General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat is your take on this interview with McDougal's lawyer?
He kept saying it was his biggest victory ever. Didn't sound like much of a victory to me.
Your thoughts?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)JI7
(89,185 posts)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)What the rest of us would have liked to see from it is irrelevant.
manor321
(3,344 posts)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)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)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.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Getting the client to figure out what the client wants.
dawg day
(7,947 posts)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)He didn't look outside the box to secure secondary gains for Client....no additional protection...
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,281 posts)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.
FarPoint
(12,209 posts)No need to be snotty about it...
Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)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.
hlthe2b
(101,730 posts)rickford66
(5,498 posts)Maybe criminal fraud getting her and others to sign the contract or NDA's.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)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 doesnt matter to me if it is shady.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,281 posts)The lawyer is happy because the client is happy.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)His saying his client is happy just getting out from under the contract doesnt persuade me. What would you expect him to say when Maddow essentially called BS on him?
Again, as long as it doesnt help trump, Im fine with it.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,281 posts)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)to tell us how well she/he did, when I know darn well he didnt get chit. It happens all the time, and Maddow nailed him because the client did just what the attorney said she couldnt do before the court order. Getting a stamp of approval for what you can already do is not much.
shanny
(6,709 posts)which doesn't have anything to do with what a random third party hoped to get.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)shanny
(6,709 posts)PoorMonger
(844 posts)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 hes a shit President. Stormys case is still going but I know shes a Republican herself and I think she may have even admitted to voting for the asshole somewhere. Im guessing that both would be happy with wins and validation
bigtree
(85,920 posts)...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)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.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,064 posts)DURHAM D
(32,596 posts)No idea what is really going on there.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,281 posts)And that's the only thing that matters.
DURHAM D
(32,596 posts)triron
(21,916 posts)She' damn smart.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)She can still sue them and her original attorney.