posted on Feb, 25 2023 @ 02:34 AM
a reply to:
litterbaux
I have to admit, when I first saw your thread, my mind went straight to the Tate case, and all its intendant outrageousness. References to Smollett
were only in passing, and frankly, I don't blame them... not that interesting. But the addition of this lawyer left me thinking "Oh Great another
psuedo-internet personality lawyer!" ... and internally rolling my eyes.
But after listening to the way she responded to the host, I am fairly certain she has competence as a lawyer. She knew what not to say directly, and
what not to risk on behalf of her client. I expected the kind of bubblehead who thinks her zodiacal sign is 'of interest' to her bio. (But then I
sort of relented, after all I don't know her client-base... and they may all be in that world.) I understand she is an established "internet
person"... do you know if she's (forgive me if this sounds ignorant) got her own "show", or podcast, or whatever? I imagine she will after this. Or
am I being cynical?
Insofar as the Tate affair... my completely unauthorized, simple-minded, half-disconnected theory is this: Tate (being himself) one day "went too
far" about something or someone ... and we all know that there is no more satisfying revenge than on someone who is always going on about their
invincibility...
This accusation was constructed... there is no doubt.
It is now being "produced"... there is no doubt.
In the end "justice" will be about money.
He lives in
that world.
Idiot advice: Make nice with whomever it is you offended, pay them off, unlike us, you can.
The moment of being 'the hero' has passed.
Of course, that's all coming from the idiot.
edit on 2/25/2023 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)