Originally Posted by
Suicide King
I'm asking you, do you understand what a lawyers job is? Also do you understand someone's constitutional right to a fair trial?
It is every defendant's right to have competent counsel who will use attempt to find every legal means necessary to get their client a not guilty verdict.
For example, had Hillary cited illegal-search-and-seizure tactics to get this guy a not guilty sentence, she couldn't be criticized, even if she helped a horrible person beat the rap. If the defendant's rights were violated in any way, or if any other legal precedent could get him off the hook, it is his lawyer's job to find that.
To that point I agree.
However, the issue here is that many lawyers will go above and beyond that, and will in fact violate the ethics they swore, in order to win at all costs.
The general ethical principle a lawyer is supposed to adhere to is that, as an officer of the court, they are not supposed to state anything that they either know to be untrue or likely untrue.
For example, let's say you are an attorney and your client is accused of murdering a convenience store clerk during a robbery, and you ask your client (privately), "Why did you shoot him?" If your client responds, "Because I didn't want any witnesses identifying me", and then you decide to go to court and spin a tale that the store clerk was going for a gun himself after everything was calm and your client had put his gun away, making your client panic and shoot first, then you would be committing an ethics violation. You would be stating something you know not to be true as a defense for your client.
Of course, if you're the one standing accused, and facing years in prison, you would much rather have the sleazy lawyer who violates these ethics than one who is completely by the book. You want the one who will find any way to get you off, even if it means knowingly peddling a complete bullshit defense (and one that the lawyer knows is complete bullshit).
But that is not required of lawyers, and it's especially not required of public defenders who are working for the state, and are only expected to give their clients the best legal and ethical defense, while not breaking any laws or legal ethics.
It is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton knew that this guy was a scummy rapist, and that his 12-year-old victim didn't entice him or throw herself at him. It's pretty clear that Hillary knew that this rape occurred because her victim was a repugnant and violent pervert, and not because her client was a Lolita who had fantasies about older men.
Hillary completely fabricated these characterizations about the victim because she wanted to win the case. It became an ego thing with her, as it does with many sleazy lawyers like her. She wanted to win at all costs, and didn't care about the legal ethics she broke or who she hurt in the process.
It is never the public defender's job to completely fabricate obviously untrue accusations about a 12-year-old victim in order to exonerate their client.
Unfortunately, in the legal profession, every victory in court is considered a "win", and can be used to elevate your position later. The more impressive a legal victory you pull off -- the more you beat the odds against you -- the more coveted your services become. This unfortunately pushes many lawyers (and DAs, for that matter) to violate their sworn legal ethics and instead engage in a win-at-all-costs strategy.
It would have been fine if Hillary suggested that a 12-year-old runaway with a history of behavioral issues might not be as much of a "victim" as an average 12-year-old girl, and Hillary also could have suggested that she lacked credibility, and very well could have come onto her client.
That would have been her duty as a lawyer.
What was NOT her duty was to falsify "facts" about this girl and her supposed desires, and attack her in court as if she were the enemy. That's where lawyer Hillary ended and sleazy Hillary began.
Would I have wanted a sleazy lawyer like Hillary Clinton as my defense attorney if I were accused of a horrible crime in the 1970s? You bet.
Do I want this sleazy character as President in 2016? Absolutely not.