FBI reviewing emails found on devices used by Weiner/Abedin

Status
Not open for further replies.
kayzai said:
Listen to this: https://youtu.be/cCDzRtZLUkc

The same person on the tape is now in 2016 appalled by the contents of Trump's own tape where he talks about sexually assaulting women.

You don't see the irony?
Click to expand...

54265617.jpg
 
Bobnob said:
Yes.. but there's a line,She believed he was guilty and defended him anyway.Says a lot about her really, especially because of who she defended.
Click to expand...

FOR FUCKS SAKE.

look up what a public defender does. Heaven forbid you ever commit a crime, you don't seem like you could afford a lawyer.
 
Bobnob said:
Yes.. but there's a line,She believed he was guilty and defended him anyway.Says a lot about her really, especially because of who she defended.
Click to expand...

As long as we're dispensing with the Sixth Amendment, are there any others you'd like to take out as well?
 
Yes, when Hillary Clinton was 27 she was assigned a case as a public defender. The judge chose her in part because she was already known to volunteer her time to help poor defendants who couldn't afford a lawyer. And she did her job to the best of her ability as she is legally obligated. Public defenders make almost no money, FYI.

Then 43 years later it is used against her.

“She got appointed to represent this guy,” he told CNN when asked about the controversy.

According to Gibson, Maupin Cummings, the judge in the case, kept a list of attorneys who would represent poor clients. Clinton was on that list and helped run a legal aid clinic at the time.

Taylor was assigned a public defender in the case but Gibson said he quickly “started screaming for a woman attorney” to represent him.

Gibson said Clinton called him shortly after the judge assigned her to the case and said, “I don't want to represent this guy. I just can't stand this. I don't want to get involved. Can you get me off?”

“I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don't jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn't remove her and she stayed on the case.”
Click to expand...
 
Bobnob said:
Yes.. but there's a line,She believed he was guilty and defended him anyway.Says a lot about her really, especially because of who she defended.
Click to expand...

...you do realise our justice system would crumble if defence lawyers just decided not to defend people who they felt were guilty? That any conviction obtained would have been vulnerable to appeal and being thrown out if it was found she did not represent him to the best of her ability? That she had a legal and ethical obligation to do her job to the utmost of her ability?

It boggles my mind that people don't understand this concept. You can't just do a half assed job at defending someone because you think they're guilty.
 
Bobnob said:
Yes.. but there's a line,She believed he was guilty and defended him anyway.Says a lot about her really, especially because of who she defended.
Click to expand...

She actually tried to get out of it and her Public Defender boss said nope you have to.

But don't let facts get in the way of your pre-conceived reality
 
Bobnob said:
Yes.. but there's a line,She believed he was guilty and defended him anyway.Says a lot about her really, especially because of who she defended.
Click to expand...

This is disgusting. By LAW she had to defend him to the best of her ability, she took an oath as a lawyer and to the courts to do so. It's a rather thankless job because of people like you who would shit on people upholding the constitutional right to be represented by an attorney.
 
kayzai said:
Listen to this: https://youtu.be/cCDzRtZLUkc

The same person on the tape is now in 2016 appalled by the contents of Trump's own tape where he talks about sexually assaulting women.

You don't see the irony?
Click to expand...

Bobnob said:
Yes.. but there's a line,She believed he was guilty and defended him anyway.Says a lot about her really, especially because of who she defended.
Click to expand...

This is why debating trump supporters is difficult. You can't use reason or facts. I have pretty much given up trying to discuss things like this with Trump supporters/hillary haters that I know. It's frustrating but you can't force someone to not be an idiot
 
I feel really awful for that woman, the victim. Just like I feel really awful for all the people that were victims and didn't get justice. But it wasn't Hillary's fault. You can blame the system if you like, it's not perfect though arguably it would be far worse without public defenders. You can also blame the lawyers of the victim that botched the whole case up.

Bobnob said:
I don't agree with Trumps comments either btw
Click to expand...

Ok. Now how about you defend your position to the people addressing your actual point.
 
Bobnob said:
Yes.. but there's a line,She believed he was guilty and defended him anyway.Says a lot about her really, especially because of who she defended.
Click to expand...

We're either committed to the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel or we're not. Criminal defendants, whatever they've been accused of doing, are individuals targeted by the vast, implacable machinery of the state. They are entitled to a vigorous defense. The purpose of that defense is to challenge the government and its evidence and act as a bulwark against the defendant being convicted simply because they've been accused. The right is not conditioned on whether or not we think they "actually did it" and not dependent on them being sympathetic or decent or deserving. Rather, the right is rooted in liberty (the recognition that the relationship between the accusing state and accused individual is inherently unbalanced and the individual requires an advocate to have any chance at all of fair treatment), skepticism and humility (the recognition that the state — and the mob — can easily be wrong, and that popular sentiment is a poor measure of whether someone is factually innocent), and a sort of grace.

(Incidentally, at the time Clinton was 27 years old and had quite limited criminal defense experience. She had taught criminal law and procedure, which is absolutely not the same as practicing it. She had never tried a criminal case. Yet she was appointed to represent a man on a very grave charge of child rape. That's the reality of indigent defense in America.)

Once appointed to the case, Clinton had a professional and ethical obligation to represent her client vigorously. That obligation made it appropriate — in fact, mandatory — to challenge the government's failure to preserve evidence (a portion of the victim's underwear) so that the defense could test it. That challenge probably induced the government to offer the defendant a plea to the lesser charge of unlawfully fondling a child under 14. It is not a "technicality" to hold the government to its obligation to preserve evidence so that the defense may test it. That is particularly true given the government's long-time fondness for junk science and rampant carelessness and even falsification of tests. Again, if you think it's wrong to challenge the government's failure to preserve evidence, you don't really support the right to a defense.
Click to expand...

https://popehat.com/2016/10/10/hillary-clinton-the-sixth-amendment-and-legal-ethics/
 
Bobnob said:
Yes.. but there's a line,She believed he was guilty and defended him anyway.Says a lot about her really, especially because of who she defended.
Click to expand...

defence lawyers probably believe half their clients are guilty and she didn't get a choice when it came to defending him
 
Hydrophobic said:
That's fine. But the issue here is you suggested that a public defender shouldn't do their job if they believe their defendant is guilty. If that happened our justice system would fall apart.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how your system works but either way it's strait up shitty, I only heard it in the 3rd debate and I see what's happened this election.
 
Bobnob said:
Yes.. but there's a line,She believed he was guilty and defended him anyway.Says a lot about her really, especially because of who she defended.
Click to expand...

Um, that is the job of a criminal defense attorney... Are you saying if we think someone is guilty they shouldn't have representation or a fair trial? Stop trying so hard. It's not a good look.
 
Bobnob said:
I'm not sure how your system works but either way it's strait up shitty, I only heard it in the 3rd debate and I see what's happened this election.
Click to expand...

In our nation, we have the right to a fair trial and attorney as given to us by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Click to expand...

She is forced to, under law, to give the man a fair defence to the best of her ability. She tried to get out of the case earlier, but her boss said no. There's nothing she could do.
 
It's weird how the party that vows its primary motivation is to protect the constitution is so willing to throw the sixth amendment in the trash when it's convenient to try to get a Clinton jab in.

Absolutely deplorable, especially when it's from someone claiming a liberal perspective. If you seriously believe in the idea that some people don't get legal representation, we can just hang 'em - then you should really, really re-evaluate your fundamental political convictions.
 
Bobnob said:
Yes.. but there's a line,She believed he was guilty and defended him anyway.Says a lot about her really, especially because of who she defended.
Click to expand...

There is no line. In fact if your public attorney messes up your case that can get you off all by itself!
 
Bobnob said:
I'm not sure how your system works but either way it's strait up shitty, I only heard it in the 3rd debate and I see what's happened this election.
Click to expand...

It's really not shitty, though. Check out the wikipedia article about the sixth amendment. One of the guarantees is that everyone has the right to counsel regardless of whether they can afford it or not. Public defenders fill this role. If someone cannot afford a lawyer of their own, then they're assigned a public defender whose job is to defend them. The person can choose to waive their right to counsel, but the public defender cannot choose who they get to defend (within limits). This ensures that a person, no matter how poor, is at least defended by someone who knows the law.

Public defenders are in a shitty position often because they have so many cases that they don't have time to devote to properly defending everyone. It's a shitty situation where there aren't enough public defenders working. But the fact that everyone gets to have someone defend them in court is not shitty.

Which is where we come back to the point of HRC defending that man. She did not have the luxury of not defending him to the best of her abilities. It was her job and she had to try otherwise she is essentially denying this (awful awful awful dude) one of his constitutional rights. We don't draw the line at who is privileged enough to receive counsel because as soon as that line is drawn it can be moved and someone will get screwed.
 
Bobnob said:
I don't agree with Trumps comments either btw
Click to expand...
But do you undertand that as a public defender assigned to that job, which Clinton asked to be removed from, it didn't matter what she believed?
She had the obligation to do her job to the best of her abilities, no matter what.
If she was ever suspected to do a less than optimal job on purpose, she could have been disbarred. Period.

For more information, see

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/

I both feel bad for Shelton for what she went through, but also suspicious, given how much her story has changed over time and even recently as pieces of evidence about what really happened during the case,/trial are unearthed vs the story Hannity ran with.

- Clinton did not laugh at her, she was laughing at the absurdity of some of the elements in the case, like the defendant claiming he was innocent and passing a polygraph (she says that because of that she will never again trust a polygraph result)
- the psych exam Shelton says she had to go through did not happen, the judge did not allow it
- she was not in a 5 day coma, there is a signed interview of her dated 4 days after the incident
- there is evidence she was seriously infatuated with the teen that was present, while she continues denying it
Etc.

The case was also reduced too a plea to a lesser charge, not due to Clinton being bullish, but to evidence mishandling by law enforcement (the actual semen sample on her underwear was lost), and evidence that Shelton's statements were being coached by her mother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LG G3 turning on devices?
8
1K
Hookshot replied
Possible signs of life found on k2-18b
News Science  2 3
108
5K
GeekyDad replied
Pixar is not what it used to be... Elio is on his way to another failure
2
77
295
Doom85 replied
Random: anyone know why I suddenly can't access my Apple tv subscription on my devices?
7
512
jorgejjvr replied
OpenAI Whistleblower found dead
15
2K
IntentionalPun replied
Top Bottom