4 ms·
> Sure. And I'd have wasted time and money. No, you'd have pinned your NYPD officer sources asses up against the wall because you leaked their information by l
by busterarm 3y ago
> Sure. And I'd have wasted time and money.
No, you'd have pinned your NYPD officer sources asses up against the wall because you leaked their information by losing your subpoena fight.
THAT is why this wouldn't be pursued in court.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> you'd have pinned your NYPD officer sources asses up against the wall because you leaked their information by losing your subpoena fight Why is that my problem?
- busterarm 3y ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> Protecting your sources is the cornerstone of journalism This is the journalist's job to weigh. Not counsel's. If the journalist says fight, counsel should fight. > Your moral compass is fucked If we're going ad hominem, I'm not the one advocating deference to illegal police actions. (And to be clear, we were never debating whether action should be pursued. Just whether it could be, or whether an attorney should refuse to do so.)
- busterarm 3y agoI'm advocating not putting other people at undue risk. The same as you would tell people not to drive drunk. I'm not advocating for somebody to spend money on a cab, that's just circumstantial.
- busterarm 3y ago> (And to be clear, we were never debating whether action should be pursued. Just whether it could be, or whether an attorney should refuse to do so.) No, we were, because that was my argument. This is putting words in my mouth and moving the goalposts. I never said my basis for "should", you just chose it to read as "should on legal grounds" whereas my statement was "should if all things were fair".
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> my statement was "should if all things were fair" You raised it as grounds for disbarment. You don't get disbarred for being unfair.