You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #15: Is there a legal requirement that they can't discuss these cases? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-26-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Is there a legal requirement that they can't discuss these cases?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -White House meeting to discuss legislative repeal of DADT in 2010. pnwmom  Oct-26-10 03:30 PM   #0 
  - If Joe wants to talk to Obama, he can do so.  Lyric   Oct-26-10 03:39 PM   #1 
  - The point is to discuss how to repeal DADT in 2010.  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 03:42 PM   #2 
     - In case you haven't noticed they already failed  no limit   Oct-26-10 03:51 PM   #5 
        - You didn't read the Advocate's article or you would know that they haven't.  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 05:31 PM   #8 
           - Yes, they did fail. They tried putting a ban on DADT in the military budget bill  no limit   Oct-26-10 05:42 PM   #10 
              - Then you haven't studied history. Lame duck sessions  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 05:46 PM   #14 
                 - What republicans will vote their conscience? Give me names, be a bit more specific  no limit   Oct-26-10 05:47 PM   #16 
                    - The Log Cabin Republicans have a much better idea of that  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 05:50 PM   #18 
                       - So you don't know. Your argument is that it's a super secret strategy and we can't know anything  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:19 PM   #26 
                          - You're the one playing dumb. n/t  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 06:26 PM   #32 
                             - Any time you would like to get in to specifics about what I asked you feel free to  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:28 PM   #34 
                                - See post #35 below. n/t  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 06:38 PM   #36 
                                   - Post 35 did not answer my question  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:41 PM   #39 
                                      - Thank goodness for the ignore button then. Bye! n/t  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 06:43 PM   #42 
                                         - See my post below, your argument is bullshit (no offense) the client can talk to whoever they want  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:44 PM   #44 
                                         - You just edited your post. You made an argument before, when I replied to that argument you...  no limit   Oct-26-10 07:16 PM   #55 
  - Thanks.  Scurrilous   Oct-26-10 03:44 PM   #3 
  - Is this the meeting where they threatened to shut it down if anyone says anything about the lawsuits  no limit   Oct-26-10 03:50 PM   #4 
  - Some of the parties are involved in litigation against the government.  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 05:28 PM   #7 
  - So this is the "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation" argument the Bush admin used?  no limit   Oct-26-10 05:44 PM   #12 
     - This is the simple rule that EVERY lawyer tells EVERY client. n/t  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 05:50 PM   #19 
     - What rule where? I don't believe you  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:20 PM   #28 
        - Ask any lawyer. n/t  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 06:25 PM   #31 
           - I am asking you. Clearly you have some kind of basis behind your statement?  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:27 PM   #33 
              - See post #35. And the same thing goes if you ask this question  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 06:40 PM   #38 
     - Cases have been thrown out based on this activity...  JuniperLea   Oct-26-10 05:58 PM   #23 
        - Cite a law or a specific rule. Please.  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:20 PM   #27 
           - Yes I did...  JuniperLea   Oct-26-10 06:46 PM   #46 
              - The OLC is not a jury. The OLC is the president's legal defense. Are you aware of that?  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:49 PM   #49 
                 - You are aware that some of these people...  JuniperLea   Oct-26-10 06:56 PM   #50 
                    - yes, I am fully aware that the OLC is working on the case on the president's behalf.  no limit   Oct-26-10 07:02 PM   #52 
                       - You have a link showing that?  JuniperLea   Oct-26-10 07:05 PM   #53 
                          - A link for what? That the lawyer speaks on behalf of the client?  no limit   Oct-26-10 07:13 PM   # 
                          - No, what you were actually arguing is what I'm asking...  JuniperLea   Oct-26-10 07:20 PM   #56 
                             - A lawyer working on a case has the right to talk to anyone the person that hired them tells them to  no limit   Oct-26-10 07:25 PM   #57 
                                - Didn't you read recently about the open court case...  JuniperLea   Oct-26-10 08:08 PM   #58 
                                - Again, a lawyer has to right to talk to anyone the client approves on any topic the client approves.  no limit   Oct-26-10 09:44 PM   #59 
                                   - No, that breaches attorney client privilege  treestar   Oct-26-10 09:59 PM   #62 
                                      - This is simply not true. I have seen lawyers on TV all the time on behalf of their client  no limit   Oct-27-10 08:19 AM   #64 
                                - The lawyer advises the client. Not to comment on the case.  treestar   Oct-26-10 09:57 PM   #61 
                                   - The client in this case is the president who says is against DADT. If they lose the case DADT is ove  no limit   Oct-27-10 08:17 AM   #63 
                          - self-delete  no limit   Oct-26-10 07:13 PM   #54 
  - No this is the meeting that had its agenda set up beforehand like EVERY OTHER BUSINESS MEETING.  KittyWampus   Oct-26-10 05:44 PM   #11 
     - The agenda is to repeal DADT, right?  no limit   Oct-26-10 05:46 PM   #13 
        - The agenda is to repeal DADT the same way it was instituted:  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 05:48 PM   #17 
           - So the agenda is not to repeal DADT? Because it wont happen in congress  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:22 PM   #29 
           - We won't know which of us is right till the lame duck session is over.  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 06:42 PM   #40 
              - Again, the argument you are making is fucking stupid and you are smarter than that  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:47 PM   #47 
           - "Oh look! It's a squadron of pigs flying over the Capitol!" (NT)  Tesha   Oct-26-10 06:57 PM   #51 
  - White House threatens gay orgs before key DADT meeting - don't mention DADT cases or meeting over  EFerrari   Oct-26-10 03:54 PM   #6 
  - They didn't "threaten" except in your view, and that of that poster.  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 05:34 PM   #9 
     - Is there a legal requirement that they can't discuss these cases?  no limit   Oct-26-10 05:47 PM   #15 
        - I can't cite statutes for you, but I know it is a universal rule,  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 05:54 PM   #21 
           - So you are telling me that you have absolutely no basis behind your statement?  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:17 PM   #25 
              - I personally have a basis, but it won't matter to you.  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 06:36 PM   #35 
                 - Clients are totally allowed to discuss their cases, ask governor blagojevich  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:43 PM   #41 
                    - Not with the opposing side in a lawsuit, outside of a legal setting.  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 06:44 PM   #43 
                       - This is not the opposing side, this is the LGBT community  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:45 PM   #45 
  - "Here's a shiny object...don't forget to vote next week." n/t  Contrary1   Oct-26-10 05:51 PM   #20 
  - Lame duck sessions can often accomplish what regular sessions have not.  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 05:56 PM   #22 
     - What will your opinion be if they fail in the lame duck session?  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:23 PM   #30 
        - I already answered this question when you asked it elsewhere. n/t  pnwmom   Oct-26-10 06:39 PM   #37 
           - No, you did not. What will your opinion be when they fail in the lame duck session?  no limit   Oct-26-10 06:48 PM   #48 
  - K&R  NJmaverick   Oct-26-10 06:07 PM   #24 
  - Thanks for the info!  Spazito   Oct-26-10 09:50 PM   #60 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC