As a lawyer, I frequently come to the defense of lawyers who are pilloried in the press for representing repugnant people and causes. I wrote a comment defending Ted Cruz, for Christ’s sake, when David Corn was castigating him as a hypocrite for opposing the death penalty in the course of representing a client. And God knows I’ve taken up for Hillary’s vigorous, and pretty rough, defense of an accused child rapist as a court-appointed counsel. I generally find the habit of both reporters and politicians of imputing the causes and sins of clients to their lawyers.
But with all that, even I am finding this difficult to stomach. And that’s as much because she became a Fox News Democrat like Doug Schoen as because she’s personal lawyer. Although I can’t say it violates any rules, her defense of Ailes now after her long history of acting as a (presumably paid) commentator on Fox just doesn’t sit well with me. And neither do her repeated agressively flat denials of wrongdoing that, in essence, portray Roger the Hutt as the victim of a slander and perjury campaign.
Here’s the likely thing about that: as long as her conscience is good with the idea of defending someone such as Ailes, because as with folks such as Faulkner,McCallum and Greta, she is likely under the impression of the ‘my dog doesn’t bite’ rule.
‘Roger wouldn’t do this’/‘Roger wouldn’t do that’ works for her, because what she sees is likely different from Carlson and others saw.
Now I don’t begrudge her for defending him, but I do wonder how strongly will she defend him against these new claims.
Read a few years ago that Jabba The Hutt had an enormous chip on his shoulder. Beware someone with a huge grudge and a huge budget. That the odious Tantaros was part of his spy operation is not at all surprising. The entire Fox “News” culture is steeped in paranoia. The harm that it has done to this nation is incalculable.
So, remember when we heard that they were having to interview all the victims who’d been paid millions in hush money (out of Rupert’s pocket, possibly without Rupert’s knowledge) at Paul Weiss’s offices because they were afraid Roger had the Fox HQ bugged? Yeah. This is why.
Can anyone imagine the shock and horror and righteous outrage if it had been discovered that Dan Rather and/or Bill Paley had, for years, used corporate money to fund a Plumber’s operation of private eyes, black propaganda flacks and cybergoons to attack and silence “enemies?” Seriously, just try to imagine such a thing. It’s possible Corporate would have had to shut down the entire News Division to quell the furor.
And yet, we hear this about the vile gangster Roger the Hutt and Fox and people in the MSM just shrug. And Fox is still being treated as if it was an actual news organization, and still about at least half of the on-air talent are strong supporters who believe Roger’s been done wrong.
A news organization whose boss kept an enemies list, against whom he used a private covert action team, answerable only to him, to attack the women who he and his employees had sexually harassed and those who he feared would expose it. All paid for with shareholder’s money. The entire division was being run as a RICO conspiracy and the rest of the MSM is treating it as if it was just a sexual harassment scandal. when, if we still had rule of law in this nation, some people would be going to prison.
She cannot possibly be under any such impression. She’s been his lawyer since forever. Don’t think for a minute she was not intimately, minutely involved in each and every one of the twenty or so sexual harassment claim settlements. And likewise, don’t think for a minute that, as his lawyer, she wasn’t privy to the fruit of his personal black ops’ teams black bag jobs.
In effect, this “feminist icon” has been an enabler of serial sexual harassment. And, from an ethics standpoint, and particularly given her double dip as Fox News on-air talent, corporate malfeasance. Roger the Hutt spent millions and millions of dollars of money that belonged to the shareholders of the parent company on these settlements and millions more on his black ops team. In most states, that’s criminal corporate malfeasance, if not embezzlement. I repeat, her client, Roger the Hutt, had turned the place into a RICO conspiracy and she had to know it.
That’s the part that’s sticking sideways in my craw.
Update: Okay, she may not have been his lawyer since forever. It’s unclear to me now. But, this is the woman who wrote this in 1991:
“It should be obvious that the system already contains serious disincentives to women filing sexual harassment complaints. Start with embarrassment, loss of privacy, and sometimes shame. If the woman remains employed, she faces the prospect that her harasser and others will make her life impossible. If she has quit or been fired . . . the danger is that she will be branded a troublemaker, and find it difficult to find another job.”
Yeah, she rose to the defense of Bill Clinton and Ahnald before this. Yeah, she goes on and on about his personal friendship and amity and blah de blah de blah. Yeah, he called her a lot and kept paying her when she was in the hospital for an extended period after a botched surgery. Yeah, it’s still repulsive.
Oh, this is just Watergate refined and honed to a science.
This isn’t new, or is it corruption. This is how conservatism works, and it’s what conservatives have to do to keep the movement going — make other side appear to be doing worse things than what everybody knows conservatives are doing.
She has to know she’s giving him her reputation. Whether she/he wins or loses, people can legitimately question the relevance of everything she’s spoken and written about.
Yes, yes, there’s a rape culture. Yes, yes, I’m sure she’s speaking from experience. Sure, sure there’s sexism. Totally agree there’s double standards… but the guy I know would never do such a thing.
All her contentions are irrelevant. I think she goofed.
