OK, everyone here knows that I have been a vocal critic of Miers, but I will defend here here. Partnerships can be dangerous sometimes. All of the partners of a firm will be hit hard if one partner does something wrong. If one partners was determined to engage in this kind of behavior, there is no way that the firm could have stopped him/her.
Now, it is possible that there were red flags, and associates going to Meirs telling her of the illegal work. If that is the case, then that would be a problem. But absent that, we can't assume that the illegal work of one partner should be blamed on her.
As for her defending the firm against the charge, that's her job.
Have disagreed with you on Miers from the start but I, for one, appreciate your integrity
Sorry for all my typos above.
Thank you for your candor and fairness. I have been a "wait and see" FReeper. I add my voice to yours, saying that she needs to address this issue, but she will hopefully be able to truthfully and effectively show she was not involved.
While I agree with your thesis, the problem is the magnitude. One would think that a case involving that much money would be quite visible to a managing partner in the firm, perhaps requiring signature authority.
Thanks for your fairness.
Agreed and agreed. I do not support her nomination, but this is a low blow and there is absolutely nothing here to suggest she had any involvement in this. Nothing.