- Quickdraw McLaw
- 29 Comments
- 260 Views
- DA Steve Wolfson is on the defensive in his latest campaign ad. [TNI]
- Suspended attorney Vicki Greco pleaded guilty to three felonies yesterday. [RJ]
- Is Stan Hunterton still bar counsel or is he not? The bar counsel contact page no longer lists him where it once did. Anyone have the details?
- President Trump exploring the possibilities of the presidential pardon power. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Dayvid Figler wrote an opinion piece on the Golden Knights and hockey in Clark County. [TNI]
- AG candidate Craig Mueller filed a suit in the Eighth Judicial District Court against opponent Wes Duncan alleging Duncan violated the Nevada Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. More specifically, Mueller alleges Duncan solicited campaign contributions from businesses, public utilities, and gaming licensees over which Duncan had regulatory and/or disciplinary authority by virtue of his position as First Assistant Attorney General. The Case is A-18-775255-C.
blog is dead
Wolfson should be in defense mood. He lost campaign funds. He did not report it. He sucks as a DA.
Who are the Dave Thomas' clients again, so I know who not to vote for? Thank you!
Elana Graham
Cadish (shared with Tom Letizia)
Jeff Rogan
11:29 AM-Who are Dave Thomas's clients? The clients/candidates who have the TV commercials with the small courtroom as a stage for the ad. Those are the Dave Thomas ads. They always follow the same template. The Wolfson ad would be a good example and so would Elana Graham.
Wolfson is interesting: Dave Thomas represents him but his best friend is Tom Letizia.
Quien es el jefe?
Although Wolfson has a significant name recognition and fund raising advantage over Langford, the race could wind up being a lot closer than people think.
Langford has some major endorsements, and some t.v. ads and mailers of his own.
Also, outside groups are helping Langford a lot by attacking Wolfson, forcing Wolfson to run ads defending and explain.
An incumbent, particularly one who should have had a virtually insurmountable advantage for re-election, should not be running ads wherein he states he does not pay witnesses for testimony, and who his office prosecutes is not determined by the color of someone's skin.
People assume that where there is smoke there is fire. They wonder why someone would spend so much money denying racially-motivated prosecutions unless there was significant evidence, and a major hue and cry, that such prosecutions have in fact been occurring.
In response to 12:44, politicians never employ an approach we often apply in real life–to ignore false statements against us.
Politicians, and their advisers, always seem compelled to respond, which simply seems to provide some credence to the allegations. As they say, in politics, when you are explaining and denying, you are losing. I don't think Wolfson is losing(at least not yet) but he definitely should not be appearing in a series of ads centered on a theme that his office is not racist
Relax. Put your vape pen down. Wolfson will win.
Issue is George Soros has decided to move his socialist agenda by getting uber liberals elected as top prosecutors. He has succeeded in several places, most notably Philly last year. Look up the campaign issues in that race and compare them to Langford's stated issues. And look where most of his support comes from. Soros dumps money into a PAC. It has one job, get Langford elected, even if it is not at his request or with his knowledge. The reporting deadlines are so close to the election that no one will know where the attack money came from till it is too late. Funny that TNI did a fawning article on him, notednhe is "modeling" his campaign on the one in Philly but says nothing about the man behind the curtain. But the current DA, no conservative himself, is left to combat the attack ads funded by someone with Billions who feels Lenin and Stalin were just a little to right wing. Win lose or draw this election has less to do with Clark County than it does with a globalist who is trying to change all government into his preferred model.
12:48 here, addressing 1:06. I am reasonably relaxed, and yes, Wolfson is highly likely to win, and perhaps comfortably so.
But I still am of the opinion that his ads, denying racism of his office, is not a good approach. I could understand that type of defensive approach if they have polling showing Langford closing the gap to single digits, but I doubt the race is that close.
Oh well, at any rate will be interesting to watch how it all unfolds. Some of the JP races will be interesting as well.
1:11 – How is Wolfson not conservative? He seeks the death penalty at one of the highest rates in the country. His deputies seek huge bail amounts which penalizes poor defendants before they have been convicted. He does not penalize prosecutors who violate Batson. The only pretrial diversion program that he has championed was the one for his friend/employee, while he has continually failed to staff other diversion programs. He fought against automatic sealing of records for those convicted of marijuana possession. The work of his office during the legislative sessions is incredibly right wing. There is nothing about Wolfson that supports the label "Democrat," let alone liberal or progressive. He's pretty much the same as David Roger. This has everything to do with Clark County.
Langford for me.
One of Langford's issues, abolition of cash bail, is supported by a lot of law enforcement and pretrial, corrections people as all the research shows that bail has nothing to do with either appearance rates or likelihood of commission of a new offense prior to trial. Wolfson has had numerous opportunities to weigh in on this but he stays with the status quo, costing us a lot of money in unnecessary jail stays. Likely he is supported by the bail bond industry. The race issue comes from the fact that he refuses to collect data on any racial issues, likely because he is afraid what it will show.
I think it's important to point out that 1:11 called George Soros (who is Jewish and a Holocaust survivor) a "globalist", which is a common anti-Semitic dogwhistle.
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-how-did-the-term-globalist-became-an-anti-semitic-slur-blame-bannon-1.5895925
I'm not saying that Steve Wolfson is a Nazi. But his actions draw approval and defense from Nazis. To me that seems like a pretty good argument that we need fundamental change at the DA's office.
Is 1:11 Anthony Paglia?
It doesn't seem like anyone has been happy with the DA or at the DA since Stu Bell left the office.
I was ready to vote against Wolfson. Until I learned his opponent is backed by a George Soros-funded PAC, as outlined in the article linked above.
The ads featuring Wolfson denying that his office engages in race-oriented prosecutions are in fact quite problematic, despite some views offered on this blog that it doesn't really matter.
Most voters are only marginally informed on local races, and many simply vote straight party line. And both candidates are Democrat. So if I am a marginally informed Democratic voter, and I don't really have an opinion on our local D.A., and I then see ads where the D.A. denies his office is racist, I'm voting for the other guy.
So, in fact, Wolfson's ads may actually help Langford.
Hunterton left the Office of Bar counsel about two weeks ago
Back that uhaul up?
That is consistent with the information that I was provided. Surprised Gene Leverty did not write a glowing review of the amazing destruction which Sherman of the OBC imposed.
Where is transparency from BOG and Bar? Isn't this an issue that should be front and center?
I am 62 years old and have met a lot of people in my life, especially in my travels in and around NY, and Hunterton stood out to me as one of those with the most extreme and destructive impulses masked in righteousness, just a thought, won't miss him
gosh that sounds like a lot of AA meetings
I appreciate humor, criticism, and commentary. But Hunterton's actions were so ineffectual and destructive to the legal community, and to clients indirectly, that maybe the lightheartedness devalues and utterly minimizes the trauma and pain that he caused to so many. Maybe it's just too soon for me to joke. And no, this is not sarcasm, etc. I just can't find the humor in anything about him. Maybe tomorrow.
go easy on Stan, he, like David Clark before him, have both been heavily steeped in 12 step cult brainwashing and its real hard to act like a human being once you have been down that rabbit hole.
Stan was incredibly destructive to the State Bar, to its members and to the morale and fairness of the OBC. He did what Hardesty directed him to do which was at upon the those extreme and destructive impulses and he caused a great deal of unnecessary pain to attorneys and clients.