Tiberius Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Oh, good Lord, this is one of the most retarded things I've ever seen on this site. This is up there with the "true expected value" of a die roll. You are pathetic. Just a pathetic person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 You are pathetic. Just a pathetic person No what's pathetic is calling someone who is defending someone in the court of public opinion a defense attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 You are pathetic. Just a pathetic person If I have my attorney respond to your post, does that mean I'm a criminal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 No. See if you killed your wife you would be charged with murder and would have hired a DEFENSE attorney to defend against those charges. Christied hired an attorney it interpret all the data regarding the information. You see. By what you're saying he hired a PR attorney. Dude you are in so deep here. You !@#$ed up calling him a defense attorney. All you have to do is admit that. I've answered it twice. I called him a defense attorney because that it was he is. He is defending Christie. Sure, I could have called him a spin doctor too, same difference really. Lol, you say he's just there to interpret data?? That's some funny **** man! If I have my attorney respond to your post, does that mean I'm a criminal? I did accuse you of being a douche bag, does that count? No what's pathetic is calling someone who is defending someone in the court of public opinion a defense attorney. Reread what you wrote, it's funny. Someone who is an attorney, that is defending someone but no, they are not a defense attorney. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 (edited) I called him a defense attorney because that it was he is. He is defending Christie. Sure, I could have called him a spin doctor too, same difference really. What criminal or civil charges is this defense attorney defending against. I'll wait. Reread what you wrote, it's funny. Someone who is an attorney, that is defending someone but no, they are not a defense attorney. :/ My wife works for lawyers. She has for nearly 30 years. Mostly contractual law. If one of the lawyers is asked to interpret a contract that someone is being accused of breaking is this contractual lawyer now a defense attorney? Edited March 28, 2014 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 What criminal or civil charges is this defense attorney defending against. I'll wait. Whatever charges that would result from Christie being found to have known about the bridge closing in advance or during it. But thanks for admitting this attorney was defending Christie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Reminds me of a jackazz who called Andrew Wilkow to argue with him back when B.O. and his gang of thugs were stealing from the GM Bondholders. The caller said that he didn't have a problem with the government going in to take over control of "any public company... because, well - they're 'public' companies! So they got a right to do that." Wilkow hung up on him in disgust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 I called him a defense attorney because that it was he is. He is defending Christie. he's only defending Christie in your biased eyes. he is, in fact, reviewing a paper trail, looking for any indication at all that Christie was involved. he is as much a prosecuting attorney, by your logic, as he is a defense attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Whatever charges that would result from Christie being found to have known about the bridge closing in advance or during it. But thanks for admitting this attorney was defending Christie So he was defending him against charges that have not yet been leveled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 So he was defending him against charges that have not yet been leveled? Yes, he was both defending him in the fact that he was trying to stop charges from being brought and defending him in the court of public opinion, and for a person running for President that's the most important court of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Reread what you wrote, it's funny. Someone who is an attorney, that is defending someone but no, they are not a defense attorney. :/ The attorney in question: 1) practices civil litigation and corporate law, not criminal law. 2) isn't representing Christie. He was hired by the Office of the Governor of the State of New Jersey to do an independent review. He wasn't hired by Christie. In other words: NOT A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, AND NOT ACTING AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, YOU DUMBASS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 he's only defending Christie in your biased eyes. he is, in fact, reviewing a paper trail, looking for any indication at all that Christie was involved. he is as much a prosecuting attorney, by your logic, as he is a defense attorney. Good!!!! This is what I was looking for! I think this is actually what a whole bunch of you actually believe. Chef, can you sign on to this point? TYTT seems to have danced around this without jumping in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Yes, he was both defending him in the fact that he was trying to stop charges from being brought and defending him in the court of public opinion, and for a person running for President that's the most important court of all. Ohhhh so you were in the room with Chirstie and this attorney when they were discussing this. Well why the !@#$ didn't you say so. We can all go home now. See gator has inside information. He was in on all the meetings. Sorry, we didn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Yes, he was both defending him in the fact that he was trying to stop charges from being brought and defending him in the court of public opinion, and for a person running for President that's the most important court of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Good!!!! This is what I was looking for! I think this is actually what a whole bunch of you actually believe. Chef, can you sign on to this point? TYTT seems to have danced around this without jumping in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Good!!!! This is what I was looking for! I think this is actually what a whole bunch of you actually believe. Chef, can you sign on to this point? TYTT seems to have danced around this without jumping in. it amuses me to no end that I make a comparison to what you say by using a premise as idiotic as yours, and you agree with it. thank you. I haven't had a laugh like this in days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 The attorney in question: 1) practices civil litigation and corporate law, not criminal law. 2) isn't representing Christie. He was hired by the Office of the Governor of the State of New Jersey to do an independent review. He wasn't hired by Christie. In other words: NOT A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, AND NOT ACTING AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, YOU DUMBASS. Ha ha, so the Office just hired him?!? So he isn't representing Christie to see if Christie was involved, nice job Office of the Governor! This has to be the stupidest thing you ever wrote. The Office is doing an independent review of Governor...you kill me! I love this real author's take on this: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/gov-christie-world-innocent-bridgegate-article-1.1737387 Oh come, yes or no?? Do you agree? it amuses me to no end that I make a comparison to what you say by using a premise as idiotic as yours, and you agree with it. thank you. I haven't had a laugh like this in days. DB Tom agrees with you about this about the Office investigating Christie, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Good!!!! This is what I was looking for! I think this is actually what a whole bunch of you actually believe. Chef, can you sign on to this point? TYTT seems to have danced around this without jumping in. So, as far as dancing goes, you seem to be pretty good at it. You dance away from every hard question put to you. How do you compare (integrity wise) with the Governor's Office putting an investigator on the issue with the DoJ investigating all of the administrations scandals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 Ha ha, so the Office just hired him?!? So he isn't representing Christie to see if Christie was involved, nice job Office of the Governor! This has to be the stupidest thing you ever wrote. The Office is doing an independent review of Governor...you kill me! No, the Office of the Governor hired an outside party to do an independent review of the Office of the Governor. Credible? Hardly. Acting as Christie's personal defense attorney? Not even remotely. And if you had any idea what you were talking about, you wouldn't be talking about the credibility of Christie's "defense attorney." If they were acting as Christie's personal attorneys, given that they're being paid with state funds, that would mean that Christie is using money from the state to fund his personal representation. That is HIGHLY illegal, a far more serious criminal matter than bridge closures. That you don't understand that indicates not only that you are not trolling, but are in fact the dumbest mother!@#$er on the face of the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 28, 2014 Share Posted March 28, 2014 So, as far as dancing goes, you seem to be pretty good at it. You dance away from every hard question put to you. How do you compare (integrity wise) with the Governor's Office putting an investigator on the issue with the DoJ investigating all of the administrations scandals? I apologize and I did go back to look for this question again, actually. Isn't Rep.Issa doing back flips in the House to investigate Obama and the IRS? I mean the GOP has the House, if they want to investigate and find something they can. All I'm saying, is I'll wait before I decide if Christie did anythingbwrong, but this report is total trash No, the Office of the Governor hired an outside party to do an independent review of the Office of the Governor. Credible? Hardly. You are right it's not credible at all. Why is that Tom? Why? Because it wasn't independent you stupid moron. You talk in so many circles you end up chasing your tail. Anyway, as has been reported by many media outlets, to post just one, this was not independent at all, only totally blind Republican rubes would think it is: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117133/christies-bridgegate-exoneration-his-lawyers-full-conflicts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts