Tuesday, September 28, 2021

There's A Sucker Born Every Minute

So Gohmert v Pence was the vehicle Powell apparently thought would get her to the Supremes. That’s a far cry from saying Alito was going to stop the Congressional proceedings. (The idea that a lone justice, especially Alito, would do that is separately but equally ludicrous.  As it stands, Alito didn't.  He referred the case to the full court, which said:  "Uh, no.") 

And now I at least see the reason why she promotes this nonsense:
In this day and age, "fundraising" is always the first explanation you should reach for.  Trump may affect our electoral processes across the nation (I remain to be convinced on that.  Too much of the "analysis" of that is based on "everybody knows" because it's the topic du jour and not coincidentally lighting up Twitter at the moment of greatest demand that we TAKE THIS SERIOIUSLY!  Because, after all, "everybody" on Twitter is. Well, at the moment.  Pardon me if I'm a bit more circumspect, despite the authority of those setting their hair on fire.), but his deeper effect is setting the grift in motion.

I get (still!) a number of e-mails from various political concerns (purportedly) because I gave some money to Beto's failed Senatorial campaign back in the day.  Too many of them read like I expect Trump efforts at fundraising read, and what is Trump raising funds for?  The ones I get are at least ostensibly about political races around the country.  Trump?  He's not running for dog-catcher of Mar-A-Lago, much less for higher office.  He's publicly said he won't declare because when he does, the money he raises becomes subject to federal election law (such as it is).  Trump has set the gravy train running, and Powell (not as badly shamed as Giuliani; at least not yet.  Then again,  Giuliani is all but disbarred.  Powell should be, IMHLO.) is boarding that train at the station.  What is she fundraising for?  Herself, of course.  She's grifting the rubes so she can go on claiming to be fighting the good fight, because she's not collecting many clients and she's surely collecting a large number of court imposed sanctions, some of which will come with price tags beyond lawyer's fees to defend those claims.
I mean, I agree. But I'm not sure being a "pathologically-lying sociopath," as much as it discredits the profession, is grounds at trial (that's what it takes in Texas) to disbar a lawyer. Bad accounting of what you did with the client's money (i.e., breach of fiduciary duty), yeah: removal instanter. Wandering the world babbling dangerous nonsense and piling up sanctions like parking tickets? Eh, maybe not so much.

I'm not defending it; I'm just explaining it.  Ken Paxton still has his law license, after all.  And odds are he will for quite some time (if he's ever convicted of the felony(ies) he's been charged with, that might do it.  Probably sooner than the complaint against him over Texas v. Philadelphia).  The State Bar of Texas has got a lot o' 'splainin' to do, but the state of the law on disbarment is pretty much a law of precedent, and lying lawyers are no more unprecedented than lying politicians.  It's all about what the lies are about (facts and/or law v. client's money, basically).  One set of lies is sure to get you disbarred.  The other?  Well, lawyers have a reputation for being liars for good reason.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)