This appeared in my Twitter feed:
As you probably know, the NRA is in a legal fight with is outside marketing firm, Ackerman-McQueen. The fight has escalated and gotten really nasty. There are lots of accusations flying, document leaks, etc.
I thought I had recognized the name of the NRA’s outside counsel on this, which is where the friend comes in. Should we be concerned that the NRA’s lawyer has donated to a slate of anti-gun Democrats?
William Brewer, the attorney for the NRA, donated to Beto O’Rourke, Ted Strickland, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dick Durbin, and other Democrats. See here and here.
So, just so we are clear, the NRA’s top outside lawyer is the son-in-law and brother-in-law of the top executives of the company the NRA is fighting and the guy is also a huge donor to anti-gun Democrats. What the hell is going on? This just sounds so incestuously corrupt.
Hey NRA, This Seems Like a Really Big Deal
Call me eccentric, call me revolutionary, but if I select a lawyer or any other professional, my main preoccupations i if he or she is good. Will this person get me what I need and want? Will this person win my case? As I replied in the tweet, I don’t care if the guys worships the devil and wears red pumps but I will take him is he is good.
You know who demanded political loyalty? Hugo Chavez when assigning posts in his government. He remove the best and brightest from the Venezuela’s Oil Company and substituted them with those who passed the political purity tests and faithful obedience to the revolution. I do not need to tell you how’s Venezuela doing, right?
Now, if you tell me this guy sucks as a lawyer and show me his record of failures, then we have a valid argument for his rejection. Other than that, please spare me the application of Socialist policies in the selection of professionals.
4 thoughts on “The last thing we need is Purity Tests and Loyalty Checks”
It’s not the Dem donations, as much as the personal ties to the other party in the lawsuits, that would worry me. Conflict of interest is a thing.
For that matter, fromm the lawyer’s standpoint, even if he’s good and does his best, the appearance of COI could land him in some professional trouble if he loses. I wouldn’t have taken the case, myself.
I’m also concerned if they can professionally separate their personal beliefs from their representation. I.e. will they do their best for somebody they don’t agree with politically.
That is easy to check though I have not
It is the same when a defense lawyer takes a client that they believe to be guilty. They still have to present a vigorous defense.
To qoute Billy Flin, “I don’t care of she’s innocent or guilty, all I care is do you have $2000.”
Only if he loses bad making stupid mistakes that can be attributed to personal politics…. and then his reputation is ruined forever. Who is gonna trust him with case? Not even people on his “side”
His reputation will only be ruined for people like us, the collectivists will embrace and celebrate him. This is nothing more than the further Gramscian March through the institutions, you cannot serve two masters. It’s like hiring Jake Tapper to work for NRA TV. This is how we have ended up with a sitting Supreme Court Justice who is a member of LA Raza for crying out loud. You cannot diligently and ferociously defend an idea in which you don’t beleive, he doesn’t have to lose big, just lose and mediocrity will triumph again. The people who infest our government who outright oppose it’s foundational principles don’t have to make big moves, just the constant nibbling away around the edges, which is the exact principal that Gramsci laid out, it’s like the slowly boiling frog, by the time you notice it’s too late
Login or register to comment.