Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clever moves by Clinton. She gives Trump validity as the leading candidate by arguing a bit with him. At the same time, she engenders even more negative feelings toward Trump with women (already at 60%). That along with 80% among latinos, and 90% among AAs. A Trump nomination means the White House, the Senate, and even the House in 2016. It's a shame Sanders is not doing better. With Trump, even he could be elected and that would be the best news since FDR for middle class America.
Clearly there are a lot of folks who believe that anyone accused of a crime MUST be guilty.
Have to say, it takes a special person to defend the man who has repeatedly said that he would b**g his own daughter if they weren't related.
Not to mention humiliating that same daughter by parading his mistresses around town.
Trump has no clue about what it means to respect women.
To suggest that there is any difference between him and either Clinton when it comes to morals is laughable.
Slight Correction: Trump said he'd ba*g his daughter if he wasn't married and not because they were related. But then again, he's said things like this in public on several occasions so we both could be quoting him correctly.
But it is in a way. We would have to take an ethically or morally reprehensible position to 'win'. Of course, with Hillary in 1975, she knew the law and still goose-stepped down the road of attacking the 12 year old child victim. Did she have to attack the child to fairly represent her client?
There are stages of lying. Debating, when it is game to simply win the game, is not the same as debating to win an election. Sacrificing the young girl took that lying much farther; it demonstrates lack of moral character.
No, it isn't. A philosophical discussion is not practicing law.
Go argue a case in front of a jury as if your livelihood and professional reputation depended on it and get back to me.
OR do away with our ENTIRE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
It demonstrates someone that is good at their job. Period.
I mean, this is true. Our entire legal system is based on the premise that everyone HAS THE RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY.
That's why defense attorneys exist.
If a defendant cannot pay for one; an attorney will be appointed. Where I used to live, every single attorney had to do pro bono work in defending these clients whether they wanted to or not. Whether they thought they were guilty or not.
IF you want to do away with our legal system - then we just won't have defense attorneys.
So, do you claim Clinton was forced to defend this client?
You might want to check out the below video on how Clinton came to represent the rapist. At about the 1:05 mark, she states very clearly in her own voice how she took the case as a FAVOR to the prosecutor. In other words, to you Clinton apologists who always claim she was forced to take this case, she states otherwise. She was not forced to take the case at all. She could have refused it. She certainly had free will in this case.
So now are you going to dispute that it is her voice on the tape?
Women's rights champion my ass. Tell that to the 12 year old victim who was raped in this case while Clinton smirks and laughs about it in the interview. Tell that to the women from middle eastern countries who were viciously repressed and abused all while Clinton and her foundation had their hands out reaching for millions of dollars in "donations" from these abusers.
I'm sure you and Clinton will be cackling "What difference does it make?"
Last edited by mandavaran; 12-24-2015 at 11:51 PM..
No, it isn't. A philosophical discussion is not practicing law.
Go argue a case in front of a jury as if your livelihood and professional reputation depended on it and get back to me.
First, Merry X-mas!
You are arguing the point that we are making. If, in 1975, Hillary argues her case because it is her job; do you not think that she should not be given a chance to become our next President? Like an employer; she owes special interest everything today. Would she most likely fight their case and not that of the average voter? We know where she is coming from, we know who her supporters are, we know that she lies for money; what else do you have to know?
As unpleasant as it is to see a lawyer defend a guilty person, most of us understand everyone deserves legal representation.
What most of us don't understand is Clinton took the job as a favor (meaning she could have refused) and that she laughed several times while recounting the case, and was quite cavalier about the reduced sentance. I would have much more respect for her if she said in retrospect that she should have done more to see that the victim received justice. From the details of the rape, I doubt the victim did much laughing.
"In her interview with The Daily Beast, she recounted the details of her attack in 1975 at age 12 and the consequences it had for both her childhood and adult life. A virgin before the assault, she spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape, and over 10 years in therapy. The doctors told her she would probably never be able to have children."
As unpleasant as it is to see a lawyer defend a guilty person, most of us understand everyone deserves legal representation.
What most of us don't understand is Clinton took the job as a favor (meaning she could have refused) and that she laughed several times while recounting the case, and was quite cavalier about the reduced sentance. I would have much more respect for her if she said in retrospect that she should have done more to see that the victim received justice. From the details of the rape, I doubt the victim did much laughing.
"In her interview with The Daily Beast, she recounted the details of her attack in 1975 at age 12 and the consequences it had for both her childhood and adult life. A virgin before the assault, she spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape, and over 10 years in therapy. The doctors told her she would probably never be able to have children."
So, do you claim Clinton was forced to defend this client?
You might want to check out the below video on how Clinton came to represent the rapist. At about the 1:05 mark, she states very clearly in her own voice how she took the case as a FAVOR to the prosecutor. In other words, to you Clinton apologists who always claim she was forced to take this case, she states otherwise. She was not forced to take the case at all. She could have refused it. She certainly had free will in this case.
So now are you going to dispute that it is her voice on the tape?
Women's rights champion my ass. Tell that to the 12 year old victim who was raped in this case while Clinton smirks and laughs about it in the interview. Tell that to the women from middle eastern countries who were viciously repressed and abused all while Clinton and her foundation had their hands out reaching for millions of dollars in "donations" from these abusers.
I'm sure you and Clinton will be cackling "What difference does it make?"
Instead of attacking me personally ~ please DO go back and tell me where I said that Clinton was forced to defend this client AND did it pro-bono.
I'll wait.
The fact is, I've spent considerable amount of time with defense attorneys. Every single attorney on this planet - wants to win. I think they have to do their job OR LET'S DO AWAY WITH OUR ENTIRE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
You game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye
First, Merry X-mas!
You are arguing the point that we are making. If, in 1975, Hillary argues her case because it is her job; do you not think that she should not be given a chance to become our next President? Like an employer; she owes special interest everything today. Would she most likely fight their case and not that of the average voter? We know where she is coming from, we know who her supporters are, we know that she lies for money; what else do you have to know?
No, we are not arguing the same point. NOW - you are discussing special interests and not whether or not arguing on a debate team equates with defending a case in a jury trial.
Trump's campaign spokesperson, Katrina Pierson put said it well this week....
“What you have on Hillary Clinton’s side are a bunch of people, including women — liberal women — who want to run around talking about the war on women,”.... and the second they get criticized for anything they start acting like 9-year-old little girls.”
“What’s interesting about this, this notion of being bullied is, I mean, I can think of quite a few women that have been bullied by Hillary Clinton to hide her husband’s misogynist, sexist secrets,” Pierson said.
Truth Told. No wonder that Clinton doesn't want to directly address it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
