Lol George HW Bush

[Spurtacular]

You didn't answer the question. Do you talk like that?

So, no point.

[Pavlov]

So, no point.

You didn't answer either question.

[Spurtacular]

You didn't answer either question.

I don't answer pointless questions.

[Pavlov]

I don't answer pointless questions.

You don't answer any questions.

[Spurtacular]

You don't answer any questions.

More tantrum mode.

[spurraider21]

Give me a break, dude. Hillary laughing about getting a child rapist off the hook; that's effectively "right in front of you."

Double standard: *ding*

Didn't a judge order her to defend him even though she requested not to? As his attorney, she is ethically bound to defend him and get the best possible outcome for her client

[RandomGuy]

How is it a pity post if you are asking a question about the OP?

Maybe deleted it because she got an apology.

Poor Bush senior is quite possibly suffering from dementia, given his advanced age. Such inappropriateness very often pops up as the brain starts winding down.

[Pavlov]

Well, impulse control maybe -- but his wife is right there. She could at least explain the behavior if not stop it when he's in the windup.

[RandomGuy]

I don't answer pointless questions.

"pointless" being anything that might indicate that what you think is true... isn't.

Cognitive bias in action.

[Spurtacular]

Didn't a judge order her to defend him even though she requested not to? As his attorney, she is ethically bound to defend him and get the best possible outcome for her client

I know that's the revisionist history story she presented. And a lawyer has the right to not represent someone on ethical grounds; nice try, dude.

[spurraider21]

I know that's the revisionist history story she presented. And a lawyer has the right to not represent someone on ethical grounds; nice try, dude.

With a judge's permission. The judge didn't grant her request.

[Spurtacular]

With a judge's permission. The judge didn't grant her request.

Yea, that's all the revisionist history. No judge has a right to force a lawyer to represent someone who objects on ethical grounds. That's law 101, dude. You should stop gulping down you sociopath hero's lies and then presenting them to me like they're ; it makes you look weak and inept.

[Pavlov]

Yea, that's all the revisionist history. No judge has a right to force a lawyer to represent someone who objects on ethical grounds. That's law 101, dude.

Which law?

[spurraider21]

Yea, that's all the revisionist history. No judge has a right to force a lawyer to represent someone who objects on ethical grounds. That's law 101, dude. You should stop gulping down you sociopath hero's lies and then presenting them to me like they're ; it makes you look weak and inept.

[spurraider21]

ABA model rules of professional conduct

1.16(c)

A lawyer must comply with applicable law by requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.


"no judge has a right to force a lawyer to represent someone who objects on ethical grounds"
"law 101"

[dabom]

[Spurtacular]

ABA model rules of professional conduct

1.16(c)

A lawyer must comply with applicable law by requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.


"no judge has a right to force a lawyer to represent someone who objects on ethical grounds"
"law 101"

And no judge would order a lawyer to represent a client over ethical objections. You're a ing dumb ass.

[dabom]

Using "revisionist history" argument to promote their own "revisionist history".

[spurraider21]

And no judge would order a lawyer to represent a client over ethical objections. You're a ing dumb ass.

"no judge has the right"

To

"no judge would"

You're just making it up as you go along and talking out of your ass. "law 101"

[Spurtacular]

"no judge has the right"

To

"no judge would"

You're just making it up as you go along and talking out of your ass. "law 101"

I've taken two legal courses. I've watched plenty of legal shows. This is not hard stuff. I'm sure if you actually research it and not half-ass it in favor of what you want to believe you'll find that I'm right.

[Pavlov]

And no judge would order a lawyer to represent a client over ethical objections. You're a ing dumb ass.

Of course they would. It's law 101.

[Pavlov]

I've watched plenty of legal shows.

[Spurtacular]

spurraider21

Let's put it this way. There is a process in place for a defense attorney to object to representing someone. Hillary did not 'exhaust those legal remedies.'

[Pavlov]

spurraider21

Let's put it this way. There is a process in place for a defense attorney to object to representing someone. Hillary did not 'exhaust those legal remedies.'

Let's put it this way. It was her job. It's law 101.

[dabom]

Spunk got watches Fake News and loves fat dobbs.