Elizabeth Warren does the Texas two-step on Bar membership

See, it's like I said in the other post. (0.00 / 0)

Place your bets now.  Does Scott mention this in the debate?

I go with no.

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)

---

by: Patrick @ Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 00:03:07 AM UTC

Does Warren mention the Chop? (4.00 / 1)

I go with Yes, Warren attempts to score liberal points with the tomahawk chop.

And I agree, Brown doesn't mention the law license thing, yet.

---

by: John Howard @ Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 02:31:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's an interesting question. (0.00 / 0)

This is another question to bet on.

I go with NO.  She doesn't bring it up.  However, the moderator may bring it up.  And if the moderator does, she doesn't linger on it.  She'll say something like, "That was an unfortunate thing, but lets talk about the economy/jobs/voting record instead."

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)

---

by: Patrick @ Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 02:53:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The license thing (0.00 / 0)

Whether she had to have a license or not can be parsed and argued until months after the election is over.  To do anything with this issue, if he brings it up, he'll have to be specific:

You indicated on March 20, 2002 in a sworn document Before the Bankruptcy Court, under pains of perjury that you were "a member of the bar of the States of Texas and New Jersey..." and whether that is a true statement or not has swirled around the newspapers and internet for weeks.  This race is about character and now is the time to put this issue to rest:  Were you then a member of the Bar in those two states?

Elizabeth Warren: a bankruptcy professor, bankrupt of ideas

---

by: gary @ Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 12:28:57 PM UTC

one quick edit (3.00 / 1)

"Were you a member of the bar, licensed to practice in those states?"

Because at least in Texas, she wasn't licensed to practice in texas for 20+ years

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 12:53:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He should bring it up (5.00 / 1)

To this point, mainstream has ignored the issue.  If it comes up in the debate, the Globe, et al will be forced to address the issue.

Elizabeth Warren: a bankruptcy professor, bankrupt of ideas

---

by: gary @ Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 13:03:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But, (0.00 / 0)

are we sure it's even an issue?  I've seen one guys blog and here as the only two places that are claiming there's some sort of smoking gun, only by asking questions of course.  Other legal blogs seem to think there's nothing there.  Are they liberal conspiracies too?

Brown going after something like this, without a real smoking gun and evidence, is akin to suicide.  Especially after the disaster that was the first 5 min of the last debate viewed in conjunction of what some absent minded staffers did last week.  

This need for us to find some smoking gun, some firecracker Clintonian digression that we can wrap all the reason not to vote for Warren into one nice little package, or morality issue, is dumb.  It's not doing a service to re-electing Senator Brown, and in all likelihood is hurting his ability to stay on message and reach the voters he needs.

It does drive page-clicks and comments though.  If thats the business you're in.  

---

by: Ryan @ Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 15:14:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Issue? (0.00 / 0)

A candidate for Senate has been accused by credible sources of practice law, illegally.

How can that not be an issue?

Elizabeth Warren: a bankruptcy professor, bankrupt of ideas

---

by: gary @ Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 15:53:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

...on a blog (0.00 / 0)

Jacobson was pretty clear that he wasn't going to bother to bring this to it's logical conclusion through the right legal and regulatory channels, which to me questions the real merit of it.  He's asking questions, but decided to punt when he needs to put his name on the dotted line?

Sorry, doesn't pass the sniff test.  Sure passes the click test.  

Brown adopting something like this could easily blow up in his face.  His job is to represent his constituents and prove why he's better for the job, not run low level, questionable attacks that might not even be true.

If Jacobson believes what he's writing to be true, and supports Browns reelection effort, he needs to file the necessary formal complaints in the districts that are relevant to the issues he brings up.  

This isn't something Brown should touch 40 days out, while he's not doing so stellar in the polls.  We need to stop thinking some internet generated unicorn or white knight issue is going to save us.  

Get knocking on doors, it's time better spent.  

---

by: Ryan @ Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 20:23:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]