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.
This was discussed before, about Hillary Clinton defending a child rapist and it appears that some were mistaken when they said that she had to take the case. I came across the tape today when someone had mentioned how she laughed about defending the child rapist and his getting off, the child was 12 years old.
In this tape, she explains that she took the case as a "favor" for someone that asked her for the favor (I suspect it was someone that could do something for her career), I believe she would do ANYTHING to advance her wealth and career:
This was discussed before, about Hillary Clinton defending a child rapist and it appears that some were mistaken when they said that she had to take the case. I came across the tape today when someone had mentioned how she laughed about defending the child rapist and his getting off, the child was 12 years old.
In this tape, she explains that she took the case as a "favor" for someone that asked her for the favor (I suspect it was someone that could do something for her career), I believe she would do ANYTHING to advance her wealth and career:
This was discussed before, about Hillary Clinton defending a child rapist and it appears that some were mistaken when they said that she had to take the case. I came across the tape today when someone had mentioned how she laughed about defending the child rapist and his getting off, the child was 12 years old.
In this tape, she explains that she took the case as a "favor" for someone that asked her for the favor (I suspect it was someone that could do something for her career), I believe she would do ANYTHING to advance her wealth and career:
Here's the thing when you are a lawyer, you often end up with cases where you don't necessarily like the client however you must give them the best defense possible. My husband was assigned plenty of soldiers who he knew were guilty, thought were an affront to the uniform, and would have much rather prosecuted but he still had to give them a vigorous defense. Winning often meant conflicted feelings. There were times he had to "attack" victims, which he hated, but no matter how scummy your client lawyers have a moral obligation to do their job well. He got paid regardless of how successful he was so it wasn't about money. His deal was that a defense attorney must make sure the innocent don't get convicted of a crime they didn't commit even if that means sometimes you end up helping the guilty get away with crime.
This is one of those instances where I think people come to erroneous conclusions about Hillary. Someone has to be the defense attorney.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Here's the thing when you are a lawyer, you often end up with cases where you don't necessarily like the client however you must give them the best defense possible. My husband was assigned plenty of soldiers who he knew were guilty, thought were an affront to the uniform, and would have much rather prosecuted but he still had to give them a vigorous defense. Winning often meant conflicted feelings. There were times he had to "attack" victims, which he hated, but no matter how scummy your client lawyers have a moral obligation to do their job well. He got paid regardless of how successful he was so it wasn't about money. His deal was that a defense attorney must make sure the innocent don't get convicted of a crime they didn't commit even if that means sometimes you end up helping the guilty get away with crime.
This is one of those instances where I think people come to erroneous conclusions about Hillary. Someone has to be the defense attorney.
Sometimes being a lawyer requires them to get down in the mud, and do some despicable things (and laughing about it), that doesn't mean that we should accept someone with that kind of moral character as our next president.
Sometimes being a lawyer requires them to get down in the mud, and do some despicable things (and laughing about it), that doesn't mean that we should accept someone with that kind of moral character as our next president.
What tripe. Do you even know any lawyers?
Many very smart people there.
YES - they get cases they don't want. YES, they have to take them. YES, our constitution promises a defense to every accused.
The question is ~ why do you hate the constitution?
The question is ~ why do you hate the constitution?
It's a fallacious question.
Then again I assume you don't really want to address the facts behind how Hillary handled that case.
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.
