What are you talking about? Detroit may be shrinking, but it's more cosmopolitan than Podunkville (hey, I saw "Out Of Sight.") Plus, the only intellectual property I deal with is paying the licensing fee to WesLex each year for the slip and fall formbook that my practice depends upon.

Um, dude, it was your comparison. That means you have to do the work on figuring out what Bill (a) wanted included and (b) what he was willing to roll the dice on, and then come back to tell me that the answeres were comparable to "telecom immunity" and "terrorist attack," respectively.

if I get a double win, I can break out the scotch early, so I hope you keep engaging as you scroll, but i like you bob, and you should know. Ty just lost.

Here in my world, the President doesn't get to break the law, nor does he get to ask people to break that law. If telcos broke the law, they broke the law. Calling that "help" is, shall we say, Orwellian.

When Nixon said that the law is whatever he said the law is, most people laughed at him, and rightfully so. As a lawyer, you should know better.

glass houses
 

You were quoting the NY Sun. Most blogs -- hell, most MySpace pages -- are a step up from there.

shouldn't a tele company get to trust the President? i mean if he broke the law the by telling a company that it wasn't, it seems to me you should be impeaching him or something.

glass houses
 

the Sun made up what Liebermann said? hmmm, was it "accurate, even if made up?" Does CBS own that rag?

If President Nixon asked you to rob an office in the Watergate building and told you that it would be OK, would you trust him? Probably so, but you would deserve your time in a federal penetentiary.

Your hypo points to an important facet of this, which is that he won't tell Congress what the telcos did that they should be immunized for.

nice. you try and equate something anyone knows would be illegal, with an act that is certainly not that.

You state a better argument for when the guy who pulled the trigger on vince Foster tries to argue that Clinton told him it was ok.



why is congress passing the law, i mean it's wrong, right?

glass houses
 

And I here thought you were busting my chops for citing blogs, not for citing sources that made up what other people said. Mostly 'cause I don't do that.

1-0

Why is Congress passing what law? You are even less lucid than your usually non-lucid self.

fuck ty, i don't know. bush will veto something if it doesn't have something in it. what is he vetoing, lunch plans?

oh, and way to avoid the skewering of you argument.

That's a graceful concession -- thanks.

2-0

Sure, but you won't get a win on this one.

I am sure that you are right that the help that AT&T et al gave to Uncle Sam was very helpful in the GWOT. In fact, maybe the FBI can just ask all the lawyers in the country to let them rifle through their files. Check with your managing partner; maybe she can set up a G-Man (uh, G-Person) in that empty space on 27 by the Feinsterblocker Conference Room to let him/her look through the files on all of the firm's estate planning and tax clients for "patterns." Who knows? They might find out that one or two of them are laundering money for Hamas or Al Quida or ETA.

Translation: President Clinton we can kill Osama. we know where he is." "Let's not."

Bob, you have either been drinking at lunch again, or you have no respect for me. That was a silly comparision.

QED Hank Chinaski 345-20. Pisses me off that Ty covered the spread and got a count for his side, but the spread has gotten pretty one-sided by now, and i can't always cover. WTTW.

I'm not sure your hypo goes far enough, since I don't see the criminal exposure for letting the FBI rifle through some files.