Major Law Firms Won't Defend Trump

[JakeStarkey]

Run along gassy. You are not important. You know nothing. Trump has gone bump again, and you have no defense for him. You know nothing about law firms, which once again reveals you as a silly far right goof. Why do you hate our Constitutional government?

 

[skookerasbil]

you dummy.......all attorneys vote DUM.

 

[usmbguest5318]

From the linked article:

Other factors, [a White House] lawyer said, were that it would “kill recruitment” for the firms to be publicly associated with representing the polarizing president and jeopardize the firms’ relationships with other clients.
​

Though I'm not an attorney, my firm "lives and dies" on its reputation more than anything else. Of all the things one might have learned about Trump, one of them most certainly is that the only reputation that may matter to him is his. It's simply not acceptable for consultancies, law advocacies, accountancies, etc. to risk their existing revenue streams and recruitment stance by involving themselves with Trump. It's simply absurd to do so.

Accordingly, while the cited article presents the factor described above as an "other" one, the risk management assessment principals at law firms surely performed in considering the pros and cons of taking Trump as a client more than likely comprised the controlling reason for why they were unamenable to accepting any actual or potential offer of engagement. Everything else the firms said rung to me (a senior principal in a professional services firm) as nothing more than polite verbiage for saying "no."

Bullshit, this reeks of fake news

I'm not surprised you think so.

I'm not surprised you're buying it....see how this works?

Unnamed sources should be your first clue, moron

I'm not surprised you're buying it

If you construe my comments above as my "buying" anything, you either didn't fully read them or didn't comprehend them. I don't know which, but it's one of the two.

Nobody cares, you're not important, now go bother someone else

Excuse me? I bother you? Let me remind you that I didn't quote you or do anything to attract expressly your attention. You, on the other hand, directly quoted my remarks, and attempted to discredit them by lambasting them as "fake news."

Let me share a few pearls of information with you:

1. I'm not a journalist or news organization; therefore I don't ever deliver any kind of news, fake, real or otherwise.
2. I made a single substantive point in my original post and you've had no substantive rebuttal to that point, yet you did attempt to impugn it. If you have in your mind developed a cogent rebuttal, by all means, present it. If you don't, act like an adult and keep mum about it. (If my remark bothered you, it can only have done in that you have no direct and substantive rebuttal to it.)
3. If it be that you think profoundly absurd and unfounded the substantive points I made in any of my posts, fine, but again, act like and adult and eschew dignifying them with a response.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

From the linked article:

Other factors, [a White House] lawyer said, were that it would “kill recruitment” for the firms to be publicly associated with representing the polarizing president and jeopardize the firms’ relationships with other clients.
​

Though I'm not an attorney, my firm "lives and dies" on its reputation more than anything else. Of all the things one might have learned about Trump, one of them most certainly is that the only reputation that may matter to him is his. It's simply not acceptable for consultancies, law advocacies, accountancies, etc. to risk their existing revenue streams and recruitment stance by involving themselves with Trump. It's simply absurd to do so.

Accordingly, while the cited article presents the factor described above as an "other" one, the risk management assessment principals at law firms surely performed in considering the pros and cons of taking Trump as a client more than likely comprised the controlling reason for why they were unamenable to accepting any actual or potential offer of engagement. Everything else the firms said rung to me (a senior principal in a professional services firm) as nothing more than polite verbiage for saying "no."

Bullshit, this reeks of fake news

I'm not surprised you think so.

I'm not surprised you're buying it....see how this works?

Unnamed sources should be your first clue, moron

I'm not surprised you're buying it

If you construe my comments above as my "buying" anything, you either didn't fully read them or didn't comprehend them. I don't know which, but it's one of the two.

Nobody cares, you're not important, now go bother someone else

Excuse me? I bother you? Let me remind you that I didn't quote you or do anything to attract expressly your attention. You, on the other hand, directly quoted my remarks, and attempted to discredit them by lambasting them as "fake news."

Let me share a few pearls of information with you:

1. I'm not a journalist or news organization; therefore I don't ever deliver any kind of news, fake, real or otherwise.
2. I made a single substantive point in my original post and you've had no substantive rebuttal to that point, yet you did attempt to impugn it. If you have in your mind developed a cogent rebuttal, by all means, present it. If you don't, act like an adult and keep mum about it. (If my remark bothered you, it can only have done in that you have no direct and substantive rebuttal to it.)
3. If it be that you think profoundly absurd and unfounded the substantive points I made in any of my posts, fine, but again, act like and adult and eschew dignifying them with a response.

I said nobody cares

 

[usmbguest5318]

I'm not surprised you think so.

I'm not surprised you're buying it....see how this works?

Unnamed sources should be your first clue, moron

I'm not surprised you're buying it

If you construe my comments above as my "buying" anything, you either didn't fully read them or didn't comprehend them. I don't know which, but it's one of the two.

Nobody cares, you're not important, now go bother someone else

Ah, talking to yourself in the mirror again.

Run along Fake, you're just an annoyance, never right about anything, you report anyone that challenges you and now you've bought into this BS that is an obvious fake fluff piece...because you're not a lawyer, you don't understand how a firm operates and it gives you yet another chance to expose you as a fake republican.

Now scram

Run along Fake

That -- casting a puerile aspersion -- must be your"thing," for twice now in the space of mere minutes it's what you're resorted to instead of presenting a cogent rebuttal to other members' central points with which you apparently take exception.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Bullshit, this reeks of fake news

I'm not surprised you think so.

I'm not surprised you're buying it....see how this works?

Unnamed sources should be your first clue, moron

I'm not surprised you're buying it

If you construe my comments above as my "buying" anything, you either didn't fully read them or didn't comprehend them. I don't know which, but it's one of the two.

Nobody cares, you're not important, now go bother someone else

Excuse me? I bother you? Let me remind you that I didn't quote you or do anything to attract expressly your attention. You, on the other hand, directly quoted my remarks, and attempted to discredit them by lambasting them as "fake news."

Let me share a few pearls of information with you:

1. I'm not a journalist or news organization; therefore I don't ever deliver any kind of news, fake, real or otherwise.
2. I made a single substantive point in my original post and you've had no substantive rebuttal to that point, yet you did attempt to impugn it. If you have in your mind developed a cogent rebuttal, by all means, present it. If you don't, act like an adult and keep mum about it. (If my remark bothered you, it can only have done in that you have no direct and substantive rebuttal to it.)
3. If it be that you think profoundly absurd and unfounded the substantive points I made in any of my posts, fine, but again, act like and adult and eschew dignifying them with a response.

I said nobody cares

Well, then one can soundly conclude you consider yourself to be nobody for you responded to my original post and you keep responding to subsequent ones.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm not surprised you're buying it....see how this works?

Unnamed sources should be your first clue, moron

I'm not surprised you're buying it

If you construe my comments above as my "buying" anything, you either didn't fully read them or didn't comprehend them. I don't know which, but it's one of the two.

Nobody cares, you're not important, now go bother someone else

Ah, talking to yourself in the mirror again.

Run along Fake, you're just an annoyance, never right about anything, you report anyone that challenges you and now you've bought into this BS that is an obvious fake fluff piece...because you're not a lawyer, you don't understand how a firm operates and it gives you yet another chance to expose you as a fake republican.

Now scram

Run along Fake

That -- casting a puerile aspersion -- must be your"thing," for twice now in the space of mere minutes it's what you're resorted to instead of presenting a cogent rebuttal to other members' central points with which you apparently take exception.

Dude stfu already. If you want to talk about some fake news piece go ahead but I don't give two shits what you think about me. It's fake news nothing more and nothing less

Goofy retard

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm not surprised you think so.

I'm not surprised you're buying it....see how this works?

Unnamed sources should be your first clue, moron

I'm not surprised you're buying it

If you construe my comments above as my "buying" anything, you either didn't fully read them or didn't comprehend them. I don't know which, but it's one of the two.

Nobody cares, you're not important, now go bother someone else

Excuse me? I bother you? Let me remind you that I didn't quote you or do anything to attract expressly your attention. You, on the other hand, directly quoted my remarks, and attempted to discredit them by lambasting them as "fake news."

Let me share a few pearls of information with you:

1. I'm not a journalist or news organization; therefore I don't ever deliver any kind of news, fake, real or otherwise.
2. I made a single substantive point in my original post and you've had no substantive rebuttal to that point, yet you did attempt to impugn it. If you have in your mind developed a cogent rebuttal, by all means, present it. If you don't, act like an adult and keep mum about it. (If my remark bothered you, it can only have done in that you have no direct and substantive rebuttal to it.)
3. If it be that you think profoundly absurd and unfounded the substantive points I made in any of my posts, fine, but again, act like and adult and eschew dignifying them with a response.

I said nobody cares

Well, then one can soundly conclude you consider yourself to be nobody for you responded to my original post and you keep responding to subsequent ones.

Off to ignore you go....see you really are not that important

 

[JakeStarkey]

xelor handed gassy's ass to her in pieces. So she runs away, the little Alt Right snowflake.

Major law firms won't defend people who won't pay and who won't listen.

 

[OldLady]

Oh dear. Trump's reputation as a deadbeat has caught up with him.

Four top law firms turned down requests to represent Trump
---
“The concerns were, ‘The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen,’” said one lawyer close to the White House who is familiar with some of the discussions between the firms and the administration, as well as deliberations within the firms themselves.
---

In addition, law firms are concerned about losing other clients and losing employees if they sign on with Trump. Trump's stench of failure is pervasive. It's the reason why so many government positions are unfilled -- nobody wants "Worked with the Trump admin" on their resume.

More FAKE news bullshit. You don't go Lawyer shopping when you have a GREAT lawyer you have used for DECADES and has done a great job for you. As usual more "anonymous" sources...YAWN.

It's hard to imagine 130 lawyers refusing a crack at Trump's checkbook. They're not the most morals-bound types, as a rule.

 

[OldLady]

xelor handed gassy's ass to her in pieces. So she runs away, the little Alt Right snowflake.

Major law firms won't defend people who won't people and who won't listen.

"people who won't people" sounds like a Barbara Streisand song.

 

[koshergrl]

I know a lot of attorneys, over many decades. I grew up with attorneys..my oldest sister and her husband were attorneys. I've worked for attorneys, dated attorneys, been friends with attorneys, worked with attorneys, and partied with them too.

There is no such thing as a pariah in the attorney world. Attorneys don't blackball, and they don't unilaterally boycott hahaha. Such a thought is ludicrous in the EXTREME. There are always attorneys who LOVE to take on cases that piss people off. This thread is fucking idiotic and laughable at the same time.

 

[OldLady]

I know a lot of attorneys, over many decades. I grew up with attorneys..my oldest sister and her husband were attorneys. I've worked for attorneys, dated attorneys, been friends with attorneys, worked with attorneys, and partied with them too.

There is no such thing as a pariah in the attorney world. Attorneys don't blackball, and they don't unilaterally boycott hahaha. Such a though is ludicrous in the EXTREME. There are always attorneys who LOVE to take on cases that piss people off. This thread is fucking idiotic and laughable at the same time.

Exactly, KG. I worked for ONE once who probably would have stuck up his prig nose at defending someone like Trump. But he was an exception to the rule. It's possible, I guess, that an established law firm would take into consideration what Xelor mentioned and say no, but I'm suspecting it's more hate Trump gossip.

 

[kiwiman127]

Interestingly, none of the law firms in question have denied the story.
"Brendan Sullivan of Williams & Connolly, Ted Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Paul Clement and Mark Filip of Kirkland & Ellis and Robert Giuffra of Sullivan & Cromwell are reportedly among those who turned the White House down. None of them returned requests for comment to Yahoo."
Four top law firms turned down Trump: report
Why was there no denial? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Dot Com]

Oh dear. Trump's reputation as a deadbeat has caught up with him.

Four top law firms turned down requests to represent Trump
---
“The concerns were, ‘The guy won’t pay and he won’t listen,’” said one lawyer close to the White House who is familiar with some of the discussions between the firms and the administration, as well as deliberations within the firms themselves.
---

In addition, law firms are concerned about losing other clients and losing employees if they sign on with Trump. Trump's stench of failure is pervasive. It's the reason why so many government positions are unfilled -- nobody wants "Worked with the Trump admin" on their resume.

can u blame them? He has proven that he can't keep his mouth shut w/the Comey firing by throwing his Deputy AG under the bus. Guy would be a nightmare for a client

 

[OldLady]

Interestingly, none of the law firms in question have denied the story.
"Brendan Sullivan of Williams & Connolly, Ted Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Paul Clement and Mark Filip of Kirkland & Ellis and Robert Giuffra of Sullivan & Cromwell are reportedly among those who turned the White House down. None of them returned requests for comment to Yahoo."
Four top law firms turned down Trump: report
Why was there no denial? Inquiring minds want to know.

It's no one else's business?

 

[Coyote]

everybody hates Trump.

"Everybody" doesn't hate Trump, but the people and firms at the top of the legal profession have little or nothing to gain by affiliating themselves with Trump and being thus exposed to and having therefore to mitigate the impacts of his shenanigans. Trump needs to reach out to attorneys/firms for whom the value proposition of being bothered with him can be quantifiably be shown, with regard to their revenue streams and reputations, to be a positive one.

The other thing is few attorneys want to take on high profile cases for clients who won't listen - it can be disasterous.

 

[Dot Com]

I know a lot of attorneys, over many decades. I grew up with attorneys..my oldest sister and her husband were attorneys. I've worked for attorneys, dated attorneys, been friends with attorneys, worked with attorneys, and partied with them too.

There is no such thing as a pariah in the attorney world. Attorneys don't blackball, and they don't unilaterally boycott hahaha. Such a thought is ludicrous in the EXTREME. There are always attorneys who LOVE to take on cases that piss people off. This thread is fucking idiotic and laughable at the same time.

see post #35 babble you dummy

 

[miketx]

More lies from the mental looney left. In the link posted, it clearly says that Trump has an attorney.

 

[koshergrl]

everybody hates Trump.

"Everybody" doesn't hate Trump, but the people and firms at the top of the legal profession have little or nothing to gain by affiliating themselves with Trump and being thus exposed to and having therefore to mitigate the impacts of his shenanigans. Trump needs to reach out to attorneys/firms for whom the value proposition of being bothered with him can be quantifiably be shown, with regard to their revenue streams and reputations, to be a positive one.

The other thing is few attorneys want to take on high profile cases for clients who won't listen - it can be disasterous.

Bullshit. Attorneys don't care as long as they get paid for their time. Besides, what makes you think that attorneys tell their clients what to do????