Does He Know It’s A Democratic Primary?





Everybody deserves the best defense when facing prosecution.

That’s a given.

But does Democratic state House candidate Michael Gottlieb, who is in the middle of a tough Democratic primary, have to praise the dismissal of a civil lawsuit against Trump operative Roger Stone?

There is no doubt that many Democratic voters would love to see Stone lose a lawsuit.

Stone is a confidant of President Donald Trump. That’s enough to raise that ire of some Ds.

He is also infamously linked in the mind of many Ds with the leak of Democratic National Committee emails during the last election.

So what was Gottlieb thinking when he wrote the following on Facebook this week?





He is congratulating Broward lawyer Grant Smith for getting a lawsuit against Stone dismissed!


Doesn’t Gottlieb know he is in a Democratic primary for the open Plantation/Davie-based state House District 98?  Is it politically-wise to publicly praise the successful defense of Stone, who is a bêta noire of a substantial number of Democrats?

The answer is NO in all caps.

Smith and Broward lawyer Robert Buschel got a suit dismissed against Stone, who was alleged to have a role in emails being hacked from the Democratic National Committee.  It was filed in federal court by two Democratic donors and a former DNC employee.

The suit came amid allegations that Stone and the Trump campaign covertly worked with the Russian government to release hacked DNC emails.

There are four Democrats running against Gottlieb for the heavily-Democratic seat now held by state Rep. Katie Edwards of Plantation, who is retiring.

Gottlieb can be applauded for standing up for every defendant’s right to an adequate defense.

But he should be booed for showing a tremendous amount of political stupidity for publicly congratulating the dismissal of the lawsuit against Stone.


16 Responses to “Does He Know It’s A Democratic Primary?”

  1. Not his only tie to Stone says:

    Amy Rose is running the Gottlieb campaign with Barbra Miller. Rose worked with Stone on the 2nd Scott Israel campaign.


    For these consultants, its a business. That’s all it is for most consultants.

  2. Broward Voter says:

    If Roger Stone is such a bad guy, would Sheriff Scott Israel have worked so closely with him in his campaigns? Would he have hired three of Stones associates (Michael Colapietro, Dianne Thorne and Jennifer Hobbs)?


    Him being a bad guy is besides the point. Is it politically savvy to wade into the Stone controversial just weeks before vote-by-mail ballots are distributed and early voting begins. The answer is NO.

  3. City activist Robert Walsh says:

    My point in regards to Gottlieb should be applauded for sticking up for defendants rights.The other day he ridiculed for taking the case when the guy assaulted the homeless person.I made issue with that.For and foremost he is an atty.and once he takes a case he has to represent that client to the best of his abilities.In the legal circles Gottlieb has a sterling reputation.As far as his candidacy he needs some improvement.He has to wear many hats.My take.Get out there Mike.Knock on doors.Showcase those good looks.Sport a tennis shirt with matching sneakers and start knocking.Bring the puppy.If u don.t have a dog, borrow one.Mike needs to express im one of u folks so vote for me.Get knocking on those doors …

  4. Grant Smith says:

    Buddy, I don’t believe I have ever commented publicly on one of your columns, but your comments here must be addressed.

    Michael and I have known each other for over 40 years, we grew up in the same neighborhood. In fact, our families are close and we have been around each other a lot over the years. Your editorialization, your right on your blog, entirely misses the point of my post. I recognize that my client may not be liked by everyone, but he is entitled to the fair application of the law. In this instance, against all odds and the incredible partisan hyperbole, he was well served by the strict application of the law, not public opinion. Is Stone not entitled to have a lawsuit dismissed if it does not comport with the law? Certainly you could not possibly be advocating that outcome, are you? The partisan attorneys hand picked the plaintiffs, they picked the defendants and they picked the venue. According to the Clinton appointee judge, each and every decision they made was wrong. It takes great jurists to see through it all.

    While I know that Michael is not running for the bench, this quality is what makes Michael a great candidate for elected office. He sees through the BS and recognizes that the law matters. He will make a great representative precisely because while he is a partisan, he is willing to see the other side and ignore the noise. The other side and noise in this case was fairness and blind evaluation of the law.

    As someone who writes off tips, and for years reported off information provided to you, do you think the Washington Post and the New York Times should have been prevented from publishing the Pentagon Papers? Should Woodward and Bernstein have been punished for the Watergate papers? No, of course not, that is what the equal application of the law is all about. The government saw both papers and the reporters as the enemy, it took judges to rise above the hysteria and weigh the evidence. State representatives are also asked to evaluate all sides of an issue before they vote.

    I could name no less than a dozen lawyers you and I both know that over the years have taken on cases and causes that the public finds offensive, and yet they are celebrated when they win and candidates accept their endorsements and their contributions. Could you imagine a system where only the well liked clients or issues were represented in the courts? In the legislature? No.

    Maybe this is what makes Michael the right candidate at the right time. I would have congratulated Michael had the tables been turned.




    If he has known you 40 years, he obviously has your phone number. Why didn’t he call you with congratulations rather than post a public comment on Facebook that could be considered objectionable. It shows a lack of judgement. Doesn’t he realize that his comment on Facebook can be used by his opponents?

    I’ve got no problem with Gottlieb. I don’t know him, don’t know his opponents and don’t care who wins House District 98. This site has run a piece that one of his opponents considers highly negative.

    Gottlieb apparently doesn’t realize that when you run for office, almost everything is fair game. Guys like me are bombarded with negative tips about candidates and screen grabs of incriminating pictures and statements. Sometimes the tips are not even funneled to blogs or website, but placed directly on social media.

    And Grant, if you don’t think social media has influence, ask your client Roger Stone.

  5. City activist Robert Walsh says:

    Buddy how about running story concerning this padt Ft.lau comm.meeting.In regards to water and sewer potential withdraw of 20mill and Comm.Glassman proposal of slight mill.increase if budget cuts r to steep.Sure to be extremely popular with comments from your viewers.

  6. Grant Smith says:

    In regard to yor response to my post…

    1) His name is Michael Gottlieb
    2) Phone? Are you suggesting we go back to the days depicted in Blazing Saddles and require people to preface everything, even in private, by saying, “of course you’ll have the decency not to tell anyone…?”
    3) Yes, social media has influence, which is what made this ruling even more remarkable, she saw through the hyperbole and ruled on the law.
    4) Objectionable? Yes, this is Democratic Broward County, but people still want their elected judges or representatives, to be contemplative before they make decisions. Michael saw that the law should be applied fairly. Democracy doesn’t die when people give contrarian or even offensive viewpoints, democracy dies when people discourage civil discourse no matter the content.

  7. Sheila Alu says:

    What Buddy is trying to say is when running for a partisan democratic seat don’t look like you’re jumping up and down for joy when the opposing partisan side scores a huge point. Don’t run under democratic principles when you’re cheering for a win on the conservative side or show you dont really hold any fundamental beliefs unless you or one of your friends are making money. Show and tell people what you believe in!

  8. Ghost of Scott Rothstien says:

    Listening to Grant whine and try to bully Buddy reminds me of why he was a trusted lieutenant of Scott Rothstien. Peas in a pod.

  9. District 98 Voter says:

    Buddy, the news must be really slow this week if you are writing two articles just a few days apart trolling Michael Gottlieb.

  10. Roger Stone says:

    Buddy- While I don’t know Mr. Gottlieb, a few comments are in order.
    While I understand that the notion that I worked with the Russians to hack the DNC e-mails and then gave the material to Wikileaks, Julian Assange, Donald Trump or the Trump campaign is the prevailing left wing conspiracy theory pushed relentlessly by MSNBC, CNN and slew of totally fake news sites like ThinkProgress it is entirely false.
    The House and Senate investigations and the Special Counsel will find no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.
    While it is true that the defamation case against me by three ex-DNC employees funded by an Obama backed legal foundation was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds that was because the plaintiffs could not tie me to any such conspiracy in the District of Columbia.
    Neither did they produce any evidence that this conspiracy ever actually happened other than pointing to a bunch of fake news stories.
    The Judge in this case, an Clinton appointee, wasn’t buying it as an actual reading of the hearing transcript reveals.
    I am grateful to my lawyers Grant Smith and Rob Buschel who did a brilliant job in my defense. I still face a suit by the DNC in which I hope to gain access to their servers ( never examined by the FBI) to determine finally as to whether they were ever even hacked at all or whether, as much forensic evidence indicates, the e-mails were downloaded to a portable drive and spirited out the back door. In either case the allegedly hacked e-mails never passed through my hands.
    As I testified under oath to the House Intelligence Committee I had no advance notice of the source, content or exact timing of the Wikileaks disclosures.
    As CNN, Reuters, the New York Times and others have reported I am now in the crosshairs of the partisan witch hunt being conducted by Robert Mueller who will find no evidence of Russian collusion, Wikileaks collaboration of advance knowledge of the publication of John Podesta’s pathetically incriminating e-mails.
    I have to wonder whether Mueller will fabricate some other bogus charge in an effort to silence me, bankrupt my family and pressure me to testify against the President who I have known for 39 years.
    People who want to help me fight this injustice can go to

  11. Rob says:

    Is this the same Grant Smith who was formerly a managing partner of Scott Rothstein’s operation?

    If so, you’d think the son of a former Congressman (and ex-con) would have a basic understanding of political optics.

  12. Courthouse Jester says:

    Maybe you need to ask if he knows how to fill out a financial disclosure form. I guess we need to tell Gottleib where his checking accounts are? His report says he needs to find out. Hehehehe. What kind of disclosure is that? He lists checking accounts with a balance of $30,000 on December 31 buy doesn’t say how many and which banks! He has 25 percent ownership in a listed business. He doesn’t list his income from that business. He writes “estimate” for his income for 2017. Shady shady. He doesn’t know what his salary was for 2017? How about clients that he is supposed to report by law if they make up so much of his income? It smells fishy. Take the trash out.

  13. Rob says:

    Great Balls of Stone.

    Sounds like a parracide asking for mercy as an orphan.

    Out damn spot! … Will these hands ne’er be clean?

  14. Now wonder says:

    He was literally congratulating a friend and fellow attorney for a victory in court because you see, unlike his primary opponent Andrew Dolberg, Michael Gottlieb has had a successful career and isn’t running for this office because he needs a job. Perhaps this one facebook comment was unnecessary but that hardly disqualifies him from being a solid Democrat who will represent his district well in Tallahassee.

    And while Gottlieb was winning cases for his clients in court, and making money, here’s what Dolberg has been doing since his high school graduation only a few years ago:

  15. Tell The Truth, Gottlieb says:

    Gottlieb wants to be a low-paid state representative when he is earning $350,000 salary annually and has a net worth of $2,141,101? Is he sick of dealing with his shifty criminal clients? An ego trip or has he been promised something from the Trial Bar to be one of their front men in the Legislature?

  16. Wonder Now says:

    From Now Wonder sharing republican websites to attorney friends of Roger Stone it sure looks like republicans would like to see the dems pick Gottlieb.