Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What is your take on this interview with McDougal's lawyer? (Original Post) Ferrets are Cool Apr 2018 OP
I agree w Rachel. Something shady there. bettyellen Apr 2018 #1
Someone else said there was something shady about her earlier interview JI7 Apr 2018 #4
No. The client got what she wanted from her lawsuit. The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2018 #6
Exactly manor321 Apr 2018 #10
I think Karen got exactly what she wanted. She didn't want to be threatened OR exploited. rainin Apr 2018 #2
An attorney's biggest victory is getting what their client wants. The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2018 #3
Or... jberryhill Apr 2018 #26
The original attorney-- Davidson? dawg day Apr 2018 #31
The lawyer lacks critical thinking skills.... FarPoint Apr 2018 #5
She got what she wanted. That's what mattered. The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2018 #8
No, I have not practiced law.... FarPoint Apr 2018 #23
I'm sorry I can't recall right now but the female asst. prosecutor for Watergate said it was Kirk Lover Apr 2018 #7
They are happy, I'm happy. More interested in the other two cases pending (Stormy & Summer Zervos) hlthe2b Apr 2018 #9
He said the two lawyers involved are still on the hook. rickford66 Apr 2018 #11
I suppose she got what she wanted. But as Maddow tried repeatedly to point out, Hoyt Apr 2018 #12
What Rachel thinks is irrelevant. The client is happy because she got what she wanted. The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2018 #13
The lawyer stammered around a good bit when Maddow questioned him. Hoyt Apr 2018 #15
Not everyone is comfortable on TV. But my impression was that he was just frustrated The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2018 #17
I suspect Maddow has had the same experience I have when the attorney we engaged tries Hoyt Apr 2018 #18
I guess it all depends on what the client has instructed the attorney to get shanny Apr 2018 #27
I look forward to hearing what client has to say. Hoyt Apr 2018 #29
Me too. But it is totally up to her. shanny Apr 2018 #30
Have to remember PoorMonger Apr 2018 #14
it would be a victory for anyone not looking to gain financially bigtree Apr 2018 #16
I have often settled lawsuits I did not want to settle or on terms that I did not like. TomSlick Apr 2018 #19
Thanks for all the replies and perspectives. nt Ferrets are Cool Apr 2018 #20
The settlment stinks. DURHAM D Apr 2018 #21
Not if it's what the client wanted. The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2018 #24
I guess I missed the part where the client spoke for herself. nt DURHAM D Apr 2018 #25
If Rachel was suspicious, there's a very good reason(s). triron Apr 2018 #22
The liability isn't with the magazine it is with Cohen and Trump grantcart Apr 2018 #28

JI7

(89,185 posts)
4. Someone else said there was something shady about her earlier interview
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:33 PM
Apr 2018

I think with anderson cooper. And seemed dismissive of stormy daniels. I didn't watch myself but based on others i got a feeling there may have been a payoff or something.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,281 posts)
6. No. The client got what she wanted from her lawsuit.
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:34 PM
Apr 2018

What the rest of us would have liked to see from it is irrelevant.

 

manor321

(3,344 posts)
10. Exactly
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:38 PM
Apr 2018

It's not that hard to understand. Karen just desperately wanted to be free of the onerous contract, and now she is.

rainin

(3,010 posts)
2. I think Karen got exactly what she wanted. She didn't want to be threatened OR exploited.
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:31 PM
Apr 2018

Our side has to accept her wishes completely or we're just exploiting her for our goals. He was very persuasive to me.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,281 posts)
3. An attorney's biggest victory is getting what their client wants.
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:33 PM
Apr 2018

And she got what she wanted. I was really frustrated with Rachel because she didn't seem to understand that point. I think she and others wanted more out of it in order to get more information about Trump and Cohen - but that's not necessarily what the client wanted. All she wanted is to get out of the contract and not to have to deal with AMI any more and that's what she got. She won. The fact that Rachel didn't get what she wanted was irrelevant.

dawg day

(7,947 posts)
31. The original attorney-- Davidson?
Thu Apr 19, 2018, 01:39 AM
Apr 2018

There was a suspicion that he and Cohen were in cahoots, and that the contracts were drawn in a way that benefitted Trump, not the other party.
That's an important question. Avenatti certainly has been implying this was an issue.
I think that Ms McD could provide more information about this aspect. It will eventually come out, no doubt, but she does presumably have some important information about that, which would point to behavior that is part and parcel with the Trump/Cohen way of dealing (underhandedly, deceptively, and exploitatively).

FarPoint

(12,209 posts)
5. The lawyer lacks critical thinking skills....
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:34 PM
Apr 2018

He didn't look outside the box to secure secondary gains for Client....no additional protection...

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,281 posts)
8. She got what she wanted. That's what mattered.
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:35 PM
Apr 2018

Have you ever practiced law? I have. You have to do what your client wants regardless of what media talking heads and internet bloggers want.

 

Kirk Lover

(3,608 posts)
7. I'm sorry I can't recall right now but the female asst. prosecutor for Watergate said it was
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:35 PM
Apr 2018

an excellent deal and everything she wanted. The prezident "quietly settled" and now she can talk all she wants. If she profits from the story she has to share the money with AMI.

rickford66

(5,498 posts)
11. He said the two lawyers involved are still on the hook.
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:41 PM
Apr 2018

Maybe criminal fraud getting her and others to sign the contract or NDA's.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
12. I suppose she got what she wanted. But as Maddow tried repeatedly to point out,
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:46 PM
Apr 2018

she apparently already had the right to speak up because she did it on CNN before the court order.

Just sounds like a bunch of junk to me. But as long as it might hurt trump somewhere along the line by exposing him, it doesn’t matter to me if it is shady.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,281 posts)
13. What Rachel thinks is irrelevant. The client is happy because she got what she wanted.
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:49 PM
Apr 2018

The lawyer is happy because the client is happy.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
15. The lawyer stammered around a good bit when Maddow questioned him.
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:53 PM
Apr 2018

His saying his client is happy just getting out from under the contract doesn’t persuade me. What would you expect him to say when Maddow essentially called BS on him?

Again, as long as it doesn’t help trump, I’m fine with it.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,281 posts)
17. Not everyone is comfortable on TV. But my impression was that he was just frustrated
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:59 PM
Apr 2018

because she couldn't seem to understand why he and his client were satisfied with the settlement (I was frustrated, too; I was talking to the TV, saying stuff like, "What is so damn hard for you to understand?" ) Maddow thought she should have gotten something else from the deal (what?), but that wasn't her call. I'm guessing she's never been involved in litigation herself.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
18. I suspect Maddow has had the same experience I have when the attorney we engaged tries
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 10:04 PM
Apr 2018

to tell us how well she/he did, when I know darn well he didn’t get chit. It happens all the time, and Maddow nailed him because the client did just what the attorney said she couldn’t do before the court order. Getting a stamp of approval for what you can already do is not much.

 

shanny

(6,709 posts)
27. I guess it all depends on what the client has instructed the attorney to get
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 11:31 PM
Apr 2018

which doesn't have anything to do with what a random third party hoped to get.

PoorMonger

(844 posts)
14. Have to remember
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:51 PM
Apr 2018

That both of these women willingly entered some sort of sexual relationship with Trump. I think we are better off not hoping for these cases to bring him down. In all likelihood neither actually cares that he’s a shit President. Stormy’s case is still going but I know she’s a Republican herself and I think she may have even admitted to voting for the asshole somewhere. I’m guessing that both would be happy with wins and validation

bigtree

(85,920 posts)
16. it would be a victory for anyone not looking to gain financially
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 09:57 PM
Apr 2018

...but wants control of their life back from unscrupulous media poseurs who are controlling everything you say and do, including the right to use your image in their publication behind any nonsense they want to write.

Remember, the only leverage they have over her now is a piece of the profits if she writes a book, and her lawyer says that's just not going to happen.

TomSlick

(11,035 posts)
19. I have often settled lawsuits I did not want to settle or on terms that I did not like.
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 10:36 PM
Apr 2018

The point is that it is never my lawsuit, it is the client's lawsuit. Lawyers do not (or at least ought not) run the lawsuit, the client does. The lawyer can give advice. The lawyer can encourage. The lawyer can even plead. However, the lawyer cannot make the decision whether to settle a case, or on what terms.

If the client is happy with the settlement, the lawyer must accept the client's decision and move on to the next case.

grantcart

(53,061 posts)
28. The liability isn't with the magazine it is with Cohen and Trump
Wed Apr 18, 2018, 11:53 PM
Apr 2018

She can still sue them and her original attorney.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What is your take on this...