Harriet Miers at Center of Investment Fraud (Slander alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 10/05/2005 | Jerome Corsi

[pawdoggie]

This editorial is from the same guy who wrote the book that help defeat John Kerry -- UNFIT FOR COMMAND.

So what? As seen in the recent Kerry campaign film, John Kerry did the most to defeat John Kerry. Should I hang on J. F'n K.'s every word?

[Souled_Out]

"Firms settle law suits all the time for all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with being guilty of a crime (fraud is a crime)."

---

You certainly know a lot more about this kind of stuff than I do.

So a law firm would pay 22 million dollars even though they did nothing wrong?

If you can tell me how this works maybe we can split the money, something for nothing sounds good to me. :~) /sarcasm

---

"You think the left will even bother oppose her when the right is savaging her and running wild with any little thing they can?"

---

I don't know, given their history I would think they would, they did not hold back on Trent Lott and plenty of people on the right trashed him.

[NCSteve]

I think Corsi is fishing. Yesterday WND was trying to pin the Ben Barnes scandal on Miers. They seem to have an agenda. If they are unhappy about the nomination, there are better ways to go about illuminating that.

[jwh_Denver]

Of course he has not the grace to admit an error and pull the appointment.

Bush wont pull the appointment but she might step down with a little prodding.

[CyberAnt]

The fact the lawsuit was filed in Travis County (Austin), makes me suspicious of the whole thing. If people were relying on the Austin newspaper accounts of the story, they are in the tank for the democrats. This is also the same county where the forged documents origiated, and where Dan Rather's daughter works for the DNC.

[coconutt2000]

It is probable that part of her promotion to managing co-partner was because of the lawsuit. She was probably the least tainted senior associate in the firm, with the most credibility.

This article does not address the fact that law firms provide the exact same types of legal documents for legitimate investment firms, and that there is no evidence that the law firm knew that any fraudulent behavior was taking place.

For a few hundred dollars, any con man can go to a lawyer and have legal contracts for a seemingly legitimate business venture drawn up. The legalese and professionalism of the contracts would certainly convince many people that the business was legitimate. The lawyer would have no idea that the business was not, since daily business advice is not the role of a lawyer or his or her firm. Law firms rarely have intimate knowledge of how businesses may be defrauding investors, and are specifically barred from advising clients on how best to accomplish this. But if a client hides the fraud from the firm and obtains their services for what the firms believes is a legitimate business practice, then there is no complicity.

The difference between the firm and all the schmucks who initially invested in the ponzi scheme and then went out and got relatives and friends to invest in it is that the law firm had big pockets. Otherwise, the firm probably had as much of a clue as everyone who was defrauded, and the fact that they paid up to make most of everybody mostly whole is a good thing, considering the firm was probably victimized by the client, AFI, in all this.

[Petronski]

I wonder if Joe Farah vetted this............LOL.

Lordy, Lordy! LOL, that's funny.

In fact, the funny part can be reduced to just this excerpt:

"...Farah vetted..."