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.
She was also part of the Watergate investigation. Her supervisor said that he fired her for dishonest and unethical behavior. Funny how the liberals don't list that among her glorious accomplishments that qualify her to be the next President.
Right wingers that swear by the Constitution love to throw it away the moment they disagree with our Constitution. I believe everyone has a right to an attorney, and need to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before being called guilty in a court of law.
Not Harrier.
Enough with the broad generalizations.
Harrier agrees 100% with your second sentence, and if you hadn't insulted conservatives with your first sentence, you would have received a rep point.
so let me get this straight, you are trying to beat down hillary clinton for actually doing the job that a defense attorney is supposed to do? sorry, even i dont buy that crap. i dont want hillary anywhere near the white house ever again, but i wont hammer her for doing the job she was being paid to do, and that was represent her client to the best of her ability, and get the best possible outcome for her client. anything less would have resulted in her censure by the bar, and possible disbarment.
Again- that is why it is a LEGAL SYSTEM, not a JUSTICE SYSTEM. Ideally, a legal system and a justice system should be one in the same. When we have a legal system releasing known criminals, it is far from a justice system.
When there is deviation from what is legal and what is just, it sets the stage for alternative, or vigalante forms of justice.
Let's say I had a close relative who was a victim of a violent crime. The assailant, due to the legal system, was released as "the state could not prove the case". What would I do? I would hunt them down and kill them. Of course, in our "legal system", I would certainly be convicted, despite having achieved justice.
Justice is served when a defendant is found not guilty, as well as if they are found guilty.
A pity that you only think that one side of that equation is valid.
Harrier hopes that you are never selected for a jury.
Except in this case there was enough solid evidence, Clinton just chose to downplay it and ignore it in court and let him off scott-free.
She was a defense lawyer? She did her job. What aren't you getting here? Yes, she's a Democrat. Grow up! There are Republican defense lawyers too. whom have certainly gotten guilty people out of jail time. If an individual isn't willing to defend potentially guilty people, they probably should have followed a different career path.
It's the constitution which really makes me question your devotion to the constitution. Not that I honestly think you hate the constitution, but you clearly just don't like Hillary. Your letting your bias influence the simply facts: she did her job and upheld a man's constitutional right. There's nothing immoral about it.
Harrier agrees 100% with your second sentence, and if you hadn't insulted conservatives with your first sentence, you would have received a rep point.
That is good, shame there are right wingers on here who think people don't have the right to a fair trial.
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.
