Let's not lose sight of an important distinction

[AZ Jim]

Between Hillary and Trump. Bill Clinton is not running for President anymore than Melania is. Stick to the candidates not their families.

[HoneyBadger]

Bill is fair game. As a political power couple, they are inseparable.

[Cigar]

The ReThugs will be after The Clinton's long after The Clinton's are dead and gone ... just like The Obama's

They just can't take a good ass-kicking like Adults

[AZ Jim]

Bill is fair game. As a political power couple, they are inseparable.What your theory amounts to is what you are full of..........BTW That Avatar doesn't make you a tough guy!

[Cigar]

SUCK IT UP you Puzzies!

A message to Trump supporters: we put up with a Nixon, a Reagan and 2 Bushes.

We went about our lives, paid our taxes and still put up with your BS.

You would be wise to do the same, and stop whining.

[HoneyBadger]

What your theory amounts to is what you are full of..........BTW That Avatar doesn't make you a tough guy!

That avatar doesn't make me a guy at all, you dumbass.

Guess what hon... all of your assumptions are wrong.

[Cigar]

That avatar doesn't make me a guy at all, you dumbass.

Guess what hon... all of your assumptions are wrong.


Is AZ Jim grabbing you?

[The Xl]

Staying with someone for political gain is reprehensible and a reflection of her character. Let's not forget that she defended a child rapist in court that she knew was guilty. She's no champion for women, even ignoring Bill's baggage.

[HoneyBadger]

Is @AZ Jim (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1901) grabbing you?

I'm pretty sure he just got a hand full of something he didn't expect.

[Cigar]

Staying with someone for political gain is reprehensible and a reflection of her character. Let's not forget that she defended a child rapist in court that she knew was guilty. She's no champion for women, even ignoring Bill's baggage.


http://blog.beliefnet.com/prayables/files/2013/06/marriage-tips.png (http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/prayables/2013/06/marriage-tips.html) Don't ask Donald Trump to explain :laugh:

[Newpublius]

Between Hillary and Trump. Bill Clinton is not running for President anymore than Melania is. Stick to the candidates not their families.

That is true but there's also another distinction which is Hillary's promiment role as First Lady at the time with considerable influence over the health issues in the 90s and ultimately given Bill's political acumen he's not just the first male spouse of a President he's akin to a virtual Vice President. And frankly there's too much at stake to say 'this is off limits, this isn't' -- it just makes no political sense to attack Melania. If there were, she would be.

[Cigar]

I'm pretty sure he just got a hand full of something he didn't expect.


http://www.meistercontinentalfoods.co.uk/s/cc_images/cache_2419295107.jpg?t=1305624806 (http://www.meistercontinentalfoods.co.uk/)

[Peter1469]

That avatar doesn't make me a guy at all, you dumbass.

Guess what hon... all of your assumptions are wrong.

Warning: Please don’t call members names.

[Cletus]

Bill is fair game. As a political power couple, they are inseparable.

"I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." - First Lady Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents in 1998

Bill and Hillary Clinton together comprise a single political entity. She said so herself.

[Crepitus]

Staying with someone for political gain is reprehensible and a reflection of her character. Let's not forget that she defended a child rapist in court that she knew was guilty. She's no champion for women, even ignoring Bill's baggage.

A. We don't know why she stayed. Women stay with cheating husbands all the time.

B. She was a defense lawyer, that's what they do. It's their job.

[Mini Me]

What your theory amounts to is what you are full of..........BTW That Avatar doesn't make you a tough guy!

Only cowards would bring an automatic weapon to a fist fight!

[The Xl]

A. We don't know why she stayed. Women stay with cheating husbands all the time.

B. She was a defense lawyer, that's what they do. It's their job.

I think it's pretty evident why she stayed. This presidential run, and all her power and political positions, as well as her wealth, is pretty clearly why she stayed.

No defense attorney is obligated to take a case. Defending someone you know is guilty is an absolute scumbag move. She has literally zero morals or character. The victim was a kid for fucks sake. She's slime.

[Peter1469]

I think it's pretty evident why she stayed. This presidential run, and all her power and political positions, as well as her wealth, is pretty clearly why she stayed.

No defense attorney is obligated to take a case. Defending someone you know is guilty is an absolute scumbag move. She has literally zero morals or character. The victim was a kid for fucks sake. She's slime.

As are every single supporter of hers.

[Mini Me]

"I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." - First Lady Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents in 1998

Bill and Hillary Clinton together comprise a single political entity. She said so herself.


It will be Bill making most of the decisions. And I think that's a good thing!
You can't beat experience!

[AZ Jim]

As are every single supporter of hers.But Trump supporters such as yourself are paragons of virtue? Hahahahahaha more and more you become a living Joke.

[Peter1469]

But Trump supporters such as yourself are paragons of virtue? Hahahahahaha more and more you become a living Joke.

I don't support Trump. And I don't self identify as a toilet.

[Mini Me]

A. We don't know why she stayed. Women stay with cheating husbands all the time.

B. She was a defense lawyer, that's what they do. It's their job.


My best guess is they are SWINGERS!
And she may be allowed to get it on with whomever she wants!Male of female!

That would explain a lot! For some, that actually keeps a marriage togthether!

[ripmeister]

Staying with someone for political gain is reprehensible and a reflection of her character. Let's not forget that she defended a child rapist in court that she knew was guilty. She's no champion for women, even ignoring Bill's baggage.

This one about the child rapist is another red herring. She was appointed to that case, tried to get out of having to do it, couldn't and ultimately did her job of giving the defense the best job she could. I saw the prosecutor from that case on TV the other day and he nothing but good things to say about Hillary and that case as far as her involvement. People, including you really need to educate yourselves on these matters although I suspect you know that.

[hanger4]

Between Hillary and Trump. Bill Clinton is not running for President anymore than Melania is. Stick to the candidates not their families.

How do you square what Hillary said;

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you."

With this;

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9585/9-times-hillary-clinton-threatened-smeared-or-amanda-prestigiacomo

And this doesn't include what Hillary's paid and unpaid surrogates said about Bill's accusers.

[AZ Jim]

How do you square what Hillary said;

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you."

With this;

http://www.dailywire.com/news/9585/9-times-hillary-clinton-threatened-smeared-or-amanda-prestigiacomo

And this doesn't include what Hillary's paid and unpaid surrogates said about Bill's accusers.

Every defendant has a right to a attorney to defend them.

[Peter1469]

Every defendant has a right to a attorney to defend them.

I never did defense work, but I always supported the defense attorneys when I was a prosecutor and a military magistrate.

[hanger4]

Every defendant has a right to a attorney to defend them.

I totally agree but, what your response has to do with my post is beyond me. Please explain.

[Crepitus]

I think it's pretty evident why she stayed. This presidential run, and all her power and political positions, as well as her wealth, is pretty clearly why she stayed.

No defense attorney is obligated to take a case. Defending someone you know is guilty is an absolute scumbag move. She has literally zero morals or character. The victim was a kid for fucks sake. She's slime.

A. You are assuming, and you know what happens when you do that.

B. Someone has to defend every criminal. That's what defense lawyers do. Like I said, that's their job. She was appointed by a judge btw.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

Read and be enlightened.

[Crepitus]

My best guess is they are SWINGERS!
And she may be allowed to get it on with whomever she wants!Male of female!

That would explain a lot! For some, that actually keeps a marriage togthether!

Who knows? You could be correct.

[del]

I don't support Trump. And I don't self identify as a toilet.

ostomy bag?

[AZ Jim]

My best guess is they are SWINGERS!
And she may be allowed to get it on with whomever she wants!Male of female!

That would explain a lot! For some, that actually keeps a marriage togthether!Male infidelity in marriage is quite common and most marriages survive it. It is a private matter. Trump has been a cheater in his marriages, dwell on that if you must.

[The Xl]

This one about the child rapist is another red herring. She was appointed to that case, tried to get out of having to do it, couldn't and ultimately did her job of giving the defense the best job she could. I saw the prosecutor from that case on TV the other day and he nothing but good things to say about Hillary and that case as far as her involvement. People, including you really need to educate yourselves on these matters although I suspect you know that.

Absolute nonsense. No one is forced to take a case, and she did so knowing that her client was guilty. The fact that you're making a half assed attempt to defend it is shameful and partisan.

[exploited]

Absolute nonsense. No one is forced to take a case, and she did so knowing that her client was guilty. The fact that you're making a half assed attempt to defend it is shameful and partisan.

"To be an effective criminal defense counsel, an attorney must be prepared to be demanding, outrageous, irreverent, blasphemous, a rogue, a renegade, and a hated, isolated, and lonely person - few love a spokesman for the despised and the damned." -Clarence Darrow

A defense attorney, and particularly those who work for next to nothing to defend those who cannot afford their own laywer, are the unsung heroes of our criminal justice system. They take on a difficult and unthankful job that is absolutely crucial to limiting government power over the individual. They are, at the end of the day, one of the best limitations on tyranny out there. Thank god they have the fortitude to defend those who may least deserve it, but need it the most.

[The Xl]

"To be an effective criminal defense counsel, an attorney must be prepared to be demanding, outrageous, irreverent, blasphemous, a rogue, a renegade, and a hated, isolated, and lonely person - few love a spokesman for the despised and the damned." -Clarence Darrow

Anyone who defends someone they know raped a child is a piece of shit.

[exploited]

Anyone who defends someone they know raped a child is a piece of $#@!.

Nope. Such an action is heroic, and absolutely necessary to maintain personal liberty.

[The Xl]

Nope. Such an action is heroic, and absolutely necessary to maintain personal liberty.

That's probably the most delusional and disgusting thing written in the history of this board. Lawyers who defend people they actually believe in are heroic. Lawyers who defend people they know are guilty are among the lowest form of scum on the planet.

[Peter1469]

ostomy bag?

Not yet

[exploited]

That's probably the most delusional and disgusting thing written in the history of this board. Lawyers who defend people they actually believe in are heroic. Lawyers who defend people they know are guilty are among the lowest form of scum on the planet.

Incorrect. Every person deserves effective legal representation, no matter what they have allegedly done. It is a bedrock principle of the adversarial system designed and empowered by the Constitution, which has served the people effectively for centuries. I hope all murderers, rapists, child molesters, serial killers and war criminals are defended effectively. I also hope they are convicted... but if they aren't, that is the fault of the State, and not their legal representation.

[AZ Jim]

Incorrect. Every person deserves effective legal representation, no matter what they have allegedly done. It is a bedrock principle of the adversarial system designed and empowered by the Constitution, which has served the people effectively for centuries. I hope all murderers, rapists, child molesters, serial killers and war criminals are defended effectively. I also hope they are convicted... but if they aren't, that is the fault of the State, and not their legal representation.Logic is not his strong suit.

[Green Arrow]

Bill Clinton would actually be preferable to Hillary, but not by much.

[The Xl]

Incorrect. Every person deserves effective legal representation, no matter what they have allegedly done. It is a bedrock principle of the adversarial system designed and empowered by the Constitution, which has served the people effectively for centuries. I hope all murderers, rapists, child molesters, serial killers and war criminals are defended effectively. I also hope they are convicted... but if they aren't, that is the fault of the State, and not their legal representation.

So let someone who believes in the client do it. To get someone off that you know is criminal is absolutely reprehensible, and if you actually believe what you're saying, you should probably take a long look in the mirror.

[exploited]

So let someone who believes in the client do it. To get someone off that you know is criminal is absolutely reprehensible, and if you actually believe what you're saying, you should probably take a long look in the mirror.

I believe the best way of determining if someone is a criminal is if the evidence is presented to a jury of their peers, who pass judgment based on whether or not the evidence convinces them of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you disagree that this is the best method we have?

It isn't reprehensible whatsoever. It is actually a tremendous service to the cause of personal liberty, which holds that no person can be justly imprisoned without undergoing a fair trial, with effective legal representation. If the government cannot prove their case, that is because they have failed to make a compelling one, and reason holds that the defendant should be set free, as they are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[The Xl]

I believe the best way of determining if someone is a criminal is if the evidence is presented to a jury of their peers, who pass judgment based on whether or not the evidence convinces them of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you disagree that this is the best method we have?

She knew. She said she lost faith in lie detectors after he passed one. She knew for sure.

[exploited]

She knew. She said she lost faith in lie detectors after he passed one. She knew for sure.

Incorrect. She didn't know. She had an intuition, which may or may not have been correct. And she was right to lose faith in lie detectors, because they are notoriously bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_detection


In the 2007 peer-reviewed academic article "Charlatanry in forensic speech science", the authors reviewed 50 years of lie detector research and came to the conclusion that there is no scientific evidence supporting that voice analysis lie detectors actually work.[8] Lie detector manufacturer Nemesysco threatened to sue the academic publisher for libel resulting in removal of the article from online databases. In a letter to the publisher, Nemesysco's lawyers wrote that the authors of the article could be sued for defamation if they wrote on the subject again.[9][10] The full text of the article is available online.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#National_Academy_of_Sciences


The accuracy of the polygraph has been contested almost since the introduction of the device. In 2003, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report entitled "The Polygraph and Lie Detection". The NAS found that the majority of polygraph research was "unreliable, unscientific and biased", concluding that 57 of the approximately 80 research studies that the American Polygraph Association relies on to come to their conclusions were significantly flawed.[30] These studies did show that specific-incident polygraph testing, in a person untrained in counter-measures, could discern the truth at "a level greater than chance, yet short of perfection". However, due to several flaws, the levels of accuracy shown in these studies "are almost certainly higher than actual polygraph accuracy of specific-incident testing in the field".[14]

When polygraphs are used as a screening tool (in national security matters and for law enforcement agencies for example) the level of accuracy drops to such a level that "Its accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies." The NAS concluded that the polygraph "...may have some utility"[14] but that there is "little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy."[14]:212


The NAS conclusions paralleled those of the earlier United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment report "Scientific Validity of Polygraph Testing: A Research Review and Evaluation".[31] Similarly, a report to Congress by the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy[32] on national security concluded that " The few Government-sponsored scientific research reports on polygraph validity (as opposed to its utility), especially those focusing on the screening of applicants for employment, indicate that the polygraph is neither scientifically valid nor especially effective beyond its ability to generate admissions..."

[Peter1469]

Logic is not his strong suit.

You identify with a toilet bowl.

[decedent]

"I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president." - First Lady Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents in 1998

Bill and Hillary Clinton together comprise a single political entity. She said so herself.

Do you have evidence of this?

More fables about Hillary...

[The Xl]

Incorrect. She didn't know. She had an intuition, which may or may not have been correct. And she was right to lose faith in lie detectors, because they are notoriously bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_detection



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph#National_Academy_of_Sciences

I'm aware that lie detectors are inaccurate. She knew the guy was guilty. She defended someone she knew was guilty, someone who raped a child and put her into a temporary coma, just to further her career. She didn't care about the pain that caused that child or her loved ones. That isn't my definition of a moral and honorable person.

[AZ Jim]

I'm aware that lie detectors are inaccurate. She knew the guy was guilty. She defended someone she knew was guilty, someone who raped a child and put her into a temporary coma, just to further her career. She didn't care about the pain that caused that child or her loved ones. That isn't my definition of a moral and honorable person.Your total lack of knowledge of our legal system it is obvious. Go read a damn book and quit soap box philosophizing.

[exploited]

I'm aware that lie detectors are inaccurate. She knew the guy was guilty. She defended someone she knew was guilty, someone who raped a child and put her into a temporary coma, just to further her career. She didn't care about the pain that caused that child or her loved ones. That isn't my definition of a moral and honorable person.

You are speculating that she knew the guy was guilty, and you have yet to account for the fact that every single person, regardless of their alleged crime, deserves effective legal representation. Somebody will have to provide it.

[The Xl]

Your total lack of knowledge of our legal system it is obvious. Go read a damn book and quit soap box philosophizing.

Go ahead, specifically explain where my knowledge of the legal system is lacking, based on my posts in this thread. I'll wait.

[Safety]

A. We don't know why she stayed. Women stay with cheating husbands all the time.

B. She was a defense lawyer, that's what they do. It's their job.

Yea, like, sheesh.

OMG a defense lawyer defended someone....Manson, Bundy, and even Jared from Subway had a defense lawyer.

Silly season.


EDIT: Damn, I shouldn't have responded, that means I'm a shill now...

[The Xl]

Yea, like, sheesh.

OMG a defense lawyer defended someone....Manson, Bundy, and even Jared from Subway had a defense lawyer.

Silly season.


EDIT: Damn, I shouldn't have responded, that means I'm a shill now...

Nah, you're just a clown at this point.

Yeah, defending and getting someone exonerated who you know is a brutal criminal is absolutely scummy, no matter how much you and others dismiss it. But it shouldn't be a surprise at this point, you've dismissed all the reprehensible and shady shit she's done while playing the race card over and over on Trump. You even took your standard pot shots at the character of some posters, despite your own hypocrisy. It's a mockery at this point that you have the standing that you do, you're just del 2.0 at this point.

[AZ Jim]

Go ahead, specifically explain where my knowledge of the legal system is lacking, based on my posts in this thread. I'll wait.The entire plank of our judicial system is based upon a fair trail for anyone accused of a crime. This includes an attorney to defend him and protect his rights. You may have an appointed attorney at no charge if you cannot afford to hire one. You suggest otherwise and you are wrong.

[Safety]

Nah, you're just a clown at this point.

Yeah, defending and getting someone exonerated who you know is a brutal criminal is absolutely scummy, no matter how much you and others dismiss it. But it shouldn't be a surprise at this point, you've dismissed all the reprehensible and shady shit she's done while playing the race card over and over on Trump. You even took your standard pot shots at the character of some posters, despite your own hypocrisy. It's a mockery at this point that you have the standing that you do, you're just del 2.0 at this point.

*yawn*, let me know when you abide by what you accuse others of.

Newsflash genius, I can disparage Trump all day, for as long as I care to, and like I've said before...if you don't like it, start pounding sand. I'd rather be del 2.0, cigar 2.0, mark 2.0, than be made look like a clown for supporting someone who has played the hell out of you.

[AZ Jim]

Xl Fail.

[Ethereal]

XL taking out the trash... :shocked:

[Dr. Who]

What your theory amounts to is what you are full of..........BTW That Avatar doesn't make you a tough guy!
Honey Badger is a lady.

[The Xl]

*yawn*, let me know when you abide by what you accuse others of.

Newsflash genius, I can disparage Trump all day, for as long as I care to, and like I've said before...if you don't like it, start pounding sand. I'd rather be del 2.0, cigar 2.0, mark 2.0, than be made look like a clown for supporting someone who has played the hell out of you.

Disparage who you want, when you want, couldn't give a shit. I'll call you out for being the hypocritical joke you are when the situation calls for it, and if you don't like it, pound sand.

And whp are you kidding anyway? For the past 8 months, all you've done is indirectly shill for Clinton and pop in threads with Del caliber one liners. You're the one who is a clown.

[Safety]

Let the cheerleading begin.

Lawlz.

[Safety]

Disparage who you want, when you want, couldn't give a shit. I'll call you out for being the hypocritical joke you are when the situation calls for it, and if you don't like it, pound sand.

And whp are you kidding anyway? For the past 8 months, all you've done is indirectly shill for Clinton and pop in threads with Del caliber one liners. You're the one who is a clown.

While you have shilled and shielded Trump. Call it even or not, I could care less.

There's a thing about jokes, usually there is a shred of truth to back them up.....

[The Xl]

The entire plank of our judicial system is based upon a fair trail for anyone accused of a crime. This includes an attorney to defend him and protect his rights. You may have an appointed attorney at no charge if you cannot afford to hire one. You suggest otherwise and you are wrong.

Defending someone and defending someone you know is guilty is not the same thing.

[Safety]

Tell that to a defense lawyer and see what his response to you is.

[del]

Not yet

must get messy

[The Xl]

While you have shilled and shielded Trump. Call it even or not, I could care less.

There's a thing about jokes, usually there is a shred of truth to back them up.....

I'm not sitting here being holier than thou about it. And when I hit a thread, it's not some del caliber troll one liner, whether I'm shilling or not. For fucks sake.

[Ethereal]

Everyone is entitled to a defense, even the guilty, but their defense should be consistent with fact, evidence, and the law, and should not rely on sophistry and prevarication.

[The Xl]

Tell that to a defense lawyer and see what his response to you is.

Many lawyers are scum. That isn't limited to Hillary Clinton, but she sure fits that mold.

[Safety]

I'm not sitting here being holier than thou about it. And when I hit a thread, it's not some del caliber troll one liner, whether I'm shilling or not. For fucks sake.

Dude, get over yourself. Seriously. Holier than thou?

FFS.

[del]

*yawn*, let me know when you abide by what you accuse others of.

Newsflash genius, I can disparage Trump all day, for as long as I care to, and like I've said before...if you don't like it, start pounding sand. I'd rather be del 2.0, cigar 2.0, mark 2.0, than be made look like a clown for supporting someone who has played the hell out of you.


del 2.0?

[del]

Disparage who you want, when you want, couldn't give a shit. I'll call you out for being the hypocritical joke you are when the situation calls for it, and if you don't like it, pound sand.

And whp are you kidding anyway? For the past 8 months, all you've done is indirectly shill for Clinton and pop in threads with Del caliber one liners. You're the one who is a clown.

his one liners are hardly of my caliber, but you're not known for your discernment so i'll let it slide.

carry on, sunshine

[The Xl]

Dude, get over yourself. Seriously. Holier than thou?

FFS.

Rich coming from you. Utterly meaningless. Play up your moral compass, then when you get called on it, deflect, play the victim, dismiss, etc. Safety 101.

[del]

I'm not sitting here being holier than thou about it. And when I hit a thread, it's not some del caliber troll one liner, whether I'm shilling or not. For fucks sake.

that's all you do, kid.

like ethereal 2.0

[The Xl]

his one liners are hardly of my caliber, but you're not known for your discernment so i'll let it slide.

carry on, sunshine

They both suck, same exact tier of cleverness.

[del]

They both suck, same exact tier of cleverness.

as i said, discernment isn't your strong suit.

[The Xl]

that's all you do, kid.

like ethereal 2.0

You don't have the capacity to do anything other than write shit tier, cringe inducing one liners, so forgive me while I dismiss your incorrect and irrelevant opinion.

[The Xl]

as i said, discernment isn't your strong suit.


You don't have the capacity to do anything other than write shit tier, cringe inducing one liners, so forgive me while I dismiss your incorrect and irrelevant opinion.

[del]

You don't have the capacity to do anything other than write shit tier, cringe inducing one liners, so forgive me while I dismiss your incorrect and irrelevant opinion.

whatever you say, your holiness

[Safety]

Rich coming from you. Utterly meaningless. Play up your moral compass, then when you get called on it, deflect, play the victim, dismiss, etc. Safety 101.

Obviously you have an issue with me, that's fine, but the only way to deal with it is to....well, deal with it.

Clear enough?

[The Xl]

Obviously you have an issue with me, that's fine, but the only way to deal with it is to....well, deal with it.

Clear enough?

Just like you feel the need to say things when necessary, I do as well. Understand?

[Safety]

del 2.0?

Yea, amazing, no?

It must be a "cool kids" thing.

[Dr. Who]

That's probably the most delusional and disgusting thing written in the history of this board. Lawyers who defend people they actually believe in are heroic. Lawyers who defend people they know are guilty are among the lowest form of scum on the planet.
However it is a tenet of the law that everyone, including the guilty are entitled to a defense. Even a state-appointed defense counsel is not allowed to simply throw the case if it goes to trial.

[Safety]

Just like you feel the need to say things when necessary, I do as well. Understand?

Except you feel the need to get emotional and respond like everything is about you. This isn't about voting for prom king or queen.

[TrueBlue]

Bill is fair game. As a political power couple, they are inseparable.
The First Gentleman will not the running the show at the White House next January, Hillary will.

[del]

Yea, amazing, no?

It must be a "cool kids" thing.

seems more like drama club to me

[The Xl]

Except you feel the need to get emotional and respond like everything is about you. This isn't about voting for prom king or queen.

Interestingly enough, my response had nothing to do with you, both today and yesterday. Although your initial response to my post in this thread was quite trollish, although that's par for the course at this point.

[exploited]

To get this discussion productive again, here are some thoughts from various sources.

From the dissenting opinion in United States v. Wade, written by Supreme Court Justice White:


[Unlike prosecutors,] defense counsel has no comparable obligation to ascertain or present the truth. . . . [W]e also insist that he defend his client whether he is innocent or guilty. . . . Defense counsel . . . need not furnish any witnesses to the police, or reveal any confidences of his client, or furnish any other information to help the prosecution’s case. If he can confuse a witness, even a truthful one, or make him appear at a disadvantage, unsure or indecisive, that will be his normal course. Our interest in not convicting the innocent permits counsel to put the State to its proof, to put the State’s case in the worst possible light, regardless of what he thinks or knows to be the truth. Undoubtedly there are some limits which defense counsel must observe but more often than not, defense counsel will cross-examine a prosecution witness, and impeach him if he can, even if he thinks the witness is telling the truth . . . . [A]spart of our modified adversary system and as part of the duty imposed on the most honorable defense counsel, we countenance or require conduct which in many instances has little, if any, relation to the search for truth.

He is advocating what is known as the strong adversarial position of attorney ethics.

From the American Bar Associations Criminal Justice Standards:


...

Some duties of defense counsel run throughout the period of representation, and even beyond. Defense counsel should consider the impact of these duties at all stages of a criminal representation and on all decisions and actions that arise in the course of performing the defense function. These duties include:

(a) a duty of confidentiality regarding information relevant to the client’s representation which duty continues after the representation ends;


(b) a duty of loyalty toward the client;


(c) a duty of candor toward the court and others, tempered by the duties of confidentiality and loyalty;


(d) a duty to communicate and keep the client informed and advised of significant developments and potential options and outcomes;


(e) a duty to be well-informed regarding the legal options and developments that can affect a client’s interests during a criminal representation;


(f) a duty to continually evaluate the impact that each decision or action may have at later stages, including trial, sentencing, and post-conviction review;


(g) a duty to be open to possible negotiated dispositions of the matter, including the possible benefits and disadvantages of cooperating with the prosecution;


(h) a duty to consider the collateral consequences of decisions and actions, including but not limited to the collateral consequences of conviction.


...


(a) In light of criminal defense counsel’s constitutionally recognized role in the criminal process, defense counsel’s duty of candor may be tempered by competing ethical and constitutional obligations. Defense counsel must act zealously within the bounds of the law and applicable rules to protect the client’s confidences and the unique liberty interests that are at stake in criminal prosecution.


(b) Defense counsel should not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law or offer false evidence, to a court, lawyer, witnesses, or third party. It is not a false statement for defense counsel to suggest inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. In addition, while acting to accommodate legitimate confidentiality, privilege, or other defense concerns, defense counsel should correct a defense representation of material fact or law that defense counsel knows is, or later learns was, false.


(c) Defense counsel should disclose to a court legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to defense counsel to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by others.

From the Marquette Law Review:


...

However, not all scholars have so readily embraced the notion thatthe defense attorney should advance a false defense by discrediting thetruthful witness. Perhaps most prominently, Professor Harry I. Subinargues for a more limited role when defense counsel knows thedefendant is guilty, which is motivated in large part by the defenseattorney’s dual obligations as an advocate and an officer of the court.26Subin concedes that, because the defendant has a constitutional right toforce the government to prove each element of the crime beyond areasonable doubt, it corresponds that it is likewise ethically permissibleto discredit the truthful witness in order to challenge the weight of thegovernment’s evidence.

Nevertheless, to Subin, criminal defense lawyers have a primaryobligation to the truth, and tactics that distort or mislead the jury areinconsistent with this obligation.28 Initially, Subin argued that whendefense counsel knows the client is guilty, in such instances, he shouldbe limited to a monitoring role to ensure that a conviction is based on anadequate amount of competent and admissible evidence.29 Subin latermodified his position, based in part on the defendant’s constitutionalright to challenge the state’s case, and proposed that defense lawyerscould argue carefully worded alternative inferences or explanations thatthe attorney knows are not true for the purpose of assisting the factfinder in measuring the weight of the evidence.30 However, in Subin’sview, the jury should be given an instruction that it is permissible for thedefense to offer alternative versions of the facts, even if it has no goodfaith basis for believing the truth of its position.31 Moreover, Subinrejects the assertion of the systemic justifications noted above, i.e., thattruth subversion in an individual case is a necessary component ofpreventing governmental overreaching in the large scheme of thecriminal justice system.32Subin’s view has been referred to as a form of “weakadversarial[ism.]”33 Proponents of this type of lawyering suggest that itadvances societies interests because "[i]t is only when the judge and jury know the truth that society wins. Each time the lawyer uses talents and skills to pollute the courtroom with a lie, either explicit or implicit, the lawyer has intentionally diminished the chances that individual justice will be done. Thus society loses.34"

[Ethereal]

The First Gentleman will not the running the show at the White House next January, Hillary will.

Yea, but according to Broaddrick, Hillary knew of the rape and helped Bill cover it up by using intimidation tactics.

[Safety]

Interestingly enough, my response had nothing to do with you, both today and yesterday. Although your initial response to my post in this thread was quite trollish, although that's par for the course at this point.

But my first response in this thread was directed to Crepitus. Was it not?



Yea, like, sheesh.

OMG a defense lawyer defended someone....Manson, Bundy, and even Jared from Subway had a defense lawyer.

Silly season.


EDIT: Damn, I shouldn't have responded, that means I'm a shill now...


Nah, you're just a clown at this point.

Yeah, defending and getting someone exonerated who you know is a brutal criminal is absolutely scummy, no matter how much you and others dismiss it. But it shouldn't be a surprise at this point, you've dismissed all the reprehensible and shady shit she's done while playing the race card over and over on Trump. You even took your standard pot shots at the character of some posters, despite your own hypocrisy. It's a mockery at this point that you have the standing that you do, you're just del 2.0 at this point.

[ripmeister]

I think it's pretty evident why she stayed. This presidential run, and all her power and political positions, as well as her wealth, is pretty clearly why she stayed.

No defense attorney is obligated to take a case. Defending someone you know is guilty is an absolute scumbag move. She has literally zero morals or character. The victim was a kid for $#@!s sake. She's slime.

i don't think that's true. I saw an interview with the prosecuting attorney in that case and he said she was assigned to the case without choice and that in fact she asked to be removed but they wouldn't allow it. I have a friend who is a criminal attorney and his response would be that in our system it is incumbent on the defense attorney to give a vigorous defense or they can be sanctioned by the bar even to the point of disbarment.

[The Xl]

But my first response in this thread was directed to @Crepitus (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1345). Was it not?

This is what I mean by intentionally vague pot shots. If you're going to throw shots, at least be a man about it.

[The Xl]

i don't think that's true. I saw an interview with the prosecuting attorney in that case and he said she was assigned to the case without choice and that in fact she asked to be removed but they wouldn't allow it. I have a friend who is a criminal attorney and his response would be that in our system it is incumbent on the defense attorney to give a vigorous defense or they can be sanctioned by the bar even to the point of disbarment.

Attorneys have denied cases before. In any case, regardless of the circumstance, defending a brutal criminal who you know is guilty, who committed said heinous crime to a child no less, is highly immoral behavior, in my opinion.

[ripmeister]

Absolute nonsense. No one is forced to take a case, and she did so knowing that her client was guilty. The fact that you're making a half assed attempt to defend it is shameful and partisan.

Educate yourself.

[The Xl]

Educate yourself.

I'm plenty educated on the matter.

[Safety]

This is what I mean by intentionally vague pot shots. If you're going to throw shots, at least be a man about it.

Yea, it's called showing how ridiculous a statement can be. Still, wasn't addressing you.

[ripmeister]

I believe the best way of determining if someone is a criminal is if the evidence is presented to a jury of their peers, who pass judgment based on whether or not the evidence convinces them of guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you disagree that this is the best method we have?

It isn't reprehensible whatsoever. It is actually a tremendous service to the cause of personal liberty, which holds that no person can be justly imprisoned without undergoing a fair trial, with effective legal representation. If the government cannot prove their case, that is because they have failed to make a compelling one, and reason holds that the defendant should be set free, as they are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

would you please stop. You are making too much sense pointing out one of the bedrocks of,our society.

[The Xl]

Yea, it's called showing how ridiculous a statement can be. Still, wasn't addressing you.

Sure you were.

[The Xl]

would you please stop. You are making too much sense pointing out one of the bedrocks of,our society.

Again, you're conflating defense and defending someone you know is guilty. Not the same thing.

[ripmeister]

I'm aware that lie detectors are inaccurate. She knew the guy was guilty. She defended someone she knew was guilty, someone who raped a child and put her into a temporary coma, just to further her career. She didn't care about the pain that caused that child or her loved ones. That isn't my definition of a moral and honorable person.

Im not sure about this but I think at some point after this case in which she did the job she was compelled,to do she set up a rape crisis help line system in Arkansas.

[The Xl]

Im not sure about this but I think at some point after this case in which she did the job she was compelled,to do she set up a rape crisis help line system in Arkansas.

It was too late for that 12 year old girl at that point, sadly.

[HoneyBadger]

Nope. Such an action is heroic, and absolutely necessary to maintain personal liberty.

What is heroic about trying to blame the 12 year old victim by suggesting she wanted to be raped?

[ripmeister]

You are speculating that she knew the guy was guilty, and you have yet to account for the fact that every single person, regardless of their alleged crime, deserves effective legal representation. Somebody will have to provide it.

I forget the legal term but better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent lose their liberty.

[The Xl]

What is heroic about trying to blame the 12 year old victim by suggesting she wanted to be raped?

Nothing. It's completely reprehensible. The attempts to dismiss it by chalking it up to being standard protocol in the occupation aren't a sufficient excuse, either.

[The Xl]

I forget the legal term but better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent lose their liberty.

That's a completely fine and valid philosophical point of view that I happen to agree with. I don't have an issue with her defending someone accused of rape, I have an issue with her defending someone she actually thought was guilty of the accused brutal crime. It's not the same thing, not even in the same hemisphere.

[HoneyBadger]

I forget the legal term but better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent lose their liberty.


It's called Blackstone's ratio.

[HoneyBadger]

Nothing. It's completely reprehensible. The attempts to dismiss it by chalking it up to being standard protocol in the occupation aren't a sufficient excuse, either.

When you're dealing with an adult woman, her history and mental state are fair game to a point but it doesn't outweigh physical evidence. When you're dealing with a child, it's rape any way you look at it. Hillary was more than willing to further violate a little girl in order to get her client, who she knew was guilty, off the hook. There's nothing ethical or moral about that.

[del]

so if an attorney thinks a client is guilty, defending that client is reprehensible?

unreal

[ripmeister]

It's called Blackstone's ratio.

Thankyou for that. Did I get the ratio right?

[The Xl]

so if an attorney thinks a client is guilty, defending that client is reprehensible?

unreal

Yes, it speaks to the attorneys morals. It's pretty obvious as to why that would be, but don't hurt yourself too hard thinking it over.

[The Xl]

When you're dealing with an adult woman, her history and mental state are fair game to a point but it doesn't outweigh physical evidence. When you're dealing with a child, it's rape any way you look at it. Hillary was more than willing to further violate a little girl in order to get her client, who she knew was guilty, off the hook. There's nothing ethical or moral about that.

Of course. You'd hope that perspective would be a given with everyone, but Clinton needs to be defended at any cost, it would seem....

[del]

Yes, it speaks to the attorneys morals. It's pretty obvious as to why that would be, but don't hurt yourself too hard thinking it over.

it's about the most stupid thing i've heard this week; i'm not surprised you're a proponent.

[The Xl]

it's about the most stupid thing i've heard this week; i'm not surprised you're a proponent.

Again, you're not that bright, so your insults and opinions don't mean much.

[del]

Again, you're not that bright, so your insults and opinions don't mean much.

i know

that's why you never fail to respond, right?

[The Xl]

i know

that's why you never fail to respond, right?


Got some time to kill, might as well give you some excitement. Lord knows your day doesn't get any better than internet back and forths. You're welcome.

[exploited]

What is heroic about trying to blame the 12 year old victim by suggesting she wanted to be raped?

Not what actually happened, but at this point, I'm not very willing to continue to point out the various assumptions and factual errors being made by the weak adversarialists here.

Needless to say, all people who take on a client like that are doing a great and fundamental service to the country, and the principles embedded in the Constitution.

[Safety]

Sure you were.

Oh, so you're a mind reader now....

[del]

Got some time to kill, might as well give you some excitement. Lord knows your day doesn't get any better than internet back and forths. You're welcome.

slow night with the squeegee?

[The Xl]

Oh, so you're a mind reader now....

Who else, pray tell, would have you been referring too. Who else was making that case in the thread?

[Safety]

Damn, now it's del 2.3.

[The Xl]

slow night with the squeegee?

Just being nice, making the day of a mentally handicap elderly person with some back and forth. Call it voluntary community service.

[Safety]

Who else, pray tell, would have you been referring too. Who else was making that case in the thread?

Did I quote you in that post? Then I was not addressing you. If I'm holding a conversation in public and I am not speaking to you, what right do you have to butt into my conversation because you "think" I may be talking about you? Zero.

[Safety]

Just being nice, making the day of a mentally handicap elderly person with some back and forth. Call it voluntary community service.

Awww, making ageist and mental jokes now? I guess you really are "taking out the trash".... :rollseyes:

[The Xl]

Awww, making ageist and mental jokes now? I guess you really are "taking out the trash".... :rollseyes:

Hey, if you use the elderly card another 2475 times on here, it will match the amount of times you've used the race card. Get to work, times a wastin.'

[The Xl]

Did I quote you in that post? Then I was not addressing you. If I'm holding a conversation in public and I am not speaking to you, what right do you have to butt into my conversation because you "think" I may be talking about you? Zero.

I was literally the only person in the thread making the case. You were clearly referring to me. The vague pot shots are bad enough, now you're denying it? Grow a spine.

[Safety]

Hey, if you use the elderly card another 2475 times on here, it will match the amount of times you've used the race card. Get to work, times a wastin.'

Hey, there's a guilt ridden white lib that would probably give a damn walking by, why don't you tell him how great Trump is? Make sure you grip the handles on the buckets you are carrying tightly so they don't slip.

[Safety]

I was literally the only person in the thread making the case. You were clearly referring to me. The vague pot shots are bad enough, now you're denying it? Grow a spine.

Feeling drafty in here without your victim cape to keep you comfortable?

[The Xl]

Feeling drafty in here without your victim cape to keep you comfortable? I don't really care, but have some level of integrity. Who do you think you're kidding? Grow a set. The potshot stuff is embarrassing. If you're going to say something, say it.

[del]

Just being nice, making the day of a mentally handicap elderly person with some back and forth. Call it voluntary community service.

i didn't think peter was that old

what a good boy you are

[del]

Feeling drafty in here without your victim cape to keep you comfortable?


I don't really care, but have some level of integrity. Who do you think you're kidding? Grow a set. The potshot stuff is embarrassing. If you're going to say something, say it.


yeah, that's really hard to decipher

:rofl:

[The Xl]

Hey, there's a guilt ridden white lib that would probably give a damn walking by, why don't you tell him how great Trump is? Make sure you grip the handles on the buckets you are carrying tightly so they don't slip.

Right after you shill for the candidate who has played an integral part in destroying your community. At least you know your place.

[The Xl]

yeah, that's really hard to decipher

:rofl:

Talking about how he takes his initial shots. Keep up.

[del]

Right after you shill for the candidate who has played an integral part in destroying your community. At least you know your place.

feels good to take off the mask, doesn't it?

[del]

Talking about him he takes his initial shots. Keep up.

sure, kid.

lol

[The Xl]

feels good to take off the mask, doesn't it?

I'm not the one indirectly shilling for the candidate who has destroyed the black community. That's you clowns.

[Safety]

I don't really care, but have some level of integrity. Who do you think you're kidding? Grow a set. The potshot stuff is embarrassing. If you're going to say something, say it.


lawz.

[Safety]

I'm not the one indirectly shilling for the candidate who has destroyed the black community. That's you clowns.

"destroyed the black community".... :biglaugh:

engage them enough and watch the emotional plea come to light....

black community...whoa!

[The Xl]

lawz.
Del tier posting. You're on fire.

[del]

I'm not the one indirectly shilling for the candidate who has destroyed the black community. That's you clowns.

no, you're the one congratulating the black guy for knowing his place.

[Safety]

feels good to take off the mask, doesn't it?

Funny isn't ain't it. Guess I betsta knows my plase, eh massa? Can't get too uppity around some folks, they likes to reminds ya where your level is.

[The Xl]

no, you're the one congratulating the black guy for knowing his place.
Who said anything about race? Way to play the race card.

[Safety]

no, you're the one congratulating the black guy for knowing his place.

Wait for the "are you calling me a racist" comment any second now....

[The Xl]

Funny isn't ain't it. Guess I betsta knows my plase, eh massa? Can't get too uppity around some folks, they likes to reminds ya where your level is.

That's number 2476 on this site. You're on quite the roll.

[Safety]

Who said anything about race? Way to play the race card.

"my community" Bocephus?

[Safety]

Right after you shill for the candidate who has played an integral part in destroying your community. At least you know your place.


I'm not the one indirectly shilling for the candidate who has destroyed the black community. That's you clowns.


Who said anything about race? Way to play the race card.

.....

Must be two posters using the same screen name then, right? I mean...who brought race into the thread?

Seriously?

QFD.

[The Xl]

"my community" Bocephus?

Asserting that you're supporting the candidate who has wrecked your community isn't racist, it's a fact. She and her husband have.

[The Xl]

.....

Must be two posters using the same screen name then, right? I mean...who brought race into the thread?

Seriously?

QFD.

How is merely bringing up race in a discussion racist? It's not.

[Cletus]

Nope. Such an action is heroic, and absolutely necessary to maintain personal liberty.

Okay, so now you are saying it is "heroic" to defend child rapists so they can stay out of prison and be free to victimize even more children.

I am not even sure what to say to that.

[Safety]

Asserting that you're supporting the candidate who has wrecked your community isn't racist, it's a fact. She and her husband have.

How about you try to stop digging this hole? It's late and you have not the slightest clue as to what the f you are saying.

[Safety]

Who said anything about race? Way to play the race card.


How is merely bringing up race in a discussion racist? It's not.


16370

[The Xl]

How about you try to stop digging this hole? It's late and you have not the slightest clue as to what the f you are saying.
No one is digging a hole, you're just playing the race card, per usual. I can criticize you for supporting someone who has damaged the black community without it being racist. You claim to care about it, support BLM on the premise, pointing out evident hypocrisy is a perfectly valid point.

[Cletus]

Your total lack of knowledge of our legal system it is obvious. Go read a damn book and quit soap box philosophizing.

Jim, are you saying she did NOT defend a child rapist she knew was guilty?

[Cletus]

You are speculating that she knew the guy was guilty, and you have yet to account for the fact that every single person, regardless of their alleged crime, deserves effective legal representation. Somebody will have to provide it.

Do you understand the difference between "legal representation" and trying to help someone get away with a crime?

[Safety]

No one is digging a hole, you're just playing the race card, per usual. I can criticize you for supporting someone who has damaged the black community without it being racist. You claim to care about it, support BLM on the premise, pointing out evident hypocrisy is a perfectly valid point.

First, learn the difference between supporting, defending, and pointing out hypocrisy, then come back and try to lecture me.

[The Xl]

16370

Race in the context to dels response. He said that the phrase not knowing your place was racist. I was not using that phrase as a racial jab.

[del]

Do you understand the difference between "legal representation" and trying to help someone get away with a crime?

you seem to be the one struggling with the concept

[del]

Race in the context to dels response. He said that the phrase not knowing your place was racist. I was not using that phrase as a racial jab.

sure

[Cletus]

you seem to be the one struggling with the concept

I understand it perfectly.

I know you don't understand much, but I will try to explain it to you if you wish.

[Safety]

Race in the context to dels response. He said that the phrase not knowing your place was racist. I was not using that phrase as a racial jab.

"YOU" said my community. "YOU" said the black community. "YOU" brought race into this thread.

So, we have an ad hom attempt, then a credibility attempt, and finally a misunderstanding attempt in the same conversation.

[The Xl]

sure
I have literally zero past history of any racist statements or insinuations. You're not going to pin that shit on me.

[exploited]

Okay, so now you are saying it is "heroic" to defend child rapists so they can stay out of prison and be free to victimize even more children.

I am not even sure what to say to that.

You can say something like "I'm way out of my element, and have literally zero understanding of the adversarial legal system, the differences between weak and strong adversarialism, or the judicial underpinnings of Western common and statutory law."


Do you understand the difference between "legal representation" and trying to help someone get away with a crime?

All defense attorneys are "trying to help someone get away with a crime," if you have decided to presume guilt without the verdict of a trial by ones peers. It is the nature of the job. Put on your big boy pants and get over it.

[Safety]

"YOU" said my community. "YOU" said the black community. "YOU" brought race into this thread.

So, we have an ad hom attempt, then a credibility attempt, and finally a misunderstanding attempt in the same conversation.

But I will say this...this is exactly the reason why when cigar gets chastised for his shit I chime in, because evidently many people here don't remember the words they post after they post them.

[The Xl]

"YOU" said my community. "YOU" said the black community. "YOU" brought race into this thread.

So, we have an ad hom attempt, then a credibility attempt, and finally a misunderstanding attempt in the same conversation.

Race had absolutely nothing to do with the statement I made, which is what del tried to pin on me. That's what the response was to. If that wasn't clear then, hopefully it is now.

[HoneyBadger]

Not what actually happened,

It is what actually happened. She asked the court to have the 12 year old undergo a psychiatric exam because she said she had "heard" that the victim fantasized about older men.

A 12 year old child who was given alcohol by a 42 year old man before she was raped.

It doesn't matter what the state of mind was of the 12 year old. Clinton was deliberately trying to muddy the waters and engaged in victim shaming of a child who was below the age of consent (16) in Arkansas.

[Safety]

Race had absolutely nothing to do with the statement I made, which is what del tried to pin on me. That's what the response was to. If that wasn't clear then, hopefully it is now.

.....are you going to sit there and say that when you said to me "my community", "black community", you were not intending to have anything to do with race?

Is that what you are saying?

[Cletus]

You can say something like "I'm way out of my element, and have literally zero understanding of the adversarial legal system, the differences between weak and strong adversarialism, or the judicial underpinnings of Western common and statutory law."

I really don't need advice or instruction from anyone who wants child rapists to get away with their crimes.

Begone.

[exploited]

I really don't need advice or instruction from anyone who wants child rapists to get away with their crimes.

Begone.

And I don't need advice or instruction from a person who has called for police officers to execute detained suspects, and then has the gall to ever talk about justice as if he has any idea whatsoever what he is talking about. You are a prime example of a person who needs to be sent to a work camp in North Korea so you can get a taste of the judicial system you so desire.

[The Xl]

.....are you going to sit there and say that when you said to me "my community", "black community", you were not intending to have anything to do with race?

Is that what you are saying?

I brought your hypocrisy up about supporting a candidate who has hurt the black community. You talk up BLM and all this other stuff, defend it and whatnot, and that's fine, but I consider it hypocritical. So yes, I brought up race, but race had nothing to do with my know your place comment. Del asserted that it did, my who said anything about race comments were directed at dels accusation.

[The Xl]

.....are you going to sit there and say that when you said to me "my community", "black community", you were not intending to have anything to do with race?

Is that what you are saying?

Race had nothing to do with my know your place comment. That was not intended to be a racist comment. Other than that, yes, I obviously brought up race.

[Safety]

It's sad when partisanship has affected how some view the legal system. The right to an attorney be damned, I guess.

[Cletus]

It's sad when partisanship has affected how some view the legal system. The right to an attorney be damned, I guess.

Who here has said people don't or should not have a right to legal counsel?

Please name them and provide supporting quotes.

[exploited]

It is what actually happened. She asked the court to have the 12 year old undergo a psychiatric exam because she said she had "heard" that the victim fantasized about older men.

A 12 year old child who was given alcohol by a 42 year old man before she was raped.

It doesn't matter what the state of mind was of the 12 year old. Clinton was deliberately trying to muddy the waters and engaged in victim shaming of a child who was below the age of consent (16) in Arkansas.

You are leaving out the part where it was established that this girl had made false accusations of physical assaults in the past. Whoops.

In any case, as supposedly unpleasant as it is, she defended her client well and properly, within the boundaries of the law, which is her ethical responsibility as a defense attorney.

This "victim shaming" bit is cute though. There is nothing "shameful" about a psychiatric evaluation. It isn't like she got tortured - she had a talk with a psychiatrist, which in the long run, was probably a good thing for her mental health.

[Safety]

Who here has said people don't or should not have a right to legal counsel?

Please name them and provide supporting quotes.

Who here has said that someone has said that people don't or shouldn't have a right to legal counsel? Post the quotes, please.

[Safety]

You are leaving out the part where it was established that this girl had made false accusations of physical assaults in the past. Whoops.

In any case, as unpleasant as it is, she defended her client well and properly, within the boundaries of the law, which is her ethical responsibility as a defense attorney.

This "victim shaming" bit is cute though. There is nothing "shameful" about a psychiatric evaluation. It isn't like she got tortured - she had a talk with a psychiatrist, which in the long run, was probably a good thing for her mental health.

Dude, they want you to re argue the case, because it is all they have to talk about. She was a defense attorney defending a client, the end. They want some sort of moral outrage in this case, but could not give a rat's ass about the millions of defense attorneys around the world that defend the scum of the earth as their job.

I would let them argue among themselves.

[Cletus]

Who here has said that someone has said that people don't or shouldn't have a right to legal counsel? Post the quotes, please.

What did you mean by this?


It's sad when partisanship has affected how some view the legal system. The right to an attorney be damned, I guess.

[AZ Jim]

First of all this all happened 40+ years ago and no one here has anymore information than the ad hom internet stuff. She was assigned a case to defend, she did. She fulfilled her obligation as a defense attorney and an officer of the court. You don't like how it came out consider how many didn't like the OJ verdict, the Zimmerman outcome and many others not popular but one common thread runs between them all, the attorneys did their jobs as they were chartered to do. End of subject.

[exploited]

Dude, they want you to re argue the case, because it is all they have to talk about. She was a defense attorney defending a client, the end. They want some sort of moral outrage in this case, but could not give a rat's ass about the millions of defense attorneys around the world that defend the scum of the earth as their job.

I would let them argue among themselves.

I can't speak to HoneyBadger, I don't know anything about him and haven't really interacted with him in the past. But I do know this about Cletus: he absolutely despises the Western justice system. One of our first interactions here, he said, in plain English, that violent suspects who are detained and no longer a threat should be executed by the police on the spot. So I think his issues are much greater than simple partisanship: he is literally a fascist.

[Cletus]

I can't speak to HoneyBadger, I don't know anything about him and haven't really interacted with him in the past. But I do know this about Cletus: he absolutely despises the Western justice system. One of our first interactions here, he said, in plain English, that violent suspects who are detained and no longer a threat should be executed by the police on the spot. So I think his issues are much greater than simple partisanship: he is literally a fascist.

I am not supposed to call you an idiot because it is offensive to idiots. So, I won't.

[Safety]

What did you mean by this?

Gideon v. Wainwright established the right to an attorney in '63, and although a person accused of a crime must be provided a lawyer at trial, many states still lack comprehensive and adequate programs for providing representation. Thusly, the more money you have, the better chances you have at trial.

[Cletus]

Gideon v. Wainwright established the right to an attorney in '63, and although a person accused of a crime must be provided a lawyer at trial, many states still lack comprehensive and adequate programs for providing representation. Thusly, the more money you have, the better chances you have at trial.

Uh huh... What does that have to with partisanship?

[The Xl]

No one is saying that the guy doesn't have a right to an attorney. But she didn't need to be the one to take the case, especially considering the fact that she thought he was guilty.

[exploited]

I am not supposed to call you an idiot because it is offensive to idiots. So, I won't.

Another good one little buddy! Did you learn these killer insults while cooking potatoes in the military?

[Safety]

Uh huh... What does that have to with partisanship?

Read the comments in this thread....basically, everything.

[Cletus]

Another good one little buddy! Did you learn these killer insults while cooking potatoes in the military?

Are you sure you want to go there?

[Cletus]

Read the comments in this thread....basically, everything.

The thread has too much bullshit in to to take the time to wade through it.

You made a comment and I asked you to explain it. If you don't want to do so or can't do so, that's okay.

[Safety]

No one is saying that the guy doesn't have a right to an attorney. But she didn't need to be the one to take the case, especially considering the fact that she thought he was guilty.


In 1975, Hillary Clinton — then known as Hillary Rodham — taught at the University of Arkansas School of Law, where she founded the University of Arkansas School Legal Aid Clinic. It was during this time that she defended Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl.
In her book “Living History,” Clinton recalls that Mahlon Gibson, a Washington County prosecutor, told her that the accused rapist “wanted a woman lawyer” to defend him, and that Gibson had recommended Clinton to Judge Maupin Cummings. “I told Mahlon I really didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/25/prosecutor-in-controversial-case-says-clinton-had-no-choice-but-to-defend-rapist/

Let's put this one to rest already.

[exploited]

Are you sure you want to go there?

Yeah, sorry, my bad. I meant to say "did you learn these killer insults while burning the latrine sh*t out back?"

[Safety]

The thread has too much bullshit in to to take the time to wade through it.

You made a comment and I asked you to explain it. If you don't want to do so or can't do so, that's okay.

No, you are trying to obfuscate because you know I'm right. You're better than that, tighten up.

[Ethereal]

No one is saying that the guy doesn't have a right to an attorney. But she didn't need to be the one to take the case, especially considering the fact that she thought he was guilty.

I don't have a problem with her taking the case and defending her client. The problem is when that defense does not rely solely on fact, evidence, and the law, but rather "sophistry and prevarication", as John Adams called it.

In other words, even a child rapist is entitled to a defense, but the defense should be characterized by honesty and integrity, not a self-serving desire to "win" at all costs.

[exploited]

No, you are trying to obfuscate because you know I'm right. You're better than that, tighten up.

Hasn't there been enough factually incorrect comments in this thread? Shame on you.

[Cletus]

Yeah, sorry, my bad. I meant to say "did you learn these killer insults while burning the latrine shit out back?"

Okay.

Fortunately for you, the forum has rules and the internet provides you with limited anonymity that allows you to pretend to be brave.

[exploited]

Okay.

Fortunately for you, the forum has rules and the internet provides you with limited anonymity that allows you to pretend to be brave.

Why, do you want to assault me now?

Another example of your finely-tuned sense of justice: getting mocked on the internet warrants physical violence.

Good one little buddy!

[The Xl]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/25/prosecutor-in-controversial-case-says-clinton-had-no-choice-but-to-defend-rapist/

Let's put this one to rest already.

To put one's career over a child is still pretty scummy. She had a moral choice, but chose career gain over basic morality. Sounds like not much has changed over the last 40 years.

[Tahuyaman]

Between Hillary and Trump. Bill Clinton is not running for President anymore than Melania is. Stick to the candidates not their families.

uh.... Ok....

[The Xl]

I don't have a problem with her taking the case and defending her client. The problem is when that defense does not rely solely on fact, evidence, and the law, but rather "sophistry and prevarication", as John Adams called it.

In other words, even a child rapist is entitled to a defense, but the defense should be characterized by honesty and integrity, not a self-serving desire to "win" at all costs.

She thought the guy was guilty, it's not that much of a surprise that she would have to resort to less than honest tactics to get him off the hook.

[AZ Jim]

She thought the guy was guilty, it's not that much of a surprise that she would have to resort to less than honest tactics to get him off the hook.Oh for chrissake go to bed. You will never understand the issue.

[The Xl]

Oh for chrissake go to bed. You will never understand the issue.

Can you go even one post without shilling?

[AZ Jim]

Can you go even one post without shilling?I've posted them all day. You get your "widdle feewings hurted"?

[The Xl]

I've posted them all day. You get your "widdle feewings hurted"?

All you've done all day.....is shill for Hillary.

Hurt my feelings? Dude, you're irrelevant.

[AZ Jim]

All you've done all day.....is shill for Hillary.

Hurt my feelings? Dude, you're irrelevant.Then you can quit wasting my time, lightweight.

[The Xl]

Then you can quit wasting my time, lightweight.

You're the one who started the conversation with me, genius. Your age related cognitive issues are flaring up right now, it would seem.

[Bethere]

I don't support Trump. And I don't self identify as a toilet.

Toilets are always the last to know, Pete.

[Tahuyaman]

Staying with someone for political gain is reprehensible and a reflection of her character. Let's not forget that she defended a child rapist in court that she knew was guilty. She's no champion for women, even ignoring Bill's baggage.

I can't condemn her for doing a job she was assigned to do. Even the most despicable are entitled to a defense. It can be legit to condemn the way she defended him, but I don't know if that's the case there.

Criticizing her on the way she responded to the accusers of her husband does expose her character. That is a legit issue in a presidential election.

[PolWatch]

If I had been faced with a similar situation what would I do? If I decided to stay with my husband, those loyalties would take precedence over my feminist side. Family first....those hussy's could fend for themselves! :wink:

[ripmeister]

She thought the guy was guilty, it's not that much of a surprise that she would have to resort to less than honest tactics to get him off the hook.

I would encourage you to try and find some information on the prosecuting attorney in this case and his comments on the case and Hillary. I think it might change your mind. CNN did two bio shows, one on Trump and one on Clinton that I thought were very good. If you have OD you should be able to find them. One portion of the Clinton show was on this topic and listening to the Prosecutors comments was eye opening for me. In situation like this where so much of the rhetoric is vitriolic and basically at the level of urban myth after so many years I find it good to try and go back to primary sources to get the real story. It does take some work though.