conflicted representation affect your relationship with your current and future clients? How likely is it that problems will develop? If they do, will they affect your practice and reputation? Consent may seem like a good idea when it allows the representation and appears to make everyone happy, but if a real likelihood of future difficulties exists, you may well be simply delaying the inevitable. Not facing up to this eventuality could lead to disqualification and, worse, an angry former client, no fee, and a bar complaint.
 
Hawk said:
I like this definition: "forced sharp-object sodomy as a consequence for negligently allowing innocents to be slaughtered"
Click to expand...

it is a sport popular in various parts of the world...i wonder if I could copyright its use as a verb
 
jpx7 said:
Yes. Otherwise it's just "erroneous news".
Click to expand...

fake needs intent I believe...some seem to consider themselves expert at discerning intent...not just intent of the MSM but also intent of Rand Paul's neighbor

having said that I think some of the recent reporting has gotten sloppy...i know everyone wants to be first with the big scoop, but they need to slow down and make sure of the facts
 
Rumor floating around that cnns source for their most recent edition of fake news is a congressman. That would be kind of big...
 
I was talking with someone in the news business on Thursday about single sourced stories. He told me they can go with single source if the person is absolutely in a position to know and has never misled them in the past. For example if the chief of police gives you something about a crime then you can go with it even if he is the only source. If the person's position to know is not established you need multiple sources before going with a big story. Those are simple common sense rules. Not always observed. But they should be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top