A Follow-Up on Dan Blather and SEE-BS
Vilmar, tell us how you really feel.
You continue to sugar coat you distane for them.
Posted by Tacberry
09/16/2004 at 11:59 AM
Vilmar,
You state, “I guess the lawyer also knows the gig is up and that his asshole client is a lying sack of shit. Hopefully the lawyer has some integrity and will run away in order NOT to tarnish his name. Unless he comes from the John Edwards camp of trial lawyers.”
Would you believe that it is far, far worse than you would even imagine? Yes; worse than a John Edwards camp of trial lawyers.
The lawyer’s name is David Van Os.
Get over to Ace of Spade’s blog at:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/046126.php
I should warn you to ready your barf bag before you or any of your readers go there. There you will see a picture of him with his good buddy, Bill Clinton. There you will also see his glowing recommendation for political office by none other than Howard Dean, the dean of all moonbats. And it gets worse.
I can’t fault you for having wanted to be an optimist about the man, but I’m sorry, this guy would not know the meaning of the word integrity.
David Van Os, Bill Burkett, Ben Barnes and the whole bloody mess of them are in on this, right along with propagandist/liar Dan Rather.
I just wanted to set the record straight so you’ll know what kind of enemy we are all facing. After you read up on Van Os, maybe you could post something to let me know if you still think he may have a clue about integrity or if you think he will back away from defending his moonbat protégé, Bill Burkett.
By the way, doesn’t David Van Os look like Michael Moore? What is it with these fat liberal democrats?
Posted by Frank Villon
09/16/2004 at 10:51 PM
P.S.
By the way, you have a great blog.
Posted by Frank Villon
09/16/2004 at 10:53 PM
Here’s David Van Os’s defense of his client, from Hugh Hewitt at:
Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush’s military service, Mr. Van Os said: “If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done” - then, he continued, “what difference would it make?”
What do you think of that last line of his?!?! I’m referring to his “what difference would it make?” assinine comment.
Forging military documents to libel the president of the United States in a time of war and during the election season, and this moonbat lawyer’s statement is “what difference would it make” if my client did do all that? So what? Whatcha’ gonna do about it?Can you believe that?
Posted by Frank Villon
09/17/2004 at 12:40 AM
Frank,
Thanks for the heads-up. I was not familiar with Van Os’ background.
Oh well, so much for integrity. I’ve always wondered what it was about lawyers who would actually strongly defend a murderer caught in the act, on the scene by witnesses and cameras and try to say that person was innocent.
Now I know.