The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Elizabeth Warren: Her War on Women.||Date: 10/3/2012 3:38 PM|
|Author: TheDope1||Number: 1820639 of 1879996|
Because he was presenting it as if he did know. Why don't you go pressure him for making an unfounded accusation? Or are you just the board babysitter for a nursery full of right-wing-blog copycats that can't back up their own arguments?
Ummm, you're the one doing the attacking without much backing it up.
What, you didn't think of that angle yourself?
I'm flattered, though I think you misunderstand. The way you frame it assumes Warren's role was primary to the defense in identifying ways for them to avoid paying a claim. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this.
LOL, sure, if you forget that an advocate's role is to represent clients.
In contrast, after reading a bit more about this case it turns out that Warren's involvement came in the early days of Dow Corning's bankruptcy. Bankruptcies, for lawyers, are an exercise in making the rubber-stamp machine run one more time. And Warren's role as a specialist in executing bankruptcy trusts would have put her squarely in the back office of the whole thing.
Ooooo. Except that contaminated silicon breast implants made for splashy headlines and high profile lawsuits. "Back office" in bankruptcy proceedings means deciding to pay the pencil supplier 20 cents on the dollar and the janitor service 40.
So the vision that has been painted by SP in his fact-free dalliance into fantasy land - with Elizabeth Warren approaching the witness stand and haranguing a victim of breast implant malpractice to convince the court to deny their claim - is entirely improbable in a bankruptcy proceeding.
Except that your reasoning is based on a faulty premise. If she was involved in the lawsuit, then she was involved in the lawsuit. Which, by the way, it what you yourself argued earlier in this thread.
Scott Brown, on the other hand, is still quite likely a beneficiary of dirty DocX fraudulent robosigning money.
LOL @ you. I already rhetorically accepted the prevailing PA left wing view that Republicans are all evil monsters who want to eat babies. All that's left to discuss is whether or not Sitting Bull Warren is worthy of her consumer advocacy label.
So far, you're no longer disputing the fact that 1) she was involved with Dow Corning and 2) that she had something to do with the lawsuit. Just to refresh your memory:
But one could surmise that her role was to simply to assess the validity of patient claims to determine whether or not it was worth pursuing a settlement or if it was worth going to trial. That's a pretty typical thing for a corporate lawyer to do in these types of cases.
LOL. Back office? Not according to your own assumptions.
|Copyright 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|