• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans scold Liz Cheney

Yes, and so is Ken Starr who you think is a hero:

The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams’s representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston massacre.​

That is from the letter in the OP.

And he's dead wrong. So what of it? You think because I thought Ken Star did the right thing under Clinton he's infallible? Are you kidding?

Whats incredible is that you are so oblivious to the fact that this is the same government DOJ that tried to force civilian trials for these Islamic terrorists. The EXACT SAME THING these lawyers tried when they were just defense attorneys!

And somehow you missed it. Amazing.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, what position did they accept? A public or private one? :roll:

So your theory is that any time anyone wants to know any information about the past private work experience of any government employee, the government must disclose that information without delay?

Did you try to change the law they were being prosecuted under?

We tried to get the judges to apply it in new and unique ways. What's your point?

Indigent clients. Get this guy. Boy you really are a lawyer. You think these Islamic terrorists are needy and impoverished?

You obviously appear to understand what the word "indigent" means, so what's the question? They cannot obtain legal counsel on their own. It is provided for them. What's so confusing about this?

This isn't about even defending American civilian criminals. Its about defending Islamic terrorists and trying to force the government to try them under the same rights you and I face and you think there isn't a difference?

It's about representing a client. It doesn't matter whether you think they should receive the same rights or not, because as long as their cases are in the US court system, they need lawyers there to represent them.
 
Lindsey Graham joined the growing list of Republicans denouncing Liz Cheney.

“A defense attorney who is making the government do their job regardless of the nature of the case is making this whole country a better place,” said Graham, a military lawyer who’s currently a senior instructor at the Air Force JAG School. “I represented people as a defense attorney in the military that were charged with some pretty horrific acts and I gave them my all.”​

Lindsey Graham denounces Liz Cheney advertisement - Lisa Lerer - POLITICO.com
 
So your theory is that any time anyone wants to know any information about the past private work experience of any government employee, the government must disclose that information without delay?

Without delay? Do you even have a clue how long they "delayed" releasing the names?

Have you even bothered to do any research whatsoever?

Here's a clue. This has been going on for months. Only after Liz Cheney showed up on the O'Reilly Factor did they release the names. Pretty sad you defended something you obviously knew nothing about.

I see you ducked the point that they work for the government and not a private firm.

We tried to get the judges to apply it in new and unique ways. What's your point?

There is a big difference between fighting for your client and trying to reshape the law to fit Islamic terrorists and afford them American civilian rights.

That's the point.

You obviously appear to understand what the word "indigent" means, so what's the question?

Look up the word. Clearly you do not know what the word means.


in·di·gent
   /ˈɪndɪdʒənt/ Show Spelled[in-di-juhnt] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
lacking food, clothing, and other necessities of life because of poverty; needy; poor; impoverished.
2.
Archaic.
a.
deficient in what is requisite.
b.
destitute (usually fol. by of).


Once again your lack of research and arrogance gets the better of you.

They cannot obtain legal counsel on their own. It is provided for them. What's so confusing about this?

Again, how do you know this? How do you know they are poor and have no money at all? Where is your proof?

Of course you have none, just more supposition without factual backing from you.

It's about representing a client. It doesn't matter whether you think they should receive the same rights or not, because as long as their cases are in the US court system, they need lawyers there to represent them.

No see its not just about representing a client. This kind of thinking is what gives lawyers such a bad name. You cannot pretend you hold personal morals and defend Islamic terrorists and think they can be separated.

The stupidity of your argument is amazing. When was the last time someone who was a mob lawyer got hired as a DOJ lawyer to go after the mob?

There are limits to such rank hypocrisy
 
Last edited:
Lindsey Graham joined the growing list of Republicans denouncing Liz Cheney.

“A defense attorney who is making the government do their job regardless of the nature of the case is making this whole country a better place,” said Graham, a military lawyer who’s currently a senior instructor at the Air Force JAG School. “I represented people as a defense attorney in the military that were charged with some pretty horrific acts and I gave them my all.”​

Lindsey Graham denounces Liz Cheney advertisement - Lisa Lerer - POLITICO.com

Michael Goldfarb said it best:

"These lawyers did far more than represent criminals. They have propagandized on behalf of our enemies, engaging in a worldwide smear campaign against the CIA, the U.S. military and the United States itself while we are at war."
 
Lindsey Graham joined the growing list of Republicans denouncing Liz Cheney.

“A defense attorney who is making the government do their job regardless of the nature of the case is making this whole country a better place,” said Graham, a military lawyer who’s currently a senior instructor at the Air Force JAG School. “I represented people as a defense attorney in the military that were charged with some pretty horrific acts and I gave them my all.”​

Lindsey Graham denounces Liz Cheney advertisement - Lisa Lerer - POLITICO.com

She's been hammered by multiple reputable people. Unfortunately there are people such as textmaster who think her words are brilliant.
 
She's been hammered by multiple reputable people. Unfortunately there are people such as textmaster who think her words are brilliant.

Not brilliant but she has a point. Ignoring it and dismissing it is neither helpful nor constructive.
 
She's been hammered by multiple reputable people. Unfortunately there are people such as textmaster who think her words are brilliant.

Where did I say her words were brillant?

Never happened.

But since you couldn't defend your own pitiful attempt to compare one of these lawyers to John Adams whats another dishonest statement to such a seasoned poster?

And please read more carefully. There are only 2 Ts in Texmaster
 
Last edited:
No one on the right listens to her do they? I mean, she's gay... doesn't that usually disqualify you as being someone a conservative let alone a neocon would listen to?
 
Not brilliant but she has a point. Ignoring it and dismissing it is neither helpful nor constructive.

It's not helpful or constructive to whom? You? OMG, I'm devastated.

Sure she has a point, and I can, if I want to, dismiss it as nonsense.
 
No one on the right listens to her do they? I mean, she's gay... doesn't that usually disqualify you as being someone a conservative let alone a neocon would listen to?

Despite the lies from people like you on the left, conservatives do not hate homosexuals.
 
No one on the right listens to her do they? I mean, she's gay... doesn't that usually disqualify you as being someone a conservative let alone a neocon would listen to?

This isn't the gay daughter.
 
He's well respected by the New Black Panther terrorists.

Not by anyone who cares about the United States and wishes to reverse the growth of corruption in government.

Wrong. He's respected by a healthy majority of DOJ employees, who aren't easy to impress. Of course, he's following in the footsteps of Gonzalez, so it isn't hard to look like a significant improvement.
 
No one on the right listens to her do they? I mean, she's gay... doesn't that usually disqualify you as being someone a conservative let alone a neocon would listen to?

"let alone a neocon?"

LOL!

neocons have a particular anti gay animus?

since when?
 
Despite the lies from people like you on the left, conservatives do not hate homosexuals.

Some do. And many more seem to tolerate, or take political advantage of, those who do. That's sad.

But no, not all conservatives hate gays. And some conservatives ARE gay.
 
"let alone a neocon?"

LOL!

neocons have a particular anti gay animus?

since when?

Generally yes. Just mentioning anything about gay people brings out nutty conservatives to rant about parades and lifestyle and acceptance and education...oh and can't forget marriage.
 
It's not helpful or constructive to whom? You? OMG, I'm devastated.

To anyone mature enough to want to openly discuss it. You can discount yourself apparently.

Sure she has a point, and I can, if I want to, dismiss it as nonsense.
Great - move on and stop trolling. Show us all how mature you can be.
 
To anyone mature enough to want to openly discuss it. You can discount yourself apparently.

Great - move on and stop trolling. Show us all how mature you can be.

This coming from a guy who brings up Obama in a thread about Massa.

:2wave:
 
This coming from a guy who brings up Obama in a thread about Massa.

:2wave:

Not my problem you cannot face facts you don't agree with ideologically. :2wave:
 
Not my problem you cannot face facts you don't agree with ideologically. :2wave:

Please knock off the personal attacks and try to discuss the subject, instead of Aps. Your comments are ad hominem in nature and distract from the topic.
 
Please knock off the personal attacks and try to discuss the subject, instead of Aps. Your comments are ad hominem in nature and distract from the topic.

Takes two to tango sweetie and I didn't start the pissing match.



I'm ready when you are. How about starting us back off.
 
Takes two to tango sweetie and I didn't start the pissing match.



I'm ready when you are. How about starting us back off.

We (Catz, me, and others) discussed the subject matter at length yesterday. I'm all talked out.

By the way, I don't see how my opinion is ideological when it's the same as Ken Starr's & company.
 
We (Catz, me, and others) discussed the subject matter at length yesterday. I'm all talked out.

I have to agree with this one. Starting out with personal attacks probably isn't going to encourage people to tango with you, either.
 
Back
Top Bottom