Who was the worst appointee... Pruitt or DeVoss?
He should have picked you?
There isn't a politician in DC or anywhere that can't be found with ethics discrepancies if you want to look deep enough.
Pruitt was ran out of office by the media. I don't know what news feed you look at but mine include several liberal news outlets and they had a mission to destroy. They destroyed him with some of Pruitt's own mistakes that would have not been reported at all if he was a liberal appointee with a global warming agenda and a socialist president.
Am I wrong?
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,168
- Reaction score
- 46
Pruitt.
I didn't say me, and it doesn't matter what the agenda was if the facts were accurate, and I've seen nothing to suggest that his "mistakes" didn't actually occur. Are you saying that because liberals would get a pass from the media, conservatives should also be excused from ethical standards?
Do you have ethical standards? What are they? What do you demand your top-level governmental agents adhere to?
BTW, given his record of being shot down by courts across the country for some of the suits he brought, including some shot down without even a hearing--I'd say he's also potentially in violation of the lawyer's code of ethics--the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Responsiblity (see Appendix 3-A)--specifically Rule 3.1, Meritorious Claims and Contentions: "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law." And, of course, he spent piles of taxpayer dollars bringing or defending those failures. But hey, it's only the people's money; he needs to be out there showing how tough and proactive he is so that he can impress the voters and step up to higher office. Just think of it as a mandatory campaign contribution.
So you agree and condone liberals get a pass from the media. Ok, I know where you stand now. This discussion is over.
I agree that they do get a pass. I don't condone it. Believe it or not, there really is a difference; see if you can puzzle it out.
I note that you completely dodged my question about your ethical standards, though, and that gives me a pretty good idea of where you stand: on the third-grade playground ("they did it too!").
Why don't you try sticking to the case in question rather than dodging it with unrelated incidents?
Perhaps if those ethical standards were followed by those in your profession (in all fields) instead of strutting around like some holy prophet while spouting how big their halo is, and if professional courtesy and back scratching took a smaller role, people would have a tad bit more faith in those ethical standards. Hell about 7/8 of all litigation should never even see a court room. People have lost faith in the system for a reason. Add in that about 7/8 of those holding office are attorneys and that snow ball starts down the hill.
I don’t imply that you fit into this at all Dave, just stating the perception of a lot of folks I know is all.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I understand what you mean. What you may not know is how much litigation doesn't see a courtroom. I took my cue from my dad (also an attorney), who always maintained that a case that goes to trial is often a sign of two lawyers who didn't do their jobs. I know a lot of lawyers who agree; many, like me, are proud of keeping a case out of court. The trouble is, we can't force a case to settle; that decision is always in the hands of the client (and, in fact, we have an ethical canon about that, too). Frequently, the sticking point isn't the assignment of guilt or liability, but rather the amount--the tortfeasor admits liability, but the parties can't agree on a settlement. And, for the ones that seem outrageous, there's often a whole lot more to the story that doesn't really get publicized, no doubt because it would make the headline a lot less sensational. The McDonald's hot coffee case is a prime example of this (I'd be happy to explain elsewhere, but I've already dragged this thread pretty well off-topic, and I'd rather not take it further off the rails). As to those who don't follow the ethics rules, well, again, it's the notable ones who get the press. Just like cops, really (though lawyers don't generally have the power to take a life, nor do we get the benefit of the doubt that law enforcement does): the sensational stories get the headlines.
I'm always happy to answer to the best of my ability any questions anybody has; the things you don't know (through no fault of your own) really do change the picture.
As to politicians, well, people who actively seek such power aren't representative of the profession, nor of humanity as a whole. I've heard it said that such people--politicians, CEOs, any sort of power-seeker--often exhibit some degree of sociopathy. Often, the ones at the lowest levels are the worst, and you need look no further than most HOA boards to see the proof of that.
man, there was a time when small government folks would have lined up to punch pruitt in the face for spending money on things like $1500 for fountain pens or five figures for a private phone booth.
But alas, those days seem to be gone.
Now it's all about pivoting to blame the media and not the guy who spent nearly $3.5 million on his personal security in a single year.
But alas, those days seem to be gone.
Now it's all about pivoting to blame the media and not the guy who spent nearly $3.5 million on his personal security in a single year.
