• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judge Orders Ethics Classes for DOJ Attorneys

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

reinoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
16,824
Reaction score
7,183
Location
Out West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Lol......Lying DOJ attorneys have been ordered to undergo 3 hours of ethics training annually if they ever want to practice and or appear in any of the 26 States that that are part of the lawsuit against Obama's immigration over reach

Obama's legacy will read like the legacy of your average tin pot dictator

Judge orders ethics classes for 'deceptive' DOJ attorneys | Washington Examiner
If only the judge could have ordered Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder to attend as well.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,464
Reaction score
33,412
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Good.

But government attorneys misbehaving is nothing new. Obama couldn't have done it, unless he used the same time machine he used to plant his birth announcements in old newspapers from Hawaii.
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,992
Reaction score
7,798
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Not just that.

Federal Judge Blasts DOJ Lawyers For Lying About Obama’s Immigration Directive | LawNewz

He also ensured that the out-of-state attorneys involved in this incident would not be practicing in Texas again any time soon.

“The Court does not have the power to disbar counsel in this case, but it does have the power to revoke the pro hac vice status of out-of-state attorneys who act unethically in court. By a seperate sealed order … that is being done,” Hanen wrote.

He disbarred the attorneys in question from Texas as that was the limit of his power. Attorneys that knowingly lie to a judge deserve what they get.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
does this honestly surprise anyone from this corrupt administration and DOJ?
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Good on the judge, but ethics classes will not change the institutionalized deceit that is the federal government.

Any other attorney would find contempt charges against him for such behavior, but not government attorneys. Anybody not aware of government deceptions on a broad base is simply not paying attention.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
10,847
Reaction score
3,614
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Alcoholics normally take such a class with a recovering alcoholic. Maybe they could have Bill Clinton teach the course for the attorneys.
 

Anthony60

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
15,817
Reaction score
4,546
Location
Northern New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Lol......Lying DOJ attorneys have been ordered to undergo 3 hours of ethics training annually if they ever want to practice and or appear in any of the 26 States that that are part of the lawsuit against Obama's immigration over reach

Obama's legacy will read like the legacy of your average tin pot dictator

Judge orders ethics classes for 'deceptive' DOJ attorneys | Washington Examiner

It has gotten so that stuff like this, which should be headlining every news show, is now ho hum for this corrupt administration. And it's all a-okay with the liberal drones.
 

Anthony60

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
15,817
Reaction score
4,546
Location
Northern New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Good.

But government attorneys misbehaving is nothing new. Obama couldn't have done it, unless he used the same time machine he used to plant his birth announcements in old newspapers from Hawaii.

Do you think anyone in charge should be held accountable for this?
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
49,464
Reaction score
33,412
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"Apparently, lawyers, somewhere in the halls of the Justice Department whose identities are unknown to this court, decided unilaterally that the conduct of the DHS in granting three-year DACA renewals using the 2014 DHS directive was immaterial and irrelevant to this lawsuit and that the DOJ could therefore just ignore it," Hanen wrote. "Then, for whatever reason, the Justice Department trial lawyers appearing in this Court chose not to tell the truth about this DHS activity. The first decision was certainly unsupportable, but the subsequent decision to hide it from the Court was unethical."

Do you think anyone in charge should be held accountable for this?

If they lied to the court as advocates, and it sounds like they did, the judge should have slapped them with sanctions and the relevant BBOs should determine their own punishment. The court notes that it lacked jurisdiction to disbar the attorneys, BUT that doesn't mean the court cannot communicate to the board(s) of bar overseers with jurisidiction over the various attorneys.

If they lied to the court in testimony as witnesses, and it doesn't sound like they did, then they would deserve perjury charges.






And of course, the misconduct should be traced as far as investigation will take it, by the next admin if necessary.
 

Μολὼν λαβέ

Si vis pacem, para bellum
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
6,914
Reaction score
3,671
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Alcoholics normally take such a class with a recovering alcoholic. Maybe they could have Bill Clinton teach the course for the attorneys.

Hillary Clinton would be a good candidate as well. Just ask Jerry Zeifman.

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,992
Reaction score
7,798
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"Apparently, lawyers, somewhere in the halls of the Justice Department whose identities are unknown to this court, decided unilaterally that the conduct of the DHS in granting three-year DACA renewals using the 2014 DHS directive was immaterial and irrelevant to this lawsuit and that the DOJ could therefore just ignore it," Hanen wrote. "Then, for whatever reason, the Justice Department trial lawyers appearing in this Court chose not to tell the truth about this DHS activity. The first decision was certainly unsupportable, but the subsequent decision to hide it from the Court was unethical."



If they lied to the court as advocates, and it sounds like they did, the judge should have slapped them with sanctions and the relevant BBOs should determine their own punishment. The court notes that it lacked jurisdiction to disbar the attorneys, BUT that doesn't mean the court cannot communicate to the board(s) of bar overseers with jurisidiction over the various attorneys.

If they lied to the court in testimony as witnesses, and it doesn't sound like they did, then they would deserve perjury charges.






And of course, the misconduct should be traced as far as investigation will take it, by the next admin if necessary.

There is no question about it as discovery showed they had the info about the internal DOJ memo and the decision of how to handle it in court. The lawyers in question definitely lied about what they knew and knew it would materially affect the case. They also were flaunting the court's authority to the DOJ and DHS to avoid injunctions by saying they would not allow any further DACA requests. They are lucky they got off with JUST disbarment. I've seen perjury jail time for less.

This should be big news, the administration decided it would ignore the power and authority of another branch of government just because they wanted to.
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Perhaps the first documented case of government lawyers making untruthful statements to a court is US v. Reynolds 345US1 from March 9, 1953.

Sorry for no link, but the Washington Post wrote a story about that case on June 22, 2003 as Ted Olson for the Bush administration filed papers attempting to not reopen the Reynolds case.

Because as it turns out, the government lawyers totally deceived the court in that case which was brought by the widows of civilians killed on a test flight on a USAF B-29. The women brought the case under a solid law, Federal Tort Claims Act. Ironically, the Reynolds case was the first ever in which the government invoked "national security" as a reason to not reveal certain material requested under the discovery process by plaintiff attorneys.

It is safe to assume that if government lawyers were lying to the courts in 1953, this judge's actions in the OP case will be like having them say 3 Hail Marys--no effect at all on future behavior.
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
RHIP, rank has its privileges
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
34,992
Reaction score
7,798
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
False, and has been debunked many times. You read way too many chain emails. LOL.

Is Hillary Clinton a snake? Yup. Was she fired from the Watergate Commission? Nope.

Not just a snake there is more to her conduct than you are readily admitting:
https://www.truthorfiction.com/clinton-watergate/
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/pdf/zeifman-20080404.pdf

“Zeifman does not have flattering memories of Rodham’s work on the committee. ‘If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her,’ he said.

Zeifman said Rodham sparked a bitter battle among Democrats by recommending the Judiciary Committee deny Nixon’s lawyers the right to attend the closed-door meetings.

‘Can you imagine that? This was a committee of lawyers and members of the bar, and she was saying the committee should deny the president representation,’ he said.

After a lengthy behind-the-scenes debate, Zeifman said the committee decided Nixon’s lawyers could attend.”

So he claims he did not fire her but if he could have, he would have. He also said this:

In an interview on the Neal Boortz Show in 2008, Jerry Zeifman altered his claim about Hillary’s termination from the Watergate investigation:


“Well, let me put it this way: I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were — were no longer needed, and advised her that I would not — could not — recommend her for any further positions.”

When pressed, Zeifman said he couldn’t recommend Hillary Rodham Clinton for future positions, “Because of her unethical conduct.” Despite that, however, Clinton was terminated because she was “no longer needed” — not because she had lied, according to Zeifman’s own account.

Source: Limbaugh repeats assertion by Watergate committee counsel Zeifman that he "fired" Clinton -- an assertion reportedly contradicted by Zeifman himself
 
Top Bottom