Re: Matthew "Matt" Louis Gaetz II R-FL1 "Soulless, Power-Hungry Ghoul" "Petulant Idiot" & His Helper, Nestor Galban
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:28 am
Only the best...
Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
https://thefogbow.com/forum/
In other words, victim shaming?
WASHINGTON — Rep. Matt Gaetz is retaining two prominent New York attorneys as he faces a Justice Department investigation into sex trafficking allegations involving underage girls.
Marc Mukasey and Isabelle Kirshner will lead the Florida Republican's legal team, a Gaetz spokesperson said in a statement Friday.
“Matt has always been a fighter. A fighter for his constituents, a fighter for the country, and a fighter for the Constitution. He’s going to fight back against the unfounded allegations against him," the statement said, adding that the lawyers "will take the fight to those trying to smear his name with falsehoods.”
My bad. I just assume everyone attached to Trump & company are not the best
Yeah, from your article he seems to be a nasty piece of work, and rather good at it. Exactly the person Gaetz needs right now, but hopefully still not enough to keep him out of prison.
p0rtia wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:20 pm I am reminded by this interesting thread that I don't seem to have the same definition of "successful" as many/most other people.
I grudgingly accept usages such as "successful murderer" as at least clear, but balk at (to use an extreme but illustrative example) usages such as "the former guy was a successful businessman" or "a successful negotiator" or "a successful developer."
One of my problems is the connection of the concept of "success" with activities that are fundamentally destructive and deceitful.
So do you think there are no successful criminal defense lawyers? I am not using the word "success" to describe monetary gain but successful at representing their clients. You don't have to approve of their clients for them to be successful. Criminal defense lawyers do serve a critical role in our justice system.p0rtia wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:20 pm I am reminded by this interesting thread that I don't seem to have the same definition of "successful" as many/most other people.
I grudgingly accept usages such as "successful murderer" as at least clear, but balk at (to use an extreme but illustrative example) usages such as "the former guy was a successful businessman" or "a successful negotiator" or "a successful developer."
One of my problems is the connection of the concept of "success" with activities that are fundamentally destructive and deceitful.
Gaetz probably needs 2 things right now, a good lawyer, and
In that context, success doesn’t necessarily equate to acquittal or reversal on appeal. As appellate defense counsel I can almost always find fault with something that happened at the trial level. It’s my job to look for those things. But I almost always lose - not because I’m bad at my job, or “unsuccessful” — but because most people actually got a fair trial. I think of myself as successful - I win the cases I ought to win and I lose the cases I ought to lose. For the most part. And for the cases I thought I should have won, well, all I can do is tell the appellate court what I think. I can’t make them agree with me.filly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:17 pmSo do you think there are no successful criminal defense lawyers? I am not using the word "success" to describe monetary gain but successful at representing their clients. You don't have to approve of their clients for them to be successful. Criminal defense lawyers do serve a critical role in our justice system.p0rtia wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:20 pm I am reminded by this interesting thread that I don't seem to have the same definition of "successful" as many/most other people.
I grudgingly accept usages such as "successful murderer" as at least clear, but balk at (to use an extreme but illustrative example) usages such as "the former guy was a successful businessman" or "a successful negotiator" or "a successful developer."
One of my problems is the connection of the concept of "success" with activities that are fundamentally destructive and deceitful.
The only thing I've read was in a NYT article last night that named some guy with a rather generic name. The article did not state when he'd been hired nor did it say anything else about the lawyer. Apparently Gaetz decided he need a bigger "gun." We also do not know when he hired Mukasey.
Tumppettes have a bizarre sense of entitlement so they think they don't need legal assistance until it is late into the game. They believe they can do whatever they want, and even lie about it because, privilege (not just white privilege but conservative, right-wing, privilege because they are true patriots and a vast majority of America agrees with them, in their own mind).
northland10 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:41 pmTumppettes have a bizarre sense of entitlement so they think they don't need legal assistance until it is late into the game. They believe they can do whatever they want, and even lie about it because, privilege (not just white privilege but conservative, right-wing, privilege because they are true patriots and a vast majority of America agrees with them, in their own mind).
When they realize that their privilege is not working, then they are victims of the left trying to take away their privilege.
That's a good example. No, I don't think a criminal defense lawyer who gets a murderer off (for example) should be described as having gotten a successful result. I don't consider that a "successful defense". I agree that it is a constitutional and necessary defense, and I have no problem with the lawyer's actions (short of any lawyers who might be acting unethically, obviously), but I would not use the word "successful" in this context. I would be happy to use it in a case where a defense lawyer successfully represented someone falsely accused.filly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:17 pmSo do you think there are no successful criminal defense lawyers? I am not using the word "success" to describe monetary gain but successful at representing their clients. You don't have to approve of their clients for them to be successful. Criminal defense lawyers do serve a critical role in our justice system.p0rtia wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:20 pm I am reminded by this interesting thread that I don't seem to have the same definition of "successful" as many/most other people.
I grudgingly accept usages such as "successful murderer" as at least clear, but balk at (to use an extreme but illustrative example) usages such as "the former guy was a successful businessman" or "a successful negotiator" or "a successful developer."
One of my problems is the connection of the concept of "success" with activities that are fundamentally destructive and deceitful.
I see what you did there.p0rtia wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:58 pmThat's a good example. No, I don't think a criminal defense lawyer who gets a murderer off (for example) should be described as having gotten a successful result. I don't consider that a "successful defense". I agree that it is a constitutional and necessary defense, and I have no problem with the lawyer's actions (short of any lawyers who might be acting unethically, obviously), but I would not use the word "successful" in this context. I would be happy to use it in a case where a defense lawyer successfully represented someone falsely accused.filly wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:17 pmSo do you think there are no successful criminal defense lawyers? I am not using the word "success" to describe monetary gain but successful at representing their clients. You don't have to approve of their clients for them to be successful. Criminal defense lawyers do serve a critical role in our justice system.p0rtia wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:20 pm I am reminded by this interesting thread that I don't seem to have the same definition of "successful" as many/most other people.
I grudgingly accept usages such as "successful murderer" as at least clear, but balk at (to use an extreme but illustrative example) usages such as "the former guy was a successful businessman" or "a successful negotiator" or "a successful developer."
One of my problems is the connection of the concept of "success" with activities that are fundamentally destructive and deceitful.
If Chauvin were to be acquitted, I would not call his defense a success.
I recognize that it's largely a personal thing. And really nit-picky. But the older I get, the more I notice that people do not use words in the same ways.
I should start a threat about words.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... t-n1263685Reed, meanwhile, announced last month he would not see re-election following accusations from a former lobbyist that he had fondled her at a Minneapolis bar in 2017, and he apologized to his family and the lobbyist for his actions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... story.html
It probably doesn't help that he also looks like Don Rickles.Nicolette Davis said she was 25, on her first networking trip as a junior lobbyist for an insurance company, when she felt the 45-year-old congressman’s hand on her back. She and other lobbyists had gathered at an Irish pub in Minneapolis after a day of ice fishing, Davis told The Washington Post, and Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y) was seated to her left.
“A drunk congressman is rubbing my back,” she texted a friend and co-worker at Aflac that evening in 2017, adding later, “HELP HELP.”
Reed, his hand outside her blouse, briefly fumbled with her bra before unhooking it by pinching the clasp, Davis told The Post. He moved his hand to her thigh, inching upward, she said.
Frozen in fear, she said, she asked the person sitting to her right for help. He obliged by pulling the congressman away from the table and out of the restaurant, Davis said.
How do you tell the difference? You can’t always. Just because someone is charged doesn’t mean they’re guilty. That’s what the trial is for.p0rtia wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:58 pm That's a good example. No, I don't think a criminal defense lawyer who gets a murderer off (for example) should be described as having gotten a successful result. I don't consider that a "successful defense". I agree that it is a constitutional and necessary defense, and I have no problem with the lawyer's actions (short of any lawyers who might be acting unethically, obviously), but I would not use the word "successful" in this context. I would be happy to use it in a case where a defense lawyer successfully represented someone falsely accused.