Do you think Lin Wood, who once said Trump could enact martial law to stay in power in 2020, should be allowed to retire rather than be disbarred?

[goaded]

Yes

No

Don't know, see results

Updates

+1 y

MHO doesn't necessarily mean I agree with the opinion.

Updates

+1 y

The Georgia State Bar confirmed in a filing Wednesday that it had accepted Wood's request to retire.

"By permitting Respondent to transfer to Retired Status and thereby prohibiting Respondent from practicing law in this state or any other state or jurisdiction, the Office of General Counsel believes that it has achieved the goals of disciplinary action, including protecting the public and the integrity of the judicial system and the legal profession," the filing said.

[AviatorTom]

In essence, retiring has the same net result as being disbarred. He can no longer practice law in Georgia or anywhere else. So let him retire and save the money a disbarment procedure would cost.

Either way, he could still be charged with a crime, so retiring doesn't change that.

[goaded]

Don't you see an advantage in lawyers being seen to police their own? None of this mess would have happened if Nixon had been tried and convicted, rather than pardoned, even if he only had to spend a token couple of days in prison.

Retiring at 70 is no big deal, and it feels to me like he's avoiding the consequences of his actions.

[goaded]

FYI Giuliani just got disbarred: “He claimed massive election fraud but had no evidence of it,” the committee wrote. “By prosecuting that destructive case Mr. Giuliani, a sworn officer of the Court, forfeited his right to practice law. He should be disbarred.” (It would have been an update, but I used them up already.)

[Anonymous]

I really don’t care what some random Bar Association has to say about some random lawyer. Who cares if they get disbarred?

[goaded]

He recommended having the US military (whose commander in chief was Trump) take over the voting machines from the states and declare Trump president after he'd lost the election. Yet another example of what Republicans really think of "states' rights".

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded It’s amazing that you take the thoughts of one lawyer and extrapolate and generalize it to became that of ALL Republicans.

Amazing, and deranged.

[goaded]

Well, Trump was seriously considering it, doesn't he represent Republicans, today? At the very least, Wood should have been thrown out of the White House the minute he suggested taking over the elections using the military. He wasn't.

[Avicenna]

goaded, you're crazy. Literally.

[goaded]

@Avicenna You think a president should be able to command the military to take over elections? This guy was an advisor the the president.

[msc545]

@agagagagaga Not deranged at all considering how you people behave and what you say.

[WhitneySnow]

Sure. It stops him from practicing law and at least it lets him save face. I think it would be the nice thing to do, but I’m not a lawyer (or even an adult for another year) so maybe there’s something I’m missing.

[monorprise]

Why @WhitneySnow would you stop a lawyer who's entire propose is to defend their client no matter what they do from practicing law for simply offering a defense of that which you prefer not be defended?

It sounds like your disinterested in the idea of representation in a court of law on select charges?

[goaded]

@monorprise He wasn't suggesting a defence, he was suggesting a way to break the law.

[monorprise]

@goaded I am suggesting a way to break the law, although I am doing so as a warning in urging everyone to listen to return the U. S. military to its Constitutional peace time decentralized State militia condition as soon as possible.
It would not be a crime even if it did.

As it happens Most lawyers are employed to do precisely that in suggesting advantageous courses of action they think are defensible Once again this is the entire proposed of the profession.

[Anonymous]

If your willing to throw out the right to free speech, simply to avoid people pointing out ugly practical facts of what presidents could do with the enormous unchecked power we give them.
Then your already lost both because your speech is arbitrarily conferenced and because you ARE unprepared.

Congress has invested in the president an uncontrollable amount of power in the form of direct control over the worlds largest standing army as well as domestic intelligence apparatus.

Rather than split its forces among the many states per design of the Constitution Congress concentrated everything in this one man. As such if any president wanted to declare marshal law, thou he lacks the Constitutional power to do so, he has been given the practical means to do so, at least enough to make a fight of it.
If said man also had the support of many states he could indeed remain in office.

[goaded]

Not legally.

[goaded]

And what do you mean by "willing to throw out the right to free speech"? He could say any nonsense he wants as a private citizen, but not if he wants to keep being a lawyer.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded The law hardly matters if you have an army and a lie. Linclin proved that in 1861, just as tyrants all over the world prove it regularly.

As for free speech for lawyers, there exist no exception to the 1st amendment as to permit the Federal goverment to pass any law prohibiting anyone from saying anything.

Indeed from a strictly policy perspective the profession of being a lawyer is basically impossible if you don't have the freedom to take and defend any position you want. This is after all the entire propose of begin a lawyer. Any lawyer who is unable or refused to defend any position is a bad lawyer.

[goaded]

You also have a military that knows it can refuse to carry out illegal orders.

It's not the government telling lawyers they can't give terrible advice to their clients, it's the Bar.

Lawyers aren't allowed to take part in crimes, either, which is what the crime-fraud exception is all about, and why Smith has a load of evidence from one of Trump's lawyers in the documents case.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Refusing to carry out illegal orders just means you get replaced with someone who will. A smart president already has loyal people at the top hand picking father loyal people below him. A nice lie and emergency and he can get them to do whatever he wants.

If you think the military will somehow resist such illegal orders even if they did somehow recognize them your overlooking the countless examples around the world where that gritty much never happens.
This is a problem some republicans at least formerly had with soo much faith in the military. The fact is the military follows orders, if they dont they are simply replaced. it doesn't matter how 'correct', 'incorrect', or even illegal those orders are. Thee is no practical way to resist following them, short of independent and competing political leadership and there never has been.

You referred to Disbarment, which is when you revoke a lawyers law license and right to practice law, that is very much a system of goverment persecution, in this case for doing the job of a lawer in defending something they just prefer be undefended.

Once again the job of a lawyer is to represent and help defend his client NO matter what that client does. A lawyer who can't or won't do that is not doing their job. To disbar a lawyer for trying to do that is to deny people representation at trial by attacking the profession.

It is not a crime to posit a defense of anything, that is called speech, in this case necessary and professional speech.

Do not stray from the topic of the poll question. Trumps right to presidential records and to declassify anything he wants is NOT related to this question.

[goaded]

He was advising the president to do something illegal, not defending something Trump did after the fact. That may or may not not be illegal, but it's something lawyers should get disbarred for.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Even if that were true it would not be a crime. As it is, it doesn't sound like he felt it was nessarly illegal. Most presidents have tried to claim they have the power to declare martial law.

Just because I find their case to be ridiculous, and absence a standing 'national' army they lack the practical forces to do so. Doesn't mean they president or their hand picked lawyers who's job it is to agree with and defend their position do. Indeed their own lust for power makes it very likely that they do an want to believe that.

You can call it illegal if you like but that doesn't mean it is.

[goaded]

Hopefully we'll find out in a few months.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Exactly what could we learn in a few months?
That the goverment can ignore the 1st amendment to shutdown unfavorable speech?
We have known that for years.

That the 'private sector' lawyers association has no interest in actually being lawyers rather than controlling them to limit freedom what they want?

We have known that for decades as well.

Would I still hire Lin Wood if given the option to be my lawyer, yes if he is creative enough to defend this he is creative enough to defend anything.

[goaded]

He's not. That's the reason he's retiring, rather than facing the music. We'll see if he and his client get indicted (again). Trials and convictions will take longer.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded
Lin Wood is 70 years old, he should have retired years ago.

[goaded]

Yes, well before he started encouraging Trump to steal the election.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded
Lin Wood was born in October of 1952, he will be 71in a few months, he has been practicing since 1977, or 45-46 years,
In January of 2021 he was only 68 and would have been practicing for 43-44 years. I don't how how his company retirement plan works but it seems he was likely waiting to hit that 45 mark.

[goaded]

So what? He encouraged Trump to have the military take over the voting machines when Trump had lost (and knew it).

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded It would have been nice if they took the voting machines and did a full analyses of them, I doubt it would be useful as that's not how the fraud took place, but at least then we would have some level of verification of those machines.

Even still that is a legal suggestion

[goaded]

Having the federal government take over states' voting machines, so they can claim they're fixed? That's legal? I don't think so.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded I don't think its legal either, but that doesn't mean a lawyer isn't entitled to argue that it is. That is in fact the entire job of a lawyer. A lawyer who can't defend any position is a poor lawyer.

[goaded]

So, if a lawyer tells a client it would be OK to muder his wife, that would be OK? It's one thing to defend a client for what they've done, it's another to suggest they commit crimes.

[goaded]

@monorprise By the way, the states (the owners of those voting machines) did check them out, and found them blameless. The right wing lies about them were exposed, especially by Fox News having to pay out $785,000,000 to Dominion (and I believe Smartmatic also have a case).

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded The moral case of letting a 3rd party check them out rather than the one who would benefited from their corruption is rather straightforward.
Still the State's owned the voting machines, not the Federal Goverment. Still if you ask me, someone who didn't have a reason to ignore their corruption via being elected by the same machines should have verified their integrity.

In truth an election needs to be simple and transparent enough as to make it obvious to everyone there was no fraud.
We can as such never confidently know who won any election In states where there is a huge amount of uncertainty where votes came from. This includes any state where votes travel thou the complex mailing system or really just leave the view of both parties.(not cast in person).

Mail in voting was a kindness for people who couldn't attend. it was fine as long as elections were regularly decided by in-person votes with margins too large for the unknowable votes to change.
It will always be a problem when elections are decided by 'votes' from whom we can never truly know.

As such democracy is dead in said states.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Yes, lawyer have been giving bad advice to their clients since the beginning. They often do so with similarly harmful results. A lawyer's job is to defend whatever the client choose to do. If a lawyer tell's a client he can defend something he can't that means he was not so great a lawyer.

Althou I don't agree with Lin Woods suggestion, what Lin Wood suggested was quite easily defensible. As previously explained i doubt there would even be a trial at all.

[goaded]

"The moral case of letting a 3rd party check them out rather than the one who would benefited from their corruption is rather straightforward."
But all the states accused of stealing the election from Trump were Republican states. They would have benefitted from Trump winning. It's also illegal to pressure state officials to "find" votes that overturn the properly counted results.

It was obvious to everyone (including Trump and the two companies he hired to look into it, and the 60 courts that decided against him, and the state Bars that have investigated Wood, Giuliani, and Powell) that he lost the election fair and square and every attempt to "win" the election since the court cases was illegal.

Lawyers will try to defend that behaviour, but not the ones who suggested it in the first place.

Oh, Eastman; has he been disbarred yet?

[goaded]

Apparently Eastman has not yet been disbarred, but it seems lawyers swear an oath to uphold the consititutions, both state and country; aiding in an attempt to prevent the preaceful transfer of power to the rightful winner is breaking that oath.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded
So is facilitating the transfer of power to anyone who didn't earn it legitimately under the law.
Regardless Lin Wood made no such effort nor did he attempt any such effort, nor even a plan for it. He merely advised a way for the president to verify the integery of the election.

That is perfectly protected speech regardless of whether or not you think merely verifying voting machines can somehow obstruct the peaceful transfer of power. At most it provides a means to independently validate or contest state elections in courts.

You would have a lot fewer problems going forward if someone who didn't benefit from potential corrupt had actually gone forward with such a audit. Ultimately however it matters not, the machines are inconsequential to the unknowable of the mail in ballots.

We have no idea who casts them, and no way to know they were not change. As such we will never know who won those state elections.

[goaded]

Once again: they knew they'd lost the election before they decided to steal it. The same evening they decided against sending the military to sieze the counting machines, Trump called his supporters to DC on Jan 6th. That wasn't just to observe or even protest the count, no protests had ever been held at the count before, because the result is always known before it starts. There was only one reason to call people there, and it was to disrupt the count so that Republicans in the House could have a chance to steal the presidency for Trump.

Lawyers are officers of the court, they're not allowed to lie in court, even if you think it should be "free speech". They're also not to file lawsuits in bad faith, which Wood did on multiple occasions (as determined by multiple courts, not just me). That's why he was being disciplined.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded You think they knew that? I don't even know that to this day, and frankly given how it was conducted in key states its unlikely we will ever know who won the election. We have no idea where those mail in ballots came from if they really were all casts as such by the voter.

So how could they possibly know the election was lost, when that information is unknowable given how the election was conducted?

As for lying in court, again thou I disagree with Lin Wood's conclusion that does not mean anything. His case is legitimate and cannot be regarded as a lie. Certainly many if not most presidents have maintained such a power existed.

[goaded]

Yes, I think they knew that. Every genuine election official was telling them it was a free and fair election. Even the Republican ones who Trump tried to get to reverse the results and hand the election to him. And the two companies he paid to look into it. And the multiple states that performed audits after the election was done.

Just because you refuse to believe that voting by mail is valid (something that never bothered right-wingers before 2020), doesn't make it true.

By the way, it's just been pointed out that it's a crime to conspire to commit a crime (more than one person agreeing to commit a crime and at least one conspiritor performing an act in furtherance of that crime).

Trump and company discussed illegally siezing the states' election equipment (illegal because they had no warrant, and no probable cause to get one), a "crime", and wrote a draft presidential order to implement that crime, the "act". That makes them guilty of conspiracy to steal election equipment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GfJkCBHi3w

[OddBeMe]

I don't know, what did he do? Law is law. We can’t prosecute trump if we fail to prosecute our friends.

[Snakeyes7]

Is that true? If not then they should be disbarred.

[mommymommymommy]

should retire, and disbarred, put in jail

[msc545]

He needs to be disbarred.

[goaded]

I agree. Consequences are important.

[msc545]

Absolutely.