So the people upset about the wrongdoing can be punished, but the people who wrongdid are not able to be punished?
Fascinating.
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
249 points (100.0% liked)
News
28500 readers
4661 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's pronounce fascism
What’s that? I can’t hear anything besides this guillotine whooshing down with its blade. Bonjour!
The headline is missing the point and downplaying what's going on here, this lawyer wasn't expressing frustration, he didn't raise his voice or make insulting remarks or anything like that. He was asked by the judge [paraphrased] "Why is your client breaking the law?" and replied [paraphrased] "I asked them that too. I guess they didn't mean to do it?" but the Trump administration wanted him to either straight up lie and say they hadn't broken the law or refuse to answer the judge's questions and pretend the court didn't have authority to ask them.
Not only is our executive branch breaking the law and ignoring court orders to follow the law, they're throwing out any attorneys who won't also break the law and ignore judges too.
I am not a lawyer, but I think that presenting the defendants' case as written in their memorandum would not be lying, although I can see how doing so would make an honest man uncomfortable. Reuveni supported the morally right side when, in effect, he argued for the plaintiffs, but in doing so he failed to fulfill a lawyer's obligation to zealously defend his client. If he wanted to do both, he should have declined to take the case in the first place (although presumably he would have been demoted or fired for that too).
With that said, a man can do the right thing now even when he could have done so earlier and didn't (and doing so in court was certainly more dramatic than refusing to take the case would have been). I wouldn't mind donating money to him the way that people of a different sort donated money to Daniel Penny.
I'm not sure how to reconcile my view with the principle that even the worst criminal defendants have the right to competent legal representation. I suppose I make an exception here because the federal government is never in danger of being railroaded.
The lawyer can make any case the client wish, but not by knowingly lying to the court (note that not sharing privileged information is a very different thing). In other words, saying things like "my client's position is X" rather than making false statements of fact. And not falsely claiming their position has legal support in precedent if they know it doesn't, etc.
More practically speaking, to ensure their client actually gets competent legal representation they would push their client to accept them presenting multiple legal arguments and not exclusively sticking to the narrative, allowing the lawyer to focus on the client's legal rights and doing what a lawyer should do (basically "the client does not concede on any point, but if the court finds X then we argue A and if it finds Y we argue B", offering legal arguments to "hypotheticals"), so you don't leave any important legal arguments from the opposing side unanswered.
Tldr, make sure that no matter what the court finds, you're making arguments to protect their legal rights and to ensure sentencing is fair.
And when a client is so unreasonable that their position can't be represented accurately in a legal manner without simultaneously contradicting the client, well screw that client 🤷
Just more evidence that the "weaponized DOJ" was projection.
It always is.
No dissent will be tolerated.
So much for free speech.
You can have all of the free speech you want, as long as it's the right speech.
You'll be hard pressed to find lawyers who are both competent and willing to directly lie to a judge.
Why would this administration need competent lawyers, they're playing the game with cheat codes and can't lose