• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Savior of the Republic

Trausti

Deleted
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
9,784
Feds bring new charges against lawyer Michael Avenatti for misappropriating nearly $300,000 from former client Stormy Daniels

Federal prosecutors in New York charged Michael Avenatti with additional financial crimes Wednesday, including allegedly forging the signature of his former client Stormy Daniels and diverting nearly $300,000 owed to her for a book advance into his own account, according to court records filed on Wednesday.

Prosecutors said that he then used money he took from Daniels to make monthly payments on his Ferrari, as well as to cover airfare, dry cleaning, hotels and restaurant bills, as well as payroll and insurance costs for his law firm's employees.

Just fuck the media.

 
I'm waiting for the part where you point out how the evil abortion loving christian hating left propped this guy up as 'Savior of the Republic" and not as "Dodgy lawyer who seems to be par for the course in a Trump related scandal". It's a good thing that there are no clips of Republicans on how honest Michael Cohen is.


Keep in mind that I hate white people, christians and babies. Oh, and I love Islamic State. And gay marriage should be mandatory. Fucking hell Underseer, please come back, I miss you mate.
 
Yup! Avenatti is a real asshole. Ironically, he's a lot like Trump and at least for a little while, just like Trump, he fooled a lot of us. Still, I don't remember anyone saying he was savior of the Republic, so what's your point? Are you trying to push people's buttons? If so, you need to try harder next time because I really doubt that anyone here gives a fuck about Avenatti. We figured out awhile ago that he's just another narcissistic grifter.
 
As the great philosopher Mendacious said, "Any flaw in my enemy proves the virtue in me."
 
Recycling arguments that have already been busted is poor form.

Except they were not busted. Lawyers are grossly over-represented. That's a fact.


I also hold that this kind of lack of educational diversity is bad both for the country and the Democratic party.
 
Recycling arguments that have already been busted is poor form.

Except they were not busted. Lawyers are grossly over-represented. That's a fact.
You have not presented any evidence that the law training inhibited their thinking or caused poor policy proposals, so your argument is short on facts and reason and long on bluster.

I also hold that this kind of lack of educational diversity is bad both for the country and the Democratic party.
You have not shown any kind of a lack of education diversity since you have not even bothered to address their undergraduate education.

Basically your position is based solely on flimsy circumstantial evidence and no reasoning whatsoever.
 
Recycling arguments that have already been busted is poor form.

Except they were not busted.

The fact that you can't differentiate neg-repping what you don't like being said, from actually refuting an argument, is very telling.
Yeah, your antipathy toward lawyers dabbling in legal matters is noted and rejected.
Lawyers are grossly over-represented in courtrooms, too.
Boo hoo. Believe it or not, there's a reason for that.
 
Recycling arguments that have already been busted is poor form.

Except they were not busted. Lawyers are grossly over-represented. That's a fact.


I also hold that this kind of lack of educational diversity is bad both for the country and the Democratic party.

Attorneys all have undergraduate degrees and they aren't in the same areas. Some have liberal arts degrees in various subjects, and there are probably some that have degrees in science. I know there are many physicians and nurses that later decide to become attorneys, so it's not true to claim that all attorneys have received the same educational background. And nobody worships lawyers. It just makes sense that knowing a lot about the law is an asset for holding a public positions, where bills are written and sometimes become laws.
 
Who worships lawyers?

Democrats. For example, six out of seven last presidential candidates were lawyers and even the 7th went to law school.

crazy right... I heard another statistic relating to how many people holding health care jobs went to medical school... what is up with that!!!?
I even went to a school once and practically ever single person working there had a degree in Education... DIVERSITY NOW!!!
 
Recycling arguments that have already been busted is poor form.

Except they were not busted. Lawyers are grossly over-represented. That's a fact.


I also hold that this kind of lack of educational diversity is bad both for the country and the Democratic party.

Attorneys all have undergraduate degrees and they aren't in the same areas. Some have liberal arts degrees in various subjects, and there are probably some that have degrees in science. I know there are many physicians and nurses that later decide to become attorneys, so it's not true to claim that all attorneys have received the same educational background. And nobody worships lawyers. It just makes sense that knowing a lot about the law is an asset for holding a public positions, where bills are written and sometimes become laws.

Good point. No matter how well rounded a Dem candidate's education may be, legal education - especially in constitutional law - makes them a threat to the current republican administration's desire to pretend that nobody but the President can investigate the President, the IRS isn't compelled to turn over Cheato's tax returns and generally say "I AM the goddam law!" Derec would probably prefer that Dems elected some version of Joe the Plumber so the libercons could just say what the law is without having to cite an actual law.
 
crazy right... I heard another statistic relating to how many people holding health care jobs went to medical school... what is up with that!!!?
I even went to a school once and practically ever single person working there had a degree in Education... DIVERSITY NOW!!!

Unlike these things, having a law degree is not a requirement to hold office and comparing it to such is intellectually dishonest.

In fact, this obsession with lawyers is unique to American Democratic Party after 1980. It is not a necessity to hold office.
 
Derec would probably prefer that Dems elected some version of Joe the Plumber so the libercons could just say what the law is without having to cite an actual law.

Nope. But I would prefer they do not be so beholden to the legal industrial complex that nobody who is not a lawyer can get a nomination any more.
 
Back
Top Bottom