and that's the nicest way to describe it imo.

until Iowa, so don’t understand why people are so focused on her.

NT

Even if the Franken episode hadn't happened, the few interviews I've seen her in have not impressed me with any depth, substance, intellegence, or charisma. She's not a winning candidate for the dems. The primarys will sort it out.

She is not a total idiot, either, but she IS quite devoid of depth, substance and charisma. I've seen sawdust that was more inspiring. Agreed, she is NOT a winning candidate for us.

but NOW she doesn't and gets an F. I don't buy it...she flips on key Dem issues too quickly and easily.

She worked at a law firm that was hired by PM.

Nope, not gonna support her.

I like Kamala. I like Amy. I likr Joe. And we'll see who else.. but not Kirsten.

And after that she said, in the 60 min interview, below

When asked if Gillibrand has talked to the Clintons, she replies: “Well, I don't want to talk about that, but, I can tell you one thing… Hillary Clinton is still my greatest role model in politics.”

anyone to pledge undying loyalty to the leader. If they do something wrong they should be called out on it.

All I know about the law is from TV shows. Do lawyers working for law firms get to choose which cases they represent? Isn't it part of the job to represent your client even if you think they're obviously guilty? Otherwise, why all the lawyer jokes?

Public defenders have far less leeway about walking away from cases than private, corporate attorneys do.

It's a terrible comparison to make.

Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2019, 03:04 AM - Edit history (1)

You don't get to pick your cases as an associate in big law firms. They are generally assigned to you by the managing partners.

Clearly, you're not getting the point that she made the choice to work for a firm that represented an immoral, unethical corporation. She had the choice to leave the firm and go to another firm. She didn't make the moral, ethical choice. She made the easy choice.

If you began working for a firm and then found out they were lying about their product killing people and spending millions to hide the fact you have a choice at that point. You can continue to work for them or not.

The rest of who are don’t have the luxury of quitting a job because we don’t like what we are asked to work on.

She obviously did not stay there, but I guess you're mad that she did leave sooner. Thing is, by working at a big law firm like that, it allowed her to take on multiple pro bono cases defending abused women and their children, as well as other cases defending tenants seeking safe housing after lead paint and unsafe conditions were found in their homes. And she became involved in, and later the leader of, the Women's Leadership Forum, a program of the Democratic National Committee to bring more women into politics.

First, we're talking civil vs criminal law.

Gillibrand chose to take a job at a firm representing an immoral, unethical corporation. She chose to become the corporate lawyer and make big bucks at a Manhattan law firm.

Hillary was appointed by the court to be the defense attorney of the rapist. Judges appoint lawyers in private practice this way in many places across the US.

She didn't volunteer, nor ask for the case. When a lawyer gets appointed by the court to defend someone the judge is not going to let you get out of it unless there is very, very good reason. Hillary could NOT quit and go elsewhere. She wasn't working for a firm representing the accused. She was forced to work for the public court.

At the time this happened she was running a legal aid clinic at the time. Helping people who needed legal representation but could not afford it. She was already serving public in a selfless manner.

If, after you read all this you still think the comparison is apt, let me know.

No one made her work for Philip Morris. No one made her stay there and defend them. As an attorney on their payroll she would have been privy to all the good, bad, and ugly about them.

No one stopped her from walking away.

And most associate lawyers, especially in big firms, don't have a choice when they are assigned a case. She eventually did leave that law firm.

Besides, most of us have all worked for evil corporations in one manner or another, whether it's McDonald's or Bank of America or Chevron. You can't impute its evil on all their employees.


You'll have to find another reason to bash Gillibrand.

What about the the NRA rating? That is not a part of the Dmocratic platform.

how opportunist she is.

See her explanations in the "60 minutes" interview, below.

I highly doubt a capable person would be unaware of the fact the firm was representing Philip Morris and that if hired, one might be on that case. Especially since it was so huge. Yet, she took the job.

Wells Fargo has a large presence here, where I live. As a contractor I've told my firm I will not take a contract at Wells Fargo even if it means I go without an income for a period of time.

We all have choices.

Most law grads need a good paying job for their first few years so they can pay off massive law school and undergrad debt. Once they've paid down their debt they have the freedom to move on to other types of legal work, such as public interest work, like Gillibrand did. Some of our best public interest lawyers started out in these big law firms.

It's wonderful that you have the freedom to pick and choose your clients. You are lucky you can survive forgoing income to do so; most people can't.

Philip Morris is responsible for killing and addicting millions of people. All while they knew the facts about this. That's more than just unsavory. It's criminal and it is indefensible.

Also, I don't agree with you completely about BofA but that wasn't the point. You keep taking tangents off the point of the argument. The point was that if I can make the choice to reject a lucrative income because of my principles, she could have too.

Neither are civil attorneys who ethically and competently represent their clients.

Attorneys are first and foremost officers of the court. Our judicial branch is dependent on an adversarial system where sides are adequately represented. Attorneys are professionals, like doctors, who practice law. A doctor who practices medicine and heals a murderer is no more responsible for his crimes than a lawyer who represents him in court.

It is wonderful you can forego lucrative income. I doubt she could have. I know most law school grads couldn't.

I am sure you have better things to do with your time than bash a Democratic presidential candidate, who is in the single digits right now, over what law firm she worked right after college.

I don't like her at all, mainly for the Franken thing but this is manufactured outrage. Lawyers in a firm have to do their job and they have the ethical obligation to do the best they can to represent their client. Everyone, even the worst criminals and lowlifes, deserve a fair representation in court and it is the job of the prosecution to make their case. That is a crucial part of the rule of law.

First, we're talking civil vs criminal law. Don't get a human life being defended with the defense of an artificial entity that knowingly addicted and killed millions of people.

While, yes, lawyers have an ethical obligation to defend their clients there is no obligation to work for an unethical, immoral corporation. Otherwise, we'd all be defending Michael Cohen's choices and actions. Instead, we think he's a low-life because he represented a low-life.

Gillibrand chose to take a job at a firm representing an immoral, unethical corporation. She chose to become the corporate lawyer and make big bucks at a Manhattan law firm. No one made her stay there when she found out Philip Morris was who she'd have to represent. She could have shown moral and ethical courage and left.

Hillary was appointed by the court to be the defense attorney of the rapist. Judges appoint lawyers in private practice this way in many places across the US.

She didn't volunteer, nor ask for the case. When a lawyer gets appointed by the court to defend someone the judge is not going to let you get out of it unless there is very, very good reason. Hillary could NOT quit and go elsewhere. She wasn't working for a firm representing the accused. She was forced to work for the public court.

At the time this happened she was running a legal aid clinic. Helping people who needed legal representation but could not afford it. She was already serving public in a selfless manner.

Gillibrand chose money and the corporate world of "Greed is Good." Hillary chose public service. There is no comparison between the two cases, nor the two people.

she was all in on it:


https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/nyregion/27gillibrand.html

Ms. Gillibrand, who worked at the Manhattan firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell from 1991 to 2000, eventually oversaw a team of associate lawyers working on Philip Morris cases, according to a colleague, and was a frequent point of contact between the firm and Philip Morris executives.

In addition, Ms. Gillibrand represented Davis Polk on a high-level Philip Morris committee whose work included shielding certain documents from disclosure, according to several lawyers and industry observers. Serving on the panel placed her alongside some of the country’s top tobacco industry lawyers.

And she was viewed so positively by Philip Morris that by 1999, when the tobacco maker brought in an additional outside law firm to represent its interests, Ms. Gillibrand was one of five Davis Polk lawyers designated to train the firm about sensitive legal issues, according to a company memo.

When she moved in 2001 to a new firm, Boies Schiller, where she worked until 2005, one of Ms. Gillibrand’s clients was the Altria Group, Philip Morris’s parent company, where she helped with securities and antitrust matters, according to the firm.

Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2019, 03:10 AM - Edit history (1)

This is what she said on Colbert. At 52? Her sons are 20 and 25.

Did not realize she was on "60 Minutes"

https://www.timesunion.com/7day-state/article/Gillibrand-embarrassed-by-previous-positions-12607688.php

Gillirband — who attended Dartmouth College and UCLA Law School before spending a decade as a litigator in Manhattan — attributed her more conservative prior positions to the conservative and overwhelmingly white demographic of the 20th Congressional District, which first elected her to the House in 2006. Gillibrand's initial stance on gun control earned her an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association; it was downgraded to an "F" in 2010, a year after Gillibrand was appointed by then-Gov. David Paterson to take the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton's appointment to serve as President Barack Obama's secretary of state.

(snip)

Alfonsi noted that the senator's earlier stance on immigration "was closer to Donald Trump's than today's Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand."

"You were against amnesty, against sanctuary cities," Alfonsi said. "You supported accelerated deportations. You become senator — why the flip?"

"I came from a district that was 98 percent white," Gillibrand said. "We have immigrants, but not a lot of immigrants. ... And I just didn't take the time to understand why these issues mattered because it wasn't right in front of me. And that was my fault. It was something that I'm embarrassed about and I'm ashamed of."

She was my congresswoman (NY-20), defeated a long time Republican in 2006 (John Sweeney, if you remember him) who often ran uncontested. We were quite thrilled here in the North Country, especially when President Clinton came to this little burg to campaign for her. And Hillary Clinton was her mentor, advised her to wait till 2006 to run, rather than try in 2004. She was quite popular here.

When deciding she's not the candidate for me. I find her long history on the wrong side of things rather troubling. I get a real sense of an ivory tower dweller w/her.

After years of admiration of the Clinton’s Gillibrand said Clinton should have resigned. But the Franken thing did it for me.

I also have a question. I thought it was against site rules to bash Democrats. What is the difference? No argument here, just an honest question.

The only candidate so far who is a non-starter is tulsi and we should be united against her; she is in deep blue district and must be primaried from her current seat and eliminated from prez primaries asap. All other candidates so far do not have fatal flaws. Joe Biden is criticized for anita hill hearings but we still like him. You are not going to get a ‘perfect’ candidate so get over it - everyone has flaws undr a microscope. Biden hasn’t officially announced his presidency. Even if Biden runs, I think eventually Kamala will come out on top; she is brilliant, genuine and energizing. The media will be covering her non stop taking away trumps spot light (Biden won’t get much coverage).

With Tulsi? I know little about her.

as a presidential candidate......she will not last long.