Hillary Clinton defended older man who raped a 12 year old girl

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

The best case scenario is to refuse to represent the client on moral grounds. But sometimes the court is stuck, and the prosecutor needs someone to serve as defense counsel to get the conviction.

In that situation, you take the case and provide barely adequate defense. Try hard to get the client to plead to a heavy sentence; the judge and prosecutor will love you for saving time and money--and they'll pay you back.

The client, like just about all arrestees, doesn't deserve a zealous defense. Go through the motions. Make the arguments so the habeas people can't claim IAC, but do everything with tone and body language to show your client is a snake.

Make one quick trip to the prison to visit the client. Otherwise, take another couple of trips at times you know the jail won't make the client available. Don't seek any experts. No mitigation, or at most get a bozo who's easy to refute and humiliate.

Finally, hammer people like this child rapist at the SYSTEMIC level. Oppose public defender funding at every opportunity. DQ anyone with defense background for a judgeship. Portray court-appointed attorneys as wasteful; cut their compensation at every turn. On the Federal level, ask Congress to mandate abandonment of Brady rules on evidence.

Hillary took the case to do a favor, but she didn't atone for her work. That's going to be her downfall.

No judge cares what ABA thinks about criminal defense. Each dollar that goes to a court-appointed defense is a dollar taken from the courts as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The best case scenario is to refuse to represent the client on moral grounds. But sometimes the court is stuck, and the prosecutor needs someone to serve as defense counsel to get the conviction.

In that situation, you take the case and provide barely adequate defense. Try hard to get the client to plead to a heavy sentence; the judge and prosecutor will love you for saving time and money--and they'll pay you back.

The client, like just about all arrestees, doesn't deserve a zealous defense. Go through the motions. Make the arguments so the habeas people can't claim IAC, but do everything with tone and body language to show your client is a snake.

Make one quick trip to the prison to visit the client. Otherwise, take another couple of trips at times you know the jail won't make the client available. Don't seek any experts. No mitigation, or at most get a bozo who's easy to refute and humiliate.

Finally, hammer people like this child rapist at the SYSTEMIC level. Oppose public defender funding at every opportunity. DQ anyone with defense background for a judgeship. Portray court-appointed attorneys as wasteful; cut their compensation at every turn. On the Federal level, ask Congress to mandate abandonment of Brady rules on evidence.

Hillary took the case to do a favor, but she didn't atone for her work. That's going to be her downfall.

I'm not an attorney, but please tell me this is a sarcastic post and restore my last shred of faith in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its amazing how delusional and forgiving Hillary supporters are.

I personally pledge to you that I defended Ted Cruz when he was criticized for representing reprehensible clients. And I promise I agree with him about nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

So much for the Hippocratic oath, eh?

I said I left the job rather than do those things

Well, it's nice that you had the option. I would assume most attorneys don't. And they do have to take a little oath to uphold the Constitution too. You know, the one with the 6th Amendment?

First it was about a young lawyer not wanting to burn any bridges. Now it's about constitution. Which is it?

I didn't make both arguments, but why are they mutually exclusive?

If it's about young lawyers establishing connections, then she did have options.

[Anonymous]

OP is grasping at straws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

So much for the Hippocratic oath, eh?

I said I left the job rather than do those things

Well, it's nice that you had the option. I would assume most attorneys don't. And they do have to take a little oath to uphold the Constitution too. You know, the one with the 6th Amendment?

First it was about a young lawyer not wanting to burn any bridges. Now it's about constitution. Which is it?

I didn't make both arguments, but why are they mutually exclusive?

If it's about young lawyers establishing connections, then she did have options.

What are you even talking about? If you know nothing about the profession, then you should listen to those who do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

So much for the Hippocratic oath, eh?

I said I left the job rather than do those things

Well, it's nice that you had the option. I would assume most attorneys don't. And they do have to take a little oath to uphold the Constitution too. You know, the one with the 6th Amendment?

First it was about a young lawyer not wanting to burn any bridges. Now it's about constitution. Which is it?

I didn't make both arguments, but why are they mutually exclusive?

If it's about young lawyers establishing connections, then she did have options.

What are you even talking about? If you know nothing about the profession, then you should listen to those who do.

Hillary had the option to not take this case, but she chose to do it, and laughed about the polygraphs, hole in the underwear ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

So much for the Hippocratic oath, eh?

I said I left the job rather than do those things

Well, it's nice that you had the option. I would assume most attorneys don't. And they do have to take a little oath to uphold the Constitution too. You know, the one with the 6th Amendment?

First it was about a young lawyer not wanting to burn any bridges. Now it's about constitution. Which is it?

I didn't make both arguments, but why are they mutually exclusive?

If it's about young lawyers establishing connections, then she did have options.

What are you even talking about? If you know nothing about the profession, then you should listen to those who do.

Hillary had the option to not take this case, but she chose to do it, and laughed about the polygraphs, hole in the underwear ...

True, her options were to quit practicing law, move, or take the case. She chose to take the case and continue her legal career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The best case scenario is to refuse to represent the client on moral grounds. But sometimes the court is stuck, and the prosecutor needs someone to serve as defense counsel to get the conviction.

In that situation, you take the case and provide barely adequate defense. Try hard to get the client to plead to a heavy sentence; the judge and prosecutor will love you for saving time and money--and they'll pay you back.

The client, like just about all arrestees, doesn't deserve a zealous defense. Go through the motions. Make the arguments so the habeas people can't claim IAC, but do everything with tone and body language to show your client is a snake.

Make one quick trip to the prison to visit the client. Otherwise, take another couple of trips at times you know the jail won't make the client available. Don't seek any experts. No mitigation, or at most get a bozo who's easy to refute and humiliate.

Finally, hammer people like this child rapist at the SYSTEMIC level. Oppose public defender funding at every opportunity. DQ anyone with defense background for a judgeship. Portray court-appointed attorneys as wasteful; cut their compensation at every turn. On the Federal level, ask Congress to mandate abandonment of Brady rules on evidence.

Hillary took the case to do a favor, but she didn't atone for her work. That's going to be her downfall.

I'm not an attorney, but please tell me this is a sarcastic post and restore my last shred of faith in America.

Ironically, this approach would get the defendant's conviction thrown out for inadequate assistance of counsel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The best case scenario is to refuse to represent the client on moral grounds. But sometimes the court is stuck, and the prosecutor needs someone to serve as defense counsel to get the conviction.

In that situation, you take the case and provide barely adequate defense. Try hard to get the client to plead to a heavy sentence; the judge and prosecutor will love you for saving time and money--and they'll pay you back.

The client, like just about all arrestees, doesn't deserve a zealous defense. Go through the motions. Make the arguments so the habeas people can't claim IAC, but do everything with tone and body language to show your client is a snake.

Make one quick trip to the prison to visit the client. Otherwise, take another couple of trips at times you know the jail won't make the client available. Don't seek any experts. No mitigation, or at most get a bozo who's easy to refute and humiliate.

Finally, hammer people like this child rapist at the SYSTEMIC level. Oppose public defender funding at every opportunity. DQ anyone with defense background for a judgeship. Portray court-appointed attorneys as wasteful; cut their compensation at every turn. On the Federal level, ask Congress to mandate abandonment of Brady rules on evidence.

Hillary took the case to do a favor, but she didn't atone for her work. That's going to be her downfall.

I'm not an attorney, but please tell me this is a sarcastic post and restore my last shred of faith in America.

Ironically, this approach would get the defendant's conviction thrown out for inadequate assistance of counsel.

Nope, you'd be doing just enough to avoid IAC. Sighs, cold body language, and recoiling from the client don't enter the record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its amazing how delusional and forgiving Hillary supporters are.

I personally pledge to you that I defended Ted Cruz when he was criticized for representing reprehensible clients. And I promise I agree with him about nothing else.

Yep.

Those saying she should have turned down the case should read the book Defending Gary. Talk about a disgusting guy. He was defended by a man, so I'm sure his lawyer won't get raked over the coals, but it's a great book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The best case scenario is to refuse to represent the client on moral grounds. But sometimes the court is stuck, and the prosecutor needs someone to serve as defense counsel to get the conviction.

In that situation, you take the case and provide barely adequate defense. Try hard to get the client to plead to a heavy sentence; the judge and prosecutor will love you for saving time and money--and they'll pay you back.

The client, like just about all arrestees, doesn't deserve a zealous defense. Go through the motions. Make the arguments so the habeas people can't claim IAC, but do everything with tone and body language to show your client is a snake.

Make one quick trip to the prison to visit the client. Otherwise, take another couple of trips at times you know the jail won't make the client available. Don't seek any experts. No mitigation, or at most get a bozo who's easy to refute and humiliate.

Finally, hammer people like this child rapist at the SYSTEMIC level. Oppose public defender funding at every opportunity. DQ anyone with defense background for a judgeship. Portray court-appointed attorneys as wasteful; cut their compensation at every turn. On the Federal level, ask Congress to mandate abandonment of Brady rules on evidence.

Hillary took the case to do a favor, but she didn't atone for her work. That's going to be her downfall.

I'm not an attorney, but please tell me this is a sarcastic post and restore my last shred of faith in America.

Ironically, this approach would get the defendant's conviction thrown out for inadequate assistance of counsel.

Nope, you'd be doing just enough to avoid IAC. Sighs, cold body language, and recoiling from the client don't enter the record.

Who are you, and what rock do you live under? Pouting aside for a moment that any 1L in America could tell you why this would be very, very wrong, it's also a great way to get held in contempt of Court.

[Anonymous]

Fact checks for you, OP:

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jul/17/did-hillary-clinton-ask-be-relieved-rapist/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

All states don't list the particulars, but several articles mention the ability of lawyers to recuse themselves from repugnant cases on moral grounds (yes I know one of the first things law school teaches you is the difference between morals and ethics). Maybe SC doesn't allow for this, or maybe you took the case to avoid the potential blowback. I did leave a job (I'm a surgeon btw) because I was asked to do things that were ethically fine but morally (IMO) wrong.

Hillary Clinton in this and several other instances has shown she lacks morals. Trump is worse in many ways. It is a travesty that we are forced to choose between two reprehensible people to lead this country.

So much for the Hippocratic oath, eh?

I said I left the job rather than do those things

Well, it's nice that you had the option. I would assume most attorneys don't. And they do have to take a little oath to uphold the Constitution too. You know, the one with the 6th Amendment?

First it was about a young lawyer not wanting to burn any bridges. Now it's about constitution. Which is it?

I didn't make both arguments, but why are they mutually exclusive?

If it's about young lawyers establishing connections, then she did have options.

What are you even talking about? If you know nothing about the profession, then you should listen to those who do.

Hillary had the option to not take this case, but she chose to do it, and laughed about the polygraphs, hole in the underwear ...

But she didn't laugh about those things. READ THE ARTICLE POSTED HERE MULTIPLE TIMES. This is getting silly. You can keep saying she laughed about these things, hell you can toss in an anecdote that on her way out of the interview she intentionally hit a puppy with her car, but it doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous]

Kirk Bloodsworth was a convicted child rapist and murderer. He's have been executed without lawyers to zealously defend him after his conviction, which is good since he was innocent. He is one of many. That's one of the many reasons why even the most vile people need good defense lawyers. You never know; even DNA has proven to be fallible in some of these cases (check out The Atlantic article on this topic).

Plus, representing unpopular clients is on the noblest tradition of lawyering and public service. Think John Adams representing British soldiers after the Boston Massacre. The government has a lot of power, and someone needs to be the check on that power.