The monkey stomp now in progress is amusing, but honestly is he worth the energy?

.
A valid question.
.
It might be worth some energy to publicly ask, particularly in a no-advantage / no-fix / no-recourse environment such as Hot Air, where posted questions cannot be un-read (and ignorance then claimed), simple questions that Mr. Fenstermacher cannot answer easily, without being evasive. Perhaps a follow up with some more difficult questions might be amusing.
.
Since this forum has his attention, Mr. Fenstermacher cannot say he was never publicly asked “Question X”, with all the ramifications that hearing (or reading) questions carry.
.
For example, asking a certain question might cause certain facts, papers, items, statements, etc., to become obviously of probative value (I’ve been itching to use this phrase for quite a while; I think I first heard it on “Perry Mason” long ago), in which case they’d have to be turned over to the military/Feds/other. Immediately (and this I did not hear on TV).
.
Others, later, may be able to ask the same or similar questions and require a public answer.

I, for one, am not so keen on show trials. If these terrorists are going to be tried under our civilian justice system (if they should be is another matter) then they are required to have their lawyer give his best effort to defend them, regardless of what righteous indignation he (or she) incurs.

What we need to keep in mind is that Mr. Fenstermaker is going to be presenting as many ghost pillars to support his arguments as possible, and trust that we will spend our time, and energy, trying to knock out what isn’t even there.

For the majority of the public this case is open and shut, the defendants are guilty. The prosecutions case is Mohamed Ali vs a Baby. Yet, what we can not, MUST NOT, forget is that a baby’s leg is stronger than Mohamed Ali’s balls.

I can not fault a Lawyer for fighting to win, even if the positions taken are morally repulsive, bankrupt, and a mockery to the very Spirit of Justice. Even if to win he has to twist definitions, and skew the word of Law, and kick our entire justice system in the nuts. I can not fault the guy for doing that, but I can recognize the situation for the travesty that it is.

Mr. Fenstermaker, I wish you good health for you and your family, long life, the best you can give in defending these men, and the absolute devastation of every sneakily brilliant, twisted, and morally defunct position you take in defense of these accused men.

Second question: Do feel safe having your family in New York City close to the trial location while in session?

By the way, please tell your subscribers that I still don’t know who attacked the World Trade Center and, yes, I still don’t care. From the perspective of those who died, it makes very little difference who killed them. From the perspective of everyone else, its frankly none of their business, unless they sit on the jury of course. Print that loud, wide, and clear.

.
Yes, let’s print this loud, wide and clear.
.
Approximately 19 “things” hijacked 4 airliners and deliberately and intentionally piloted them into 2 civilian buildings, killing all passengers and another 2500 or so civilians in the buildings. There’s video of this. Then there’s flignt 93 and the Pentagon.
.
Investigation reveals that these “things” had previously attended flight school. Investigation further reveals a radical, Islamic background for all.
.
So: conspiracy, plus motive, method and opportunity, to kill thousands of innocent civilians. What is this called, or rather, in what culture is this not called murder?
.
In what culture is murder, or even any form of killing other humans, not of vital interest to the community? Further, when, over the last, say 6000 years of written history, has the killing of other humans not been of vital interest to the community?
.
Enquiring minds want to know.
.
.

Thanks for the clarification Ed. You’re assuming it was murder, which may not be the case. It may not have been murder, but again, that’s for the jury to decide.

.
From watching a lot of “Perry Mason” reruns, plus some “Matlock” and even a few “Law and Order” episodes, it seems that it is the DA or ADA who decides the charge(s), not the jury. The jury simply returns a “guilty” or “not guilty” decision.
.
Surely Mr. Fenstermacher knows this. Or if not, why not? Or is this some sort of legal maneuver?
.
It may be for a jury to determine guilt or innocence, but there is no law, custom or requirement that says only a jury may determine what a piece of evidence means. The videos of the planes being piloted into the WTC buildings is clear; no one needs or has ever needed a jury to tell them what the video represents.
.
.

All murders are homicides. Not all homicides are murders. You may call that semantics. I call it the law. You and your friends can scoff at the law, but it is there to protect you too.

.
It is semantics. One is a subset of the other. It also seems to be the law, but depending on the jurisdiction, homocides that warrant a charge of “murder” in one jurisdiction may not warrant the same charge in another.
.
But rather than waste time on semantics, let’s look at the applicable laws, and get a real answer from Mr. Fenstermacher.
.
Which laws, Mr. Fenstermacher? New York State or US Federal Laws? What other laws apply? How about UCMJ? The occupants of Gitmo were captured in a combat zone, after all.
.
How much difference is there, and are the differences material? If not, then further analysis is pointless (although it might highlight other possible prosecution approaches that need to be prepared for; let’s let Mr. Fenstermacher do his own research).
.
There’s a public aspect to all this. We, the American people, will put pressure on our legislators to put pressure on the judge(s); no Twinkie Defense, no Government Conspiracy nonsense, no wholesale suppression of evidence, no revealing classified sources.
.
Data / information collected on a combat zone is either true or not, and since the combat zone is, well, a combat zone; laws do not exist there, no “Fruit of the Poisened Tree”. Forget about hamstringing the Prosecution. Lance Ito is not available.
.
.
Given these realities (ok, technically “probabilities”), it looks like Mr. Fenstermacher is fighting a severly uphill battle, one that he’s going to lose and one that will stick to him.
.
Mr. Fenstermacher would have been better off in a military tribunal where he personally would have an out, instead of the national stage centered in NYC where his client base is.

Lawyer Scott Fenstermaker is a bottom-feeding reprobate… but I’m being redundant.

After that video aired on television last week, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air began an email exchange with Fenstermaker which has been fascinating, sort of like watching a train wreck. Basically, Fenstermaker claims to represent two of the detainees, but say…

In an email conversation with Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, Fenstermaker makes some startling comments….

Mornin’, Deb. This beauty school fantasy of yours is getting old. Are you a frustrated wannabe beautician? Do you watch Grease over and over to see Frankie Avalon sing Beauty School Dropout? This thread has nothing to do with Sarah Palin. It has everything to do with this Adminstration granting American Rights to Muslim Terrorists, otherwise known as Enemy Combatants. You lose.

The case of the planes is clearly kidnapping and murder. The towers could be considered homicide. Since the venue will be in New York, chapter 40, part three, title H, article 125 and its various sections seem to apply.

I still question Holder’s decision of a civilian trial. The opportunities to sever the charges to different jurisdictions and have a travesty of a show trial are just too great.

Mr. Fenstermaker, you gave your oath on several occasions. Have you kept it?

By the way, please tell your subscribers that I still don’t know who attacked the World Trade Center and, yes, I still don’t care. From the perspective of those who died, it makes very little difference who killed them. From the perspective of everyone else, its frankly none of their business…

From the perspective of a potential victim of the next attack, you’re a freakin’ idiot.

My guess is that Fenstermaker will win his case.

thgrant on November 29, 2009 at 5:52 AM

You need to pay attention.

Fenstermaker is NOT an attorney of record for any of the NY defendants.

He has no case to win or lose.

He is just trolling to ignite his 15 minutes of fame.

Two questions:

Who made the choice?
Who else is on the list?

lizzee on November 29, 2009 at 10:40 AM

simplesimon is indeed simple. As in simpleton. Gee, beauty college in Alaska? Sarah doesn’t even know she did that.

Simple, there is no need to put an apostrophe in Americans, which is the plural of American. It does not surprise me that you are unfamiliar with the word. Further,it is no shock you are also a stranger to the word “education.”

simplesimon on November 29, 2009 at 8:59 AM

He was getting his due process as an enemy combatent in the military court. It was a dumbass move to try him in NY and give him a platform to spew his filth from. This whole thing is going to be a circus and we are watching the pre-show.

And 52% of them are duped by an affirmative action empty suiter who didn’t seem to obtain, nor could reveal the results of the ivy league “edumucation”, as you put it, he was given once he arrived.

Due process, race fans. Welcome to 2009!

Our tax $ at work….we paid for this a$$hole’s education…at least his baccalaureate.

My guess is that Fenstermaker will win his case. He is smarter than Obama and Holder combined.

thgrant on November 29, 2009 at 5:52 AM

That’s not saying much.