As best I understand it, the lawyer (Christopher Clark) is saying that the Biden camp is claiming that the government reneged on the agreement, while the government is claiming that Biden decided to switch to pleading “not guilty” but otherwise, everyone was satisfied with the agreement. Settling the question of “who backed out” will be a matter that requires a witness, and so Clark is stepping down from the team to act as the witness from their side.
IANAL but that sounds a bit sketchy to me. Usually, I would expect that such disagreements just mean that the lawyers from both sides make their case to the judge and the judge makes some decision. Such disputes don’t, themselves, end up as their own trials to my understanding?
No, doesn’t sound sketchy. As a lawyer, I can’t give evidence. If the facts surrounding the agreement, and why it fell apart, are truly contentious, the lawyer may become a witness. And a witness can’t be the lawyer
Even though your post nicely points out why probably it isn’t actually sketchy, I think, unfortunately, Sage_Rat is probably right that it “sounds” sketchy, and in politics, sounding sketchy is often worse than being sketchy.
The total cognitive dissonance is just astounding.
Everybody- Here’s audio of trump criming. Here’s video of trump criming. Here are fortyleven elected officials testifying under oath that trump was criming.
Republicans-Witch hunt! Weaponization of the FBI and CIA and PTA and NFL and all the rest of the alphabet!! Pure political persecution!! Election interference!
Random person- Somebody said that their cousin’s nephew’s girlfriend’s hairdresser’s roommate heard that Hunter Biden was totally criming in some way, i didn’t really hear how, but totally criming.
Republicans- Proof!! Undeniable proof of theJoe Biden regime ongoing criminal scheme Biden Crime Family laptop! Why aren’t you paying attention?! Crime family, I said! Impeach him! Lock him up!
It’s getting to the point where it’s like a crazy person who has been shitting in his pants all week getting on a bus and screaming at a guy who has a spot on his tie: "YOUR CLOTHES ARE FILTHY! GET OFF THE BUS!!!
If a guy gets away with murder, that doesn’t let others off for murder.
Likewise, if a guy gets away with murder, that doesn’t mean that we stop enforcing nor caring about theft.
Trump may be guilty of far more and greater crimes than Hunter Biden. That doesn’t mean that we have some need to ignore Hunter Biden or let him go free, if he did in fact commit some criminal acts.
To the extent that there is the manpower, every crime should be investigated in a fair and non-partisan manner. To the extent that the manpower might be lacking, the cases should be prioritized based on the availability of evidence, the capabilities of the officers, and the priorities of the jurisdictional area. What other criminals and believed-criminals might have done is not a factor in that decision.
Nobody’s suggesting that, but the right declares that Biden is a criminal mastermind who needs to be impeached because of rumors about his son. Meanwhile, Trump is indicted for multiple serious crimes with mounds of evidence, and that is called a witch hunt.
Caring about what idiots say or do is a large component of how we all got here to begin with.
If the media hadn’t taken Trump seriously, he wouldn’t have had all of the billions of dollars worth of free advertising that CNN et al. gave him. If the political types hadn’t taken the stupider elements of their electorate seriously, they wouldn’t be acting on their desires.
In general, I advocate for pushing back on useless people in the tried and proven method of giving their statements the effort that they deserve: None.
Sure, after you do the bad, you have to deal with the consequences of those choices. But then, stop doing the bad as soon as it becomes feasible again.
The path going forward is to restructure voting systems, not to think that somehow you’re going to get good results out of direct democracy. You’re not going to convince any majority of people to be skeptical, to double-check information, to push down their emotions and make choices replete in logic and mathematical rigor.
Getting there means trampling over the desires of the majority. Giving them voice just slows down that train.
Lisa Murkowski isn’t the Senator from Alaska because she does what the base wants; it’s because the state government chose an election system that weakens the power of straight-line voters. That’s how you deal with bad ideas.
I’m not sure where you’re headed with this, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the topic under discussion in this thread. Please start a new thread if you wish to discuss restructuring voting systems. Thanks.
And gee, guess what. That’s exactly what happened. Hunter was investigated, charged and pled guilty in a plea deal, exactly like thousands of other people do every year. That the plea deal seems to have collapsed for some odd reason doesn’t change that.
It there anyone out there crying about Hunter Biden? Demanding that he be set free? Threatening violence if he’s not exonerated, and then elevated to the highest office in the United States? No? Then what’s the problem?