JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-26-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
|
Have you ever been on a jury? When a case is open in court, you can't discuss it with anyone. You can't even discuss it with other jurors until after final arguments and the jury discusses to make a final decision. Have you never heard of this before? This is really shocking to me.
|
| -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 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread