SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
He resigned his bar membership in DC and AR IIRC in light of the fact it would be taken from him. Sort of like surrendering a server knowing it will be seized anyway.Clinton wasn't actually disbarred.
He resigned his bar membership in DC and AR IIRC in light of the fact it would be taken from him. Sort of like surrendering a server knowing it will be seized anyway.Clinton wasn't actually disbarred.
Probably true, exigent circumstances but yeah.Is there any doubt that were he alive today he'll still vote for her over Trump?
He was a purist.Hitchens was a really bright guy, a joy to read, but he was eager to present himself as a gadfly and iconoclast. His attacks against both Hillary Clinton and Mother Theresa were, I believe, attempts at self-publicity.
Just ribbing you because I'm not sure you really read that article. I am skeptical of the rape claim, actually doubtful. She had the chance to say what she wanted to say in an affidavit which would likely become a deposition, she demurred.Hmm. I thought you said you were skeptical of Broadrick.
I know she finds Broadrick credible. That's not the same as believing Broadrick. I've just never believed, myself, that Bill would actually rape somebody. Just doesn't seem to fit what I know of his character. Womanizer, yes. Sexual predator, philanderer, sure. But rape? I don't see it (the same for Trump BTW.)
But the important part is that Hillary as an enabler doesn't fit her at all- though it DOES fit the fictional Hillary character that has been created by the vast right wing...um...network for decades.
not really, and you're still inaccurate. he resigned from the US Supreme Court. he took a voluntary suspension from Arkansas rather than face a hearing. he's been eligible for reinstatement for some time, but never reapplied since he likely has no need to practice law again anywhere. neither is a disbarment, and even in the link you provided, you can't find the word "disbar" anywhere.He resigned his bar membership in DC and AR IIRC in light of the fact it would be taken from him. Sort of like surrendering a server knowing it will be seized anyway.
He was a purist.
In what sense? Are you aware that the Peter Fallow character in The Bonfire of the Vanities is largely based on Christopher Hitchens?Hm I'm beering in the Quarter right now but I will follow up later. Thanks.not really, and you're still inaccurate. he resigned from the US Supreme Court. he took a voluntary suspension from Arkansas rather than face a hearing. he's been eligible for reinstatement for some time, but never reapplied since he likely has no need to practice law again anywhere. neither is a disbarment, and even in the link you provided, you can't find the word "disbar" anywhere.
it is very Timlike to repost from a blog without checking the accuracy of the assertions being quoted.
In the sense he was an idealist. Not a Wolfe reader actually. I enjoyed Hitchens' arguments and his ideas.In what sense? Are you aware that the Peter Fallow character in The Bonfire of the Vanities is largely based on Christopher Hitchens?
Because he was going to be disbarred. He was also fined.he took a voluntary suspension from Arkansas rather than face a hearing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/25/opinion/mr-clinton-s-disbarment-case.html?_r=0In recommending that President Clinton be disbarred for providing false testimony in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, a disciplinary committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court has called for the harshest sanction at its disposal.
Yep you're right it was the USSC, not DC:he resigned from the US Supreme Court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/01/national/clinton-disbarred-from-practice-before-supreme-court.htmlThe Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.
The court did not explain its reasons, but Supreme Court disbarment often follows disbarment in lower courts.
- I don't know what to say. Hitchens linked to the wiki page, which links to the actual order of disbarment. The man was disbarred.it is very Timlike to repost from a blog without checking the accuracy of the assertions being quoted.
except there is no order of disbarment and he wasn't disbarred. facts, shmacts.Because he was going to be disbarred. He was also fined.
That's the AR disbarment notice. Clinton 'admitted to giving knowingly evasive and misleading discovery responses.'
He violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.
I don't know where you're from but I can tell you I have seen this happen to disgraced, and typically convicted, lawyer politicians before. They resign rather than be disbarred.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/25/opinion/mr-clinton-s-disbarment-case.html?_r=0
- That's a death knell for almost every attorney. He wasn't winning that.
Yep you're right it was the USSC, not DC:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/01/national/clinton-disbarred-from-practice-before-supreme-court.html
- So that was pretty much on the basis of what happened at the AR bar.
- I don't know what to say. Hitchens linked to the wiki page, which links to the actual order of disbarment. The man was disbarred.
Well I don't know enough to comment. But the few times I heard Hitchens talk about it I was very startled.Hitchens is hardly the only one to report on Mother Teresa's issues. Her clinics were compared to concentration camps not by Hitchens but by researchers. She rode around in private jets and her clinics lacked basic medicine. She associated with Baby Doc Duvalier and took his blood money. I'm not really a fan. She is a creation of church propaganda.
Oh ok, the AR SC and USSC instructed Bill Clinton that he is not permitted to practice in their courts, but he was not disbarred. Got it.except there is no order of disbarment and he wasn't disbarred. facts, shmacts.
That's disbarment.D. The findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of an appropriate
sanction shall be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court along with a transcript and the record
of the proceedings, which shall include all pleadings, orders, and other appropriate materials
filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Upon the filing, the parties shall file briefs as in other
cases. If any sanction is recommended by the special judge, the respondent attorney shall brief
first, as the appellant. The findings of fact filed by the special judge shall be accepted by the
Supreme Court unless clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court shall impose the appropriate
sanction, if any, as the evidence may warrant. In imposing the sanction of suspension of law
license, the attorney may be suspended for a period not exceeding five (5) years. There is no
appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court, except as may be available under federal law.
http://time.com/4126238/mother-teresas-crisis-of-faith/Hitchens is hardly the only one to report on Mother Teresa's issues. Her clinics were compared to concentration camps not by Hitchens but by researchers. She rode around in private jets and her clinics lacked basic medicine. She associated with Baby Doc Duvalier and took his blood money. I'm not really a fan. She is a creation of church propaganda.
No, AR accepted a voluntary suspension with a 5 year reinstatement period. That's not disbarment. He resigned from the USSC. That's not disbarment either.Oh ok, the AR SC and USSC instructed Bill Clinton that he is not permitted to practice in their courts, but he was not disbarred. Got it.
That's disbarment.
Henry if you're still around do you mind explaining further? I totally defer to you.She's requesting an independent medical examination. This is one of the more tame versions of that request I've ever seen.Accusing a 12 year old child who was raped of seeking out older older men, fantasizing about them romantically, and exaggerating about their physically attacking her? Nahhhh...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/the-facts-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/As part of her handling of the case, Clinton filed an affidavit July 28, 1975, requesting that the girl go through a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” Clinton said. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
Clinton offered no source for the claims.
When Glenn Thrush, then a reporter for Newsday, showed the affidavit to Shelton in 2007, he wrote that she was visibly stunned. “It kind of shocks me – it’s not true,” she said. “I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life.”
But Shelton told Thrush at the time that she bore no ill will toward Clinton. “I have to understand that she was representing Taylor,” she said. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.”
But in 2014, Shelton told the Daily Beast that she had been misquoted. “Hillary Clinton took me through hell,” she said.
Ok, those example are actually different. In Bill Clinton's case the AR SC recommended disbarment, which is usually if not almost always the final result if someone fights it.No, AR accepted a voluntary suspension with a 5 year reinstatement period. That's not disbarment. He resigned from the USSC. That's not disbarment either.
Here's an example: I know two lawyers in my state that ran into disciplinary hearings. One committed arson in the course of a divorce, then threatened to murder a judge. He got disbarred.
The other had a nervous breakdown when a family member died, and mishandled some cases and some client trust funds. She took a 2 year voluntary suspension and then sought (and was granted) reinstatement.
I resigned from the Nevada Supreme Court because I don't intend to practice there again.
One of those is a disbarment. The other two aren't. Clinton wasn't disbarred, the order on the wiki page isn't a disbarment order, and if you search the page the search term "disbar" doesn't even come up. Given the fact he had no intention of ever practicing law again, surrendering his card was just the easiest thing to do.
So Clinton was suspended is accurate?No, AR accepted a voluntary suspension with a 5 year reinstatement period. That's not disbarment. He resigned from the USSC. That's not disbarment either.
Here's an example: I know two lawyers in my state that ran into disciplinary hearings. One committed arson in the course of a divorce, then threatened to murder a judge. He got disbarred.
The other had a nervous breakdown when a family member died, and mishandled some cases and some client trust funds. She took a 2 year voluntary suspension and then sought (and was granted) reinstatement.
I resigned from the Nevada Supreme Court because I don't intend to practice there again.
One of those is a disbarment. The other two aren't. Clinton wasn't disbarred, the order on the wiki page isn't a disbarment order, and if you search the page the search term "disbar" doesn't even come up. Given the fact he had no intention of ever practicing law again, surrendering his card was just the easiest thing to do.
Now you're moving the goalposts. There was no disbarment. You want to know what percentage of tentative recommendations get overturned after a request for a hearing? No idea, but it's a non-zero number.Ok, those example are actually different. In Bill Clinton's case the AR SC recommended disbarment, which is usually if not almost always the final result if someone fights it.
Was that the situation in the examples you gave? Which ones?
Whoah You brought up the examples. Not me.Now you're moving the goalposts. There was no disbarment. You want to know what percentage of tentative recommendations get overturned after a request for a hearing? No idea, but it's a non-zero number.
You use the word disbarred. He wasn't. The blog you quoted said the wiki page said he was disbarred. It doesn't.
Changing the argument doesn't change the fact that your "facts" are simply wrong. Throwing around words as if they have no meaning and then trying to claim that you were saying something else is a complete fallacy. Sadly, this is the influence Tim has had on discourse here. Skim a blog, post an inflammatory quote, but don't worry about whether there's any accuracy. At least you don't plagiarize your inaccurate statements.
did you even read the article? the last two paragraphs indicate that she was lying about the polygraph and the psych evaluation.Henry if you're still around do you mind explaining further? I totally defer to you.
I think this appears to be the full court record.
The full Affidavit is on Page 34.
This is an explanation of why this is relevant from WaPo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/the-facts-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/
- Look at Paragraph 4. You would file an Affidavit without any source or name supporting your claim that "I have been informed"? That's ok, to not say who informed you or what their expertise or relationship is?
- Look at the Affidavit of the Investigator on Page 4 for comparison.
Who informed Hillary of this?
why would it matter? if that's the recommendation, you request a hearing where you are represented by counsel or you take a voluntary suspension. Clinton managed to be acquitted in an impeachment. Would the Arkansas state bar's disciplinary committee have held up to his attorneys?Whoah You brought up the examples. Not me.
Which of your examples had a recommendation of disbarment from the state disciplinary committee? Any? None?
Well this is what I have:why would it matter? if that's the recommendation, you request a hearing where you are represented by counsel or you take a voluntary suspension. Clinton managed to be acquitted in an impeachment. Would the Arkansas state bar's disciplinary committee have held up to his attorneys?
you have said multiple times now he was disbarred. it simply isn't true.
Yeah, it includes this.did you even read the article? the last two paragraphs indicate that she was lying about the polygraph and the psych evaluation.
Same question to you - is it ok for an attorney to submit an affidavit without stating any source like a record or person with relationship or expertise for the basis of the affidavit? Or if you can just tell, what was Hillary's source for that assertion?Shelton did not know about Clinton’s affidavit asking for the exam in the 41-year-old case until it was shown to her by a reporter nine years ago.
I love how you worked Hillary and Mother Theresa into the same sentence. My God.Hitchens was a really bright guy, a joy to read, but he was eager to present himself as a gadfly and iconoclast. His attacks against both Hillary Clinton and Mother Theresa were, I believe, attempts at self-publicity.
Snopes has SID's claim as mostly true, FWIW.Well this is what I have:
I don't want to quibble anymore. I enjoy these conversations but I don't want to drag anyone's enjoyment down. You want to say that in AR voluntary suspension for 5 years following a recommendation for disbarment from the disciplinary committee, even when the SC's own RPC state that 5 years suspension is the penalty under (their term) "Disbarment", isn't actual, you know, "disbarment", fine.
- The AR SC Rules of Conduct under "Disbarment" which shows what BC got was the maximum allowed in that state, 5 years suspended.
- You don't seem to have any indication or source for suggesting that AR allows for permanent disbarment, which seems to be what you re really referring to.
- You offered three examples where one person was disbarred and two voluntarily resigned. You never did answer my question as to whether any of the three were recommended for disbarment by the DC of the state bar. I'm guessing that the first one was indeed so, ie the guy ultimately actually disbarred.
Except the disbarment part.Snopes has SID's claim as mostly true, FWIW.
It's over, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it.Matthias said:Election's over. Done. She's won. Trump is down by too much and keep insisting that the problem is his boat doesn't have enough holes.
If anyone wants action on Trump, I'll do 10-to-1 taking the HillDog.
Hillary Clinton >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mother TeresaI love how you worked Hillary and Mother Theresa into the same sentence. My God.![]()
As has been said several times already, the standard is that the attorney signing the pleading has a good faith belief for the statement. No identification of the source is necessary (and may be privileged). However, in this case the psych eval was denied, the witness was lying about it happening, and the court record doesn't support the claim that Clinton was behind the polygraph. Once again, the facts are being ignored in favor of the spin.Yeah, it includes this.
Same question to you - is it ok for an attorney to submit an affidavit without stating any source like a record or person with relationship or expertise for the basis of the affidavit? Or if you can just tell, what was Hillary's source for that assertion?
Thanks. I was just curious about that one paragraph.As has been said several times already, the standard is that the attorney signing the pleading has a good faith belief for the statement. No identification of the source is necessary (and may be privileged). However, in this case the psych eval was denied, the witness was lying about it happening, and the court record doesn't support the claim that Clinton was behind the polygraph. Once again, the facts are being ignored in favor of the spin.
None, but he would have voted for Sanders in the primary.Is there any doubt that were he alive today he'll still vote for her over Trump?
Donald Trump has fallen further behind Hillary Clinton and now trails her by 8 points among likely voters, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll, with 1 in 5 Republicans saying his vulgar comments about groping women disqualify him from the presidency.
The national tracking poll was launched after Sunday night’s second presidential debate, where Trump was pressed to explain his comments in a 2005 videotape about grabbing women’s genitalia. He described the remarks, which first surfaced on Friday, as “locker room” banter and apologized to Americans.
The poll released on Tuesday showed Clinton, the Democratic nominee, had increased her lead over Trump, the Republican nominee, to 8 percentage points on Monday from 5 points last week.
When asked to pick between the two major-party candidates, 45% of likely voters said they supported Clinton while 37% supported Trump. Another 18% said they would not support either candidate.
If you can be sure the site will payout that's actually not a bad bet.Matthias said:Looking at prices on PredictIt. Hillary trading at 83 cents. They take 10% of your profit then 5% of your cash out. So after their slice, you basically are getting what I just offered: a 10-to-1 bet. Thinking about putting in $1,000.
He's totally lost the suburban woman vote around Philly.The last 3 GOP candidates have spent a lot of time campaigning in Pennsylvania and treating it like a key battleground state. But is it really? At this point in 2008, 2012, and now, the Democrat opened up a wide lead in Pennsylvania and never looked back.
If Pennsylvania is in reality a blue state, then I don't see how we're going to have another Republican president for a long time.
Meh 2012 was 52 D/ 47 R. That's not exactly CA.The last 3 GOP candidates have spent a lot of time campaigning in Pennsylvania and treating it like a key battleground state. But is it really? At this point in 2008, 2012, and now, the Democrat opened up a wide lead in Pennsylvania and never looked back.
If Pennsylvania is in reality a blue state, then I don't see how we're going to have another Republican president for a long time.
$1000 to win $130.05? Its not a bad bet, its a stupid bet.If you can be sure the site will payout that's actually not a bad bet.
It's not exactly close either. And it was a larger lead per polling in October. Romney made a final push (expending time and money that some in his campaign felt was a crucial error.)Meh 2012 was 52 D/ 47 R. That's not exactly CA.
I don't know, you asked, I'd say don't write off states that you lose by 3 points, but maybe figure out what the key difference to overcome is there.It's not exactly close either. And it was a larger lead per polling in October. Romney made a final push (expending time and money that some in his campaign felt was a crucial error.)
Hannity was all over this last night. I suspect crap like this happens in every election.
Well CNN having a well known Clinton advisor and DNC Vice-chairwoman as a pundit seems like a bad person to share questions with in advance in the first place.Hannity was all over this last night. I suspect crap like this happens in every election.
Whatever. It's extremely unlikely to me that she told the campaign anything it did not already know. Ever since Hillary stumbled over the drivers license for illegals question back in 2007, I have never seen her unprepared for any question in any town hall or debate. She is probably the most prepared politician I have ever watched.Well CNN having a well known Clinton advisor and DNC Vice-chairwoman as a pundit seems like a bad person to share questions with in advance in the first place.
I'd agree Hillary is extremely prepared, one of her assets for sure. This is more on CNN, they also hired Lewandowski while he was still working for Trump. These people should not be on the air as pundits in the first place.Whatever. It's extremely unlikely to me that she told the campaign anything it did not already know. Ever since Hillary stumbled over the drivers license for illegals question back in 2007, I have never seen her unprepared for any question in any town hall or debate. She is probably the most prepared politician I have ever watched.
Depends on how the GOP responds. If they double down on vitriol and extreme anti-establishment rhetoric, yes. If they're smart and run a moderate, that candidate will be well received. This election has been less about issues or political leanings and about emotions. I think it would be refreshing if people felt they had a candidate that had substance and would realign quickly if they aren't too establishment but don't run on a childish platform.The last 3 GOP candidates have spent a lot of time campaigning in Pennsylvania and treating it like a key battleground state. But is it really? At this point in 2008, 2012, and now, the Democrat opened up a wide lead in Pennsylvania and never looked back.
If Pennsylvania is in reality a blue state, then I don't see how we're going to have another Republican president for a long time.