Chapter 12: The Amal Experiment Fails
Did Amal expect to start suddenly winning cases with her new name immediately? All signs point to “yes”; however, it did not work out that way. She suffered several very public defeats as a result. Ibrahim Halawa, son of Hussein Halawa, the leading Muslim
Brotherhood cleric in Ireland, became caught up in the violent Egyptian military crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood in Aug 2013 after taking part in protests. He and his siblings were detained by the Egyptian military, and there were pleas in Ireland for their release. Amal now has her name attached to this case. The reasons why should be obvious. The press releases will read as a campaign for “human rights” and “free speech” but the pattern is established. She supports and defends terrorists and terrorist organizations, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood, and then uses her position in pop culture to use public pressure to shame others into accepting radical Islam as the “norm”. In September of 2015, however, the Oireachtas Foreign Affairs Committee “voted not to invite lawyers for imprisoned Irish teenager Ibrahim Halawa to a public hearing. The surprise vote came after a report co-written by the law practice of Amal Clooney was
critical of the Government’s efforts to secure his release from custody in Egypt. The high profile human rights lawyer is the wife of Hollywood actor George Clooney. Her practice, Doughty Street Chambers, is one of three sets of lawyers representing the Dublin teen and had requested an audience in front of the committee.” Notice the term to describe her is not “winning” nor “accomplished” but “high profile”. Notice she was denied a “public hearing”. Since using the press to apply public pressure is her one and only job, not “winning” at least by legitimate legal means, this appeared a slap in the face to greatest human rights attorney ever born. If these public meetings cannot be procured, her role is nada. That could prove problematic to George, especially, who seems to have entered into this arrangement to be a part of some “Super UN Powercouple”. As a follow up, an August 7th report from Cairo claimed Egypt’s House rejected the Irish Parliament’s demand to release Halawa.
The hits kept coming. On December 9th 2015, reports surfaced that Greece decided not to pursue the return of the Parthenon Marbles. One of the first cases Amal took (and, yes, she can pick and choose which cases she takes) using her “high profile name” after the wedding involved “advising” Greece on the return of the so-called Elgin Marbles from Britain. This case, many believed, was expected to veer in her favor in order to legitimately establish her as an “accomplished” human rights attorney, thus providing precedent for her later cases. Instead, she showed up for staged photo ops with politicians and had the entertainment media swoon over her outfits. Eventually, she supposedly wrote up a 150 page report but was “dropped by the Greek government from their role in advising on the return of the so-called Elgin Marbles to Athens”. Regardless, her job was to bring the press, which she did, and therefore she was paid: “It should be noted that the total cost of the legal advice came to 200,000 English pounds, an amount that was paid by a Greek living in London who preferred to remain anonymous. The fact that Amal Clooney was part of the legal team that came to Athens, gave the issue great publicity and drew international sympathy for the Greek argument.” Publicity and international sympathy? Mission accomplished. “Human rights” is just a term used by her for political gain. However, the losses did not look good.
Amal lost another big case at this time, as well. On October 15th, 2015, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) gave its verdict on a man who denied the Armenian Genocide occurred, a case which Miss “Je Suis Charlie” took on to violate the free speech of this man as some form of “human right”. Keep in mind that the Clooneys care NADA about “human rights”, “free speech”…any of the “good” humanitarian issues they claim to support. They care about how they benefit from it. The outcome of this case would have a huge impact on their “100 Lives” initiative, a supposed platform to commemorate the 100 year anniversary of this atrocity, even though neither one of them showed up in Armenia for the celebrations this past April. However, the Kardashians did, which we will later see. It also explains the globalists behind this initiative and what they hope to get out of it. In any event, the greatest human rights attorney to ever walk the planet was DENIED: “By this verdict it upheld a judgment of the Second Section of the ECtHR on the Perinçek v. Switzerland case. The Second Section decided that the Swiss government violated Perinçek’s right of expression when it punished him on the grounds that he had violated the Swiss Penal Code by denying the Armenian genocide….In this verdict, the Grand Chamber pointed out that ‘unlike the international criminal courts, it
had no competence to make legally binding pronouncements on whether the massacres and mass deportations suffered by the Armenian people could be characterized as genocide.” See…“free speech” is not “speech with which a group of people agree”. That, however, is how the Clooneys are working to help define it. If she truly wanted to support “free speech” for all, she and her husband should have used this platform to stand for his right to say such words and then correct him accordingly. They would never as it is never about “human rights” with them. It is always about how much they make financially and politically from every cause/case they take up. This loss was a blow to Amal as the unfavorable outcome would have a huge impact on their “100 Lives” initiative, a supposed platform to commemorate the 100 year anniversary of this atrocity. Oh, she and her boss Geoffrey Robertson tried to spin it. However, it proves to be a thorn in her side later.Oh, she and her boss Geoffrey Robertson tried to spin it. However, it is and will prove to be a thorn in her side later.
These were three huge cases for “Mrs. Clooney’s” career. Two were flat out losses, one where she argued AGAINST free speech. All three denied her the opportunity to gloat publicly on the international stage in hopes of swaying the rules of law in sovereign nations as well as the court of public opinion in the future in favor of an international system of government. By the end of 2015, media outlets began asking about her “accomplished” attorney title: <translated> “The professionalism of the lawyer has been discussed these days for its withdrawal in the case of the Athenian Acropolis. The British of Lebanese origin has left the case, but not of its own accord if the Greek government has preferred to follow the negotiations through diplomatic channels banishing (final) criminal proceedings. The firm for which he works Amal Clooney has received 250,000 euros for taking care of it.” She has proven herself a horrible lawyer whose “high public profile” allows her to choose the cases to which she attaches her name. Somehow among all of these losses, Amal got a RAISE. When a person with no moral compass is on the globalist payroll pushing its agenda on a global scale, a pay raise is in order, it seems. What is really appalling is that it is admittedly all because of her name. Starpulse reports, “Ever since Amal, 37, emerged as the silver fox’s steady romance, her rates have risen. Today, if you want to chat with Mrs. Clooney about a legal matter at Doughty Street Chambers in London, it will set you back £500 an hour or $742.00 an hour.” This woman is touted as a modern day feminist? See, girls? Want a raise regardless of any actual professional skills? Marry a rich guy and then strut around in haute couture. Amal Clooney. Setting women back decades.
The pattern has emerged that as “real life” proves her a fraud, Hollywood steps in to help rebrand her fictional profile. Within days, the entertainment media tried to spin these losses as something positive, too, and then quickly shifted to portraying her as a “fashion icon”, a role she so desperately wants. Alas, Jackie-O, Princess Di, and even Carolyn Bessette she is not, nor will she ever be for a variety of reasons, mostly her politics, although the repeated flashing of her undergarments helps not, either. The ideologies she practices and the politics she pushes are the antithesis of everything for which those three women stood, and it comes forth in the way she carries herself. Princess Di and Jackie wore designer gowns and had lavish homes; however, Diana hugged AIDS patients and visited the sick and poor in African nations. Jackie-O worked a lifetime actively supporting children and the poor. Smug, arrogant, and condescending, Amal
Clooney sends out PR statements about her “human rights humanitarianism” while desperately trying to fit into the world of the fashion elite with her expensive haute couture. On December 16th, the “100 Lives” initiative which, remember, is supposed to deal with the Armenian genocide and their descendants, announced the “Amal Clooney Scholarship”. A woman with no professional accomplishments to her name except losses who is known only for her marriage names a scholarship after herself for some positive PR. The “accomplished international human rights lawyer” partnered up with 100 LIVES to “offer one young woman each year the chance to enroll in a two-year international baccalaureate programme”. Two years? Why not four? This is a Vartan Gregorian, co-founder of “100 Lives”, funded initiative. These are extremely wealthy people who could have deep pockets. Then there is the way in which the winner, Pamela Tebchrany, 16, from Dhour Choueir, northeast of Beirut, found out. She received the news while at school in Armenia. “A friend sent me an article Vogue in which I mentioned. That’s how I heard the news!”, said the girl to L’Orient-Le Jour. It was more important that Vogue knew about it before the girl who actually won the scholarship? Okay. This scholarship is so important , and Amal cares so much for women and “the children” that Amal did not even show up to present it.
Haute couture, pap walks, internationally infamous, no wins or leads as a supposed “accomplished” human rights attorney…perhaps that is why on December 13the she was portrayed as the “dressing up doll” in a Telegraph’s pantomime of The Nutcracker. With lines such as, “Don’t worry, I’m a grown up, globe-trotting, sophisticated doll. I do good while dressed in haute couture and I’m here to defend your human right to wear Givenchy” and “(twirling happily) I am going to do good in this place, fight for justice, defend the oppressed, right all wrongs. I’m also going to perform a stylish fouetté. But first I must get a new, warmer outfit”, the proverbial shoe seem to fit.” The world sees her for what she is, but when anyone tries to mention it, the “anti-women” rhetoric heats up. As “Amal Clooney: Wife From Hell Embarrasses George With ‘Celebrity’ Diss” :
“The lawyer in the $3,400 suits doesn’t want you confusing her with mere actresses! ‘I don’t really see myself in the same way because I’m still doing the same job that I used to do before,’ said Amal, whose wardrobe includes $2,000 outfits by designer Stella McCartney, and a $3,440 Chanel suit. Human-rights attorney Amal also shamed George by sporting expensive gowns designed by Hitler-loving designer John Galliano! ‘You know, I think there is a certain responsibility that comes with that. I think I’m exercising it in an appropriate manner by continuing to do this kind of work.’ If so, someone might have told her not to wear a bunch of new stuff from Dolce and Gabbana, including a hideous mumsy-style custom made jacket and a blinding green mini dress that goes for just $1595 at Saks.”
She brings it on herself. One can head to Amal Clooney Style, which is supposedly run by her people, to see how the great “humanitarian” ventures to work in thousands of dollars of haute couture, $800 heels, and diamonds for her pap walks which she never wears twice. There is also a separate list of Mrs. Clooney’s $25,000 Dreamcoats. But the Clooneys are for the “little guy” and rail against the “1%”.
When Amal is out, always dressed to the nines in the most expensive designer wear George’s money can buy, we never see this woman with friends of her own. Ever. They are either co-workers, her family, or friends of George’s. When she is out with any of these people, her photos are taken from the right side of her face or head-on only, she is to be the center of attention, and never, under ANY circumstance, is she to be photographed directly next to Cindy Crawford. Take, for instance, the Casagmigos launch party in Ibiza:
Then the sophisticated flash in Notting Hill with the Damons & Gerbers. Alas no pictures of her next to Lucy or Cindy.
In early December, Amal was out not with her famous hubby but her mommy when she attended Charlotte Tilbury’s holiday party in London wrapped in tin foil and real fur:
By the end of 2015, the Clooneys had been exposed. They are not humanitarians, and they do not strive to protect the human rights of the downtrodden. They strive to enable the 1% while making themselves rich, the anti-thesis of everything George claimed not to be most of his professional life. As such, their careers and reputations are in the toilet. We have already discussed Amal’s losses in the fall of 2015. These must have proven a blow to George as the expectation might have existed for her publicly manipulated hopeful victories to act as coattails on which he could ride for his two movies scheduled for release in the spring. The Monuments Men was a big disappointment, as evidenced in George’s emails to Sony’s Amy Pascal in the Sony email hack, Tomorrowland was one of the biggest bombs of all time, and Our Brand is Crisis was one of Clooney’s biggest personal flops. He needed a hit with either Hail, Caesar (which he did not get) or with the upcoming Money Monster almost as much as Amal needed a win. Her losses leading up to the holiday season were big and very public.
As such, the Clooneys disappeared for the holidays. The last time they were seen together in 2015 was on November 8th. As rumors of marriage woes and Amal’s diva-like antics swirled, it became apparent that a PR rebrand for Clooney was needed for 2016. The
“humanitarian” and “pro-democracy” angles seemed to be the platforms chosen as he more than likely was to be used as a pop culture face for Hillary’s push towards the White House. . Not only do we now know that George is not either one of those, but Amal blew any chance for him to try to redeem himself with professional maneuvering that saw her pervert justice, mock democracy, and undermine the laws of sovereign nations in order to get criminals out of prison in an attempt to secure that elusive “victory”. Seems to run in direct opposition to what George wants to accomplish at least publicly.