Amal Clooney says words about a client sentenced to 3 years in Egyptian prison

wenn22799460

Amal Clooney said some words on Saturday. It’s worth noting because her rare public statements have – to my memory – almost exclusively been about her work, her cases as a barrister, and various political issues she supports or does not support. George Clooney’s press machine would have us believe that Amal is the most magical, most amazing human-rights barrister in the world, when the truth is she’s a junior barrister at a prestigious London firm and she picks and chooses her cases and her caseload. Over the past year and a half, she really hasn’t done that much barrister-ing, only joining in on a handful of prominent cases where Amal is one of many lawyers/barristers on a team. Which is why I’ve been calling her a “stunt-barrister” – I get the feeling that she’s brought in to cases nowadays simply to raise the profile of certain issues.

One of her stunt-barristering cases is representing a Canadian journalist with Al-Jazeera who was arrested in 2013 and charged with being part of Muslim Brotherhood. Basically, then then-Egyptian government cracked down on the press and arrested many journalists, then trumped up some half-baked “evidence” for their “crimes.” Amal’s client, Mohammed Fahmy, is part of a group of three Al-Jazeera journalists arrested in the same sweep in 2013. On Saturday, the Egyptian court sentenced all three journalists to three years in prison. So, Amal said some words on behalf of her client:

“The verdict today sends a very dangerous message in Egypt,” said Clooney after the ruling. “It sends a message that journalists can be locked up for simply doing their job, for telling the truth and reporting the news.”

The 37-year-old said that every third party who had weighed in on the lengthy case said “there is no evidence to sustain any of the charges. And it sends a dangerous message that there are judges in Egypt who will allow their courts to become instruments of political repression and propaganda.”

Clooney said that “there is a solution,” and challenged President al-Sisi to take action and overturn the court’s decision. Fahmy, Clooney’s client, was Al-Jazeera’s acting Cairo bureau chief at the time of his arrest, according to the AP. The other men sentenced were Australian journalist Peter Greste and Egyptian producer Baher Mohammed, according to the AP.

Fahmy and Mohammed were present for Saturday’s ruling, while Greste was sentenced in absentia, as he was deported from the country back in February, reported the AP. The Muslim Brotherhood, the group the men were allegedly assisting, was outlawed in Egypt after President Morsi was overthrown amid mass protests against his rule two years ago.

[From People]

It’s interesting that Greste was already deported, and I’m assuming this verdict means he will never be able to return to Egypt. Amal’s client, Fahmy, could have been deported as well, as he is a Canadian national. There was some hope by his legal team that they could have quietly worked that out, but I guess not. Here’s my question: do you think Amal could have done more for her client? Or was she too busy summering in Lake Como and shilling tequila in Ibiza?

FFN_Clooney_Tequila_GTRES_082315_51830955

FFN_Clooney_Tequila_GTRES_082315_51830961

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and WENN.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

202 Responses to “Amal Clooney says words about a client sentenced to 3 years in Egyptian prison”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. evermore says:

    Everytime I read the name Clooney in her statement it makes me drift and lose interest.

    That gold dress is Horrible. Vegas Show girl meets Olive oyl.

    • Janet R says:

      *snork* I will only see Olive Oyl from now on!

      • polonoscopy says:

        As a Canadian, I’m actually very glad a “stunt barrister” is bringing attention to this awful case, and calling out the Canadian government for their lack of action. It makes it much harder for Harper to sweep this under the rug.

    • Pandy says:

      I love that her go to picture will be the gold dress/white panty combo LoLLLLL.
      Even with the stunt-barrister on board, Fahmy still received a prison sentence. So much for her connections.

      • Jaded says:

        She’s part of a team of lawyers and is only working on his deportation back to Canada, not having his entire prison sentence revoked. These things take a lot of time and diplomacy – she doesn’t wave her barrister’s magic wand and *POOF* he’s set free. Furthermore, her “connections” matter not a whit in her legal work. She’d be disbarred if that were the case.

    • LA Juice says:

      amal clooney lost. wonder if her new found fame detracted from her client’s plight.

    • Amy says:

      Oh my goodness, I had the exact opposite reaction: stunning!

  2. Kiki says:

    We must not forget she is a Human Rights Lawyer, and she is Just doing her job. I watch the news and I hope those three men get the justices they deserve and set them free. Preachers to them. And Amal Clooney a very well wish Good Luck to you.

    • Neah23 says:

      What are you talking about?

    • Hissyfit says:

      This confuses me. They sell her as a human rights lawyer but majority of her / their team clients are criminals.

      • Neah23 says:

        Shhhhhhh your not supposed to notice that.

      • Leen says:

        She’s a defendant.

      • Amy says:

        But she absolutely should defend despots, tyrants etc. (although that is not the case here) as even alleged criminals should benefit from the human right of access to justice through legal representation.

      • Sixer says:

        She works in the area of international human rights. She is not solely a humanitarian lawyer. They are two very different things, although there is some overlap. It is not like choosing to be either a defence or prosecuting lawyer. Europeans are more familiar with this distinction since it’s their lawyers usually working in this area, as the US decided to withdraw from the Rome Statute and the ICC.

      • LeAnn Stinks says:

        ..And Hissyfit for the win.

      • Jaded says:

        Mohamed Fahmy and his colleages are neither criminals, despots, or terrorists, nor did they commit heinous acts on humanity. Fahmy is a journalist and was just doing his job – media groups have called the trial political, part of a fight between the Egyptian government and the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera network he works for, which authorities accuse of bias toward the Muslim Brotherhood and ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi. The judge made up some outrageous charges stating that they brought equipment into Egypt without registering it, that Fahmy was in possession of ammunition (a spent shell he picked up as a memento of the protests he was covering) and other equally ludicrous nonsense.

        Prosecutors also charged them with supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been declared a terrorist group, and with fabricating footage to undermine Egypt’s national security and make it appear the country was facing civil war. But the prosecution presented little evidence in the trial.

        It was a travesty of justice and freedom of news coverage, and Amal is one of a team of lawyers pressuring Egypt to deport them, and Canada to actively pursue Fahmy’s release.

    • evermore says:

      Yes, She also defends despots, tyrants, dictators…….

      Notice never any released statements on those……not good for PR image.

      Time to read her full client list, of some awful people who themselves and their family members committed horrible acts on humanity, who she had a hand in representing.
      Detest the fake pr of this beard woman.

      • Arpeggi says:

        What Sixer said. Even dictators are allowed to a fair trial and that means hiring lawers. The team won’t make false claims, won’t ask anyone to lie in court, but it try to find loopholes in the accusation, figure out if all the proves were acquired through legal means and such which is actually a pretty important part of the judicial process! It’s not because a person is a monster that the trial should be botched up. Of course, a team will be happier to announce that they’re dealing with a brave innocent than with an asshole, I can’t see why we should be offended by that. They, including her, are doing their job.

      • jwoolman says:

        Maybe she issues statements only about the clients she actually likes. Lawyers don’t have to like the people they defend.

        I don’t really understand the problem. Of course lawyers are going to defend guilty people some of the time. Maybe even most of the time. That’s their job. What exactly do you folks suggest as an alternative? Kill anybody you think is guilty without a trial and without a lawyer? Have an Internet poll to decide?

      • LeAnn Stinks says:

        Thank you, Evermore. I agree with everything you said, and like I have posted before, I cannot wait for the day when neither Amug, nor SkeezAnn Rimes, make a dent in the press headlines and the general reaction to them is “who??”

      • nicole says:

        Evermore agree, couldnt of said it better, think the exact same. This women is all style and no substance.

  3. Kate says:

    With a team of attorneys working on this case, and these crazy, newfangled things called computers, telephones and the interwebs allowing jet-setting part-time stunt barristers to work remotely from anywhere in the world, I highly doubt Amal’s attention or inattention had much to do with the outcome. Anyone asking that question doesn’t know much about the situation in Egypt or the behavior of Egyptian courts in the current climate. This result was entirely predictable, unfortunately.

    • Arpeggi says:

      Yep! Besides, with the current Canadian government, and their treatment of journalists within the country, it wasn’t a big surprise that even with a great team of lawers, he would be sentenced and not deported. Canada needs to want to help. Hopefully things will change in two months, same thing for Badawi…

      • The current Canadian government is the ENTIRE REASON this poor bugger is going to spend 3 years in prison. They’ve repeatedly dropped the ball on trying to protect his rights. Why? -puts on her Kanye voice- Stephen Harper don’t care about brown/Muslim people. That he’s a journalist on top of that puts him higher on the enemies list. Along with Atwood.

      • jules74 says:

        1+

      • Sixer says:

        I agree that the Harper administration has behaved appallingly.

        At this point, they’re resorting to world opinion to pressure either/or/both the Egyptian and Canadian administrations. So, of their team, Clooney would seem the appropriate spokesperson right now. Column inches is the strategy. And she got a prime time slot on BBC News yesterday, with one of their most senior correspondents.

        But if they do succeed in shaming Harper into action and Fahmy is deported, they’ve basically thrown the Egyptian guy under the bus.

        Really not a nice case. And nobody involved comes out smelling of roses.

      • Bonster says:

        I watched the CBC coverage last night, including an interview with Amal Clooney. I found her professional and well-prepared for the media interview.

        She also represents Julian Assange and the Greek government, I think on a case related to the Elgin Marbles, so I wouldn’t exactly describe her as a glamour-lawyer.

        She is beautiful, in her own way, and she is married to an aging Hollywood star, but I think we should judge her own her own merits as a lawyer. Non-celebrity lawyers probably drink tequila, lounge in the sun at exotic locales, and wear gold sparkly disco dressses, too. The difference is they aren’t followed by the paps.

      • Jo 'Mama' Besser says:

        Harper’s too busy avoiding debates to do… anything. Ontario delivered him his last majority which is embarrassing, it wasn’t me. Election coming up soon, for mercy’s sake Canada, take THIS opportunity, finally.

      • hannah says:

        Canada let a 15 year old be tortured at Guantanamo , if I were Fahmy I would not hope for help anytime soon

      • Arpeggi says:

        And sadly, still fought to keep the poor kid in jail when they were forced to take him back… Somehow, now that Khadr has a bit of freedom, I had forgotten about him sadly. It’s definitely one of the most shameful thing Canada has done in the past 30 years, and yes, it doesn’t bode well for Fahmy

    • Hissyfit says:

      But that’s the thing though, they (her PR team) make it look like she’s the star lawyer of every case she’s involved when in fact, she is just one of the many lawyers working in a case. If they had won this case, it’s going to be how Amal Clooney, the best lawyer in the universe saves the day.

      Anyway, she looks tacky and cheap in that awful gold dress. And I still can’t unsee Mr. Bean everytime I see her face. Nice hair though.

    • Guesto says:

      @Kate – exactly. It was horribly predictable.

      Hope Pres. Sisi comes good on this and grants the pardon that these three men deserve.

    • Leen says:

      The verdict was predictable. Doesn’t matter if Amal would have been slaving 24/7 over the case. One of my professors got a death sentence (thankfully, he is in the US), for allegedly being part of MB. Of course he isn’t, the government is pissed that he criticized Al-Sisi for the coup d’etat. My professor is respected worldwide, taught at Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, and is part of the World Economic Forum. So if he gets a death sentence, well…

      Anyway, Amal couldn’t have done anything about it.

    • Cynthia says:

      @ Kate
      I agree!

    • noway says:

      You are right about there being little Amal could have done to change the outcome. Still can we stop it with the comments that electronics can make it so a barrister can work from her Ibiza lounge chair. I find it degrading to the occupation. The reality is Amal doesn’t have that many cases, maybe it looks like a lot from Hollywood movie work standards, but from Junior Barrister’s workloads I think it is on the low side by her choice.

      Also, I do agree with Kaiser, I think she was brought into a lot of her cases for publicity purposes. This case she came on late and look at all the press it is getting. If you want political leaders to feel pressure to change a conviction you need the media attention. Which they have gotten so much more since she is the lawyer. This doesn’t negate her qualifications it just gives another incentive to have her on some of these cases.

      Now to pure gossip. I hate that gold dress, and can’t understand anyone liking her white underwear showing in that cheap, although I know its not, gold lame dress. Seriously, how has she not gotten any more guff about the underwear showing, and yes it is definitely the underwear. I thought the other floral dress was cute albeit very short, and she looked pretty with her hair curly, but this one is awful.

      • FLORC says:

        Exactly. To it all. The Amal being 1 member of a large group of lawyers working much time on this case. To her low case load Which is fine, but the PR team doesn’t have to make it sound like this is a personal cause or she’s a major leader. Do you know how many batteries/devices she’d blow through in a lounge chair to put in just a few hours of work? She’d be tethered to a power strip!

        And that old dress. The panties… all of it. It’s not good.. Her bag style is her single redeeming fashion quality.

      • emmet says:

        @noway
        Hey there!

        As for AAC – releasing a statement to PEOPLE??!!!

  4. Emily C. says:

    A handful of cases a year, when the cases are the kind her firm takes on, is a heavy workload. And yes, of course she is a junior at the firm. She is young and relatively inexperienced — lawyering isn’t Hollywood, where women reach their career peaks in their mid-20s.

    • Algernon says:

      My mom has been a legal assistant for decades and the lawyer she’s worked for for the last 20 years is in intellectual property law. They have maybe 5-6 cases a year, and that’s considered a heavy workload because the cases are so technical and involved. I think TV shows where lawyers clear a case a week has terribly distorted how most people think the law actually works.

    • Saks says:

      Agree. Also if the things Tina Fey and Amy Pohler said about her at the GG are true, I wouldn’t said she is a “stunt barrister”. I mean, she does seems to like the attention but that doesn’t seem to me as a valid point to judge her professional skills.

      • noway says:

        Not belittling Amal, but Tina Fey and Amy Poehler were spewing PR stuff and not all accurately reflected her credentials. Also, I think Kaiser’s point about “stunt barrister” is how she is now, not before she got married. I feel certain her workload was probably larger prior to the engagement and marriage. Also intellectual property law is very different than the cases Amal has been involved in. I do know several people who work in international law, and they have a far heavier caseload than 5-6 cases a year.

        First, I don’t know Amal’s caseload, but I do know that lawyers of her standing work a ton of hours, and can’t be hanging all over the globe at parties, as much as she has been photographed, and succeed unless they have a reduced case load. I also think her marriage to Clooney has probably affected her work, and her superiors are using her celebrity to garner press for causes and clients too. The only problem with the publicity is when you don’t win as in this case and days before you were hanging at a tequila party it doesn’t look good for her, even if there was little she good do to change the verdict.

      • Algernon says:

        @ noway

        I’m not saying they would have the same workload in international law, just that I think people expect lawyers (because of TV) to works hundreds of cases a year and most don’t.

  5. Jayna says:

    I’m not doubting what you say. I agree she’s only working on a small number of cases. But most work as a lawyer isn’t publicly. She’s sitting at a desk working, researching law, drafting briefs, complaints, whatever it is she does in her type of law. It’s not glamorous and we won’t see it. Does that not count? What does everybody think she did before George. She was working as a barrister and only in court or in front of the press a little. It doesn’t mean she wasn’t working hard and doesn’t mean she doesn’t work hard now. Maybe not the hours she used to but I’m pretty sure she is still working on her cases like she normally would just maybe via a different location at times since her marriage to George. When we see a photo of her in London, that means she’s probably been there a lot longer than we know. George didn’t move to London for no reason. He moved there because she still has a career there.

    • claire says:

      It’s seriously so offensive how everyone belittles her career.

      • Alicia says:

        I agree. There are people who act as though she is some bored housewife who sits around eating bonbons and watching TV all day.

      • PrincessMe says:

        +1
        Everything seems to be an either/or with people. If she’s in London working, she’s ignoring her marriage and it’s not “real”. If she’s vacationing and spending time with her husband, she’s no longer working (evah!) and she’s on the verge of becoming the biggest gold digger who ever dug.

      • Jib says:

        What career? All she’s done is vacation and do appearances with George since her wedding? I find it offensive how everyone thinks lawyers can do their work just jet setting around the world and using Google for their sources.

      • lolab says:

        Yeah, it’s seriously lame. the funniest part is HOW MUCH people have looked into her career to belittle it. I don’t really care about them at all, so I don’t know much about her. When you have posters here trying to ramble off her past cases to argue she’s irrelevant cracks me up – like who even takes the time to do that? Lol

      • Angelica says:

        I agree!! I’m not a fan of Amal or Clooney, but everyone seems to be so dismissive of her career it’s astounding to me. What’s with all the hate ladies?

      • The Original Mia says:

        Yep! Every woman that has been with Clooney has been belittled. Some deservedly. Most not, but that’s how it goes. It isn’t fair to someone, like Amal, who worked hard to get where she was to constantly have her career dismissed because she’s now a Mrs.

  6. Esteph says:

    Methinks that George is the one who doesn’t want her to do work. Rather, he wants her to show her face publicly for press.

  7. anna2222222 says:

    I’m a little confused by the criticism. Is she the second coming of Jesus? No. But she’s an intelligent and successful woman who works to defend human rights. I’ve never heard her be actively offensive either so why the hard on for tearing her down? I’m just pleasantly surprised George didn’t marry a Nevada stripper.

    • Talie says:

      Agreed. I don’t think she’s stunt-ing at all… her cases are not straight-forward. Sometimes they take years to resolve.

    • Kiki says:

      I said the same thing. I was pleased that George Clooney married a woman with high expectations and intelligence, as I said above, not forget that she is a Human Rights Lawyer and she is doing her job and I hope well done.

      • KellyBee says:

        Are you working for Amal or Clooney because every other word you write is she’s a human rights lawyer, she doing her job. When most of her teams and her clients are criminals and tyrants, these people aren’t refugees or child soldiers.

      • Kiki says:

        @Kellybee. Um, I am sure you have of innocent until proven guilty. All clients has the right to have a lawyer. So, yeah a tyrant, dictator and yes even if Adolf Hiter was alive is these times (and thank God he is dead and in the fiery pits of HELL) also has to have a Lawyer. So It is not easy to be a lawyer but for Amal sakes I hope she is doing a good job.

      • noway says:

        I think the criticism comes from the PR. They did make her out to be the second coming, and now that we deal with reality and people pounce. Plus, I think her demeanor in pictures turns some people off. She does seem to like the celebrity, which is okay, but doesn’t fit with what most people think of as human rights save the world lawyer. People also forget that a human rights lawyer is not always working for the abused, but sometimes the abuser.

        Now to the person who stated I was happy that George didn’t marry a Nevada stripper, Amal’s gold lame see through dress looks like a dress a Nevada stripper would wear. Explains the choice, George didn’t go far from his old type and probably picked it out for her.

      • laura in LA says:

        noway, I think you’re right. Amal has been presented in some ways as being more like Angelina, someone she is not, for the sake of George’s own image and ambitions.

        And therein lies part of the problem with her public perception…

        Amal is a barrister and a junior one at that, for a firm where (someone please correct me if I’m wrong) she may not have as much say in accepting certain cases as we think.

        Although I don’t care for her personally or the despots she sometimes represents, just because she makes a flashy appearance in Ibiza doesn’t mean she’s not doing her job (or working it) somehow.

        I admit, though, that I haven’t bothered to google photos of their vacay and fabulous life. I’m SO over this *amazing* international unicorn couple.

        Just pass me the Casamigos!

      • LeAnn Stinks says:

        KellyBee,

        I agree. All it takes is a google search to find out more about her family, her uncle, and their political beliefs.

        As for criminals having due process, that is no excuse. In my opinion, if she was really a “humanitarian” she would be prosecuting these criminals and putting them away, not defending them and getting them off on loopholes. To each their own, but I couldn’t sleep at night defending terrorists. Also, the fact that she was Julian Asange’s lawyer doesn’t score points for her either.

    • evermore says:

      She also defends despots and tyrants…. I don’t feel the love for her, just can’t with her.

      George married a part time working junior lawyer who now poses on red carpets and dresses like a Vegas showgirl …. helping him sell Tequila
      lol

    • Savannah says:

      Agree. She seems like a pretty solid human being to me, and if her name on the case gives it wider coverage then that can only be a good thing. Morsis government was trying to send Al jazeera a message (and thats regional politics at play), it was clear early on that the only way out for him would be via political pressure. Which is where a high profile advocate could be really useful.

      Incidentally, I caught her mum on the BBC World Service afew weekends ago discussing Syria and Europes migrant issues. I didnt realise it was her until the end but I was blown away. Shes a very smart, very compassionate person. If her daughter has even a fraction of that, then shes my kind of peoples.

      • evermore says:

        A solid human being who beards for a Hollywood movie star….and also defends despots, dictators, tyrants, passing it off as human rights…..when those dictators have blown up planes of people, ravaged villages of poor people and destroyed families
        yeah sure…

      • OhDear says:

        @evermore – the “despots, dictators [and], tyrants” have a right to representation. She’s doing her job.

      • Fa says:

        U know that by bringing media in courts can hurt her case because judges or courts are independent & don’t like pressure from outside or internal countries

      • Savannah says:

        @Fa The only reason Peter Greste will never serve his sentence is because the government caved into some of the pressure and deported him. Gen el-Sisi isnt Morsi. Much like Mubarak he needs Western support to govern, with enough carrot & stick, he will probably issue a pardon. The key here is keep Fahmy and Baher Mohammed (who has only Egyptian citizenship) in the news cycle. The more we talk the less likely that Western governments can afford to go back to business as usual.

      • Dari says:

        Sorry but the more she is on cases, the more the defendant gets hung out to dry.

      • Naya says:

        @Dari

        You must be completely out of the loop on this case if you think there was any chance that the court wouldnt convict. No lawyer could have won this case, it was a political prosecution. The solution here will have to be settled by politicians, thats why Savana is right. A famous barrister who can score you headlines around the world even after attention shifts to newer stories is an asset here.

    • Meow Mix says:

      I am also tired of the snark. She is a successful woman who has a career. Time to put away the pitchforks until she actually does something stupid of offensive.

    • lucy2 says:

      I don’t get the criticism either. Some want to paint her as sort of an attorney in name only who isn’t doing any actual work, but it’s not like we see photos of her out partying every single day. We see her at events with her husband now and then and on a summer vacation. No different than most professional people I know.

    • Jib says:

      Well, the wrestler was a lot less fame-hungry and mugging for the camera all of the time. I think Stacy was a lot classier than Amal.

    • Sharon says:

      @anna2222222
      ” I’m just pleasantly surprised George didn’t marry a Nevada stripper. ”
      Yeah, she just dresses like one DAYS prior to sitting before a court in a country where rape is a Tuesday and FGM is a Sunday celebration.
      If you don’t think the Egyptian powers that be don’t read the Daily Mail, or the Judge(s) haven’t been privy to the endless (in their opinion, surely) parade of Amal’s fashion extravaganza.
      Let’s face it, it won’t bode well in her line of work and dealing with ME and African nations.
      I know this won’t go over well with all of Amal’s supporters on here but the fact of the matter is people, whether judges, politicians or policy makers’ opinions are skewed by what they perceive to be inappropriate by their society. Like it or not, it’s true.
      Does this have anything to do with the courts decision? Probably not but it might be in the best interest of Doughty Street Chambers’ clients facing charges in these backward-assed countries for Amal to rethink her choices.
      I really believe that it’s Al Jazeera, and not Fahmy, who was on trial and he is taking the fall.
      It’s all out there if anyone wants to actually spend a few minutes of their time
      Of course, the Egyptian courts are a joke, the whole political agenda is criminal.
      However, you have to work with what you’ve got.
      And no, I’m not suggesting Amal wear a galabeya, scarf or be covered head to toe.

    • Blush says:

      All true @anna2222222, but she’s still unlikable and every time I see her smug face, I just want to tell her to take it easy. She may be a smart and successful professional woman, but that just makes her ego baths – in which she dips in the restorative, magical elixir of fame and pap attention in obviously great pleasure right in front of our eyes – all the more bizarre.

      You can have a first-rate technical/professional mind but also possess the infantile ego of a five-year-old child craving attention. Strange, strange woman.

  8. Pedro45 says:

    I know everybody loves to criticize her but this is too far. Accusing her of inattention to her client? She is guilty of malpractice because you don’t like her clothes or her husband? That was probably the best sentence any lawyer could have gotten in that case. Egypt was never going to declare her client innocent.

  9. wolfie says:

    I bet George and Amal love talking world politics with their tequila.

  10. hellena says:

    I agree that the “Amal Clooney is the best thing that happened to mankind” song that gets stuffed down our throats is too much, but your criticism is very unfair and uncalled for. You can talk about her fashion whatever you want, but you don’t have any idea how her worklife looks like and SHOULD look like, that it between her and the law firm.

  11. Citresse says:

    Mistake number one: Fahmy hiring a female lawyer. And a female lawyer with major connections to Hollywood. Two big turn offs to many Arab countries.
    Can females drive yet in Saudi? I forget now. But the answer is likely no, unless certain females have special circumstances/arrangement.

    • Leen says:

      Huh. That post reeks of misinformation. Egypt is a far cry from Saudi Arabia. Uhhh okay.

      • Citresse says:

        Why don’t you check social media sites during the Egyptian riots?

      • Citresse says:

        And Leen, let me guess. You’re an Egyptian citizen who left for N. America when you were a baby.

      • Leen says:

        I’m an Arab woman who lives in the Middle East, so yeah I know what I’m talking about.
        I’ve got many friends and family in Egypt. I’ve lived in in the Middle East for 20 years… What about you?

        I don’t need to check the social media, because sadly I was in the ME when the Arab Spring erupted. And sadly, I have seen the frontline of the Syrian civil war and the Egyptian coup.

        But the government and the elite love their token women. especially because sisi is trying to cater to western donors (after all, Egypt has the biggest aid package in the ME), so often they do employ women to be the ‘face’ of Egypt or movement. Even the salafist movement had a woman candidate. But WE.

    • Forthelasttime says:

      Agree. No one will take her seriously in the middle-East. Especially not when she struts about in those gold numbers. I doubt anyone will take her seriously in Europe, frankly – post her marriage to Clooney.

      • Citresse says:

        Yeah Forthelasttime, and Clooney is not, nor ever will be a “token” woman. And women who were placed in such a role wouldn’t dare flaunt it in the middle east.

    • Arpeggi says:

      Sorry if I sound rude, but what you are saying sounds completely ignorant. All muslim countries aren’t like Saudi Arabia and don’t have similar laws. Fahmy didn’t hire Amal specifically (she’s a junior, she won’t handle cases by herself anyway), she was part of a team made of both males and females, which is totally normal in Egypt. And the court’s decision was already set, many dissidents and journalists have be arrested on claims of being part of the MB and declared guilty, the sex of their defense team has nothing to do with it.

      • Citresse says:

        Arpeggi
        You sound naive. What’s your age? Egypt is still evolving and its population has been severely oppressed esp females for a long time. Parading Clooney in front of the Egyptian officials with global media present wasn’t a good idea.

  12. Eíre says:

    It is true that Peter Greste (the Australian journalist) cannot return to Egypt. He cannot, in fact, return to any county that has an extradition treaty with Egypt. He and his colleagues are now convicted terrorists. It is an abhorrent injustice. The fact that Greste can no longer work as a foreign correspondent is of course of minuscule importance compared to the endurances of the other two men, but I figured it was worth mentioning. Is the case getting coverage in the US, or elsewhere? It has been a very big deal here in Australia, although it did take a good while longer than it should have for people to start paying attention – for our government to start paying attention. For those interested, here is AJ’s #freeajstaff website: http://stream.aljazeera.com/projects/freeajstaff/

    • littlestar says:

      Apparently when Greste was sent back to Australia, Fahmy was urged before and after to renounce his Egyptian citizenship, because it was believed he would have a greater chance of being sent back to Canada. If that was the case, Fahmy seemed to be getting very poor legal advice from his counsel – why did it take him so long to renounce his Egyptian citizenship if it would have helped him be sent back to Canda? This case is very complicated and has been going on for years. I can only imagine how frustrating and heartbreaking it has been for Fahmy and his family.

      • Blabberwort says:

        It isn’t as simple as that. Yes the lawyers working the first trial were so bad most of them just got up and left the trial and for a bit it continued with almost no legal council. Not that it mattered because they were either not allowed to hear evidence against them or were supposed to pay a lot of money to hear evidence against them. The trials are an absolute joke.

        When they were found guilty at their original trial, they all sacked their legal teams and sought new ones. The new set of lawyers all did a much better job. In fact they did an awesome job because they originally were not allowed a retrial. The deportation for foreigners was a new law introduced and the Australian and Latvian Governments used that to get Peter Greste deported. Fahmy wasn’t originally allowed to relinquish anything, but his lawyers (Amal Clooney being one of the major players) almost got him sent back. The Egyptians told him that he could be sent home if he did it. He did, packed his cases and the flight was booked but when it went to the chief prosecutor to be stamped, he abiut turned and instead of stamping it, he moved the trial forward.

        He has decent legal council now, but they move the goal posts every time. This is because they are flipping the bird to their arch enemy Qatar, who employed the journalists

      • KAI says:

        Fahmy renounced his Egyptian citizenship in February 2015 hoping it would result in deportation but instead he was kept in Egypt until the re-trial.

        The current Canadian government has done very little to pressure Egypt to deport or pardon him, unlike the Australian PM. Of course, Harper likely doesn’t consider Fahmy to be a real Canadian.

      • littlestar says:

        Oh I know it’s not as simple as that, but it was still maddening that the poor man wasn’t receiving proper legal advice (and I do know he finally renounced his Egyptian citizenship – I do understand the other side of him wanting to keep his dual citizenship, he probably has family in Egypt he would like to visit again one day etc). Everything was set up so he would fail. It’s so frustrating that the Canadian government has done nothing to help him, not even trying to help him have a proper trial the first time by pressuring the Egyptian government.

      • siri says:

        @KAI: There have been meetings between Canadian and Egyptian officials about this case: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-15/canada-pushes-for-egypt-to-release-al-jazeera-journalists/6020026

  13. dorp says:

    she works for the UN, idiot.

  14. Dancinnancy says:

    Even tyrants and despots deserve attorneys. It insures that the Prosecutors are upholding the law. Otherwise why bother? Just shoot them.

    Some of these comments truly baffle me.

    • Neah23 says:

      Your comment baffle me because who said criminals don’t deserve attorneys? Some people are making it seem like being a human rights lawyer means Amal is defending refugees, child soldiers and so on and others are pointing out that is not the case and she is mostly defending Tyrants. Then again her PR team is trying to sell her that way.

    • littlestar says:

      Fahmy isn’t a tyrant and despot. He was a reporter thrown in prison on false charges and the Egyptian government has made it nearly impossible for him to receive proper counsel. His first trial, I believe his lawyer wasn’t even allowed to see any of the “evidence” the Egyptian government had against Fahmy to properly defend him!

      Seriously, reading all of these comments on here, I am surprised and saddened that pretty much no one has heard about this case – a case that has been going on for years! – and are more concerned with bashing Amal Clooney. I get that this is a gossip site, but seriously! And thinking that just because she’s defended horrible people in the past, that somehow Fahmy is the same as though people.

      • katie says:

        Nobody is calling Fahmy a tyrant or a despot. Those comments are in reference to her other clients.
        As a Filipino whose former president accused of plunder she is now defending, I am not impressed. Yes, I get that even tyrants & despots deserve legal representation. But it annoys me how Clooney’s team is positioning her as some kind of saint when she chooses to represent powerful people like Gloria Arroyo who made a lot of people suffer, rather than using her leverage to represent more clients like Fahmy.

  15. Tilly says:

    If I was Amal, I’d be feeling a teeny bit pissed off now – talking to a media conference about a legal issue is one thing, but when there are ‘entertainment reporters’ there commenting on what you were wearing, how you looked, what George might’ve thought … it just belittles the whole purpose of her ‘being’. She, unlike many wives of celebs, has her own life and career and should be treated with respect accordingly. I think they should ban entertainment reporters from her hearings from now on (I’m referencing the ‘ET’ microphone that was pushed under her mouth).

    Also, just to clarify – she’s not a Junior Barrister at all; she has a few years of experience under her belt. She obviously has some merit for her (law) partners to be letting her speak to the media!

    I think people need to stop hating on her so much. #TeamAmal #AndNotJustBecauseIHaveHerBrownShoes #AlthoughSheHasGreatStyle ;-)

    • Neah23 says:

      ” She obviously has some merit for her (law) partners to be letting her speak to the media!”

      That’s not true they are letting her speak to get attention for this case. This story would sadly not be getting the amount of attention if someone else would have talked.

      • Tilly says:

        She’s still not a junior / inexperienced lawyer though.

      • nic919 says:

        She doesn’t have 10 years in the UK and barely has that with her NY call. That is considered junior in legal circles. Senior barrister is when you have 20 to 25 years minimum. Someone of her vintage would not normally be handling the press (especially over the more senior lawyers) but her name recognition is worldwide, something most lawyers don’t have. Changing her name to Clooney was a great career move because it has automatic worldwide recognition.

        Do we have footage of her speaking in court? I have only seen her speaking to the media out of court.

    • siri says:

      Sorry, but even on her employer’s website she’s listed as a junior counsel:
      http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/barristers

    • Tina says:

      Her experience in the U.S. as a litigator in the 2000s won’t count towards her experience as a barrister. Her year of call is 2010, which means that she is still junior in the work she does now.

  16. BNA FN says:

    The first thing I thought was: AC has this big case and spend most of her summer being a fashion icon, vacationing and following GC around having a good time having dinners in all the fancy restaurants and selling tequila. She needs to make up her mind if she wants to continue being a lawyer or being one of the beautiful people vacationing all year.

  17. The Original G says:

    Actually, It’s the Canadian Government that may be at serious fault here. It’s been revealed that they didn’t do much for the first six months of his detainment. (Very, very sadly.) She’s been on Canadian media a lot the past two days and very pointedly asked our Prime Minister to get directly involved by getting Famy pardoned or deported bacfk to Canada.

    I know she may not be liked for a variety of reasons, but she’s one of the good guys here.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mohamed-fahmy-amal-clooney-1.3209075

    • Citresse says:

      He had that (govt) working against him too. Every CDN govt alienates themselves from the rest of the world, it’s not only Harper.

      • Arpeggi says:

        I’m sorry but what?!? Canada, before Harper had a fairly good reputation, as far as foreing politics goes (definitely not perfect, but no one is). Now our reputation is crap because of Harper’s need to always defend Israel no matter what and because we’ve switched from mostly peacekeeping missions to offensive ones and cut big times in humanitarian programs. And we’re damaging the environment like it’s nobody’s business.

        Please, tell me what countries had we managed to allienate since the 60s?

      • KAI says:

        @Citresse
        WHAT? You no nothing about Canadian history if you can make a statement like that.

      • Citresse says:

        I wrote “alienates themselves.”

      • Jaded says:

        Citresse – where are you from? Clearly from somewhere that doesn’t cover Canadian political history. Despite the current government’s shortcomings, Canada has been one of the most admired countries in the world for its humanitarian efforts, its socialized medical care, its successful integration of multicultural immigration and much more. We have not “alienated ourselves from the rest of the world”, quite the opposite.

        Please read up on Canadian history before you make such idiotic comments.

      • Jo 'Mama' Besser says:

        ???

      • nic919 says:

        During World War I Canada lost a significant percentage of its soldiers and joined up in 1914, unlike the US who showed up in 1917.

        During World War II, Canada was a significant part of D-Day and the “Vandoos” were a well regarded battalion despite having less manpower than the UK or US forces. And they joined in 1939, well before the US.

        Since World War II Canada has been one of the first countries to participate in UN peacekeeping missions and they stayed out of Iraq because Jean Chretien was smart enough to know better. Harper was leader of the opposition at the time and wanted them to go.
        Canada did go to Afghanistan and suffered many losses in Khandahar, more than

        Lester B. Pearson, a Canadian Prime Minister won a Nobel Peace Prize for all the peacekeeping Canada was doing and Pierre Trudeau continued that tradition.

        It was only when Harper got elected that Canada lost its seat on the UN Security Council and then he continued to let Omar Kahdr rot in Guantanamo despite the human rights violations going on.

        I can go on about more Canadian history if you want.

      • Citresse says:

        Every CDN Prime Minister has alienated Canada from the rest of the world in some way. The US needed to be more forgiving due to the fact Canada is still its number one trading partner. There are many Americans over the age of 55 who still resent Canada’s historical ties with Cuba for instance. Trudeau loved to annoy the Americans with that one. There are also Americans who feel Canada has never really pulled its weight but rather depended too much on the Americans since they’re right next door.

      • Arpeggi says:

        So… Rest of the world=Murica?

      • Jaded says:

        @Citrisse you are ridiculous. Read up a little on Tommy Douglas, Lester B. Pearson, William Lyon McKenzie for God’s sake. All were leaders in developing a great country.

        Just look at Canadian involvement in WWI and II. If it weren’t for Canadian military involvement in liberating Holland, and the battles they fought in France, the Middle East and England, Europe would be an entirely different place. My father was an RCAF pilot who fought two tours of duty in North Africa and was shot down. I’ve been to Holland and France many times and have been treated with the utmost respect because they STILL admire and appreciate Canada’s help.

        I don’t know what you’re basing your idiotic and unfounded opinions on but we have ALWAYS pulled our weight, not necessarily by bombing the sh*t out of countries but by being there for humanitarian and peace-keeping reasons. We DO NOT fight America’s wars in Cuba or anywhere else on the planet. Trudeau did not ANNOY America with his sympathetic treatment of Cuba, America was annoyed by it. We DO NOT DEPEND on America – we are trading partners. Once again I remind you to do some research before you come out with such bone-headed comments.

      • vauvert says:

        Sorry Citresse but your statement is so outrageously ignorant and removed from reality that it makes my head spin. Yes the Harper govt has been terribly inactive in this case, but to draw the inference from this that historically Canadian governments have alienated themselves form the world is laughable. Do you truly know so little about world politics?

        Your follow-up comment that “there are also Americans who feel Canada has never really pulled its weight” – also makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There are Americans who join Quiverfull and Scientology, and some who think Trump would make a good president. So? Does that mean because “some” Americans are idiots, that we should consider al Americans idiots too? Or because the idiocy is American based (albeit represented by a minuscule proportion) we should take it as Gospel regardless?

        As for the bizarre part that a country hasn’t pulled its weight – what the hell does that even mean?? What does a country “do” on the world stage for you to consider that it is pulling its weight? Our Canadian social policies are miles ahead of American ones, if you check any list of most desirable countries/cities to live in, Canada is always in the top (not so much American ones), and the banking meltdown that wiped out real estate values in the States did not affect our property values at all, never mind requiring billions of government funds to rescue the bankrupt institutions that were going to collapse the US economy. And while we still have a long way to go towards a perfectly fair and equitable society… we don’t have monthly shootings in churches, schools, cinemas, former places of employment etc.

        This brief rant is not even skimming the top. But you obviously have some bee in your bonnet about Canada, so go ahead…

      • Arpeggi says:

        Thanks Cistress for that laugh so early in the morning! I guess we know who watches Fox News here…

        This is such an ignorant word salad! But at least you are right on one thing: Harper is a dangerous idiot. Obama has all the reasons in the world to avoid him, we’d do that too if we could. It’s also the reason why we’re trying to kick him out next month (well, my province had already tried that last election). He destroyed Canada’s good reputation (even the Queen side-eyes him).

      • KAI says:

        To quote Pierre Trudeau when told Richard Nixon had called him an asshole, “I’ve been called worse things by better people.”

      • Jaded says:

        Citresse I’m not going to continue this silly argument, I’m clearly dealing with someone who doesn’t have a whole lot of knowledge to back up her arguments. Please just do some fact checking before you let your emotions get in the way.

      • Citresse says:

        Jaded, I never let my emotions get in the way. You were the one who ordered me to STFU, you called me bone-headed so you seem to have anger management issues and you’re fond of name calling.
        I can’t help it if so many Canadians are brainwashed by Fed Govt into believing they live in the best country in the world. Some of them are rapidly brought back into reality though, when they have to sit for hours in Emergency waiting room and later told the socialized care can’t really help them long term ie- they have rare forms of cancer etc and remember there are significant MD shortages in many regions of Canada where you won’t find specialists etc….. some people fight govt and win, such as the little girl in ON who needed certain medications.
        And right now of all G7 nations, Canada only is now officially in a recession. It’s a very corrupt country, but again, if someone is determined to believe otherwise in denial, I’m wasting my time attempting to convince.

    • littlestar says:

      Exactly! And still the Canadian government is doing nothing to help him. I just don’t get it. Well, I do. Harper and his Cons are so obsessed with “terrorists” and sticking their head in the sand and being ignorant, that they probably think that if Fahmy willingly went to Egypt, he doesn’t deserve their help and maybe he is a bad guy, despite all the evidence to the contrary! Grrrr, this makes me so mad I can’t even articulate myself properly. I was never a fan of Harper and his Cons, but this makes me downright loath them. They are so ignorant and have damaged Canada’s international reputation so much.

      • Jo 'Mama' Besser says:

        He’s awful. If it means he must turn his head, he will not care about something. Guess it’s why he doesn’t see how awful he has made us look.

      • Citresse says:

        Canada is not the best country in the world. The best country is USA. Stars leave Canada for USA. The only Canadian (special invitation to Vancouver Olympic opening ceremony) who lived all year round in Canada was Terry Fox’s mother. The rest no longer assoc with Canada other than visits. Their home is USA.
        I don’t have a “bee in my bonnet” about Canada. I just live in reality.

      • Citresse says:

        And for others in history: Read how Canada’s politicians destroyed lives and careers with the handling of the Avro Arrow. Canada is a silly country full of silly power hungry politicians whose main objective is to sell out and then blame others.
        Obama avoids Harper. I watched their body language during the G-20 and he made his position clear with regard to climate change.

      • Citresse says:

        And for the record; I don’t watch Fox news. I’ve seen it occasionally. It doesn’t seem too bad occasionally but I prefer CTV.

      • Citresse says:

        The Queen side- eyes all PMs of Canada esp when they do silly pirouettes behind her back. She doesn’t like Canada. She used Canada as a punishment for Prince Andrew during his school days. It was like: “if you don’t do well in life, I’ll put you permanently in a little cottage in Canada.” He straightened up immediately and then joined the British Forces upon his return… Falklands etc.. the rest is history. Diana didn’t like Canada either. She fell asleep in Nova Scotia and looked bored the rest of the time. The British Royals much prefer USA, AU and NZ.

      • Sixer says:

        *insert heckle of choice here*

        This is stand-up, right?

      • Citresse says:

        Sixer
        Yeah I like to joke :-)

      • Jaded says:

        Citresse, please give up while you’re behind.

        “Canada is a silly country full of silly power hungry politicians whose main objective is to sell out and then blame others.” George Bush destroyed a country and killed tens of thousands of people for no good reason. Today, Iraq remains a country (roughly the size and population of Texas) he leveled, a country where over a million Iraqis, including many children and infants (remember Fallujah?) lost their lives, millions more were sickened or injured, and millions more were forced to become refugees, including most of the Iraqi Christians. Put that together with the loss of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers’ lives, countless injuries and illnesses, there has been no recognition by him that he did anything wrong or immoral, nor did he ever accept responsibility for the illegality of his military actions without a Congressional declaration of war. Canada, despite not joining the invading coalition, still participated in the conflict in Iraq, joining a number of non-belligerent nations in helping to rebuild the country post-invasion, including the training of Iraqi police and army officers, and contributing approximately $300 million towards this effort.

        The Queen does not “side-eye” silly pirouettes, she likes Canada because we HELPED SAVE ENGLAND’S ASS DURING WWI AND WWII.

        The school Andrew attended is not some silly little cottage in Canada, it is a world-renowned private school that has one of the finest curriculums in the world and has, among its notable alumni, HM Felipe VI of Spain, member of the Spanish Royal Family, King of Spain, Paul Desmarais, Jr., chairman and co-CEO of Power Corporation of Canada, Emilio Azcárraga Jean, CEO of Televisa, the largest media company in the Spanish-speaking world, Ian Binnie, Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from 1998 to 2011 and David Miller, mayor of Toronto from 2003 to 2010.

        Just STFU.

      • Citresse says:

        Jaded
        Take a reading comprehension course or get your vision checked. I never stated Prince Andrew’s school was a cottage per se. Anyway, yes I do joke occasionally but in this instance I’m not joking; you do not run this website, you do not give orders and last but certainly not least; USA is a much better country than Canada, in many ways. There will always be more opportunity in USA, esp if you work hard.
        And if you haven’t realized by now that many but not all politicians from any country are corrupt then you have more problems than your vision or reading comprehension.

    • Citresse says:

      And I should clarify for the record: I didn’t (in this case) let my emotions get in the way. And I wouldn’t have called it an argument. This forum is more of a debate in my opinion.

  18. Blabberwort says:

    That criticism is too harsh and probably because you don’t know the case or how the type of law she specialises in works. Peter Greste fought for deportation and it worked, mainly because he is Australian and not Egyptian at all. The Australian (and Latvian as he has dual nationality) Governments put massive pressure on El Sissi to deport him both leaders making numerous calls to him. They got him deported under new laws for deporting foreigners before any mention of a second trial. Mohamed Fahmy is Egyptian by birth and didn’t move to Canada until he was 14. He has dual nationality but one is Egyptian. That is the sticking point, he didn’t relinquish his Egyptian citizenship until earlier this year after the first trial.

    Amal is not his trial lawyer, she is working solely on getting him deported. He has other lawyers as well working on suing Al Jazerra and his Egyptian lawyer working on the trial side. All she can do is try and get the Canadian government to do more and keep petitioning and appealing the decision and try to get international pressure put on Egypt. From what I can see she is and has been doing exactly that. She even wrote letters to Prime Minister Harper to get him to call El Sissi to have him deported because up until January he did nothing to help him. She almost got him deported, they told him he had to relinquish his Egyptian citizenship but when he did and it went to General Hisham Barakat, he refused to sign the order.

    What do people want her to do? Lie in front of El Sissi’s car?

    • Algernon says:

      I understand people not liking her fashion or her husband or whatever, but there’s nothing that suggests she anything less than competent and professional in her work life. Even the “but she’s always on vacation” thing is dumb, with all the various technology we have today. I do not and never have understood the vitriol directed at Amal for being a woman with a prominent job.

      • Ahot says:

        It was okay as long as George was wasting time with less eduquated women, i bet many felt good while mocking him. & here comes Amal, in all her glory & George shows a typical male reaction they never saw him display before. He is shouting his luck to whoever is willing to listen, because he KNOWS he is blessed she fancies him. She is way out of his league & he knows it.

        For some it is because she is not “white”. To see a WOC being praised to the gods by a very eligible ex catch like George Clooney is NOT going to sit well with most suffering from white privilege. & She has the nerve to be very pretty, stylish, young & successful in her field of work. She doesn´t seem to need time to adjust to the fame, she is handling it like a duck that found water.

        Besides, Amal is true excellence, i guess many feel inadequate compared to her, hence the bashing. Heck she makes ME feel self-conscious about my career choices & i LIKE her. :-)

      • LeAnn Stinks says:

        Ahot,

        You post was cringe inducing and made me want to reach for a barf bag. I can only speak for myself, I could care less that she is not white. I don’t like her politics and I find her to be a major phony and hypocrite.

        You’re bringing up race here is quite sad. It diminishes the meaning when it is really applicable, and truly offensive, you sound like the boy who cries wolf.

      • noway says:

        @Ahot, A lot of Lebanese consider themselves caucasian or white, and I am pretty sure it is the only box that you could fill out on a job information description form. I personally wouldn’t call her a WOC, would you consider Marlo Thomas not caucasian? They have the same heritage. Yes there are some haters of Amal, but once you go in the “celebrity” public eye you have haters. She also has a lot of love too. She made the most fascinating person of 2014- which is usually given to Presidents, CEO’s, and other historic figures. She was and is really over PR’d and sold, and a lot of people resent the hard sell.

    • Jayna says:

      Great post.

    • littlestar says:

      Yes, great post. Really great points!

  19. Cynthia says:

    Implying that the outcome of the case could be due to her inattention? We all know she’s a junior in her firm, working within a team, it’s not like she was single-handedly dealing with a case of these proportions. If her team thinks that putting her forefront to gain publicity will help their cause well good for them. In certain cases international coverage is helpful.

    • BNA FN says:

      I belive a juniors should work harder to make a name for themselves and be part of the hard working team. Maybe she does not want to move up in the law firm now that she’s a millionaire. Technology is nothing compare to sitting with Her senior colleges and bouncing ideas off each others instead of off drinking taqueria and leading her drunk husband out of restaurant/party after a four Meal.

      I remember listening to several lawyers on big cases saying the staff slept at the firm preparing for big cases or working all weekend at the office to prepare. I guess they have no technology at their firm or possibly they care how their case are tried, jmo.

      • Tina says:

        Barristers are self-employed. Chambers are not like US law firms or solicitor’s firms, where junior lawyers are employees. Barristers can decide for themselves how much work they want to take on. Now, most junior barristers don’t feel that they can afford to turn down work very often as they are trying to build up a reputation, but she’s not in that position.

  20. boredblond says:

    I saw this on a little blurb on tv..she actually smiled as she discussed the loss, and constantly stroked her hair in the courtroom while her colleagues talked to one another. With her record, he’s lucky he didn’t get life..

    • Dari says:

      EXACTLY!!! The one video I watched of her in court the judge kept rolling his eyes.

    • Blabberwort says:

      She wasn’t the trial lawyer, she is dealing with his deportation. There is three parts of this simultaneously going on. The trial lawyer is lead by Khaled Abou Bakr, the Canadian lawyers dealing with suing Al Jazerra are Joanna Gislason and Gary Caroline. And Amal is dealing with a pardon and deportation. Only gossip sites report she is his sole lawyer but most have no idea how an international case like this works anyway. Almost every credible news site mentions each lawyer depending on what they are talking about. A lot of Canadian news sites have interviewed Joanna Gislason and Gary Caroline and in many articles omit all the other lawyers.

      • littlestar says:

        Thank you for pointing this out.

      • Sixer says:

        Blabberwort – thanks for the clarity of your posts in this thread. Not that facts and clarity get anywhere against wilful ignorance, which I’m afraid is what you’re up against on any thread involving Clooney. I don’t even like the woman particularly, but she seems to be doing an admirable job for Fahmy given the extreme obstacles in her way.

      • Jo 'Mama' Besser says:

        Thanks for explaining, I’m Canadian don’t understand the thrust behind a lot of these comments slamming her.

      • nic919 says:

        I am not a fan of Amal all the time, but anything she does to help get Fahmy out is good in my books.

      • Blabberwort says:

        Yeah I have noticed that sixer. She gets a lot of hate from people all pretending they know what she does on a day to day basis. Yet they have no idea that she had probably been there numerous times and is in constant contact with his wife (according to Mrs Fahmy).

        @jo mama – I don’t know either, it’s beyond me all his women have had the same sort of mud thrown at them until they break up, then seem to be weirdly loved.

  21. elle says:

    She looks like the Queen of the Damned in that second photo.

  22. lowercaselois says:

    I don’t see her anymore as a stunt barrister, but her job has become more of a hobby job and in a few years she will move from that to some legal analyst on CNN or something like that. Anyway, does it really matter what Amal Clooney thinks, but what US, Canadian and Egyptian governments are saying. She is just one small cog in a very big wheel.

  23. Lori says:

    I agree with most of the posters here that the outcome of this case is a travesty for Mr. Fahmy, his family, and for the remaining journalists in Egypt. I also agree that the outcome of this particular legal proceeding is likely beyond Amal’s control.

    That said, I cannot preclude the possibility that Amal engaged in some “stunt barristering” here. As Blabberwort stated above, there are six lawyers involved in various aspects of this case — the two Egyptian lawyers who tried Mr. Fahmy’s case, handled the appeal, and retried his case; the two Canadian lawyers who filed a $100 million lawsuit against Al Jazeera for failing to obtain the proper credentials and equipment for Mr. Fahmy’s journalistic activities, among other evidence of liability; and two lawyers from Doughty Street Chambers, including Amal. We know Amal wasn’t trying the case for a month in Cairo. Indeed, she wasn’t present at the last sentencing hearing in July, which was postponed at the last minute.

    Why, then, does she present herself as “counsel” at the press conference in the courtroom (!), in the gaggle of reporters outside the courtroom, and during her BBC and CBC interviews — to the exclusion of the other attorneys? Why are Mr. Fahmy’s Egyptian criminal lawyers absent from the courtroom and/or press coverage, in a case that they personally handled before the judge? It’s not just gossip sites that describe Amal as “counsel” — the Guardian, the BBC, and other media outlets are describing her as the attorney who acts for Mr. Fahmy, and not as one of the attorneys. She didn’t refer to her colleagues or their work once during her interviews with the media, the BBC, and the CBC.

    Also, if we assume, arguendo, that the outcome was foreordained, I have to question her demeanor inside the courtroom. The photos in the Daily Mail (and on amalalamuddinstyle) depict her smiling and laughing with Mr. Fahmy and some of her colleagues, stroking her hair, and posing for an apparent photo shoot with paparazzi photographers at counsel table. It was inappropriate for her to a photo shoot inside the courtroom for the Armenian case at the European Court of Human Rights. It’s entirely inappropriate (and insensitive to his family?) for her to be doing a photo shoot in the presence of a client who faces years of incarceration and possible torture or ill treatment in detention.

    • Blabberwort says:

      Why does she call herself his counsel? In interviews all of the counsel say they are his counsel. I have read and seen interviews where Joanna Gislason did. Did she say she was his counsel? Yes. Did she mention other counsel? No, sometimes not even Gary Caroline. Are they all stunt barristers for not mentioning the others? Then all lawyers in their field must be stunting, because this happens every single time unless there is a specific conference when they are all present.

      You also mentioned that there are 2 lawyers from Doughty Street, yes there are. Amal is the lead lawyer and Mark Wassouf who has only been called to the bar for just on a year. Did she mention him? Probably not which is just the same as Ben Emmerson QC not mentioning Amal or really anyone else. They just don’t, maybe they do in America, but I haven’t seen the American lawyers listing counsel during press interviews. You are correct she wasn’t trying the case in Cairo because that is not what she was hired to do, nor would she (not being Egyptian) allowed to do.

      Regarding news sites you know that since the fall of sales in actual newspapers they use clickbait to get you in? I know so many people on this site don’t keep up with these kind of news articles, and journalists from the Guardian do too. It made you click just with her name, that’s more advertising revenue for them. It worked.

      How is it insensitive to his family? They were present. Mohammad Fahmy sat next to her with his wife on the other side of him. If the Egyptian court wouldn’t allow it, then it wouldn’t have happened. And laughing and joking before the outcome helps alleviate nerves surely.

      • Lori says:

        @Blabberwort — I don’t expect Amal to name-check each attorney involved in the case when she responds to media queries, but I do expect her to acknowledge their existence, albeit collectively. For instance, her Canadian colleague, Ms. Gislason, referred to “Ms. Clooney and his Egyptian team” pursuing an appeal when a reporter asked her about the “next steps” in Mr. Fahmy’s case.

        http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=692105

        Similarly, Lyse Doucet asked Amal during the BBC interview if it was appropriate to focus on a pardon at this time, when General Al-Sisi has indicated that he will not consider a pardon until Mr. Fahmy exhausts all legal avenues. Amal could have indicated that her and her colleagues would be pursuing an appeal, but that Al-Sisi did not have to await the outcome of an appeal to grant a pardon to Mr. Fahmy. Likewise, as an American lawyer, I would probably refer to co-counsel if a journalist asked about my case strategy, in a highly publicized matter like this one. As it turned out, the focus of the BBC interview, at least, was on Amal’s case strategy, her response to Egyptian lawyers’ concerns about her criticism of the legal system, her response when people refer to her as the wife of a Hollywood actor, and the likelihood that she would take on similar (laudable) legal matters in the future.

        I acknowledge that photos of Amal are more likely to be “clickbait” than photos of her colleagues. However, her apparent presence at counsel table at this proceeding when she did not try the case, and when the other lawyers are absent, gives the misleading impression that she played a far larger part in the criminal proceedings than what actually took place. It would be one thing if this was an isolated incident, but puffery in Amal’s resume is a common occurrence.

        Finally, the family’s presence does not negate the apparent insensitivity of Amal’s demeanor during this proceeding. I’m not sure that Mr. Fahmy and his attorneys expected him to return to jail, but it was a possibility. Under those circumstances, I imagine (but do not know) that Amal could have taken measures to acknowledge the serious trauma that her client and his family are experiencing, such as adopting an appropriately somber demeanor and/or not participating in a photo op in the courtroom.

      • noway says:

        I feel like the stunt barrister comment is misinterpreted. I don’t think anyone is saying that Amal is not qualified to be a part of a team of barristers for a case, but rather she was brought in late to create the publicity that this case would need. I am not sure how anyone can dispute this as her name has brought the Elgin Marbles case, the Irish men case and this case a lot more publicity than would ever achieve prior to her recent celebrity. If I was either a client or a QC, (senior barrister) I would try to win any way I could.

  24. K. says:

    I saw her on BBC World News last night and she held her own in an interview with Lyse Doucet, who is a bada$$ international reporter.

  25. Jaded says:

    I’m a Canadian and I appreciate Amal Clooney’s efforts to bring attention to this travesty of Mohamed Fahmy’s rights. To quote other countries’ reactions to his imprisonment:

    - US Secretary of State John Kerry condemned the “chilling, draconian sentences.”
    - UK Prime Minister David Cameron said he was “completely appalled” by the verdict.
    - Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who had personally called Egypt’s new president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi days earlier, was “shocked, dismayed and bewildered.”

    And in Canada – barely a whisper. I’m ashamed that the Canadian government, to date, has never explicitly demanded Fahmy’s release and waffled on about his “dual citizenship being the problem” even though he only travels with his Canadian passport. It’s time for Stephen Harper to put aside his ardent campaigning for re-election and concentrate on what Amal said to the press: “What needs to happen now, in my view, is very high level engagement by the Government of Canada, and that means Prime Minister Harper engaging directly with President Sissi.”

    • nic919 says:

      Yes and what exactly did John Baird do or not do? He said a release was imminent before he took off for cashola at Barrick Gold.

      Harper and his minions need to go.

    • littlestar says:

      I am ashamed of Harper and his government too. There has been a lot of talk in the media about Harper wanting to create a “second class Canadian” – basically making it virtually impossible for them to vote during elections, etc. It seems like Fahmy was a second class citizen to Harper because of his Egyptian roots.

      • Nic919 says:

        There is a bill specifically about that. Bill C24 I think. Basically anyone not born in Canada is a second class citizen unless they drop the other citizenship. Funny how this only became an issue when more immigration from the Middle East was happening. I don’t recall them going after German Canadians in WWII.

        Harper plays to the racist vote. There was literally an angry old white man at one of his rallys which shows you his support base. Old white racists feel that the others are taking over and will vote for Harper to hold on to power. If you want to change that you need to vote.

      • Arpeggi says:

        Actually, German Canadians, just like Italian Canadians and Japanese Canadians were sent to camps during WWII (David Suzuki spent some time in those, so did Liza Frulla’s dad). We were pretty awful for that, and for the residential schools system… On a positive note, it seems likely that our wishes will come true comes October 19 (and as scientist, on a very selfish note, I hope that the next government also respects science, it’s been ridiculous!). I felt nothing but shame and disgust ever since Harper took power. And a huge amount of gratitude towards the Supreme Court for existing and righting some of the wrongs. Hopefully C-24 will be repelled.

  26. dippit says:

    Useful piece on many of the issues and past pitfalls: http://m.ourwindsor.ca/news-story/5820562-mohamed-fahmy-s-fate-born-of-poor-decision-making-the-world-over-analysis/

    On Amal, personally, I do incline towards the “stunt barristering” take; at best a key role as now predominantly (solely) deployed for media/PR purposes thought to be of benefit to ALL parties concerned – including Clooney.

    I question whether a Junior (C graded in the UK) barrister ought to be viewed as at the forefront in her field based on very few years of experience, and doubt absolutely it would be so were it not for her marriage. I also question whether her particular style of stunt barristering hasn’t hindered this case – particularly antagonising Egypt and Canada at crucial past points. Some inexperience may have seen her over use her media platform at points when quieter diplomacy may have been more wise – Greste is in Australia now.

    She attained some qualifications and has been, low-level, involved in some high profile cases. However, she, as a lawyer, was very far from fully cooked in a Lead or noteworthy sense. Marriage has seen her both PR enhanced and given prominence ahead of her career stage and experience. Now, with ALL the time away on celeb concerns (AND it is a lot – tele-working being poor substitute if happening), she’s at personal risk of suffering from arrested development of her potential in the true sense of work and losing ground on past credit gained. However it’s cut, she is neither functioning to her actual level (that means hours of work) or truly advancing in a credible fast-track on merit. Her career development has skipped vital steps and bypassed much through PR blitzing instead.

    If she has chosen this, and her keen focus on celeb concerns suggests so, then good and well. I’m just not for pretending it is either a positive for the public understanding of proper practise of law or for the best for her clients and public understanding of their cases. There needs to be an honesty as to exactly what her primary role is now and an acknowledgement that, whilst being a lawyer married to an actor is not a problem, better boundaries and seperation need to be encouraged or serious issues may suffer negative consequences.

    The Clooneys appear to be trying to make her all things to everyone, again not impossible, but focus may be lost if she isn’t more selective about where her priorities lie; or at least draws clearer lines between the many new aspects and opportunities marriage brought and the career she began before.

    And, no she can’t control the media now but it was Clooney who released that genie somewhat; more effort to temper it a bit now is doable (fewer designer pap strolls for starters) and might help. If they want to tamp down the celeb to lawyer conflation, that is.

    • Lori says:

      @Dippit — whether the media exposure that Amal provides has helped or hindered the case remains an open question. In fact, the BBC reporter asked Amal about the accusations of some Egyptian lawyers that she insulted the judiciary when she criticized Mr. Fahmy’s legal proceedings. If I remember correctly, Amal responded by saying that she was in a better position to criticize the legal system there than Egyptian lawyers, who faced potential retribution if they questioned the legal proceedings. However, her answer did not shed light on whether such criticism, coming from her, impeded the legal strategy in the Egyptian courtroom or in quasi-diplomatic negotiations for Mr. Fahmy’s deportation.

      I’m loath to question Amal on this front, as the circumstances make clear that any scrutiny of the trumped-up charges, of the due process violations during legal proceedings, and of Canadian authorities’ apparent refusal to protect a citizen, among other issues, is more than justified. The fact remains, however, that Amal was making accusations against the very parties (either the Egyptian judge or the Canadian leadership) who were in a position to grant relief to her client. I would think that she would need to tread carefully here.

  27. Alek says:

    I don’t get the Amal hate brigade. Sure she wears sparkly outfits and goes out to dinner with her husband. Shock horror. But is that a crime?

    In this case she seems to be doing exactly what’s required. She is there to bring more attention to this case and pressurise the Egyptian government into doing the right thing. This case is getting more mentions everywhere because of her presence. When she doesn’t work she is a gold digger and when she does she’s unprofessional. It’s a tough crowd out there, I guess.

    • Blush says:

      I think people are open-minded enough to accept eccentric outfits, so that’s not the problem. The problem in terms of the Clooney’s public image is that she seems to be a huge poseur and agonisingly hungry for the cameras and the public nature of her cases just reminds people of this. Isn’t it entirely understandable for people to judge her for being a huge narcissistic poseur in court (if that’s what she is) – and this is unrelated to her ability as a lawyer in court – when she spends most of her time promoting her husband’s brand, tequila, and most of all, herself as the most fascinating celeb of all time?

  28. LAK says:

    No lawyer was going to win this case if it meant freeing these guys.

    Adding Amal to the legal team was/is good strategy because it keeps the case in the media.

    Her boss is a media stunt queen. He must have thought christmas had come early when Amal hooked up with GC.

    And that’s not to say that her boss is shallow. He just knows the power of media which means Amal will be added to cases that need that push even if she’s only shuffling pencils.

    • dippit says:

      Which takes us back to “stunt barristering” being apt. Also a waste of Amal’s potential if her signs of promise are to be taken as gospel. Then we’re into her boss showing questionable disregard for properly guiding Amal’s career development in sacrifice to the expediency of having an inbuilt in-Firm PR draw, only?

      I disagree that “more mentions” is necessarily a de facto good. Yesterday alone one Arabic site published tracking on Amal’s named social media mentions related to the AJ case – 58% negative in response engagement with a further 20+% merely Neutral.

      Either way, again, her attachment has made the case more about her (and, rightly or wrongly people are not taken with or convinced by her) and the real importance of the case and the situation for those now convicted, for a second time, has been lost in the blur.

      Honestly, and I’m trying to noise out my own negative gut feeling about Amal in general as much as poss, the whole Clooney Show has been an annoying PR overload mess for ages but that’s showbiz… except when it’s NOT just Showbiz. Upholding Human Rights (as I’d hope is Amal’s abiding work priority (?)) ain’t Entertainment and encouraging too much crossover collision is best done cautiously, if at all. The Clooneys may not be properly appreciating that enough in their apparent showboating.

      • The Original G says:

        Lots of negative assumptions about her here. I despair for those in Mr Famy’s situation who must deal with their issues without the light of the press shining down on them.

      • dippit says:

        @The Original G – “assumption” is often founded upon experience based on understanding of typical outcomes of observable actions, process, and precedent (allowing for the random and atypical, naturally). Amal may be that atypical exception, but so much insubstantial is in the mix, it’s doubtful.

        AND, back to, THIS ought not to be about her in the first place, but so it is, and so it ever shall be if she (Clooneys and related) continue to encourage the potentially worrisome conflation of her public work and personal life spheres.

        Media coverage is only a plus on such matters if properly focused on the real issues. If a situation is mislit with incorrect filtering of the spots the whole impression allowed of the scene is perceptibly off. Whether intentional or not, Amal’s presence (and ALL the other associations she now has – if by design or happenstance) risk the wrong filters now. If you do “despair”, worth considering THAT potential flip-side, yes? Lots are.

  29. weegiewarrior says:

    What I find ironic is that from the get go it was – “george has found his equal ” and that th days of his dallying with party girls was over – and then amal goes and dresses just like any one of his party girls would so its a bit ambiguous. A bit like trying to imagine kim kardashian as the First lady when weve all seen her t and a!! Lol.

  30. Elvis says:

    I don’t know if her new image is helping her in the courts. She looks really cheap in these photos. Also I don’t like her new name: Amal Clooney is just so disjointed.

  31. s says:

    I find the intent behind casting aspersions on this woman’s work both transparent and dubious. I don’t get the class of people they’re supposed to attract. On the other hand, lots of insightful comments on this particular case (thanks, Canadians!)
    How about better quality click bait?

    • dippit says:

      As one commenting from a position of sceptical, with critical thinking, re Amal (and this case) and further attempting to work through the miasma clouding brass-tacks reality of her work (as deserving of being properly understood – and, when worthy of note, appreciated) versus the PR enhancements courtesy of Clooney… please expand on the baselessness of “aspersions” as you see them?

      The “class of people” bit aside, why would people self-elect to post about many different points they, too, are “dubious” or concerned about – typically providing well thought out examples as to the Whys also? Actually some very high class discussion of differing perspective to be found in the stream.

      Why so readily dismissive without explaining the foundations for your “[others] as transparent and dubious [in motive/intent(?) - if so, what?]“?

      I agree, those of a Canadian base have posted a lot of interesting and insightful. It’s helped better inform me (so helluva a plus for “click bait”, as you term it).

      • garciathes says:

        I don’t usually take sides but I agree that the tone is often low when it comes to gossiping about Mrs Clooney. She seems to be successful, she married one of the most famous people on the planet and she’s definitely not a wallflower. Nothing criminal about it. But it seems it rubs some people the wring way. Yeah, I think George the intern has some complex about Old Hollywood glamour, and both get off on public exposure. Meh.

    • s says:

      Why so defensive? Not to be rude, but did I touch a nerve?
      Why is Amal’s work emanating a cloud of miasma?
      The article had no merit, because it’s based on insinuation and it shows a complete lack of curiosity about the facts and it provides zero additional info on the facts. That should help you understand.
      I could barely read your post, BTW. It’s unclear and convoluted. I hope thus I’m not missing something of importance. But I can assure you that I haven’t found in this thread a single example of a high class argument or well thought out example of why I’m supposed to deride this woman for her work. Not one. You don’t like her husband’s PR workings, that’s fine, but it’s a stretch to suggest that that might have compromised Amal’s client’s chances.
      I’d rather make fun of George’s trousers.

      • dippit says:

        No nerve touched, I’m sure as can ever be of being able to defend and, more importantly, explain and give examples supporting my thoughts. Why would I need to be defensive? Open to further debate, but never closed to well formed counter helping me think more, maybe differently. Hence my asking.

        “Miasma” has its root in the initial revisions Clooney did on Amal’s actual work history – all gathering points of doubt can probably be pathwayed back to that ‘obfuscation’ or seeming need to add gloss to her. I was all for Clooney looked outside of the box and ‘fell for’ NOT standard expected celeb. Then it became clear Amal (by way of work, image, and indeed physically) underwent a remake prior to being publicly rolled out as suitable for “Clooney fell for… etc… “. Warning bells.

        Track back, through, and recheck back in light of present… simple process. And if it throws up holes, question. All I, and many are doing.

        I wouldn’t normally bother were it just another usual Hollywood blind/beard/misdirect/sell for promo or profit. This, if even a bit less than authentic by ALL parties involved, is playing with matters way more serious than usual Hollywood fakery. Hence my interest and, I suspect, that of many who don’t typically find themselves following celeb (only) matters. Maybe the intial PR widened the usually expected audience but led to more enquiry. Not necessarily a bad by product but one the Clooneys may have failed to allow for.

        I ramble on. Not the first or last time a response has chided me for it. I assume on most people being pretty smart at the off, even if that means also hoping they have the resilience to make it through my, at times, rapid stream replies. Can’t apologies as such, but I do try for concise if and when. We each have our ways.

      • ange says:

        @Dippit:
        What a disingenuous link of baloney! You’re interested in this marriage cause of the human rights aspect. Scoff. No, your obsession is personal.

      • dippit says:

        @Ange what’s your rates for your online distance mind reading services, and does your ad hominem and judgemental come at a surcharge?

        I type as honest as possible an expression of what I think, take it as you find – you seem predisposed or particularly determined to do so anyway. No probs. Won’t make you ‘right’, and does little (or nothing) to prove convincing of me as wrong.

    • Blush says:

      Don’t be naive. Why is it dubious? Amal and her husband have coasted on this image of her being a top human rights barrister or at least a rainmaker-to-be. George constantly talks about his wife being the smarter one and alludes to her important work. Why can’t we critically analyse the truth behind all this PR spin?

      The fact is these two want more fame and validity. It’s blatantly obvious from their circus of a wedding and the aftermath in which they invited the world into their relationship with extravagant photo spreads and interviews. I believe the “aspersions” being cast aren’t necessarily so; it’s probably in response to their concerted PR effort to make Amal into a humanitarian law superstar and George, by proxy, gets all the reflected light.

      • garciathes says:

        Not the nitpick, Blue, but I’m tempted to see it from a marital angle, too. My own husband paints me as the smarter one, and we feed of each other reputation and ‘light’ (we both work in related fields). Lots of spouses do that. I agree that these two enjoy fame and see themselves as a power couple. It’s pretty entertaining though.

  32. ickythump says:

    S – id also like u to elaborate on what “class of people”means in your comment.

    • Dinah says:

      Looking at her in the gold lame get-up reminds me of so many of George’s past girlfriends. Interestingly, his first wife, Talia Balsam, never seemed to change to cater to George’s Vegas lounge waitress taste in women. She was too strong, smart, independent and well bred for George, sayeth many, among them allegedly (and not surprisingly) George himself.

      George’s once handsome face is beyond repair. He is a serious alcoholic and in dire need of rehab. He has to know it, because more and more, he faces away from the camera to stare starry-eyed at his wife. George is pretty narcissistic (not surprising for an actor). He knows he looks way too old, battered, and bloated for his age. He uses her as a distraction, and the more distracting, the better.

      Amal would be an exceptionally beautiful woman except for her freakishly enlongated neck. Swan necks are pretty, beautiful even on ballet dancers, but on her, coupled with her extreme height, her neck detracts from the beauty of her face. I’ve noticed she has started lowering her head, tilting it forward, trying to make it less conspicuous.

  33. siri says:

    This verdict was originally scheduled to be delivered last month, when Amal was not in attendance due to her vacationing/posing for George’s movie. So why was she there now? And with a collegue who’s even more inexperienced than her? I think her employer did a very poor job here by sending a woman who clearly chooses to work in a very arbitrary, selective way, and only when it suits her, or fits into her husband’s schedule. The pictures I saw from court showed her smiling for cameras, and striking her hair, and they didn’t leave an overly professional impression with me. It looks more like she’s trying to top up her credentials for more public exposure, but this case is about men getting jailed, and possibly ill treated in jail, so I can’t understand why anyone would think she would be helpful here.

    • Lori says:

      Yeah, Lyse Doucet said in her report that Amal was present in Egypt for the first time.

      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34104846

      In contrast, her colleagues, including her Canadian colleagues, have been present on multiple occasions, such as the earlier sentencing hearing. It would make more sense for the criminal trial lawyers who handled Mr. Fahmy’s case to be present and ready to advocate for a lower sentence, but that wouldn’t produce column inches, I suppose.

      I was dismayed by Amal’s apparent lack of professionalism in the courtroom. (Actually, the earlier version of the BBC interview, posted above, shows Amal smiling a lot — when asked about the prospect for a pardon, about her criticism of the Egyptian judiciary, about her husband, and about her case load. Very unnerving). I would add, though, that it doesn’t take a whole lot of experience to adopt a poker face and to stop the preening and hair stroking when your client is taken straight to the clink, and your client’s wife is weeping next to you. She just has to employ basic common sense and, well, human kindness.

      • boredblond says:

        Not her strong suits..remember how poorly she treated her mother-in-law’s restaurateur friend…even a first year law student can feign concern.

      • siri says:

        Basic common sense, and empathy are exactly the characteristics she seems to be missing. By now, I wouldn’t hire her for anything.

    • nicole says:

      She seemed to me, to be more interested in preening for the cameras than anything. When the mans wife started to cry, she just gave her this cold stare, no warmth about this women at all.

      • Lori says:

        I realized, after writing, that I failed to account for the possibility that Amal and the rest of the legal team did not anticipate that Mr. Fahmy would be returned to jail. Mr. Fahmy’s fiance indicated that she did not expect that he would be remanded to custody. Some reports indicated that the legal team anticipated a time-served sentence.

        If that was the case, I have to ask whether the legal team appropriately prepared Mr. Fahmy and his family for that prospect. Granted, they may not have wanted to hear about the possibility of jail time, but it was Amal’s responsibility to prepare them for this eventuality, as well as the prospect that he would wait in jail for a prolonged period pending any appeal or pardon request. In fact, General Al-Sisi previously indicated that he would not consider a pardon until all other legal avenues had been exhausted.

      • siri says:

        @Lori: That’s why I really think Doughty Street Chambers, Amal’s employer, did a lousy job in this case. First, they pick her to “represent” him for the deportation matter, knowing it would bring publicity for their business, but also knowing she’s not really available full-time. From all I red, the Fahmy family actually did not expect this outcome, although it was a very likely scenario even for an outsider. And let’s not forget Amal’s claim earlier on (falling together with her New Year’s stay at Cabo), that she was threatened by Egypt authorities if she would choose to enter the country. After being called out on this, she wasn’t able to name who had threatened her, and the authorities published a statement saying Mrs.Clooney could enter Egypt at any time to represent Fahmy. She then put it on the journalist she had talked to about this in an interview, calling it a misunderstanding, but that journalist publicly declared on facebook she DID in fact tell him what he wrote. All in all, this makes her look not only unprofessional, but quite hungry for recognition. Only, we are talking human lives here…

  34. kristinsson says:

    smoke and mirrors people, smoke and mirrors, the reality of the world we know…

  35. raincoaster says:

    You’re here talking about her client and human rights abuses in Egypt. What is the likelihood you’d be doing that if she hadn’t taken on the case?
    She’s been in the human rights legal scene her entire career, and has worked for Julian Assange of Wikileaks as well. She’s not window-dressing, she’s the real thing.

    • Tina says:

      I don’t disagree that her presence raises the media profile of any case she’s involved with, but she hasn’t been in the human rights legal scene her entire career. Her early career was as a U.S. litigator representing corporate clients like Enron and Arthur Andersen.

  36. maria1981 says:

    let’s stop pretending she will keep working after becoming a clooney.

    • Adaven says:

      She certainly is a strong woman, and she has the freedom to do anything she wants to do, with or without Mr. Clooney.

  37. frances egan says:

    the Canadian external affairs diplomats are pathetic muppets who do not defend canadians in these terribly injust situations … maybe they can go to Australia and take note of how to act like men….

    • Citresse says:

      I like AUS. They’ve found an admirable way of mixing Republicanism with a constitutional monarchy.

  38. P Powell says:

    The celeb media must dislike it that she’s an intelligent woman who does something useful, as then they can’t dumb down teenage girls into admiring the talentless trash who sell dumb interviews to magazines about their handbag, before their promoters make up another attention seeking career they never spent a day working in, like business person for putting their name on a perfume somebody else made.

  39. Sarah says:

    On today’s edition of “Keeping Up With The Kloodashians”….

    Does anybody find it strange, funny,or even amusing that I’m a fan of the Kardashians, yet have no trouble satirizing the title of their show ?