Comments (14)

huh wrote on October 26, 2007 1:20 PM:

Is there a reason you are placing the Duke lacrosse players in with Oliver North and Ted Stevens?

The issue is not that Steven doesn't deserve a decent defense.

The issue is that the rest of us can't afford the decent defense team the lacrosse players were able to afford (via mortgaging their homes IRRC).

There shouldn't be two legal systems in America.

Ken wrote on October 26, 2007 1:29 PM:

Did you forget that Sullivan was Clinton's lawyer during the impeachment?

Ajax the Greater wrote on October 26, 2007 1:40 PM:

to huh and Ken,

This is cut/paste from the link to the Washingtonian article:

Brendan Sullivan. From Oliver North to the Duke lacrosse players, he’s the defendant’s choice among the white-collar set. “By the time somebody comes to me, they are pretty far up the creek,” Sullivan has said. “The good thing is they will pay almost anything.”

Laura didnt choose to include the lax players in the same sentence with the odious and traitorous Olly North, the lazy Washingtonian decided that on their lonesome.

Similarly, Laura had nothing to do with any decision to include/not include Clinton in her blurb regarding Brendan Sullivan. She also didnt include that Sullivan represented John Hinkley for the same reason, i.e., the Washingtonian article didnt mention it.

Here is another article regarding Stevens (R-AK) bringing on the firm of Williams & Connolly and Brendan Sullivan: http://www.news.com/2100-1001-274936.html

huh wrote on October 26, 2007 1:53 PM:

Laura didnt choose .... Laura had nothing to do with any decision to include/not

Your defense of Laura is that she is a stenographer?

NaR wrote on October 26, 2007 1:54 PM:

Still, the text she selected doesn't quite match with the impression she is trying to create. If I read this right, she is suggesting that Stevens is guilty because this attorney says his clients are already up the creek when they come to him.

The Lacrosse players were up a creek, but not due to their guilt.

Phoenix Woman wrote on October 26, 2007 1:59 PM:

Boy, "huh", you're really scraping bottom if that's the best you can do against Ms. McGann. Such a charmer!

Meanwhile, for the actual adults among us: Stevens' lawyer really must be good if people still come to him despite his shooting his mouth off with such vim. To say that your clients only come to you when they're in extremis definitely says something about Stevens' situation, eh?

Mimir wrote on October 26, 2007 2:04 PM:

And he's no potted plant.

Paulie wrote on October 26, 2007 2:33 PM:

The way I see it, the point of the article is not that Steven's must be guilty by choosing this lawyer, but that, as David Kurtz said, this is not what you would want to hear your defense attorney saying. That's all!
Whether Sullivan get's his clients off or not, this quote speaks volumes about him.
And yes, "huh", there shouldn't be 2 justice systems in our country but there is. The real question is, what are YOU doing about it?

peter claussen wrote on October 26, 2007 2:50 PM:

The first rule of defending the criminally accused; get the money while they are scared.

Kuparuk wrote on October 26, 2007 3:18 PM:

Could be Ted got a "friend rate."

Ollie North is a regular speaker at the Republican Baptist Temple in Anchorage... which is also a regular venue for Ted during election years.

/Annoy Prevo, think for yourself....

Kuparuk wrote on October 26, 2007 3:22 PM:

BTW, in the testimony today from the Vic Kohring trial, we learned that *someone* -- not a STATE legislator -- was being watched with the cooperation with the Veco scandal (link above goes to courtroom blog.

Exerpt:

From Kyle Hopkins at the federal courthouse --

Soooo …. who else is in the FBI’s crosshairs?

Check out this vague exchange between Kohring lawyer John Henry Browne and government witness/former Veco honcho Rick Smith:

Browne asks if Smith wore a wire as part of his “undercover” work for the feds. True, says Smith.

Some of the people he talked to while wearing a wire were state legislators, Browne asks.

“Uh. I don’t recall wearing a wire with state legislators,” Smith replies.

frankly wrote on October 26, 2007 3:43 PM:

I took a business law class The prof was an attorney & ex-DA. At the time there was a high profile murder case & the defendant hired a high profile lawyer.

One of my classmates said; "I'd never hire him, it is the same as saying you are guilty." The prof said "that is stupid. If you get in trouble you hire the very best you can find even if you have to mortgage your house!" He went on to say that he was a classmate of that lawyer & when he was in hot water over some dealings that went on while he worked for the county it was the guy he hired. "Its stupid to think you will get off simply because you are innocent!"

Thankfully I have never had to take his advice but I would without hesitation.

calling all toasters wrote on October 26, 2007 6:24 PM:

Ken--
Did you forget that Sullivan was Clinton's lawyer during the impeachment?

I'm assuming by the dishonesty of this comment* that you're trying to make some wingnut talking point. What might it be?

*Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, was from Sullivan's firm. I'm sure that's what you're getting at. That simply does not make Sullivan Clinton's lawyer in any way, shape, or form. But you knew that.

doggril wrote on October 27, 2007 2:53 PM:

God, trolls are stupid. The point is that Stevens is in deep doodoo, and it's not over lying about sex. For the fifteen thousandth time, Clinton broke the law only by lying about something (which, incidentally, had nothing to do with the ostensible investigation) because it was personally embarassing, not because the act itself was illegal. Stevens is in trouble over breaking the law--bigtime. It's a fine distinction for wingnuts to grasp, but hey, with comments like the one above, it's not hard to tell that the wingnut crowd isn't the quickest bunch.