Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

I think she was actually appointed by the court in that case, so no, she could not have declined.

Hillary Clinton was working for a fancy law firm at that time, why would she voluntarily defend an indigent rapist? You guys need to think this through.

So, based on that comment, I'm guessing you never worked at a big-time law firm. Many encourage taking on pro bono opportunities.

(Side note: Is there any way you could stop insulting people? Any way at all? You're not impressing anyone with your insults.)

Why do you keep pretending she wasn't court appointed?? It's really dishonest.

I haven't seen evidence that she couldn't have gotten out of the case.

I am not a public defender. If I were, it would be different. But, given that I'm not, I can say this: I would practically bet all of my assets that I could get out of representing an alleged child rapist. I can almost guarantee you I could convince a judge that I'm not the right lawyer for such a case.

You haven't seen evidence?? It's a matter of public record!! Can you read? You bet you could convince a judge to let you out of it?? Only if you either lied to the court to get them to believe you had a conflict (like you were friends with the victim or something). You don't lie to the court though, because that's illegal and unethical. Or you can whine and cry and tell the court you are temperamentally incapable of doing your job. In which case you better be prepared to be ignored and appointed anyway.
I'm a prosecutor. I know you can't get out of judicial appointments unless the judge wants to let you out.
A friend of mine was a court appointed defender of a local drug kingpin (in a small town area) who was accused of child molestation. My friend had little kids the age of the victim at the time. He couldn't stand it. Begged to be let out of it. Court didn't let him off.

What was the basis of HRC's request to not be appointed? That's relevant information that I haven't seen.

Your friend was in private practice (i.e., not doing public defense work) and was nevertheless asked to represent an alleged child molester, but, despite his best efforts to persuade the judge to "want to let [him] out," he couldn't get out of it? Do I have that right? Have you considered that he might not be as persuasive a lawyer as you think?

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Yes he was in private practice. In a small town (not unlike Little Rock) and was a successful lawyer. No one wants to do that work and the courts know it. So no, they don't let them out. Judges say things like "Being a professional means doing things you don't want to do." You might get a nice one who lets you off, but it's totally luck of the draw. You should really stop opening on things you clearly have no clue about.

Tell me more! Do they really assign horrible cases of indigent king-pin (how is anyone an indigent king-pin?) child molesters to random successful private practitioners? Is it like the draft? That's what it sounds like based on your post.

I'll tell you one thing I have a clue about. I haven't been so drafted yet. I'm definitely a good enough lawyer and sufficiently financially successful that I will for sure never be made to defend someone who I believe is a child rapist or a child molester. You can take that to the bank.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

I think she was actually appointed by the court in that case, so no, she could not have declined.

Hillary Clinton was working for a fancy law firm at that time, why would she voluntarily defend an indigent rapist? You guys need to think this through.

So, based on that comment, I'm guessing you never worked at a big-time law firm. Many encourage taking on pro bono opportunities.

(Side note: Is there any way you could stop insulting people? Any way at all? You're not impressing anyone with your insults.)

Why do you keep pretending she wasn't court appointed?? It's really dishonest.

I haven't seen evidence that she couldn't have gotten out of the case.

I am not a public defender. If I were, it would be different. But, given that I'm not, I can say this: I would practically bet all of my assets that I could get out of representing an alleged child rapist. I can almost guarantee you I could convince a judge that I'm not the right lawyer for such a case.

You haven't seen evidence?? It's a matter of public record!! Can you read? You bet you could convince a judge to let you out of it?? Only if you either lied to the court to get them to believe you had a conflict (like you were friends with the victim or something). You don't lie to the court though, because that's illegal and unethical. Or you can whine and cry and tell the court you are temperamentally incapable of doing your job. In which case you better be prepared to be ignored and appointed anyway.
I'm a prosecutor. I know you can't get out of judicial appointments unless the judge wants to let you out.
A friend of mine was a court appointed defender of a local drug kingpin (in a small town area) who was accused of child molestation. My friend had little kids the age of the victim at the time. He couldn't stand it. Begged to be let out of it. Court didn't let him off.

What was the basis of HRC's request to not be appointed? That's relevant information that I haven't seen.

Your friend was in private practice (i.e., not doing public defense work) and was nevertheless asked to represent an alleged child molester, but, despite his best efforts to persuade the judge to "want to let [him] out," he couldn't get out of it? Do I have that right? Have you considered that he might not be as persuasive a lawyer as you think?

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Yes he was in private practice. In a small town (not unlike Little Rock) and was a successful lawyer. No one wants to do that work and the courts know it. So no, they don't let them out. Judges say things like "Being a professional means doing things you don't want to do." You might get a nice one who lets you off, but it's totally luck of the draw. You should really stop opening on things you clearly have no clue about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

I think she was actually appointed by the court in that case, so no, she could not have declined.

Hillary Clinton was working for a fancy law firm at that time, why would she voluntarily defend an indigent rapist? You guys need to think this through.

So, based on that comment, I'm guessing you never worked at a big-time law firm. Many encourage taking on pro bono opportunities.

(Side note: Is there any way you could stop insulting people? Any way at all? You're not impressing anyone with your insults.)

Why do you keep pretending she wasn't court appointed?? It's really dishonest.

I haven't seen evidence that she couldn't have gotten out of the case.

I am not a public defender. If I were, it would be different. But, given that I'm not, I can say this: I would practically bet all of my assets that I could get out of representing an alleged child rapist. I can almost guarantee you I could convince a judge that I'm not the right lawyer for such a case.

You haven't seen evidence?? It's a matter of public record!! Can you read? You bet you could convince a judge to let you out of it?? Only if you either lied to the court to get them to believe you had a conflict (like you were friends with the victim or something). You don't lie to the court though, because that's illegal and unethical. Or you can whine and cry and tell the court you are temperamentally incapable of doing your job. In which case you better be prepared to be ignored and appointed anyway.
I'm a prosecutor. I know you can't get out of judicial appointments unless the judge wants to let you out.
A friend of mine was a court appointed defender of a local drug kingpin (in a small town area) who was accused of child molestation. My friend had little kids the age of the victim at the time. He couldn't stand it. Begged to be let out of it. Court didn't let him off.

What was the basis of HRC's request to not be appointed? That's relevant information that I haven't seen.

Your friend was in private practice (i.e., not doing public defense work) and was nevertheless asked to represent an alleged child molester, but, despite his best efforts to persuade the judge to "want to let [him] out," he couldn't get out of it? Do I have that right? Have you considered that he might not be as persuasive a lawyer as you think?

Since when is Hillary adverse to lying??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

I think she was actually appointed by the court in that case, so no, she could not have declined.

Hillary Clinton was working for a fancy law firm at that time, why would she voluntarily defend an indigent rapist? You guys need to think this through.

So, based on that comment, I'm guessing you never worked at a big-time law firm. Many encourage taking on pro bono opportunities.

(Side note: Is there any way you could stop insulting people? Any way at all? You're not impressing anyone with your insults.)

Why do you keep pretending she wasn't court appointed?? It's really dishonest.

I haven't seen evidence that she couldn't have gotten out of the case.

I am not a public defender. If I were, it would be different. But, given that I'm not, I can say this: I would practically bet all of my assets that I could get out of representing an alleged child rapist. I can almost guarantee you I could convince a judge that I'm not the right lawyer for such a case.

You haven't seen evidence?? It's a matter of public record!! Can you read? You bet you could convince a judge to let you out of it?? Only if you either lied to the court to get them to believe you had a conflict (like you were friends with the victim or something). You don't lie to the court though, because that's illegal and unethical. Or you can whine and cry and tell the court you are temperamentally incapable of doing your job. In which case you better be prepared to be ignored and appointed anyway.
I'm a prosecutor. I know you can't get out of judicial appointments unless the judge wants to let you out.
A friend of mine was a court appointed defender of a local drug kingpin (in a small town area) who was accused of child molestation. My friend had little kids the age of the victim at the time. He couldn't stand it. Begged to be let out of it. Court didn't let him off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

You're objectively wrong. In general, lawyers and doctors get to choose their clients/patients. Defendants are entitled to competent representation, not the lawyer of their choosing, and not even necessarily a good lawyer.

An ER doc can't refuse patients dipshit.

That's why I said "in general." Note that I did NOT say "without exception."

Why do you feel the need to call me names? Do you think insults help your argument?

You were objectively wrong in saying that the PP was objectively wrong. And the court appointed lawyer is just like the ER doc, no choice in which client to take. Your point was just an attempt at deflection.

Do you not know what "in general" means?

Of course I do. But you said PP was objectively wrong. You were wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

I think she was actually appointed by the court in that case, so no, she could not have declined.

Hillary Clinton was working for a fancy law firm at that time, why would she voluntarily defend an indigent rapist? You guys need to think this through.

So, based on that comment, I'm guessing you never worked at a big-time law firm. Many encourage taking on pro bono opportunities.

(Side note: Is there any way you could stop insulting people? Any way at all? You're not impressing anyone with your insults.)

Why do you keep pretending she wasn't court appointed?? It's really dishonest.

I haven't seen evidence that she couldn't have gotten out of the case.

I am not a public defender. If I were, it would be different. But, given that I'm not, I can say this: I would practically bet all of my assets that I could get out of representing an alleged child rapist. I can almost guarantee you I could convince a judge that I'm not the right lawyer for such a case.

Are you a lawyer? Do you actually understand what court appointed means? What do you mean you "haven't seen evidence" that she was court appointed? In every article I have read about this case it states that she was court appointed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

You're objectively wrong. In general, lawyers and doctors get to choose their clients/patients. Defendants are entitled to competent representation, not the lawyer of their choosing, and not even necessarily a good lawyer.

An ER doc can't refuse patients dipshit.

That's why I said "in general." Note that I did NOT say "without exception."

Why do you feel the need to call me names? Do you think insults help your argument?

You were objectively wrong in saying that the PP was objectively wrong. And the court appointed lawyer is just like the ER doc, no choice in which client to take. Your point was just an attempt at deflection.

Do you not know what "in general" means?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

I think she was actually appointed by the court in that case, so no, she could not have declined.

Hillary Clinton was working for a fancy law firm at that time, why would she voluntarily defend an indigent rapist? You guys need to think this through.

So, based on that comment, I'm guessing you never worked at a big-time law firm. Many encourage taking on pro bono opportunities.

(Side note: Is there any way you could stop insulting people? Any way at all? You're not impressing anyone with your insults.)

Why do you keep pretending she wasn't court appointed?? It's really dishonest.

I haven't seen evidence that she couldn't have gotten out of the case.

I am not a public defender. If I were, it would be different. But, given that I'm not, I can say this: I would practically bet all of my assets that I could get out of representing an alleged child rapist. I can almost guarantee you I could convince a judge that I'm not the right lawyer for such a case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

I think she was actually appointed by the court in that case, so no, she could not have declined.

Hillary Clinton was working for a fancy law firm at that time, why would she voluntarily defend an indigent rapist? You guys need to think this through.

So, based on that comment, I'm guessing you never worked at a big-time law firm. Many encourage taking on pro bono opportunities.

(Side note: Is there any way you could stop insulting people? Any way at all? You're not impressing anyone with your insults.)

Where was the insult in my response? I'm saying, very seriously, that you need to think through your objections here. You are saying that Hillary Clinton should have abandoned her career in order to avoid defending a man accused of rape. If everyone followed that rationale, everyone accused of a crime would be jailed and unable to find representation. Further, law firms encourage lawyers to take up pro bono opportunities of their choosing. Most people want to help domestic violence victims or do asylum cases or something, not spend this time defending rapists. This was not some fun thing she did in her free time. It was her job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

You're objectively wrong. In general, lawyers and doctors get to choose their clients/patients. Defendants are entitled to competent representation, not the lawyer of their choosing, and not even necessarily a good lawyer.

An ER doc can't refuse patients dipshit.

That's why I said "in general." Note that I did NOT say "without exception."

Why do you feel the need to call me names? Do you think insults help your argument?

You were objectively wrong in saying that the PP was objectively wrong. And the court appointed lawyer is just like the ER doc, no choice in which client to take. Your point was just an attempt at deflection.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

A doctor doesn't have to take anyone. In fact, an "Elaine" happened to my friend b/c she, too, was difficult. in the ER - well, another story

However, in this case, while Clinton asked to be removed from the case, I'm sure she tried her hardest to get him the most lenient sentence possible. And guess what?

I would decline. sorry - But defending a man who raped a child and ruined her life is something I would never do. Fire me. She was 12.

How easy it is to say when it's not your career and bread on the line.

It wouldn't just be firing. It would be disbarment and possibly contempt of court for defying a judicial order. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I realize that. In most jobs, if you say no, you're insubordinate and risk being let go.

sorry - no way would I agree to that

I have two children, an 8 yo boy and a 12 yo girl.

Again, I'd like to see any of you stand up for her if something happened to your own child. I know of what I speak. You, however, have failed to put yourself in the girl''s mother's shoes.

You really don't know what you would do PP until faced with the situation and the subsequent consequences. Do you not think criminal defense attorneys also have children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

I think she was actually appointed by the court in that case, so no, she could not have declined.

Hillary Clinton was working for a fancy law firm at that time, why would she voluntarily defend an indigent rapist? You guys need to think this through.

So, based on that comment, I'm guessing you never worked at a big-time law firm. Many encourage taking on pro bono opportunities.

(Side note: Is there any way you could stop insulting people? Any way at all? You're not impressing anyone with your insults.)

Why do you keep pretending she wasn't court appointed?? It's really dishonest.

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Okay, I went back and listened to the tape again. I can understand how someone who doesn't like her would interpret the laugh in another way. But yeah, I heard rueful laughter -- a woman saying she would never trust polygraphs because her client passed one and she really thinks he did it. Still had to defend him, but didn't believe him.

I can also understand an angry reaction of people who are not lawyers listening to this tape where a lawyer is talking about a case that affected the lives of actual people and they're not acknowledging their affect on these people's lives. From the outside that seems terrible. But as a lawyer, this is shoptalk. I've worked on deals where companies have merged and people have lost their jobs, and the part that was interesting to me was the phantom pooper document reviewer who kept messing up the bathroom. And that has allowed me to do really worthwhile work for immigrant victims of domestic violence. As a lawyer you can't let yourself get caught up in emotions all the time or you just can't do your job. And by the way, how exactly do you think decades and decades of male attorneys had been talking about the rape trials they had handled before Clinton handled this one case? You put your emotions away or you got labeled by them as unreliable. I think people saying Clinton was wrong to defend this guy are dreadfully naive.

I'm truly sorry for this rape victim, but this doesn't make me like Hillary Clinton any less. She certainly went on after this to do a lot of great and important work for women. We are not two dimensional creatures, and being an attorney is goddamned hard. If you think you can do it better then I invite you to give it a shot and see how it goes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

You're objectively wrong. In general, lawyers and doctors get to choose their clients/patients. Defendants are entitled to competent representation, not the lawyer of their choosing, and not even necessarily a good lawyer.

An ER doc can't refuse patients dipshit.

That's why I said "in general." Note that I did NOT say "without exception."

Why do you feel the need to call me names? Do you think insults help your argument?