The Guardian report on Adelson’s testimony in a civil suit is most illuminating and fascinating. Combative Adelson rails against ‘greedy bosses’ in entertaining court testimony
It’s possible that the man has developed dementia. It’s also possible that he’s always been this much of a loon. Not word salad a la Palin, but conceptual chopped salad that fails as a whole and the separate bits aren’t tasty either. Easy to overlook that smarts and rationality aren’t necessary personal qualities for success in business and politics.
Can imagine Adelson’s attorneys cringing during his time on the witness stand.
No one has ever described Sheldon Adelson as a man happy with the world. Happy billionaires do not spend tens of millions of dollars trying to get Newt Gingrich elected president.
To that we can add that unhappy but sane billionaires would not spend tens of millions of dollars trying to get Newt Gingrich elected president.
Read the whole article to appreciate how pathetic this man is. Only less pathetic than the money grubbers that have been paying homage to him.
Rapid Rise in Super PACs Dominated by Single Donors
The diligence by ProPublica may not be a match for all the dark money sloshing around in the super PACs. $113 million is a rounding error for a mere handful of these billionaires determined to own it all.
It does seem as if Adelson is now Addeledson. What an interesting display of entitlement and authoritarianism from a cranky old man who gathered his billions from the misery of others. He will die alone, surrounded only by sycophants and camp followers, if that.
What I found interesting about that report is how others in the courtroom viewed him as ludicrous. If courtroom decorum rules weren’t strong they would have been laughing.
I’m sure he sounds as loopy in private settings when he pontificates. Do his private audiences notice? Or are they too busy trying to suck up better to his wallet?
After reading the article thought back to my one time on the witness stand in a civil trial and as an employee. The company senior counsel testified right before me and afterward hung around to observe those of us who were to follow her. After finishing with me, I joined her in the gallery. She nodded and gave me a big thumbs up. Next up was a senior executive from the Home Office. His performance made both of us cringe. He became rattled and instead of simply answering the questions, embellished his answers and lost credibility for the appearance of truthfulness. That allowed the plaintiff’s attorney to score a few points.
Yes, I’ve always had the “yes or no” caution drilled deeply into me on such occasions. Not one to chat during depositions either. If nothing else, it tends to extend the blathering.
Somehow managed to be only once deposed and to serve as a witness in that other case. Wasn’t prepped or given any advice in advance for either one; probably because I wasn’t considered important to either. Although the company did hire an attorney to sit in on the deposition. He objected a couple of times and I had to nudge him once when a question seemed out of line to me. He later apologized for his lapse — understandable because plaintiff’s attorney was dragging it out to bill more hours.
What was interesting about the trial case, a case my employer fully expected to lose (although not even that information was shared with me in advance), the defense attorney only added me to the witness list a couple of days before the trial started. Had the plaintiff’s attorney treated me like an almost irrelevant witness as the defense had, the jury may have ignored the report I’d written two years earlier. His aggressive and hostile questioning of me did him no favors with the jury. Glancing at the jurors as I left the witness stand, I sensed that the plaintiff would lose and he did to the shock of my colleagues my more involved colleagues.