Posted on Jun 29, 2022
Hillary Clinton: Clarence Thomas has always been ‘a person of grievance’ - NewsBreak
253
2
3
0
0
0
https://www.newsbreak.com/news/ [login to see] 038/hillary-clinton-clarence-thomas-has-always-been-a-person-of-grievance?_f=app_share&s=a1&share_destination_id=MTc3MTA4OTUyLTE2NTY1MDgzNDQyODM=&pd=0Bz880Me&hl=en_US&trans_data=%7B%22platform%22%3A1%2C%22cv%22%3A%2222.25.0%22%7D
Hillary, a defrocked attorney. Thomas, a Supreme Court Justice. Better that she respectfully disagree than mount a personal attack. With her history, she is the perfect target for a counterpunch
Hillary, a defrocked attorney. Thomas, a Supreme Court Justice. Better that she respectfully disagree than mount a personal attack. With her history, she is the perfect target for a counterpunch
Hillary Clinton: Clarence Thomas has always been ‘a person of grievance’ - NewsBreak
Posted from newsbreak.comPosted in these groups: 
Hillary Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
1
1
0
Hillary is not "defrocked.". She let her license lapse due to non-use. (Also, de-frocking is for priests, not lawyers. That would be disbarment.)
I don't like the lady, but untruth is untruth.
I don't like the lady, but untruth is untruth.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
In other words, "defrocked". I never said "disbarred". Referring to an attorney as "defrocked" is a jocular use of the term.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
CPT Jack Durish defrocking is something that is done to you. And always as a result of taking actions which go against the organization.
Voluntarily letting your license lapse due to non-use is not a de-frocking. It is a voluntary relinquishment.
Whether using it jocularly or not, it is inaccurate. The purpose is to cast aspersions on her legal ethics and/or legal competence. Neither of which is in question with her voluntary relinquishment.
(Now, you can certainly call these into question with some of her decisions, such as her handling of classified in clear violation of US Code. But not via her law license - at least not validly.)
Voluntarily letting your license lapse due to non-use is not a de-frocking. It is a voluntary relinquishment.
Whether using it jocularly or not, it is inaccurate. The purpose is to cast aspersions on her legal ethics and/or legal competence. Neither of which is in question with her voluntary relinquishment.
(Now, you can certainly call these into question with some of her decisions, such as her handling of classified in clear violation of US Code. But not via her law license - at least not validly.)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google