- Quickdraw McLaw
- 16 Comments
- 222 Views
- The LVCVA defendants are opposing the RJ’s records request. [RJ]
- District Attorney issued ultimatum to falsely accused man. [Nevada Current]
- This article opines that Judges Melanie Andress-Tobiasson and Amy Chelini may be victims of a police vendetta. [Las Vegas Tribune]
- A California bar study finds racial disparities in lawyer discipline. Do you think Nevada has a similar issue? [ABA Journal]
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/dz0ruz/lawyer_dies_after_being_shot_by_gun_presented_as/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the express direction of the President of the United States. We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt. We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Giuliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. So we followed the President's orders.
Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President.
We learned that the White House had also suspended security aid to Ukraine. I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression. I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded.
As a presidential appointee, I followed the directions of the President. We worked with Mr. Giuliani because the President directed us to do so. We had no desire to set any conditions on the Ukranians.
Well, shit.
Let me say again: We weren't happy with the President's directive to talk with Rudy. We did not want to involve Mr. Giuliani. I believed then, as I do now, that the men and women of the State Department, not the President's personal lawyer, should take responsibility for Ukraine matters.
Nonetheless, based on the President's direction, we were faced with a choice: We could abandon the efforts to schedule the White House phone call and White House visit between Presidents Trump and Zelensky, which was unquestionably in our foreign policy interest — or we could do as President Trump had directed and "talk with Rudy." We chose the latter course, not because we liked it, but because it was the only constructive path open to us.
Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19, days before the Presidential call.
The old "Racial Disparity" canard again?
Are we even allowed to float the premise that some groups may "on the whole" be more predisposed to certain behaviors?
Or is that now considered to be "bad think" for which one can be doxxed and have their career and life destroyed?
Asking for a friend.
It seems unlikely that this is actually Andrew Anglin (probably just someone who shares his ideology), but just in case anyone isn't familiar:
"It was in this spirit that Anglin 'doxed' Gersh and her husband, Judah, as well as other Jews in Whitefish, by publishing their contact information and other personal details on his website. He plastered their photographs with yellow stars emblazoned with jude and posted a picture of the Gershes’ 12-year-old son superimposed on the gates at Auschwitz. He commanded his readers—his 'Stormer Troll Army'—to 'hit ’em up.'"
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/12/the-making-of-an-american-nazi/544119/
I feel sorry that there are still people who think like Andrew Anglin.
If your question is whether you're allowed to float the premise that some persons are predisposed to certain behaviors because of their race, then yes you are allowed. However, please note that that premise is racist.
to continue 12:03's comment: …and others are allowed to float the premise that you should be ignored or told that you are wrong.
Are we seriously posting links to that garbage rag the Tribune? Only in this town would a creep like Rolando get any traction.
LVRJ is not much better.
RJ is better than the Current. What a disappointment that rag is. TNI is fine. Sun does some good writing on a shoestring.
Why is Amy Chelini being investigated? She has always been professional to me, even before she was a justice of the peace.
Because the fix is in at the non-polemical judicial ethics department along with the straight as the arrow court admin.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2019/11/18/lawyer-salary-state/#f68156a79a1e
This would be more helpful if it was median salary instead of average. I'd be willing to bet that, especially in relatively small states like Nevada, the average is significantly skewed by a smallish number of lawyers who really do make the big bucks.
It is always so annoying when the media uses averages for things like this that have a few extreme outliers. It's good for clickbait because it skews numbers but it makes the stats otherwise pretty worthless.