Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (174551)	7/24/2006 8:19:51 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 794009

A bright lawyer can find legal justification for the most bizarre proposition the mind of man can invent. So what we have become is not a nation of laws but a nation of lawyer who, under the cover of law, simply make it up as they go.

To: carranza2 who wrote (174551)	7/24/2006 10:37:34 AM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 794009

C2-- the filing attorney, and the attorney who was standing next to the Plames when they gave that press conference is Christopher Wolf. He is a renowned trial attorney and an acknowledged expert in the field of internet law and privacy issues with a long and successful record. He has been their attorney from their beginning.

To: carranza2 who wrote (174551)	7/24/2006 10:45:36 AM
From: mph	Respond to of 794009

I couldn't imagine him (EC) in front of a jury<g> But the Plames (g)hired some top flight trial lawyers. EC was just of counsel and listed for cosmetic value, IMO.

To: carranza2 who wrote (174551)	7/24/2006 12:02:25 PM
From: D. Long	Respond to of 794009

Erwin Chemerinsky, the lawyer, is a preeminent constitutional scholar. Extremely bright, and very, very left wing No matter how bright, he's going to have a tough row to hoe showing that there was government retaliation for Wilson's letter in the Times. Pickering-type cases usually involve a firing or other discipline or retaliatory blocking of contracts, etc. They are trying to argue that the retaliation was revealing Plame. Best of luck with that. Their premise is basically: government cannot publicly answer it's public critics, especially if they are public employees. Absurd. Derek