Video: Ken Starr knocks Liz Cheney’s group for “Al Qaeda 7″ ad — on Olbermann’s show

posted at 10:00 pm on March 8, 2010 by Allahpundit

There’s a headline I never thought I’d write.

This would be worth posting even if the subject wasn’t interesting as it’s a preciously rare example of a conservative being admitted to cable news’s most notorious partisan echo chamber. Peruse “the list” for yourself; the only Republicans allowed are those promising to criticize other Republicans. And speaking of criticizing Republicans, either Starr’s not familiar with Olby’s oeuvre or he’s an extraordinarily forgiving guy, because among the modern-day Murrow’s many, many, many memorable pronunciamentos over the years, you’ll find this from 1998:

“Can Ken Starr ignore the apparent breadth of the sympathetic response to the President’s speech? Facially, it finally dawned on me that the person Ken Starr has reminded me of facially all this time was Heinrich Himmler, including the glasses. If he now pursues the President of the United States, who, however flawed his apology was, came out and invoked God, family, his daughter, a political conspiracy and everything but the kitchen sink, would not there be some sort of comparison to a persecutor as opposed to a prosecutor for Mr. Starr?”

Just an innocent physical comparison. Means nothing, I’m sure.

We’ve already debated the “Al Qaeda 7″ ad but DrewM’s post at Ace’s site has some thoughtful elaborations. He’s right to note that the legal services offered to jihadis by top-flight firms wouldn’t be offered to most defendants accused of serious crimes, but then most defendants accused of serious crimes don’t face the risk of a show trial that Gitmo detainees do. Also, it’s not strictly accurate to say that the ad forced the DOJ to release the names of the lawyers. Fox News compiled the names based on an extensive review of court documents and then questioned the DOJ, at which point they confirmed the identities. Whether that would have happened without the ad is hard to say, but even if not, it amounts to an “ends justify the means” argument that likely wouldn’t fly if conservative lawyers were the target here. Drew does make a great point (which I’d forgotten) that the jihadis already had lawyers thanks to the military and thus didn’t need representation from any firms. Starr addresses that near the end of the clip, pointing to this op-ed by Walter Dellinger about the military-assigned lawyers requesting help from private practitioners. Again, that’s a courtesy that wouldn’t be extended to most public defenders, but then the military attorneys have to deal with a newly created tribunal system dealing with novel questions of law. Apples and oranges? Judge for yourself.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


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

Oh my!

The man who drove Keith into the bathtub!

KingGold on March 8, 2010 at 10:04 PM

Lawyers, sheesh.

d1carter on March 8, 2010 at 10:04 PM

This is truly the end of times.

God this is getting ugly.

BigWyo on March 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Oh Ken . . . admit yourself to a rest home and shut up.

rplat on March 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Wow, guess I’m too tired, or info-overloaded…this seems sumpin’ ranty to me. Sorry.

Chewy the Lab on March 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Litigation blood brothers, all.

You understand don’t you Allah? You’re a lawyuh right?

portlandon on March 8, 2010 at 10:06 PM

Senile.

Knucklehead on March 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM

This is truly the end of times.

God this is getting ugly.

BigWyo on March 8, 2010 at 10:05 PM

And the Blue Dress Lawyer & the Beast shall lie down together, yea the 7th seal shall be broken…..

portlandon on March 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Litigation blood brothers, all.

You understand don’t you Allah? You’re a lawyuh right?

portlandon on March 8, 2010 at 10:06 PM

That’s exactly what it is.

Jesus, people are always on about the Masons…

Thou Shalt Not Bad Mouth Our Sleazy Noble Profession!!!

Exit question: Do the Toilet Bugs get to charge billable hours for TV interviews??

BigWyo on March 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM

“I hope children are still learning about John Adams…?”

BBBBBWWWWWWWAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, Ken, (chortle, snort) Stop it dude! You’re killing me, (gasp, tears) That is rich…

… and the “Honorable Lawyers” line,

BBBBBWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Seven Percent Solution on March 8, 2010 at 10:13 PM

Who cares what wrinkly old white dudes say.

Mr_Magoo on March 8, 2010 at 10:13 PM

I saw Starr kissing some Clinton backside not too long ago… figured being in education has gotten to him… and he must have a book to sell.

mankai on March 8, 2010 at 10:14 PM

And the Blue Dress Lawyer & the Beast shall lie down together, yea the 7th seal shall be broken…..

portlandon on March 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM

And whoever shall be deemed to have broken said seal shall be sued for the value of said seal plus 85% for pain and suffering.

(Addendum..75% of all fees collected shall be beholden to us)

BigWyo on March 8, 2010 at 10:15 PM

I could only get to the 2:01 minute mark and I had to shut it down. Drone, drone, drone. Look very serious. Blah, blah, blah.

All this proves is what a bunch of Hyenas lawyers are. They run in packs and protect their kind, fiercely.

Vince on March 8, 2010 at 10:15 PM

There’s only one reason you ever show up on Countdown…that’s to bash Republicans. Thanks Ken!

AUINSC on March 8, 2010 at 10:16 PM

“I hope children are still learning about John Adams…?”

Comparing British regulars to bloodthirsty jihadists (redundant, I know)… I hope college presidents are someday going to learn comparatives.

mankai on March 8, 2010 at 10:16 PM

P.S. Because we’re looking out for you rights!

BigWyo on March 8, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Marc Thiessen has a much more credible argument re “selective McCarthyism”: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/08/AR2010030801742.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

onlineanalyst on March 8, 2010 at 10:17 PM

And the Blue Dress Lawyer & the Beast shall lie down together, yea the 7th seal shall be broken…..
portlandon on March 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM

I’m reading Killing Rommel right now.

Wake me up when the earthquake frequency increases… rut roh.

Mr_Magoo on March 8, 2010 at 10:18 PM

Oh my God, they killed, Kenny!

You bastards!

urbancenturion on March 8, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Well we should keep in mind that its the 98% of sleazy lawyers who make the rest look bad!

sharrukin on March 8, 2010 at 10:20 PM

A starr burns out.

davidk on March 8, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Do you think this ad would have been made if Holder didn’t stonewall the Senator for so long?

danking70 on March 8, 2010 at 10:22 PM

I stopped caring what Starr had to say when he gave Hillary a pass on Whitewater. Just another old man trying to be liked by the MSM.

Sporty1946 on March 8, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Shouldn’t Hannity have Starr and Liz Cheney on his TV show and let them fight it out, or is that a bad idea?

Buddahpundit on March 8, 2010 at 10:23 PM

Starr is not alone in going after Liz Cheney’s group; the Powerline lawyers agree with him as well. Starr just happens to be the face of this red on red fight.

Instead of going after Liz Cheney and Keep America Safe, Starr and his cohorts should be pummeling Holder and the DOJ. Where is the outrage over their conflict of interest on these cases? Their stonewalling? Their lack of transparency? Their lack of justice? The fact that Keith Olbermann is willing to interview Starr with civility says it all.

conservative pilgrim on March 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM

I can’t wait to see who Liz goes after next…

d1carter on March 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM

most defendants accused of serious crimes don’t face the risk of a show trial that Gitmo detainees do.

Except they’re not. Federal court has more protections. And there are no cameras. And remember the Mousswhatshisname trial? The prosecution got hammered for any perceived wrong doing. And the dumbazz jury came back with lwop. And the appellate process is extensive and long. We don’t have show trials in the US and it’s offensive to claim we do.

Blake on March 8, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Ken Starr enjoys being a human punching bag.

TexasJew on March 8, 2010 at 10:28 PM

It’s not like lawyers actually have a real job.

TexasJew on March 8, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Look on the bright side,the right gained
Dick Morris,and the Left has gained Ken
Starr!!!

canopfor on March 8, 2010 at 10:30 PM

DrewM at AOS makes an excellent point:

It also got the media to focus on the real villains here, Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol.

It’s a given that anytime conservatives charge something damaging about liberals, the media doesn’t actually consider the charge being made but rather focuses on how horrible the conservatives are for daring to make it.

What twisted logic to blame Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol. How about the DOJ? The terrorists??? This is a crazy world.

Starr and the other lawyers fell into the SRM/MSM trap hook, line, and sinker. What a bunch of dolts.

conservative pilgrim on March 8, 2010 at 10:31 PM

Whatever happened to that old adage – With age comes wisdom?

With the current generation of Seniors in the public arena that saying should probably be altered to – With age comes the uncontrollable desire to be liked by the Old Media.

Sporty1946 on March 8, 2010 at 10:31 PM

I’m reading Killing Rommel right now.

Good read, try “Shattered Sword” next, it was gripping, or “Brave Young Men” which is surprisingly fast paced for the subject matter.

Bishop on March 8, 2010 at 10:32 PM

We don’t have show trials in the US and it’s offensive to claim we do.

Blake on March 8, 2010 at 10:26 PM

How about high profile trials that become a media circus?

conservative pilgrim on March 8, 2010 at 10:33 PM

When a lawyer sues a lawyer, is that considered cannibalism or incest?

I know, not really on topic but there is no way I’m clicking an Uberdouche video. Consider it an exit question.

GnuBreed on March 8, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Like I said earlier, Ken Starr has a serious ethical problem. What else would you call submitting forged affidavits to the court to save some low life from the death penalty? Ken Starr is one of these creepy true believers who will commit fraud to save the life of a man who raped, tortured, and murdered a young woman.

http://goo.gl/9i7V

Blake on March 8, 2010 at 10:38 PM

I can’t wait to see who Liz goes after next…

d1carter on March 8, 2010 at 10:24 PM

These will be glorious days
Women of Hotair, come gather the bloody bouquets!
With her shimmering, glimmering blade
As Liz kisses these traitors she will sing them a last serenade

PercyB on March 8, 2010 at 10:38 PM

Ken Starr is one more of the phony conservatives.
.
He was a miserable failure in his dealings with the Clintons.

FactsofLife on March 8, 2010 at 10:39 PM

There’s a headline I never thought I’d write.

Dude….

silverfox on March 8, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Fox News compiled the names based on an extensive review of court documents and then questioned the DOJ, at which point they confirmed the identities.

Okay- let’s say that Fox compiles these names and someone goes on air and says, “We believe that a,b,c,d,e,f,g were the lawyers for x,y,z and are now working on terrorist cases at DOJ.”

Bets that Holder or the left would be screaming about “outing someone without permission” about their “personal privacy and security” blah, blah blah.

Would Fox and their lawyers have ever let anyone on the air release names without confirming them with DOJ?

Would they have given Fox the satisfaction of confirming names without the Cheney ad pressuring them?

Yeah, I can’t see Fox releasing names without confirmation either and Holder has stonewalled Congressmen and Fox since at least November? 4 months? Cheney puts up an ad and we have names a day later.

journeyintothewhirlwind on March 8, 2010 at 10:46 PM

With lawyers it’s always profession before country.

Those scumbag lawyers would never rush to defend an American on a pro bono basis as fast as they run to defend a terrorist.

drjohn on March 8, 2010 at 10:47 PM

That those in question would have their patriotism, loyalty and values attacked by reputable public figures such as Elizabeth Cheney and journalists such as Kristol is as depressing a public episode as I have witnessed in many years. What has become of our civic life in America? The only word that can do justice to the personal attacks on these fine lawyers — and on the integrity of our legal system — is shameful. Shameful.

Walter Dellinger, al Queda lawyer
Karl Thomspon, al Queda lawyer
Ken Starr, al Queda lawyer

I mentioned earlier that the attys who represented the Hollywood 10 were all communist sympathizers and took orders from communist agents in this country illegally on how they were going to conduct the trial.

Blake on March 8, 2010 at 10:48 PM

And the appellate process is extensive and long. We don’t have show trials in the US and it’s offensive to claim we do.

Blake on March 8, 2010 at 10:26 PM

I’m sure you meant to say ‘On the Federal Level’…

O.J. Wasn’t tried in Federal Court was he???

And we haven’t seen what they’re gonna do with KSM yet either….

Which is really kind of funny..

Obama: Eric, we’re gonna show the everyone just how badly we want the rest of the world to love us. We’re gonna give that fellow a trial, For All the World to See, make it happen.

Holder: Your wish is my command.

Obama: Well, I don’t know what in the Hell you were thinking here, but yer gonna have to backtrack this whole thing…or I’m gonna have to fire you…

off to Bermuda to serve as the consul to the Embassy.

BigWyo on March 8, 2010 at 10:50 PM

Good read, try “Shattered Sword” next, it was gripping, or “Brave Young Men” which is surprisingly fast paced for the subject matter.

Bishop on March 8, 2010 at 10:32 PM

Thanks Bishop. I’ll put ‘em on my wish list right now. I just read The End of War by Harold L. Robbins. Not fast paced by any means but it was good nonetheless. I liked the Churchill stuff and went out and bought four books by Michael Dobbs (still unread).

Believe it or not, I started getting interested in WWII after helping my Dad (88 now) write his memoirs (we worked on it together, scanned photos and printed it up at Kinkos for the family) and by playing some war games on my PC. Go figure.

I’m loving Killing Rommel. I haven’t read much British WWII literature and I’m loving their attitude. We could sure use a Churchill or Thatcher in the White House right now.

Mr_Magoo on March 8, 2010 at 10:52 PM

How about high profile trials that become a media circus?

conservative pilgrim on March 8, 2010 at 10:33 PM

Most of the craziness is outside the courtroom and does not influence the jury. When the craziness is in the courtroom, e.g., OJ, it benefits the defense.

Blake on March 8, 2010 at 10:52 PM

The ad wanted the DOJ to ID the attorneys, which Holder had refused to do. Calling them the A’Q 7 was a compelling shorthand. The DOJ attorneys work for We The People, supposedly, and we are entitled to know what they have worked on in the past. Conflicts of interests are real issues. Attorneys sometimes get disqualified from specific matters because of their prior representations.
Attorneys get sanctimonious about their pro bono matters. Sometimes they do a lot of good. For balance, people should know that many attorneys from major law firms around the country represent Vets who have grievances against the VA.

GaltBlvnAtty on March 8, 2010 at 10:54 PM

Good read, try “Shattered Sword” next, it was gripping, or “Brave Young Men” which is surprisingly fast paced for the subject matter.

Bishop on March 8, 2010 at 10:32 PM

I found Daring Young Men by Richard Reeves. Is that the one you mean?

Daring Young Men: The Heroism and Triumph of The Berlin Airlift-June 1948-May 1949

Mr_Magoo on March 8, 2010 at 10:55 PM

February 23, 2010
Attorney General Eric Holder speaks at a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, Monday, Feb. 22, 2010. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

A number of lawyers who work on terrorist issues at the Justice Department represented terrorist detainees before joining the Obama administration. At a hearing three months ago, Sen. Charles Grassley raised the possibility of a conflict with Attorney General Eric Holder.
Grassley, a senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, posed three simple questions: Who are they, who did they represent, and what are their duties at the Justice Department today?

Holder blew off a Senator for over 3 months. How did Mr Starr feel when former President Clinton blew him off for over 3 months? Cheney got results. With an ad.

journeyintothewhirlwind on March 8, 2010 at 10:58 PM

Ken Starr has been buzzy buzzy trying to get admitted to the exclusive lefty clubs

http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=1&num=3600

Maybe it was the maliboo air at Pepperdine

http://law.pepperdine.edu/academics/faculty/default.php?faculty=ken_starr

But he had higher ambitions

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/02/ken-starr-leaving-pepperdine-law-for-baylor-president-post.html

MSNBC and Olby come naturally after that

macncheez on March 8, 2010 at 10:58 PM

I’m sure you meant to say ‘On the Federal Level’…

O.J. Wasn’t tried in Federal Court was he???

No, I said what I meant. Show trial implies that the fix is in and it is against the defendant.

And we haven’t seen what they’re gonna do with KSM yet either….

BigWyo on March 8, 2010 at 10:50 PM

One problem with these high publicity trials, is besides the regular security concerns, criminals are also taking advantage of the craziness. Also, every nut in the entire country is drawn to the site of the trial. When OJ was going on there were multiple bomb threats – I’d say about 2 a week where I worked requiring evacuation. That was only where I worked. The other gov. buildings had their own bomb scares. And then there were bomb scares in the surrounding streets. Most of these were false alarms. But on the average they found a real bomb every 1-2 weeks. Mostly pipe bombs but still, who wants to lose ones hands.

Blake on March 8, 2010 at 11:01 PM

And on another note…I’d really like to peruse Newsbusters archive and see how many disgusting, depraved and unhinged comments Scary Larry had for Ken Starr over the years….

Creepy Liar!!!!!

Ken’s going ‘Hey, I’m getting paid…Peperdine University Biotch!!!

BigWyo on March 8, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Mr_Magoo on March 8, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Read The Candy Bombers: The Untold Story of the Berlin Airlift and America’s Finest Hour by Andrei Cherny

Blake on March 8, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Read The Candy Bombers: The Untold Story of the Berlin Airlift and America’s Finest Hour by Andrei Cherny

Blake on March 8, 2010 at 11:06 PM

Dude! I’ve already got 300+ unread books! And I don’t retire for 3 more years!

Ok, I’ll add it… thanks!

Mr_Magoo on March 8, 2010 at 11:12 PM

One problem with these high publicity trials, is besides the regular security concerns, criminals are also taking advantage of the craziness. Also, every nut in the entire country is drawn to the site of the trial. When OJ was going on there were multiple bomb threats – I’d say about 2 a week where I worked requiring evacuation. That was only where I worked. The other gov. buildings had their own bomb scares. And then there were bomb scares in the surrounding streets. Most of these were false alarms. But on the average they found a real bomb every 1-2 weeks. Mostly pipe bombs but still, who wants to lose ones hands.

Blake on March 8, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Here, let me abbreviate that whole steaming pile for you:

WHAAARRRRgarrrBBBLLLEEE!

BigWyo on March 8, 2010 at 11:15 PM

Mr_Magoo on March 8, 2010 at 10:55 PM

Jawohl, that’s the one.

It doesn’t sound terribly exciting but I started and read 100 pages last night before forcing myself to stop. It’s good.

Bishop on March 8, 2010 at 11:18 PM

Oh, and yeah I blew the title completely. It’s Daring Young Men by Reeves.

*too many books being read all at once*

Bishop on March 8, 2010 at 11:20 PM

Good on Ken Starr.

Squid Shark on March 8, 2010 at 11:33 PM

Blake on March 8, 2010 at 10:48 PM

And because they were commie sympathizers, somehow the attorneys doing this work are….Muslim terrorist sympathizers???

Was McVeighs attorney a right wing nutjob sympathizer?

Squid Shark on March 8, 2010 at 11:37 PM

I blame Bush Holder.

I blame Eric Holder for the military vs. civilian trial bungle and for much much more.

A serious investigation should already be in the middle stages concerning the IG (Walpin) firing fiasco, and the Thugariffic Voter Intimidation Amnesia is sickening.

Justice my ass.

hillbillyjim on March 8, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Was McVeighs attorney a right wing nutjob sympathizer?

Squid Shark on March 8, 2010 at 11:37 PM

No, probably just another lawyer pri$k looking to get paid….high profile = $$$$ baby.

BigWyo on March 9, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Good on Ken Starr.

Squid Shark on March 8, 2010 at 11:33 PM

Good on Toilet Bugs that didn’t even know who Ken Starr was yesterday.

Good fer yew!!

BigWyo on March 9, 2010 at 12:13 AM

That those in question would have their patriotism, loyalty and values attacked by reputable public figures such as Elizabeth Cheney and journalists such as Kristol is as depressing a public episode as I have witnessed in many years. What has become of our civic life in America? The only word that can do justice to the personal attacks on these fine lawyers — and on the integrity of our legal system — is shameful. Shameful.

He conveniently forgot Debra Burlingame.

unclesmrgol on March 9, 2010 at 12:14 AM

The FBI website says that the military defense team that represented the Abwehr saboteurs in 1942 included a son of the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a colonel who went on to serve as Secretary of War in the Truman Administration.

These men did not have their careers destroyed.

They also did not seek the cloak of secrecy. They did a duty. (They also didn’t seek to exculpate felons by reason of procedural violations in their arrests, which sadly would now mark them as guilty of malpractice as criminal defense lawyers).

They were open about their duty to the System and they continued to serve the System.

There was another breed of lawyer, who rendered services to ideological enemies of the United States, within the United States, so that the Movement would prosper and bring down the System. And they worked in secret, lest they be denied wealth and privilege by the System. And when outed, they demanded “decency” consider the act of seeking traitors, worse than treason.

Maybe Ken Starr and Paul Hinderaker et al. really want every attorney to be respected until proven Fifth Columnist.

But fellow traveler is, as fellow traveler does. Honest lawyers seeking to help the system would act more like WW2 military defense attorneys and less like Communists.

Chris_Balsz on March 9, 2010 at 12:19 AM

No, probably just another lawyer pri$k looking to get paid….high profile = $$$$ baby.

BigWyo on March 9, 2010 at 12:10 AM

I know it is real fun and super kewl to beat up on attorneys, but someone has to do it in a country that claims to respect the rule of law.

Squid Shark on March 9, 2010 at 12:39 AM

which sadly would now mark them as guilty of malpractice as criminal defense lawyers

There is a reason that is the case. Suppression is the constitutionally acceptable solution to prevent further police violations of the 4th and 5th Amendment. The theory is that officers will be careful to not violate those rights if they know that the evidence will be suppressed otherwise.

Squid Shark on March 9, 2010 at 12:43 AM

Isn’t this the same guy who gave us a c____-spattered dress so we wouldn’t have to worry ourselves about high crimes and misdemeanors…and who knows, a variety of arranged accidents and suicides?

Yep, that’s him.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 9, 2010 at 1:38 AM

Why is the President of Baylor University appearing on a national (snicker) TV program to talk about the DOJ?

Gohawgs on March 9, 2010 at 1:54 AM

I wonder if Star would think it was appropriate for these same lawyers to go back and represent the detainees again?

Only the mind of a lawyer could pretend that this is anything other than covering for the ‘right’ of a lawyer to stuff cash into their pockets representing BOTH sides of a legal case!

Freddy on March 9, 2010 at 3:05 AM

Uberidiots stand in

Wow!

If sucking d!*k is not that guys forte in life, it would behoove him to lose that lisp!

DSchoen on March 9, 2010 at 3:25 AM

Gohawgs on March 9, 2010 at 1:54 AM

People can rationalize anything. Ken is just taking what he believes is a ethical position.

The swine at MSNBC will use him just as the left used Juan McLame to attack their targets.

John Kerry dumping on combat troops is still vivid in my memory.

I can see the merit in the Cheney position on this issue.
Hiring guys who defended the thugs in this context (war) to defend them is a tad strange.

BTW it was good to see the Factor recently appreciate that all accused have a right to counsel. This was at variance with the indignation Bill O. showed toward a lawyer who was willing to represent the accused terrorists. If I were that lawyer, I would have torn old Bill to shreds. Everyone has bad shows.

IlikedAUH2O on March 9, 2010 at 4:18 AM

I don’t care these 7 lawyers CHOSE to represent terrorists. They’re scum for seeking out this filth and I can’t stop them as private citizens from doing so. That said, I DO CARE that some of these terrorist defending scum have been sought out and appointed to the DOJ under a terrorist sympathizing AG and the terrorist sympathizing law firm he came from who now set policy and have enormous influence. Ken Starr is flat wrong and I don’t think the majority of America really cares about what he says, either. Besides, who watches MSNBC? On another note, I find it amusing that Lawrence O’Donnell fills in for Olbermann. When one nut is out, they’ve got another nut perfect to step in. Liz Cheney is a superstar.

Renwaa on March 9, 2010 at 4:38 AM

I know it is real fun and super kewl to beat up on attorneys, but someone has to do it in a country that claims to respect the rule of law.

Squid Shark on March 9, 2010 at 12:39 AM

Someone also has to clean out houses in a country that claims to respect sanitation but I don’t want them in high positions of power.

MB4 on March 9, 2010 at 4:38 AM

To quote a much smarter person, here is Paul from Powerline:

The law firms that signed up to defend al Qaeda terrorists are among the most prestigious in the country. Large law firms of this sort are among our most powerful institutions. They brought vast stature and resources to the task of representing terrorist detainees. The situation is not quite as though a random lawyer in New York or Washington, D.C. had taken his dutiful turn at the thankless job of defending a client who couldn’t afford to pay.

One wonders: do these firms, or these lawyers, normally make a practice of volunteering to defend criminal defendants? (These detainees were not criminal defendants, for the most part, but the analogy is nevertheless apt.) My guess is that they do not. What, exactly, drew them to the cause of the terrorist detainees? Was it a humanitarian impulse to defend the friendless? Or were the country’s wealthiest and best-connected law firms lining up for the privilege of taking on the terrorists’ cases? Were the lawyers who volunteered to represent terrorists driven by ideology? That is to say, were they part of that large segment of the establishment that tried to undermine the foreign and national security policies of the Bush administration? If so, what ideology do these individuals now bring to the Department of Justice? And what roles are they playing within DOJ?

These strike me as legitimate questions. I certainly don’t question the right of these lawyers to volunteer their services where they choose, and normally, the motives of a lawyer who volunteers to work for free would be no one else’s business. But when those same lawyers, a very short time later, are tapped to work at the Justice Department, isn’t the ideology that they–and Eric Holder–bring to national security issues fair game? I think it is.”

Renwaa on March 9, 2010 at 4:54 AM

I know it is real fun and super kewl to beat up on attorneys, but someone has to do it in a country that claims to respect the rule of law.

Squid Shark on March 9, 2010 at 12:39 AM

I agree. Someone must have the superkewl fun of —nah.

There’s two things I find worthy of scorn here.

First is that attorneys will defend terrorists, then take a job supposedly to fight terrorists, and demand only political operators who hired them, have the right to know their professional resumes. We’re paying them.

Second, that lawyers will lock ranks and say “Oh How DARE You doubt the honor of LAWYERS…”

There is a reason that is the case. Suppression is the constitutionally acceptable solution to prevent further police violations of the 4th and 5th Amendment. The theory is that officers will be careful to not violate those rights if they know that the evidence will be suppressed otherwise.

I would change that one word to “judicially” acceptable. Nearly 200 years after the ratification of the Constitution the Supreme Court decided to experiment with the exclusion of evidence. Judging from the levels of violent crime and the length of trials it has failed.

Chris_Balsz on March 9, 2010 at 5:42 AM

Ken Starr? A/K/A…….” Fool Tool”

Quickest way to get noticed by the Leftist Media? Criticize a Conservative. Yawn, Ken you’d be nothing if Monica hadn’t kept that Blue dress.

PappyD61 on March 9, 2010 at 6:36 AM

most defendants accused of serious crimes don’t face the risk of a show trial that Gitmo detainees do.

Except they’re not. Federal court has more protections. And there are no cameras. And remember the Mousswhatshisname trial? The prosecution got hammered for any perceived wrong doing. And the dumbazz jury came back with lwop. And the appellate process is extensive and long. We don’t have show trials in the US and it’s offensive to claim we do.

Blake on March 8, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Nothing like foolishly conceding premises to the other side there AP.

aikidoka on March 9, 2010 at 7:11 AM

Andrew McCarthy writes at the National Review with much good sense about this subject, and although a lawyer himself, McCarthy has no patience for the glorification of the pro bono work done by prestigious law firms for what are our enemies who would kill us all.

Phil Byler on March 9, 2010 at 7:13 AM

McCarthy has no patience for the glorification of the pro bono work done by prestigious law firms for what are our enemies who would kill us all.

Phil Byler on March 9, 2010 at 7:13 AM

Pro bono work on high profile cases is nothing more than an advertising expense. No, they are not looking to get more Jihadi business in the future but what they are looking to do is get the reputation as being so sharp in the courtroom that even a terrorist can beat the rap with their legal team.

highhopes on March 9, 2010 at 7:23 AM

I don’t know which pundit said it, or what outlet I heard it at, but putting the shoe on the other foot, what if this had been a situation with the KKK? I’ll take the analogy further. What if the Klan had killed 3,000 people and nine liars, er, excuse me Lawyers had defended the worst of the worst? By our Constitution, they should get the best defense available. That being said, if those defense lawyers were up for high positions in the DOJ, I think it would be only common sense that they come before a legal body to determine where their sensibilities lie. It’s a legitimate issue that should be addressed. The Left is really reaching at this point…..

adamsmith on March 9, 2010 at 7:26 AM

the legal services offered to jihadis by top-flight firms wouldn’t be offered to most defendants accused of serious crimes, but then most defendants accused of serious crimes don’t face the risk of a show trial that Gitmo detainees do.

You surprize me with this, AP. There was no risk of a “show trial” until long after these top flight firms offered there services to Gitmo detainees and the favored presidential candidate of those offering their services was elected president.

ProfessorMiao on March 9, 2010 at 7:39 AM

Doug Kmiec is also at Pepperdine:

http://law.pepperdine.edu/academics/faculty/default.php?faculty=douglas_kmiec

must be something in the water there, or they just hire boobs

funky chicken on March 9, 2010 at 7:40 AM

Cristol is correct, it is nothing but lawyers defending lawyers.

lavell12 on March 9, 2010 at 8:39 AM

My sentiment exactly lavel 12, lawyers just those in the club covering each others back. The rot inside the halls of our goverment is so putrid and corrupt the citizens are feeling hopeless and when a critical mass begins to think this way a Robespierre organizing and leading this revolt is not too far away. Then Peggy Noonan can write a sequel to her book, “What I saw at the Revolution.”

devolvingtowardsidiocracy on March 9, 2010 at 8:49 AM

A political used-to-was looking to get back in the game.

t.ferg on March 9, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Cristol is correct, it is nothing but lawyers defending lawyers.
lavell12 on March 9, 2010 at 8:39 AM

Exactly. In other words: one more fraternity of the elite closing ranks.

rrpjr on March 9, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Bernie Goldberg had a fantastic analogy last night on O’Reilly: Imagine if a Republican AG in a Republican Admin appointed lawyers who regularly defended Klan members to the Civil Rights Division; Would the Left have a problem with those lawyers influencing civil rights policy?

rcpjr on March 9, 2010 at 9:37 AM

When Kenny gets his knickers in a bunch he forgets the First Amendment? Chill out and go smoke a cigar or something.

RandyChandler on March 9, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Video: Ken Starr knocks Liz Cheney’s group for “Al Qaeda 7″ ad — on Olbermann’s show

…but without Olbermann.

Just on the inside baseball media aspect of this, while it’s surprising (shocking) to see Starr on the show, one of the other people who may have been surprised (shocked) is Olby, who supposedly is at his dying father’s bedside (at least until the Yanks open their home season, then dad’s probably on his own). But he may in fact be on double-secret probation at MSNBC, since he’s been off for the past week and has become increasingly unhinged in his attacks on people, including those against people not on MSNBC’s approved list (unless The Sports Guy was actually a former Bush Administration official).

Given Keith’s already stated hatred for Ken Starr, inviting Starr on the show when Olby’s away may be someone’s direct shot at Keith, forcing him to either denounce his own production staff and network or say nothing and just soak anf fume in the bathtub about his show being despoiled.

jon1979 on March 9, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Isn’t it amazing how lawyers always tend to circle the wagons around one another when things get dicey – - – no matter what?

I’m with Stalin when it comes to lawyers.

kens on March 9, 2010 at 10:01 AM

And because they were commie sympathizers, somehow the attorneys doing this work are….Muslim terrorist sympathizers???

When you’re meeting in secret with and taking orders from an unregistered agent of a foreign country, that’s a bit more than mere sympathy, wouldn’t you say? My point is that the people who defend outcasts aren’t as noble as the people screaming at us want us to believe. As to these attys – how would we know? They didn’t even want to reveal their names. Also, one doesn’t have to be an enemy agent in order to be found unsuitable for a job in the DOJ. Obviously, these common sense rules were waived for these hacks. A better observation is that these lefty attys are American haters in that they will hurt America’s interests.

Oh, and what is noble about Lynn Stewart?

Was McVeighs attorney a right wing nutjob sympathizer?

Squid Shark on March 8, 2010 at 11:37 PM

He’s a lefty. The left and McVeigh had a lot in common. You figure it out.

Blake on March 9, 2010 at 10:23 AM

He’s right to note that the legal services offered to jihadis by top-flight firms wouldn’t be offered to most defendants accused of serious crimes, but then most defendants accused of serious crimes don’t face the risk of a show trial that Gitmo detainees do. — Allah

Allah,

Whether Drew said it or you said it, please be careful how you claim “show trial”. If by your words, you mean TehOne and his Attorney General claiming they would have legal, fair, and absolutely crystal clear civilian trials of the 9-11 Jihadis, followied by a first class hanging, then I understand why “show trial” might be a word used to describe it, but you would still be incorrect. Show trial means we know what is going to happen. In the case of a civilian trial, if KSM got acquitted by technicality, I’m pretty damn sure he’d be deported and released, to the everlasting damnation of the Obama administration. But once his acquittal is public in the US, you can’t go back and hold him without charge or reason. We’d lynch the Obama administration, but we’d never kill KSM in this country. We’d wait to do it outside the US by covert operation.

However, if you meant show trial by a military court, I think you should recognize that there is no such thing. The military courts have never allowed widely open courtrooms and uninhibited guest lists for the jihadi trials, and while the rules of evidence are different, they are legal and authorized in almost every international court on Earth (all except sharia courts, by the way). Our military doesn’t conduct show trials, where the verdict is known before hand. The US military is the ONLY organization in this country which continues to render fair and impartial verdicts daily, without regard to a partisan politically appointed prosecutor and judge in charge of the trials. There is no Republican or Dhimmicrat involved, and show offs from civilian and criminal law cases are not given rein to do anything outside of military jurisprudence. Civilian lawyers can advise, but unless the appointed Defense Counsel and Judge agree on his/her points, they are not allowed to argue in front of the court. Civilian lawyers always make a dramatic show over their defense. That is how they get more clients. By drama and subterfuge in obtaining acquittals.

Military judges don’t like showboating. And will stop it if it presents itself because they are officers in the US military and required to be non-partisan, and follow only established rules of evidence and law. Showboating is unethical to us.

Be careful when you say show trial. This isn’t Red China. And military folks are sick of both sides trying to win points instead of punishing jihadis who kill without following the rules of war or civilized society.

Subsunk

Subsunk on March 9, 2010 at 10:30 AM

BigWyo on March 8, 2010 at 11:15 PM

And allow me to abbreviate my response to you: FOAD.

Blake on March 9, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Subsunk on March 9, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Yep. There’s no Lance Ito’s in the Judge Advocate General Corp. [Isn't there a different title for those who actually sit as the judge as opposed to those who act as counsel?]

Blake on March 9, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Military judges don’t like showboating. And will stop it if it presents itself because they are officers in the US military and required to be non-partisan, and follow only established rules of evidence and law. Showboating is unethical to us.

Be careful when you say show trial. This isn’t Red China. And military folks are sick of both sides trying to win points instead of punishing jihadis who kill without following the rules of war or civilized society.

Subsunk

Subsunk on March 9, 2010 at 10:30 AM

+1

funky chicken on March 9, 2010 at 10:45 AM

funky chicken on March 9, 2010 at 10:45 AM

It’s nice to see that LGF’s stats are down into the toilet. You and your fellow cultists are reaping the result of smearing people.

Blake on March 9, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Strange bedfellows indeed.

Scrappy on March 9, 2010 at 12:40 PM