Hillary supporters......."We will BURN that slut down to save Hillary!!"y!!"

Does that fly in the face of Hillary telling the tale ( no one would have known ) and seemingly laughing about it? Trying as hard as you can, to put the blame on someone else, when she has seemingly admitted to less than a sterling portrayal of her efforts in the case, is typical of leftists.

 

Interesting that some people have to dig up a trial from over 40 years ago in an effort to attack Hillary Clinton. She was a lawyer doing her JOB, don't like it too bad. Funny thing I have not seen you whiners bring this up while she was in office or as First Lady, we know it was not because you have too much Class, you have proven you have none time and time again, this new "Outrage" is just more of the same. Now back to whatever it was you were doing.

 

Your fixation on the "leftists" that fester in some noggins betrays your blatant bias. Whether you regard Hillary Clinton and the 51%+ of the American electorate that twice elected the incumbent as "liberals" only defines where you are coming from.

That a defense attorney would be pleased at successfully executing her duty to defend a client is quite normal, I believe. Again, where is the documented context that details the prosecutorial malfeasance that would be implicit in errant assertions of a defense attorney going unchallenged? If restraints were in order, why did the judge abjure his responsibilities?

 

It's just the "She killed Vince Foster!" derangement breaking out yet again. That they feel compelled to smear prospective presidential candidates rather than producing and promoting a competent opponent is an indication of the chronic malady.

Just as the pantywaists persisted in "birther" bushwa under assorted sordid guises, this is yet another variation on wacko bird Dan Burton shooting a pumpkin (some say a cantaloupe or watermelon) in his backyard to prove that suicide victim Vince Foster had actually been offed by Hillary and Bill.

It's hardly surprising that their leaders are media entertainers, a realm where such fanciful confections abound.

 

LOL, Seriously Natty, you can nitpick the syntax all day long but it does not change the fact that there is absolutely no difference in the context and meaning here. She "got him [the rapist] off with time served".

I gave it to you in her own words. If you choose to turn a blind eye to it, then I can't help you.

 

Sounds like she was a good Lawyer, now if you ever need one yourself make sure you hire one that will not defend you 100% and see how that works out for ya. She did the job she was hired to do, it was 40 years ago, why is it all of a sudden it is some major issue now, hmmmmm? Oh wait the smear campaign is already in full force. I have an idea of instead of attacking the other guy as if they are the Ant-Christ why not present what your ideas are for the Nation and the details on how you are going to accomplish them, now THAT would be a refreshing change.

 

I understand that when Casper hires an attorney he wants one who will produce a win for him by whatever means necessary. How liberal? Lying, suborning perjury, destroying evidence, and obstructing justice are all good to go.

We should hope that Hillary Clinton's behavior is not the norm for defense attorneys but, hey, it might be.

And, we all know what happens to Americans who cross the Clintons. I hope this woman is ready for her IRS audits. She better have her receipts in order and heaven help her if she says her computer crashed and she lost her records.

 

Officer of the Court: any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system, including judges, the attorneys who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks and other personnel. As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, the location of documents and other matters related to conduct of the courts.

The sad part is that many here believe an attorneys duties are limited to their clients defense and that any or all means of doing so, regardless of ethics, and conscience. Even sadder is that those same people also believe such unethical gutter tactics are characteristic of a good attorney.

What would be refreshing here is not having to explain ethics to otherwise presumably mature and intelligent adults.

 

The sadder part is those ethical rules are considered a joke by attorneys.

 

You'll spin it your way, and I'll adhere to what is actually documented.

 

When Casper hires an attorney he wants one that will do their job. The rest is fabricated nonsense, if you have evidence she broke the law by all means turn it over to the proper authorities. We know you have none so that is that.
Only the good ones that win their cases.
I am surprised you did not claim she would have them killed. Oh and how could Hillary do any such thing that you Claim she can she is a private citizen, me thinks you make claims based on your own opinion and not the facts.

 

I gave you audio documentation where she said she 'got him off with time served". As for the documentation you're "adhering" to [LMAO] What documentation do you have that she did NOT say that?

Geeze it's like teachin kindergarten around here.

 

Thanks for posting that. I hadn't heard the tape and was of the understanding that the only time she laughed was when discussing her distrust of polygraphs.

Wrong. She laughed (giggled) all the way through.

What a disgusting pig that screeching hyena is.

 

Yes, defense attorneys defend defendants, and prefer winning cases than to losing cases. In this case, there was a conviction, but of a lesser crime.

So, why do you feel that the prosecutor did not do his job in refuting dubious defense allegations? Why would a judge allow speculative assertions with no evidence of their veracity?

Just because someone really, really, really hates Hillary Clinton does not excuse him from addressing the appropriate questions that arise. Criminal trials are confrontational, and it is the duty of both sides to present favourable information for one's client and to refute that of one's opponent.

So, who was the prosecutor and why do you believe he failed to fulfill his obligation to his client and to the state?


.

 

I'd be happy to address those questions with you, but there are some you've left un-answered. Where is the documentation that you adhere to which proves Hillary did not say what she said in the audio interview I provided you? I don't suffer foolish deflections lightly so let's stay on the current questions.

 

Smearing and defaming a PRE-TEEN is not defense, and for that matter she swore an oath to be impartial and true to the court. She LIED under oath, at the very least her law licence should be revoked.

 

Better to claim that she "cackled" at such depravity. It sound more satanic.

 

Where did I ever suggest the defense attorney did not say what she said regarding her defending the defendant?

All I ask of those who discuss a case they seem to know so little about is how the responsibilities of the prosecutor did not check those of the defense? Was he asleep? Where was the judge? Pretending that one lawyer is free to contrive fictions without any restraint being imposed by those whose sworn duty includes doing so is absurd. It's as if one were describing a chess game with reference to the moves of only one player. If you seek a partial, distorted description, that's what you do, but who would take such a blatantly half-arsed approach seriously?

 

The point is, she's an unethical person, whom if the Right were more Social-Authoritarian, she'd have remained on the Right.

Simply put: She's more draconian than Neo-cons.

 

Are you swallowing an unanswered allegation from an anonymous source?

No matter how much someone may hate Hillary Clinton, he is still bound by standards of credibility.

 

Yes, she's a politician.

 

The only obligation she had was to her client. Her obligation does NOT extend to society. If the gov can't prove its case, dems da breaks.

 

Latitudinarian proclivities are not my exclusive bailiwick, but the gist of the topic for me is this:

It is the job of defense attorneys to do the best they can for the clients they have. Anything less—varying the quality of their work according to the caliber of their clients—is literal malpractice, to say nothing of its corrosive effect on the foundations of our legal system. ​

Under our system, the rights of the accused includes competent legal representation, nor do we in America hold defense attorneys culpable for demonstrating diligence in carrying out their sworn duty. Do we make an exception if we harbour a seething hatred for a particular defense attorney who fulfilled her role decades ago with competence whilst her prosecutorial adversary apparently shirked his?

Apparently, some actually do.


.

 

Actually, I am. I'm defending the US system of jurisprudence against those who are trashing it because of their malignant attitude toward a politician who was duly diligent in her role of defending her accused client nearly forty year ago.

If her prosecutorial adversary was remiss in fulfilling his designated role, that can't be attributed to the defense.



.

 

Caspar takes the position that as long as the crooked attorney doesn't get caught, he's gold. Ethics, honesty, even decency are meaningless to Sen. Clinton and others.