McCain and the NYT

Criminal defense attorney? What have you been smoking? Bennett has a civil and criminal practice ... and he's very experienced in such matters. LINK

What is he afraid of? He's afraid of the NYT Smear Machine. And rightfully so.

Ticomaya wrote:

Criminal defense attorney? What have you been smoking? Bennett has a civil and criminal practice ... and he's very experienced in such matters. LINK

What is he afraid of? He's afraid of the NYT Smear Machine. And rightfully so.

How many civil lawsuits has Bennett personally handled?

Just how many lawyers are experts at both criminal and civil law cases?

He may be part of a law firm that handles both criminal and civil cases, but does he personally handle both types?

And consider Bill Clinton. He was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, but he never acted like he is guilty and he got off scot-free.

I don't recall ever seeing Bennett on TV on Clinton's behalf despite the numerous press reports about Clinton's private immorality and public corruption.

But the NYT publishes one story about McCain and Bennett was all over TV in a matter of hours.

If McCain is totally innocent, why is he acting like he's guilty?

More than you or I.

Many lawyers are experts at both criminal and civil law.

Yes, he does. Did you even follow the link I posted?

What does that have to do with what we're discussing?

Again, so what?

It's called being proactive.

How is he acting like he's guilty?

You think hiring a lawyer to issue a statement means one is acting like one's guilty?

Sounds about right to me, that is, talk the issues and campaign for yourself but if the Times wants to take pot shots let the lawyer take care of it. I don't think there's a thing in this world that McCain is afraid of, but he's not operating a campaign just to entertain each and every unsubstantiated accusation - if he did that they could just manipulate him with blind fire. I'd made up my mind on day 1 that it was BS of course, McCain's higher on the food chain than all of that squalid gossip.

When McCain had his criminal defense attorney spend the day on TV proclaiming his innocence in regards to the NYT story that implies that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist and then intervened with a regulatory agency on behalf of her client, was it a prudent move on McCain's part, or did it just make him look guilty? If what the NYT said is without merit, what is McCain afraid of? If McCain knows that he did nothing wrong shouldn't he have a civil trial attorney preparing a libel suit rather than a criminal defense attorney doing PR?

Ticomaya wrote:

More than you or I.

That doesn't really answer my question. Chances are he has handled many more of one type than the other, meaning that he is not an expert at handling both.

Quote:

Many lawyers are experts at both criminal and civil law.

Documentation?

Quote:

Yes, he does. Did you even follow the link I posted?

How many? How often?

Quote:

Again, so what?

Zoom! Right over your head.

Quote:

It's called being proactive.

It's called looking like you have something to hide.

Quote:

How is he acting like he's guilty?

Totally innocent people don't have lawyers at the ready for press interviews when a newspaper publishes a story that hints at corruption.

Quote:

You think hiring a lawyer to issue a statement means one is acting like one's guilty?

You can issue a statement yourself. You need not have a lawyer on TV all day doing PR.

How can you look at that TIMES "article" as anything other than a calculated attack on McCain in support of the TIMES liberal agenda?

Quote:

Then what was the NYT doing when they published the rape story about Bill Clinton?

Now supposedly McCain has had his most successful fundraising effort to date and the conservative base is solidly behind him because of the NYT. So why isn't the NYT story a conservative effort to buck-up McCain?

No, that is not what that means.

My professional experience.

Why, on earth, would it matter? He's not applying for a job here.

Sure they do, when they know the story is coming, and they are proactive in their effort to respond to a smear campaign.

woiyo wrote:

How can you look at that TIMES "article" as anything other than a calculated attack on McCain in support of the TIMES liberal agenda?

Quote:

Then what was the NYT doing when they published the rape story about Bill Clinton?

Now supposedly McCain has had his most successful fundraising effort to date and the conservative base is solidly behind him because of the NYT. So why isn't the NYT story a conservative effort to buck-up McCain?

Rape story? When was that? 15 years ago?

Not relevant.

Explain how you can endorse someone KNOWING they may have questionable character.

Ticomaya wrote:

No, that is not what that means.

Then how many cases of each type has Bennett personally handled?

Quote:

My professional experience.

Then you are not much of a professional. If a lawyer spends most of his time trying civil lawsuits, only a fool would want him as their defense attorney in a criminal case.

The rules of evidence are not the same and the burden of proof is not as heavy.

Quote:

Why, on earth, would it matter? He's not applying for a job here.

Because it shows that lawyers tend to specialize. Lawyers may be trained for both criminal and civil law, but that doesn't make them qualified to handle both types of cases. What qualifies them is actual real world experience and you don't get enough such experience if you do a little of this and a little of that.

Quote:

Sure they do, when they know the story is coming, and they are proactive in their effort to respond to a smear campaign.

Why would McCain have known a story is coming if he hadn't done anything wrong?

Ticomaya wrote:

Criminal defense attorney? What have you been smoking? Bennett has a civil and criminal practice ... and he's very experienced in such matters. LINK

What is he afraid of? He's afraid of the NYT Smear Machine. And rightfully so.

How many civil lawsuits has Bennett personally handled? Just how many lawyers are experts at both criminal and civil law cases? He may be part of a law firm that handles both criminal and civil cases, but does he personally handle both types?

And consider Bill Clinton. He was guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, but he never acted like he is guilty and he got off scot-free. I don't recall ever seeing Bennett on TV on Clinton's behalf despite the numerous press reports about Clinton's private immorality and public corruption. But the NYT publishes one story about McCain and Bennett was all over TV in a matter of hours. If McCain is totally innocent, why is he acting like he's guilty?

Rape story? When was that? 15 years ago?

Not relevant.

Explain how you can endorse someone KNOWING they may have questionable character.

Documentation?

Thank you for that update, Captain Obvious.

Documentation?

You're not very quick on the uptake, are you?

An irrelevant distinction, as Tyco has already demonstrated. Bennet is the go-to Washington lawyer for politicians under political and media attack for allegedly criminal actions .. attacks that begin long before any ensuing legal action.

(1)Clinton was not convicted of "High Crimes & Misdemeanors" by the Congress - he was exonorated of these, but lost his license to practice law following the out-of-court settlement of the Paula Jones case and the pattern of evasions of truth in sworn dispositions it entailed.

Ticomaya wrote:

Documentation?

Common sense.

Quote:

Thank you for that update, Captain Obvious.

You don't think this shows the folly of any single lawyer trying to do both types of cases?

Quote:

Documentation?

Since lawyers were first allowed to advertise for business in Florida (some 20-odd years ago), I've yet to see one single attorney who advertises for wrongful death and personal injury cases also advertise for criminal cases. If any of these lawyers handled criminal cases, then they would be advertising for criminal cases. This tells me that they do specialize in civil law.

Quote:

You're not very quick on the uptake, are you?

How so? If McCain had never done anything to suggest improper behavior on his part, then he would know that his staff would never have anything to relay to the press, thus no press story about his improper behavior would ever be forthcoming.