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.
Damage control what? All I am seeing is a bunch of right wingers who have no understanding of our legal system.
I thought Zimmerman was guilty, so does that mean he didn't have the right to a fair trial and a lawyer?
well said. our legal system is not perfect, but it is better than any other in the world. everyone gets their day in court with reasonable speed, both sides are represented by lawyers, and both lawyers do their best to convince the court of their position. jurors are generally neutral observers and base their judgement in the evidence presented in the case. in this case hillary did her job better than the prosecutor did theirs, win for hillary.
Her job as a lawyer or not, she had a choice to take this case or not it seems. She took it, knew he was guilty, yet worked to get him off with a slap on the wrist. I dont care if it was her job, you cant have morals or good character to knowingly free a child rapist.
Good read on this at the link above.
You dont change DC for the better by electing people like this. You Hillary supporters must be so proud. Along with her not having accomplishments worthy of being President, why on earth would you want someone like this in DC, let alone as our, as your President?
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.
Giving a child rapist a slap on the wrist is Constitutional? Did you even read the link in the OP?
And once again, Deflect and Distract. We are not talking about shootings or the 2nd Amendment here. So why bring it up? To brush it under the rug. Democrats and their Damage Control.....it's hilarious!
I'm talking about the constitution which does talk about the right to bare arms.
Constitution says that everyone, guilty or not, has a right to fair trial and can only be punished until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Hillary did her job as she was supposed to. If she didn't defend this man someone else would have. The difference is, if someone else would have done it the case would probably never be brought up again, but since it's person running for public office, we get to hit her with it.
This isn't an issue of morals though. You said yourself that you are a constitutional conservative. Then set aside any political affiliation Hillary has and look at it for what it is. Hillary was a defense lawyer. Her responsibility is to defend a client, regardless of guilt or not. Does she have the right to turn down a case? Of course. But that's not really the point. She was upholding the constitution. The system we have has some flaws, no reasonable person can truly deny that. But as I said, this system we have is really as good as it gets.
So please, enlighten me. You asked for a real debate, and I want you to deliver. Prove me wrong. What is it that Hillary actually did wrong, and remember to factor in the constitution and her job?
More personal ad-hominem attacks instead of providing any constructive counter arguments. That means you lost.
Most liberals are not capable of actual debate, they rely too much on Political Correctness and tossing out false accusations such as "You're a racist" when it comes to things like Voter ID or Illegal Immigration, or "You hate Women's Rights you sexist pig" when it comes to abortion, or "You're a bigoted homophobe" when it comes to gay marriage, or "You hate poor people you selfish rich jerk" when it comes to Welfare Reform or Obamacare, or "You hate education" when it comes to Vouchers and pointing out the problems with The Teacher's Union.
It might work on the weaker among us, but it doesn't work on me. The Democrats need to teach you guys how to hold your own in Verbal Combat.
Cute deflection, I see you refuse to answer a simple question
Does someone deserve the right to an attorney and a fair trial even if the public thinks the person is guilty?
Shouldn't be a hard answer for you, but I am sure you will continue to deflect.
More personal ad-hominem attacks instead of providing any constructive counter arguments. That means you lost.
Most liberals are not capable of actual debate, they rely too much on Political Correctness and tossing out false accusations such as "You're a racist" when it comes to things like Voter ID or Illegal Immigration, or "You hate Women's Rights you sexist pig" when it comes to abortion, or "You're a bigoted homophobe" when it comes to gay marriage, or "You hate poor people you selfish rich jerk" when it comes to Welfare Reform or Obamacare, or "You hate education" when it comes to Vouchers and pointing out the problems with The Teacher's Union.
It might work on the weaker among us, but it doesn't work on me. The Democrats need to teach you guys how to hold your own in Verbal Combat.
Your only contributions to this thread have contained no constructive counter arguments but have been to accuse Democrats of deflection and to announce that you are a constitutional expert and the only person who cares about the constitution. Perhaps then you can comment on the US legal system, "innocent until proven guilty", and the role and responsibilities of a court appointed defense attorney.
It does and I'm not sure why. Hillary is very beatable. She has a record that can easily be attacked. Drudging up 40 year old stories about her doing her job is almost as pathetic as the Post drudging up Mitt Romney's high school antics.
But the morons did it and the left fools ran with it.
You get what you give.
If Mitt's hair cutting and dog travelling incidents, which involved NO CRIME, were fair game, that hideous Hillary defending a rapist AFTER THE THING WAS OVER, and giggling about it, are certainly fair game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
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.
It's just more of the same when it comes to that God-awful woman, who simply has no morals or soul.
It's really amusing, in a sickening way, to watch liberals fawn over her. They actually think she cares about them. Damn, how low and dumb can a group of people sink? God help them!
Her job as a lawyer or not, she had a choice to take this case or not it seems. She took it, knew he was guilty, yet worked to get him off with a slap on the wrist. I dont care if it was her job, you cant have morals or good character to knowingly free a child rapist.
Good read on this at the link above.
You dont change DC for the better by electing people like this. You Hillary supporters must be so proud. Along with her not having accomplishments worthy of being President, why on earth would you want someone like this in DC, let alone as our, as your President?
For some the answer will be as simple as she will have a (D) next to her name. Others will be as simple and as stupid as she has does not have a Y chromosome.
Lets face it, Obama did not get historically high black numbers and voting % based on his achievements. Rather it was as simple and as stupid as his epidermal pigmentation.
But the morons did it and the left fools ran with it.
You get what you give.
If Mitt's hair cutting and dog travelling incidents, which involved NO CRIME, were fair game, that hideous Hillary defending a rapist AFTER THE THING WAS OVER, and giggling about it, are certainly fair game.
It's just more of the same when it comes to that God-awful woman, who simply has no morals or soul.
I'm so glad you left bias out of that...
"You get what you give"
Great rule if you're in second grade. Mature people still act mature even if their political adversaries don't.
I guess the question is: should this man have had the right to representation in court? He was charged with a heinous crime by the State, but does that mean he did not have the right to representation?
I also, early in my legal career, was court-appointed to several criminal cases. In at least one case I also knew the person was guilty. Nevertheless, I made the State prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
But, then again, I believe in the Constitution.
Harrier agrees.
He is no fan of Hillary, but trying to use this case against her is a low blow, and can have the effect of undermining the right of a criminal defendant to effective counsel.
All people charged in the U.S.A. have a right to representation by an attorney.
Calling Mrs. Clinton out for doing her best to defend her client can have a chilling effect on jurisprudence.
Besides at this point "what difference does it make?"
Too bad that the forum doesn't allow negative reps, because Harrier would give one to the OP.
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.
