- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 36,923
- Reaction score
- 22,245
- Location
- Didjabringabeeralong
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
Splitting hairs. Again.
So you see no difference between laughing at a rape case and laughing at a prosecutor accidentally destroying evidence?
wrong
anyone with integrity who believes in the system of innocent until proven guilty should be willing to defend an accused to the best of their ability
if not, they should be disbarred
Not only is your opinion uninformed by facts, but it also shows a bizarre misunderstanding of what the presumption of innocence entails. The notion that lawyers are ordinarily obligated by the rules of professional responsibility to defend persons who have been charged with crimes and should be disbarred for not doing so, no matter how convinced they are that those persons are guilty, is juvenile nonsense.
Only in very rare circumstances, usually when for some reason no other lawyer can be found to represent a criminal defendant, can a court require a lawyer to represent him. The Timothy McVeigh case provides an example of that. Otherwise, if a lawyer believes a person has committed a crime, particularly one he finds repugnant, he has no legal or ethical obligation whatever to agree to defend that person.
Vincent Bugliosi, who led the prosecution of the "Manson family" defendants, made some scathing comments about the very sort of conduct you seem to think is so noble and wondrous. He said the evidence against these people was so overwhelming that he would have been embarrassed--his word--to offer them his services, had be been a criminal defense lawyer. He noted with disgust how many lawyers he had seen rush to try to get that job, not because they believed these depraved murderers were poor innocents who had been railroaded, but simply because they saw a chance to gain publicity and make a lot of money.
Clinton spoke in clinical, legal terms while explaining her defense of the rapist, who Clinton helped to avoid a lengthy prison term by relying on a technicality relating to the chain of evidence of his blood-soaked underwear, as well as arguing at the time that the 12-year-old victim may have exaggerated or encouraged the attack.
Read more: Hillary Clinton Refuses Apologize Laughing Rape Victim Child | The Daily Caller
Clinton mocked and laughed at a 12 year old child and claimed she was just fantasizing about older men. Does that sound like an advocate for women and children? The 12 year old girl was raped into a coma and Hillary attacked her character and credibility in court.
Yeah...she laughed at the prosecutors case...not the victim. Glad you could finally admit it.What they didn't get wrong, however, was that she did indeed laugh at this case.
...
Yeah...she laughed at the prosecutors case...not the victim. Glad you could finally admit it.
Nope.. I can here it in her own words while laughing about it
Yes she did.
Wrong.
I posted the quote for all to see, and shrugged. :coffeepap That is all.
Here it is again!
eace
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?