|
|
Post by mizzougrad96 on Jul 10, 2019 23:25:03 GMT
Dershowitz has always seemed like a slimy piece of shit.
Wasn't he Tyson's lawyer during the rape trial?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 0:06:48 GMT
It's almost a Kantian rule that journalists aren't law enforcement and don't share unpublished information with law enforcement. This is one of those situations where a utilitarian or pluralist could make the case that it's situationally appropriate, but you're opening up a can of worms. If VF spikes the story, you start shopping it to someone who has the nuts to run it. Unless it’s not airtight. |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Jul 11, 2019 1:01:07 GMT
The Times says he isn't as rich as perceived, but that he does have money, and that he did trade currencies through Deutsche Bank:
He appears to have been doing business and trading currencies through Deutsche Bank until just a few months ago, according to two people familiar with his business activities. But as the possibility of federal charges loomed, the bank ended its client relationship with Mr. Epstein. It is not clear what the value of those accounts were at the time they were closed.
|
|
|
|
Post by frantic on Jul 11, 2019 1:01:16 GMT
apple.news/AebyH9L4TQGerwj4vvHzuAA[Opinion piece, but it gives some background on the Epstein deal from 2007. And I just clicked on my Apple News feed. Top story: “Labor secretary defends role in Epstein plea deal, offers no apology to sexual abuse victims” That headline is something. I’m curious what the lawyers around here think. Should prosecutors publicly apologize for all their previous cases that did not result in the maximum penalty? Should defense lawyers publicly apologize if clients go on to commit more crimes? First question: generally no, but maybe. Second question: no. I think Acosta handled this terribly and so an apology is probably warranted. The plea deal may have been reasonable. It doesn't appear so from the outside looking in, but I haven't seen the entire case file. Even if it was a good outcome, it is clear the US Attorney's Office under Acosta did a piss poor job of communicating with the victims. Defense attorneys do not need to apologize for doing their jobs well. They only need to apologize if they've done something unethical. Nothing I have read about this case implies that Epstein's lawyers did that. It's incumbent on the government to prove its case, not anyone else. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 1:06:21 GMT
apple.news/AebyH9L4TQGerwj4vvHzuAA[Opinion piece, but it gives some background on the Epstein deal from 2007. And I just clicked on my Apple News feed. Top story: “Labor secretary defends role in Epstein plea deal, offers no apology to sexual abuse victims” That headline is something. I’m curious what the lawyers around here think. Should prosecutors publicly apologize for all their previous cases that did not result in the maximum penalty? Should defense lawyers publicly apologize if clients go on to commit more crimes? First question: generally no, but maybe. Second question: no. I think Acosta handled this terribly and so an apology is probably warranted. The plea deal may have been reasonable. It doesn't appear so from the outside looking in, but I haven't seen the entire case file. Even if it was a good outcome, it is clear the US Attorney's Office under Acosta did a piss poor job of communicating with the victims. Defense attorneys do not need to apologize for doing their jobs well. They only need to apologize if they've done something unethical. Nothing I have read about this case implies that Epstein's lawyers did that. It's incumbent on the government to prove its case, not anyone else. What do you think about the opinion piece? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 1:13:30 GMT
apple.news/AebyH9L4TQGerwj4vvHzuAA[Opinion piece, but it gives some background on the Epstein deal from 2007. And I just clicked on my Apple News feed. Top story: “Labor secretary defends role in Epstein plea deal, offers no apology to sexual abuse victims” That headline is something. I’m curious what the lawyers around here think. Should prosecutors publicly apologize for all their previous cases that did not result in the maximum penalty? Should defense lawyers publicly apologize if clients go on to commit more crimes? First question: generally no, but maybe. Second question: no. I think Acosta handled this terribly and so an apology is probably warranted. The plea deal may have been reasonable. It doesn't appear so from the outside looking in, but I haven't seen the entire case file. Even if it was a good outcome, it is clear the US Attorney's Office under Acosta did a piss poor job of communicating with the victims. Defense attorneys do not need to apologize for doing their jobs well. They only need to apologize if they've done something unethical. Nothing I have read about this case implies that Epstein's lawyers did that. It's incumbent on the government to prove its case, not anyone else. Some might say defending and taking Epstein’s money is unethical. But probably not as horrifying as working for Trump. |
|
|
|
Post by lcjjdnh on Jul 11, 2019 1:55:02 GMT
Dershowitz has always seemed like a slimy piece of shit. Wasn't he Tyson's lawyer during the rape trial? I don’t know whether he did or didn’t but why are we judging defense lawyers for who they represented? |
|
|
|
Post by Wolfenstein on Jul 11, 2019 2:31:07 GMT
Is this real? Is there a link? Or is this how you’d imagine an interview with her would go? Link please. Is this real? C'mon. LOL. It's sad when the delusions can no longer be separated from reality. |
|
|
|
Post by sharky, Hunter’s text buddy on Jul 11, 2019 3:31:39 GMT
When you lose the Daily Caller...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 3:32:42 GMT
It's almost a Kantian rule that journalists aren't law enforcement and don't share unpublished information with law enforcement. This is one of those situations where a utilitarian or pluralist could make the case that it's situationally appropriate, but you're opening up a can of worms. If VF spikes the story, you start shopping it to someone who has the nuts to run it. If a journalist believe a person to be a serial sex offender against minors and discovers the daughter of a friend or a cousin is alleged to been invoked? Is it OK for journalist to go to law enforcement then? |
|
|
|
Post by JC on Jul 11, 2019 3:57:56 GMT
Is this real? C'mon. LOL. It's sad when the delusions can no longer be separated from reality. You have a fan |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Jul 11, 2019 5:58:02 GMT
The only appropriate response to Democrats’ embrace of a sexual predator is to enthusiastically vote for and support someone who has been accused of sexual assault by 18 different women. Liars one and all. Looks like we’re back down to 17: |
|
|
|
Post by sharky, Hunter’s text buddy on Jul 11, 2019 6:11:55 GMT
Looks like we’re back down to 17: You really got us there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 10:09:36 GMT
Lol “Boomieleaks.”
Is that what Boom has been up to since leaving SJ?
|
|
|
|
Post by frantic on Jul 11, 2019 11:26:49 GMT
First question: generally no, but maybe. Second question: no. I think Acosta handled this terribly and so an apology is probably warranted. The plea deal may have been reasonable. It doesn't appear so from the outside looking in, but I haven't seen the entire case file. Even if it was a good outcome, it is clear the US Attorney's Office under Acosta did a piss poor job of communicating with the victims. Defense attorneys do not need to apologize for doing their jobs well. They only need to apologize if they've done something unethical. Nothing I have read about this case implies that Epstein's lawyers did that. It's incumbent on the government to prove its case, not anyone else. What do you think about the opinion piece? I don't subscribe to the WSJ anymore, so couldn't get through the paywall. |
|
