O’Reilly to 9/11 defense lawyer: “You know people hate you, right?”

posted at 10:03 pm on November 23, 2009 by Allahpundit

Via JWF, another cameo from the guy who warned us this morning that the “defendants” will plead not guilty so that they’ll have a full opportunity to screech about America in court. Let’s hope they stick to the playbook and confine their rantings to enhanced interrogation under Bush rather than foreign policy generally (and Afghanistan in particular); to do otherwise would show ingratitude to the nice man in the White House who’s given them such a plum forum.

The most interesting part of this is Fenstermaker’s refusal to call 9/11 a case of murder. He could have conceded that it was while arguing that the defendants weren’t responsible for it; the fact that he doesn’t suggests at least the possibility that the defense will argue insanity or … some form of justifiable homicide. Doubtless The One would love to see them try, as it would make conviction a foregone conclusion — irrespective of how horrific relatives of 9/11 victims might find it. In his rush to procure a “political victory” by having them found guilty in a civilian court, I wonder if he understands the fantastic anger he’s going to unleash by letting these degenerates argue that the victims had it coming. I have only a tangential connection to the attack — my cousin’s husband, whom I used to see once every five years or so, disappeared in the rubble — and I’m already seething at the thought of reading long transcripts about how he deserved it. Free electoral advice to The One: Make sure the trial doesn’t start until you’re a lame duck.

Update: 9/11 families spring into action.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

terrorist ambulance chaser

Blake on November 24, 2009 at 12:25 AM

Brilliant: I hope this enters the popular vernacular…and is posted on picket signs outside this vermin’s office.

Peace_Sells... on November 24, 2009 at 12:48 AM

ALLAHPUNDIT! I expect a full report on the atty’s background, including, but not limited to:

* potential conflicts of interest because of multiple representation of co conspirators

* the nature of his suspension

* his conflict with the other military attys

* whether or not he has capital trial experience

This guy has already made some boneheaded mistakes.

Blake on November 24, 2009 at 12:50 AM

BOR had a few terrible moments here as a journalist and supposedly educated American. Asking a lawyer “Do you think they are murderers?” is dumb. C’mon.

IlikedAUH2O on November 23, 2009 at 11:19 PM

So O’Reilly grilled the guy, and exposed his lack of decency. And you think he was acting stupidly by doing so? Sheesh!

I think Bill did a fine job, although I do wish he had been even harder on him.

Bizarro No. 1 on November 24, 2009 at 12:51 AM

I hate all lawyers. Without exception.

They are a class to be despised. They should have no reason to exist, if the law served the people instead of the people serving the laws. Decades of passing thousand page laws has achieved that.

wildcat84 on November 24, 2009 at 12:53 AM

We are at war. And no, I’m not referring to the GWOT. I mean a war with our own government and it’s sycophants and the liberal legal beagles, i.e. Obama , Holder, et.al.

The last statement in this video was Fenstermaker was stating something about the people who hated him were people that hated the rule of law. When the so-called rule of law commands us to allow a murderous Islamic terrorist to attack ourselves then the rule of law is insanity.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: ” A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”

fgmorley on November 24, 2009 at 12:57 AM

Brilliant: I hope this enters the popular vernacular…and is posted on picket signs outside this vermin’s office.

Peace_Sells… on November 24, 2009 at 12:48 AM

I wasn’t joking. He claims to have represented about 3 maybe 4 of these guys pro bono. Why? The court is appointing attys for them and paying them. Why would this bozo think his services were needed? And why would he do it pro bono? And he has no effin’ death penalty experience. They don’t need representation and they don’t need pro bono attys.

I can only think he’s telling these a$$holes that he is sympathetic to their cause. Why else would they want him?

That’s why I want Allahpundit to look into this - especially whether there is a conflict of interest and whether he has DP experience.

Blake on November 24, 2009 at 12:57 AM

He’s their lawyer so of course he has to say that stuff.

SoulGlo on November 24, 2009 at 12:36 AM

I strongly disagree with this.

He could have been cleverly evasive and/or silent in a way that didn’t reveal him to be a complete fool. He didn’t though, because he is a complete fool.

Bizarro No. 1 on November 24, 2009 at 12:57 AM

I hate all lawyers. Without exception.

They are a class to be despised. They should have no reason to exist, if the law served the people instead of the people serving the laws. Decades of passing thousand page laws has achieved that.

wildcat84 on November 24, 2009 at 12:53 AM

Dude…come on. Without exception?

There are still some of us who understand our proper role. We had a role in the founding and before.

If it helps, you can call me a ‘Barrister’. There was a time when nothing more than a love of learning and a devotion to one bedrock of Western Civilization was required to call oneself a “lawyer”. Admittedly, those days are memories waiting to be remembered.

There are still those of us who not only long for but will fight for those days again.

Don’t hate.

russcote on November 24, 2009 at 1:07 AM

Allahpundit is a lawyer — let’s string him up.

Blake on November 24, 2009 at 1:11 AM

I hate all lawyers. Without exception.

They are a class to be despised. They should have no reason to exist, if the law served the people instead of the people serving the laws. Decades of passing thousand page laws has achieved that.

wildcat84 on November 24, 2009 at 12:53 AM

wildcat=ignoramus.

There are plenty of attorneys who never even go to trial, deal with ambulances, personal injury, etc.

There are plenty who process immigration paperwork for an american marrying a foreigner, write wills for clients, assist in transfer of property, etc.

But, I’m sure in your backwoods statement you didn’t think of that and thought instead to just use a broad brush.

TTheoLogan on November 24, 2009 at 1:24 AM

Know what I hate? The AIR FORCE. A useless pseudo-militery appendage that’s good for nothing more than turning out liberal turds that are lower than the lowest liberal Navy squid and absorbing money. The Air Farce Academy released this sanctimonous turd on the US that pontificates that those that oppose him “hate the rule of law”. Disgusting, weak, weasel clown. Both the terrorists AND their defense team need to face military tribunal.

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 1:41 AM

Could someone please clue me in on how this is suppose to work? The assumption is that The Won is doing this for political reasons. If these “defendants” explain their reasoning for 9/11, who is Obama’s political target? W had only been in office 8 months. As to their treatment after capture, I don’t see how they work that into their defense of the crime since it happened long after. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that they will want to publicize it to bulk up their victim status and they could try to use it to get the case dismissed but then their forum is gone. I see no upside in the decision to have this trial in New York for anyone including The Won. Help me out, I realize I am unworldly and naive in the ways of political warfare.

Cindy Munford on November 24, 2009 at 2:02 AM

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 1:41 AM

Ask the thousands of Marines and Soldiers whose lives have been saved by air support by the Air Force.

If it wasn’t for the Air Force we would be screwed.

You are a class-A moron.

The Notorious G.O.P on November 24, 2009 at 2:18 AM

I am thrilled to add to that bottom-feeding douchnozzle’s sense of honor by say clearly, and unhesitatingly: “I truly despise you.
Let me make it clear, “You, sir, are pondscum and I despise you.”
* spit *

least1 on November 24, 2009 at 2:22 AM

Anyone wondering when Holder is going to change the rules about cameras in Federal Courts.

That was a direction by the AG in the first place. AFAIK

Old Dog on November 24, 2009 at 2:23 AM

I hate all lawyers. Without exception.

They are a class to be despised. They should have no reason to exist, if the law served the people instead of the people serving the laws. Decades of passing thousand page laws has achieved that.

wildcat84 on November 24, 2009 at 12:53 AM

Samuel CLemens’s thoughts on laywers.
“Lawyers are like other people–fools on the average; but it is easier for an ass to succeed in that trade than any other”.
“To succeed in other trades, capacity must be shown; in the law, concealment of it will do”.
“Heaven knows insanity was disreputable enough, long ago; but now that the lawyers have got to cutting every gallows rope and picking every prison lock with it, it is become a sneaking villainy that ought to hang and keep on hanging its sudden possessors until evil-doers should conclude that the safest plan was to never claim to have it until they came by it legitimately. The very calibre of the people the lawyers most frequently try to save by the insanity subterfuge ought to laugh the plea out of the courts, one would think”.

Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 2:33 AM

This guy is a moron if he thinks that “airing” their tired old anti-everything diatribes will somehow matter in the overall scheme of things…. as if anyone cares to hear anything from them other than their last gurgling breath.

n0doz on November 24, 2009 at 2:36 AM

Brilliant: I hope this enters the popular vernacular…and is posted on picket signs outside this vermin’s office.

Peace_Sells… on November 24, 2009 at 12:48 AM

A Quisling, perhaps.

Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 2:40 AM

Ask the thousands of Marines and Soldiers whose ives have been saved by air support by the Air Force. If it wasn’t for the Air Force we would be screwed You are a class-A moron. The Notorious G.O.P on November 24, 2009 at 2:18 AM

.

Why don’t YOU frigging ask one. I AM a Veteran Soldier, and they never did a damned thing for me. The Air Force was an Army unit until the biggest case of political back-scratching and kick-backs in history made them an independent “force” that has never won a single war. Roll the Air Force back into Army Aviation, and weed out the liberal weasels like this ambulance-chasing slip-and-fall shyster. As for calling me names, you’re about as intimidating as that disgraced airman shyster. Go back to tweeting with your buddies, the McCains.

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 2:40 AM

Allahpundit is a lawyer — let’s string him up.

Blake on November 24, 2009 at 1:11 AM

Agreed. Now which one of these is AP ?

macncheez on November 24, 2009 at 2:41 AM

It’s inadmissible in the guilt phase. I would have to think about whether it is admissible in the penalty phase. I believe all of them came from wealthy families so they can’t claim they came from a disadvantaged background. I suspect that there are going to be a lot of disruptions in court and the judge will yell at them and then they will refuse to come out of the holding cell. It would be great to have a woman judge just to piss them off. However, that last one couldn’t control her court room and gave the AG an unnecessary hard time for something one of their witnesses did on their own.

Blake on November 24, 2009 at 2:42 AM

I heard Shep try to run the argument today that the judge would not allow their diatribes. Anything can happen in a courtroom setting, depending on the judge. That’s why Obama is trying to (kind of) distance himself and make believe it’s Holder’s decision.

kingsjester on November 24, 2009 at 2:45 AM

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 2:40 AM

The USAAC, is a major reason that the Germans lost WWII . Control of the air. Ask any grunt that has been in a real fight, how happy they are when they get cover from the air.

Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 2:51 AM

A travesty on top of travesty! There SHOULDN’T be a lawyer in this country that should willingly represent these animals in court.
Apparently this scumbag forgot his oath of service, to support and defend the CONSTITUTION against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic.

nelsonknows on November 24, 2009 at 3:08 AM

there ARE a few good lawyers left, they all work for the ACLJ and the ACRU, other than that, they are scum who can’t beat a normal citizen who is pro se, in court.

nelsonknows on November 24, 2009 at 3:10 AM

After listening and processing this attorney, I wonder; can we impeach Obama based upon his utter disregard for his oath of office? There has to be some way to hold Obama and Holder accountable for what is about to happen.

I have no flowery words here….This simply makes me sick.

BobfromAtlanta on November 24, 2009 at 3:13 AM

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 2:40 AM

I have plenty of friends who are serving and have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have heard more than once the Air Force referred to by them as Angels. Why don’t you hop on over to live leak and watch the hundreds of videos of A-10s raining down close air support to save the butts of their brothers.

SO again I am telling you. Go find any infantryman who has been in any heavy combat in the two current wars and ask if they think our Air Force is useless. But I know you will never do that because you know the answer you will get and you will not like it.

By the way, it is the Air Force who kept the Soviet Union from throwing nukes our way. In case you forgot they control the ICBMs and strategic bombers. But then again our nuke deterent was useless right?

What, did you get beat up by an airman first class once?

The Notorious G.O.P on November 24, 2009 at 3:17 AM

It’s because I’m a graduate of the Air Force Academy. The way these men have been treated is contrary to the values of the United States and I’m here to protect the protections that they have, and if…

Scott Fenstermaker on Bill O’Reilly, Nov ’09

I truly Hope and Pray that is your legal eagle’s argument. The jury will decide only following a lengthy, exorbitantly expensive prosecution.

Have you no shame? Or, are the Whahabbist paying the fare and you’ll tote that water just to keep that clock runnin’? Asswipe anyone?

OkieDoc on November 24, 2009 at 4:22 AM

That guy was deliberately baiting/taunting and that smirk on his face really pisssed me off. A glimpse at what’s ahead. Kudos to BOR – he handled him well.

Annie on November 24, 2009 at 4:41 AM

It’s taken them the better part of a decade, but they’re finally getting what they want: The world’s most elaborate, 24/7 beheading video.

Jim Treacher on November 24, 2009 at 5:27 AM

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 2:40 AM

The Notorious G.O.P on November 24, 2009 at 3:17
AM
Johan Klaus on November 24, 2009 at 2:51 AM

Strategically, TNGOP & Klaus are right.

Tactically, totally wrong. The Air Force is the last thing you want for CAS – they live up to the crappy reputation that VX ascribes to them. Air Force A-10s accounted for more casualties in my battalion than the enemy did. And while the blame was put on a FAC, the FAC doesn’t pull the trigger… nor did the FAC erase the gun cameras – since US Marine vehicles are pretty easy to pick out and reviewing them would’ve put the A-10 pilot and his command in Leavenworth (with their conspiracy to destroy evidence, it would get them the chair). The Air Force doing CAS is a recipe for disaster. It’s true in OIF, it was true in Vietnam, and I’m sure it was true in Korea and that it’s true in OEF.

This has been true for decades. That’s why the Marines and Navy use their own CAS (Harriers, Hornets, etc.), and the Army uses helos. The Air Force is great strategically, but tactically and even operationally, they’re dangerous. And aside from a few groups like PJs and maybe some security forces, they lack any semblance of discipline – which is true of a lot of support units in any service. The further you get from a rifle, the sloppier you get.

TNGOP & Klaus – Strategically, the Air Force is wonderful. And CAS is great – when it comes from Marine, Navy, or Army assets. But from the Air Force… HELL MOTHERF*CKING NO.

CPL 310 on November 24, 2009 at 5:28 AM

Come on, the Air Force isn’t useless. They have the best chow halls and the prettiest girls. Flying Space A to Europe is pretty cool, too.

Dan859 on November 24, 2009 at 5:40 AM

And back on topic – this Fenstermaker needs to be defenestrated – he certainly feels little sympathy with those who were murdered.

If he was just doing it for the money, or just doing it for the notoreity, he could’ve actually weaseled out of this. Or if he was actually Diogenes honest man and believed it serves the interests of justice for the terrorists to get a fair trial so as to ensure the ideal of integrity of the system, he could have stood on impartiality and responded “In my professional capacity, I simply cannot answer.” Then again, Diogenes is still looking for an honest man, and the odds that honest man is a lawyer are about one in 14 trillion.

CPL 310 on November 24, 2009 at 5:41 AM

Call for Congressional investigation into ClimateGate…

Never let a good crisis go to waste. Recycle it.

Stay on this ClimateGate; it has legs. I prefer GoreGate but ClimateGate is good. It should be debunked and the lying pseudo-scientists should be taken to task or even incarcerated. Strip searched of their funding.

Geochelone on November 24, 2009 at 5:42 AM

Come on, the Air Force isn’t useless. They have the best chow halls and the prettiest girls. Flying Space A to Europe is pretty cool, too.

Dan859 on November 24, 2009 at 5:40 AM

Oddly enough, the best chow hall I’ve ever been to was in Camp Fallujah. Astonishing that back in LeJeune the chow sucked, but overseas, it was great. Being in a combat unit, I don’t know what Air Force chow halls look like, nor did I see many of their girls. The ANG pilot chicks that flew us out in a C-130 in ’05 were hot, though – and not just desert queens.

I agree the Air Force isn’t useless. Strategically, they rock. Tactically, they’re like playing “Operation” with blacksmithing tongs. Except they kill you.

CPL 310 on November 24, 2009 at 5:46 AM

I happen to work in a part of the Department of Defense which deals with things related to Guantanamo (I’d love to be more specific but can’t at this time). Mr. Fenstermaker was actually banned from representing anyone before Military Commissions generally and specifically banned from representing Ammar al Baluchi in the 9/11 trial at Guantanamo.

The reason he was banned was explained in a letter from the Chief Defense Counsel in the Office of Military Commissions. The letter was dated 29 August 2008, and I quote:

“My decision to suspend your conditional qualification is based upon my professional judgment that your activities throughout the past year, as well as your interactions with certain of my uniformed defense counsel, have been counterproductive to the mission of my office. In addition, I have concluded that you have not been forthright with regard to your representational status of certain detainees, and your continued interference in these cases has made the job more difficult for assigned counsel.”

In short this guy was banned because he is a nutcase 9/11 truther.

JohninVA on November 24, 2009 at 5:53 AM

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 1:41 AM

Ask the thousands of Marines and Soldiers whose lives have been saved by air support by the Air Force.

If it wasn’t for the Air Force we would be screwed.

You are a class-A moron.

The Notorious G.O.P on November 24, 2009 at 2:18 AM

I agree notorious. One shouldn’t paint with that broad a brush. It displays ignorance.

This lawyer is a turd, but what would anyone expect? He likes his clients and agrees with them. I hope he has insurance. His clients like to collect heads and play football with them.

dogsoldier on November 24, 2009 at 6:12 AM

I wonder if he understands the fantastic anger he’s going to unleash by letting these degenerates argue that the victims had it coming.

Oh dear…I hadn’t considered this angle being used – it makes perfect sense though.

It’s also the essential reaction to many on the left – that 9/11 represented America’s chickens coming home to roost.

gwelf on November 24, 2009 at 6:27 AM

Fenstermake is a traitor, as are all the so-called American attorneys representing these SOBs. It should have been almost impossible to find lawyers for these bastards yet there were so-called Americans leaping at the opportunity to ‘defend’ them; and when its all over they will hide behind their “obligation” to provide a proper defense. If there was any decency this man’s practice should go in the toilet — but it won’t because there are plenty of liberals ready to reward him for turning on his country.

I actually understand why KSM and the others did what they did; why Fenstermaker does it is beyond me. Treason plain and simple.

johnsteele on November 24, 2009 at 6:41 AM

Red Diaper Baby is not simply acting as a lawyer–a reporter caught up with him yesterday and he went on a pro-al queda rant against the US–he said his clients would “finally,about time, be able to speak and counter US PROPAGANDA. ” Oh no, he is WAY more than just a lawyer, he is a self hating jew who advocates for a vicious enemy of the United States. I wonder if he has a connection to Lynne Stewart,another NY jihadi lawyer.

lizzee on November 24, 2009 at 7:07 AM

Holder and Obama have handed this guy many gifts.

They can argue for an inability to get a fair trial.

They can argue that the state has preordained the outcome.

They can argue that Obama has made a mockery of the Federal system.

drjohn on November 24, 2009 at 7:15 AM

I don’t know why all the commotion now about this particular guy.

Eric Holder’s law firm provided over 3000 hours of service to Gitmo detainees on 2007 alone.

And I think it was pro bono.

drjohn on November 24, 2009 at 7:16 AM

I just found this on the Fenstermaker, dated June 9, 2009:

At Tuesday’s hearing a New York solo practitioner named Scott Fenstermaker appeared as Ghailani’s counsel. But as The New York Times reported last week, prosecutors have sought to remove Fenstermaker from Ghailani’s defense, citing an August 2008 ruling by the Washington, D.C., federal district court judge presiding over Ghailani’s habeas corpus case that barred Fenstermaker from filing papers on Ghailani’s behalf. (The judge said the detainee was rightfully represented by former Covington & Burling partner David Remes.) In May, Manhattan federal district court judge Kevin Thomas Duffy ordered Fenstermaker to produce an affidavit describing “how his so-called retainer came about.” Fenstermaker’s response to Judge Duffy’s order was not available at press time.

Agam on November 24, 2009 at 7:18 AM

Oops, forgot the source link!

Agam on November 24, 2009 at 7:19 AM

I’ll tell you what I hate.

I hate that hard plastic packaging that they seal things in these days- like razor blades, small tools, small electronic things and such as.

How the hell do you get that off?

justltl on November 24, 2009 at 7:30 AM

Remember these names: Obama, Holder, Fenstermaker, and the rest of the ilk who are going to take New York, families and the rest of us through this he!! again.

yoda on November 24, 2009 at 7:42 AM

I have no sympathy for a lawyer willing to defend these mass murderers, but the fact is that O’Reilly is himself a weasel and coward. His questioning of this lawyer was totally lame and was only intended to show O’Reilly’s viewers that O’Reilly can call someone a weasel to his face.
He asked no questions about substantive issues like what this debacle will do to the justice system. The lawyer stated that the Gov would never let these guys go and O”Reilly is so immersed in his own ego he did not even follow up with “Well then, why are these guys going to trial?” if the outcome is pre-ordained.

O’Reilly won’t talk with Michael Savage or Michelle Malkin (anymore) or Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch or really anyone else that he is afraid of because they don’t buy into his idiocy and egomania. His interview with Sarah Palin was so sexist it was ridiculous. He would never treat Obama so dismissively. And O’Reilly just likes surrounding himself with mostly obsequious pretty women so he can pretend that they like him for who he is instead of what he can do for their wallets.

georgealbert on November 24, 2009 at 7:45 AM

He’s their lawyer so of course he has to say that stuff.

SoulGlo on November 24, 2009 at 12:36 AM

A lawyer is supposed to be an advocate to make sure that the trial is fair and the defendant presents the best case possible. That does not extend to the actions that this legal scumbag is doing.

highhopes on November 24, 2009 at 7:52 AM

One question I wish O’Reilly had asked this guy:

“Who’s paying you?”

TimBuk3 on November 24, 2009 at 8:06 AM

This guy is ripe for a job at the White House!

Bambi on November 24, 2009 at 8:13 AM

I broke a clothes hanger against the wall while I watched this interview, and I’m not kidding.

I actually think men like this are MORE contemptible than the sub-human animals they represent. Why? At least the jihadists are HONEST about their beliefs and intentions.

I hope to God the next President decides to actually treat treason as the crime it’s supposed to be.

Cylor on November 24, 2009 at 8:28 AM

Thomas Jefferson wrote: ” A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”

fgmorley on November 24, 2009 at 12:57 AM

Smart guy this Jefferson fellow.

whbates on November 24, 2009 at 8:31 AM

Weasels everywhere are outraged to be associated with this scum.

Disturb the Universe on November 24, 2009 at 8:45 AM

Let these guys speak. They think it will make Americans ashamed. I think it will enrage them and they will direct that rage squarely at Obama and the Progressives. They are fools.

Socmodfiscon on November 24, 2009 at 8:49 AM

Fenstermaker shows that Obama is putting America on trial. We’re going to hear justification for terrorist attacks and pussy-footing around about whether or not Americans were murdered on 9/11 and that these terrorists have been mistreated: let me repeat this – the terrorists are the heroes in this narrative..

End quote from Fenstermaker: “The people who hate me hate the rule of law.”

Welcome to Barack Obama’s America.

gwelf on November 24, 2009 at 8:52 AM

Do you know what pained me the most about this interview…this guy was a graduate of the Air Force Academy…

right2bright on November 24, 2009 at 9:10 AM

One question I wish O’Reilly had asked this guy:

“Who’s paying you?”

TimBuk3 on November 24, 2009 at 8:06 AM

George Soros.

Just realized that you can spell George’s last name forward and backwards. Either way, it smells the same.

Del Dolemonte on November 24, 2009 at 9:10 AM

I watched the interview. This lawyer was dispicable and didn’t have to say the things he said. He reminded me that the left hates this country and they will use these scum of the earth to disparage this nation.
After seeing this lawyer I say let the games begin. The American people will be absolutely enraged by this attitude, especially as we are footing the bill. Hell, we’ve been footing the bill for this American hating lawyer, just like we supported Major Hasan.
Time to say enough is enough.

ORconservative on November 24, 2009 at 9:15 AM

A couple of things…
Is anybody else picking up an “Eddie Haskell” vibe from this dude?

Second, he’s a DUI lawyer.

Is Sphinctermaker a neo-nazi or just someone who craves publicity, negative or not?

I see that he gave to a Republican in 2008, but I’m not seeing much else on him other than he went to the Air Force Academy.

Who is this douche?

pistolero on November 24, 2009 at 9:15 AM

Fenstermaker demonstrates what’s coming up. America is going to be put on trial by the very terrorists who attacked her. The terrorists are going to give their justification, we’re going to see lawyers and others tell us Americans weren’t murdered on 9/11: the terrorists are going to be the heroes of this narrative.

Fenstermaker’s end quote that “People who hate me hate justice” is what we can expect to be thrown at us (those who think this show trial is a travesty). Even Fenstermaker admits that there is no way our government is letting KSM go yet he’s still proud to be part of this ‘justice process’ that’s somehow supposed to give these terrorists their due process – it makes no sense.

gwelf on November 24, 2009 at 9:18 AM

“America’s CHICKENS are coming home – to roooost”.

Sound familiar to this debacle? Obama is anti-white, anti-strength, anti-american exceptionalism, and anti-capitalism.

marklmail on November 24, 2009 at 9:23 AM

This is interesting. We know that Holder’s former law firm, Covington & Burling, represented terrorists, but I didn’t know that Fenstermaker also worked with that firm:

David Remes, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Covington & Burling, has signed up to defend Ahmed al-Ghailani. Ghailani, who is accused of involvement in the 1998 bombing of the US Embassy in Tanzania that killed 11 and injured hundreds, is one of 14 men the Bush Administration has deemed “high-value detainees&quot…Scott Fenstermaker, a criminal defense lawyer in New York, is also assisting in Al-Ghailani’s defense before the military commission…

So, Holder’s firm had a direct working relationship with the defense attorney for someone Holder is supposed to be prosecuting. And this is the same type of case that was the focus of that relationship.

At the very least, this creates the appearance of a conflict of interest. How can we trust that Holder will zealously prosecute this case?

RadClown on November 24, 2009 at 9:23 AM

Anyone wondering when Holder is going to change the rules about cameras in Federal Courts.

That was a direction by the AG in the first place. AFAIK

Old Dog on November 24, 2009 at 2:23 AM

No, I don’t remember the federal courts allowing cameras – only drawings. Also, federal judges are life appointments and if even they weren’t the AG can’t tell them what to do.

Blake on November 24, 2009 at 9:25 AM

I’m not defending this tool (who is Exhibit A in why people hate lawyers) and certainly not the scumbags who were responsible for this “man-made disaster,” but I think I can understand why he wouldn’t come right out and call it murder. Were they to be convicted — and they will be — his statements would almost certainly be used as evidence in appeal that the defendants could not have gotten a fair trial because their legal advisor was on television saying things that would be prejudicial to the case and unfairly influence potential jurors. It’s just reason #4,597,288 why this case should NOT be tried in a civilian court with civilian rules of procedure.

NoLeftTurn on November 24, 2009 at 9:27 AM

Agreed. Now which one of these is AP ?

macncheez on November 24, 2009 at 2:41 AM

None. AP is young,tall, and svelte… or at least that is what he tells people.

Blake on November 24, 2009 at 9:28 AM

I just found this on the Fenstermaker, dated June 9, 2009:

Agam on November 24, 2009 at 7:18 AM

Oh, please. I’ve already linked it at least 3 times and have mentioned it about 6x in the past 2 days trying to get people to look into it.

Blake on November 24, 2009 at 9:31 AM

As you can see from my tag, I am also a grad of USAFA. There is a long tradition of the Academies graduating weasels, so this guy is not special. The key issue is that to be successfull, you should be both patriotic and competitive. Most grads are both. This guy is just competitive. He will consider himself a winner if he gets KSM off and not have a shred of guilt, because he won the game. Disgraceful…

Spike72AFA on November 24, 2009 at 9:32 AM

NoLeftTurn on November 24, 2009 at 9:27 AM

You are right, however the guy was infuriating. Focussed on the number of dead and a fair trial. Ridiculous actually. I wanted to see a lawyer, in the vein of John Adams defending the British, but this guy was an America hating tool. Goes to show how ridiculous this decision is by a ridiculous administration and will result in a very dangerous show trial.

ORconservative on November 24, 2009 at 9:34 AM

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 2:40 AM

Yeah, and take the Marines – please! What do they think they’re doing, being a leg of the navy. They should go back to the army! If navy grub wasn’t half again as good as MRE’s, there’d be no Marines.

Those dumbass Marines!

Akzed on November 24, 2009 at 9:36 AM

This blathering fool is nothing but a weaseling turd! His eloquent “responses” are below contempt! He tries to make a distinction that 3000 people weren’t killed; only 2800???
Hate this guy? Loathe is a far more appropriate word! He’s backpeddaling every time he opens his mouth. There aren’t words for this sort of waste of DNA; he reminds me of something I would scrape off the bottom of my shoe on a hot day!

jgdp on November 24, 2009 at 9:38 AM

In short this guy was banned because he is a nutcase 9/11 truther.

JohninVA on November 24, 2009 at 5:53 AM

Are you being facetious? His suspension was lifted by the way. I believe the main gripe was him misrepresenting to them that he was representing these creeps when he hadn’t been appointed. That’s a big no no.

but I think I can understand why he wouldn’t come right out and call it murder.

NoLeftTurn on November 24, 2009 at 9:27 AM

Agreed, but there are ways to be diplomatic about it. He could have just said my client is charged with blah blah blah.

Blake on November 24, 2009 at 9:41 AM

I understand defense attorneys taking cases defending even the worst of the worse…that is what makes our justice so superior. We allow everyone to have a defense.
But a defense doesn’t always mean getting the person off, or to be “innocent”. Often it is for reduced, or to allow him his proper day in court.
The court still should have integrity, should still have honor, and truth…unfortunately, more often, truth is not sought.
Public Defenders have a tough and challenging roll, but an important one.
This guy steps way beyond that roll, and he is defending the indefensible.
He was a fool for appearing on TV, now the public knows what kind of idiot is defending these jerks…

right2bright on November 24, 2009 at 9:49 AM

Maybe, he is the right man for the job:

Copeland’s defense lawyer Scott Fenstermaker told the jury in his opening statement he was convinced they would find his client “guilty” of all charges.

“You mean ‘not guilty’ – that’s a Freudian slip,” Federal Judge Frederic Block interjected.

Link

Everyone makes verbal errors. However, this guy is no lightweight:

1984- USAF
1986- University of Washington, masters in aeronautical engineering
1992 – Harvard Law cum laude
1996- NYU LLM in tax law

Again, something is not right with this guy. I’ve tried to get AP to look into it and give us an opinion. Again, there might be a conflict of interest. Then again, I would think the military lawyers or the AG would have called him on it or brought it to the court’s attention. It may still happen.

Blake on November 24, 2009 at 9:53 AM

One question I wish O’Reilly had asked this guy:

“Who’s paying you?”

TimBuk3 on November 24, 2009 at 8:06 AM

He was pro bono but now you are paying his salary.

There is a long tradition of the Academies graduating weasels, so this guy is not special.

Spike72AFA on November 24, 2009 at 9:32 AM

Yeah, what’s up with that?

Blake on November 24, 2009 at 9:56 AM

nelsonknows, johnsteele and cylor have already touched on this, but I’ll add my two cents worth: Why do these terrorists even HAVE attorneys? I’ll grant you that every person appearing before a court is “entitled” to legal representation. But any person with a modicum of human decency (never mind US patriotism) should have spit on the floor and said “no way” to representing this human detritus.

I would submit that the lawyers representing the terrorists are even lower scum than the terrorists themselves. The lawyers KNOW their, ahem, “clients” are guilty. They ADMIT that the focus of the trial will be to put the US on trial. And yet they will represent them anyway, consequences be damned. BOR’s “weasel” comment doesn’t even come CLOSE to describing these lawyers.

(must go take BP meds now….)

brushman on November 24, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Why don’t YOU frigging ask one. I AM a Veteran Soldier, and they never did a damned thing for me. The Air Force was an Army unit until the biggest case of political back-scratching and kick-backs in history made them an independent “force” that has never won a single war. Roll the Air Force back into Army Aviation, and weed out the liberal weasels like this ambulance-chasing slip-and-fall shyster. As for calling me names, you’re about as intimidating as that disgraced airman shyster. Go back to tweeting with your buddies, the McCains.

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 2:40 AM

you do speak sense virus-x… Let’s here it for the Army Air Corps!

max1 on November 24, 2009 at 10:28 AM

i am a little surprised that the Fenster-nator didn’t bring up the fact that the lawyer John Adams defended the British shooters after the Boston Massacre.

max1 on November 24, 2009 at 10:31 AM

I watched that segment last night this guy is at the bottom of the barrel. How can anyone manage to give Lawyers any worse a name.

Did anyone catch the joke he made to O’Reilly about only 2800 dead not 3000 and he made some lame joke about the 200 who didn’t die….this guy has some kind of black soul if he has one at all. I wonder just how much blood money he is making working for the defense team for these insults to humanity.

He said he was in the Air Force like that makes him what? Answer an embarrassment to the Air Force. Did he go into the Air Force so he could get his education paid for on the public dime? And now he is taking that education to turn on the same people who afforded him an education?

There were so many things wrong with what this “creature” said on O’Reilly. He didn’t do his clients any favors. All I got out of the interview was extreme revulsion that this country could produce something like this “creature” They say there is a special place in Hell reserved for the likes of him.

Dr Evil on November 24, 2009 at 10:42 AM

i am a little surprised that the Fenster-nator didn’t bring up the fact that the lawyer John Adams defended the British shooters after the Boston Massacre.

max1 on November 24, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Adams defended them because no one else would. That’s not the case here. Fenstermaker has insinuated himself into these cases and has broken ethic rules to do so.

Blake on November 24, 2009 at 11:01 AM

ORconservative on November 24, 2009 at 9:34 AM

No argument there. I was amused when O’Reilly told him he was a weasel. I would have liked to reach through the screen and throttle him myself.

I feel pretty comfortable saying this as I have worked with lawyers and I have a JD myself: They are bottom feeders. I don’t know how people who defend obvious killers are able to sleep at night.

NoLeftTurn on November 24, 2009 at 11:17 AM

The USAAC, is a major reason that the Germans lost WWII . Control of the air. Ask any grunt that has been in a real fight, how happy they are when they get cover from the air.

That’s called the ARMY dude, which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Yeah, and take the Marines – please! What do they think they’re doing, being a eg of the navy. They should go back to the army! If navy grub wasn’t half again as good as MRE’s, there’d be no Marines Those dumbass Marines Akzed on November 24, 2009 at 9:36 AM

The USMC never was Army, but I’d trust my life to Marine Corps (and Navy) pilots, before the Air Farce, anyday.

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 11:23 AM

David Beamer, Todd Beamer’s dad on Fox..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg7cPdmi1B8

reshas1 on November 24, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Free electoral advice to The One: Make sure the trial doesn’t start until you’re a lame duck.

Check

Filecchio on November 24, 2009 at 11:32 AM

I agree notorious. One shouldn’t paint with that broad a brush. It displays ignorance November 24, 2009 at 6:12 AM

Or, perhaps, your ignorant ass has issues with reading comprehension. I do quite clearly recall pointing out that the Air Farce has never won a war, large or small, and that they only exist as the result of pollitical favoritism. To guys like General H. Arnold. We’ve paid trillions for inferior enlisted and officers for nothing. The Navy has vastly superior pilots, and both other services have vastly superior SOF. My disdain for their liberalism is besides the point; the Navy’s infested with them, too, but they’re still a potent, trustworthy, war-winning force.

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Come on, the Air Force isn’t useless. They have the best chow halls and the prettiest girls. Flying Space A to Europe is pretty cool, too Dan859 on November 24, 2009 at 5:40 AM

That’s a lot of money to piss away, just for good food & a cute stewardess!

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 11:40 AM

I still don’t get it. How can these guys be convicted if they obviously didn’t go through any of the civilian arrest processes that a typical criminal would go through? No miranda, torture for gosh sakes, how long before they were allowed to see a lawyer?

In that situation how can they be convicted? This is on of the biggest effups I have ever seen.

WitchDoctor on November 24, 2009 at 11:43 AM

The USAAC, is a major reason that the Germans lost WWII . Control of the air. Ask any grunt that has been in a real fight, how happy they are when they get cover from the air.

I don’t know what you think a “…real fight…” is. Rangers in Operation Anaconda fought at high altitudes with neither helicopter nor jet fighter support and won. Sure, they wanted it, but didn’t get it. Regardless; send me Marine or Navy pilots, any day.

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 11:52 AM

I think I just found a guy that I despise more than Obama. Both have the same objective: destroy the USA.

Dingbat63 on November 24, 2009 at 11:59 AM

9/11 families holding a press conference at 10a mst, noon eastern. Wonder if this is why Odumbo is holding a press conf. at the same time.

reshas1 on November 24, 2009 at 11:59 AM

It’s on Fox right now.

reshas1 on November 24, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Anyone who pretends this is anything other than a way to quasi-try the Bush Administration for war crimes and a pander to the left-wing loons is either a fool or a liar.

katiejane on November 24, 2009 at 12:01 PM

I saw this interview last night. It’s a shame that O’Reilly didn’t prepare better for this interview (it’s also a shame he wasn’t more intelligent and less egotistical, but what can you do…?)

Despite that, as a human being, Fenstermaker (hereinafter Mr. F.) came across as a creep (more later) I think we have to defend him to an extent. He is the lawyer (even if he isn’t “on record”, it is clear that he will be acting as a legal advisor). Both Karl Rove and Rudi Giuliani, when denouncing the decision to try KSM in Federal Court, gave as one of their reasons that they would have defence lawyers ethically bound to do their best for their clients, including getting an acquittal. This is true. Mr. F. has a duty that is recognized by the prosecution (an interesting example of this is the article written awhile ago by Andy McCarthy about Lynn Stewart who he opposed during the Blind Sheik’s trial…even though they had serious disagreements about many things, he respected her for doing her duty as a trial lawyer…this was prior to her smuggling messages).

So, for example, in response to Blake’s comment above, that Adams defended the British soldiers because no one else would, whereas Mr. F. doesn’t have to defend KSM et.al., any defence lawyer is going to come in for the same criticism if they pursue the defence aggressively (which is their duty).

To make it worse, President Obama virtually convicted and sentenced Mr. F’s client to death in his widely publicized interview from China last week. Obviously, Mr. F., and the other lawyers on the team have no choice but to try to do something to offset this widely publicized tainting of the jury (even if he’s smart, Pres. Obama was an idiot for saying this so publically). Least of all can he admit, on the most widely watched cable news show, that what his client did was a murder (a lawyer’s admissions bind the client…if you were the lawyer would you like to try an exclude the admission by trying to explain that”But but but your honour, I wasn’t officially on the record…” or would you prefer to just not make the admission? I think the answer is pretty obvious).

A commentator above (MB4), in my opinion, nailed it. There is a “scum sucking lawyer here but it’s not this guy”. There are actually two…Holder and Obama. Their sophistry cannot hide the fact that KSM, and others, was prepared to plead guilty at a Military Tribunal. Even if they weren’t, the Military Commissions as presently constituted,pass constitutional muster. Their intellectual dishonesty is exposed by a question I saw posed somewhere (may on Hot Air?) last week…if these guys are criminals and not enemy combatants, how do we justify killing them silently from the air with drones, sometimes in their sleep?

Of course these are not mere criminals and of course they are not entitled to civilian justice. There is no reason in the world, apart from political revenge against Bush/Cheney/Rove et al to try this case in Federal Court. They say that the trial will show the greatness of the American judicial system. Really? They also say that, even if a conviction is not won, the accused will never go free…how does that showcase the fairness of the legal system? (Does anyone remember the movie “Judgement at Nuremburg”? One of the striking scenes, based on reality, was of people being acquitted in Nazi Courts, and being arrested and probably executed upon their exit from the courtroom…people will make this comparison, unjustifiably because the US has a great system, because Obama and Holder have exposed it to such attack).

Mr. F. is probably scummy. He seems to relish the case, poking fun at the deaths of the 2800 people (why else joke about the 200 not killed?)and, as Blake noted, looks as though he sought out the case. The prosecutors don’t like him, though that can often be to a defence lawyer’s credit (I am sure the Durham DA in the Duke rape case didn’t like those defence lawyers very much either). Still, he may be ethically challenged, though it doesn’t seem that he has been disciplined by any bar association.

In Canada, where I practiced, there are ethical prohibitions against trying cases in the media and so we are often amazed at the way our American cousins work the media in their cases. Nonetheless, given the publicity created by the President and the Attorney general about the certainty of conviction and punishment, some media stuff is probably neccessary.

In the end, this is a horrible situation, and it is the exclusive responsibility of Obama and Holder who, in order to grind political axes, have exposed the victims to pain, the defenders of the country to attack and the country to embarrassment.

But, once the case was put into the civilian system, no matter how wrongly and perversely, the defence lawyers will have to defend. Aggressively. As Messrs. Rove and Giuliani said, it’s their duty.

If only the President and the Attorney General would do theirs.

One other quick point, smellthecoffee et al…who the hell cares if Mr. F. is Jewish? What difference does THAT make?

Sorry for the length of this post.

Blaise on November 24, 2009 at 12:01 PM

CPL 310 on November 24, 2009 at 5:28 AM

The Air Farce fills no role the Army didn’t already fill, until politics came into play. The name one war the Air Farce has won.

We’ve paid trillions to maintain them, their officer corps, their airmen, their schools, installations, etc., when the Army could’ve done it all. Roll them back into the Army, re-educate them, weed out the liberals, shut down their flight school, and expand the NAVY flight school, so they can become REAL pilots. Or CIVILIANS.

Virus-X on November 24, 2009 at 12:03 PM

It’s taken them the better part of a decade, but they’re finally getting what they want: The world’s most elaborate, 24/7 beheading video.

Jim Treacher on November 24, 2009 at 5:27 AM

BING!

russcote on November 24, 2009 at 12:06 PM

SphyincterMaker – Lawyer of the Terrorists

Bleed_thelizard on November 24, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3