Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Dude, you're saying Cheney was in the cafeteria most Tuesdays and didn't run into Edwards, so that means Edwards is a non-entity in the Senate? If Cheney's point wasn't that he was presiding over Senate sessions and had never met Edwards, what the fuck was his point?
It's a perennial problem in litigation: after all the contortions you make to make your client's statement technically true, you've coincidentally made it irrelevant to your client's case.
|
Boy Atti, when you get busy, the intellectual depth evaporates really quick. Hmmmmm, maybe TW is just overworked.
Let's look at your little litigation scenario:
Cheney's statement had two parts.
First, Edwards has missed __% of the votes.
Then, as a sort of observation to illustrate how severe __% really is, he says "I've never met the guy."
You guys claim you shown the statement "irrelevent" Because once Edwards sat near Cheney at a breakfast, and was on
Meet the Press with him or something.
But see here's the problem- the "client's statement" is "Edwards missed __% of the vote." That is what might be relevent to a voter. I don't think many voters will decide based upon whether Cheney met the guy or not, do you?
So like, in closing, you'd say "Well we've proven Edwards walked behind Cheney at a prayer breakfast, so you should ignore the whole issue."
Then we'd be like "ummm, did you notice how they didn't touch the __% part? they show this picture from breakfast, now if you knew Cheney you'd know he's concentrating on the bacon at breakfast, but you know what? Let me concede that maybe they met.....When you make your decision just remember what we all agree on. he missed ___% of the votes."
Wouldn't it go like that, kind of?
:hide:
And Sebby, we're the party that lacks substance?
