is it to wife up some skatz goon and adjudicate his 2011-2014 baseball parking lot assault cases
Printable View
is it to wife up some skatz goon and adjudicate his 2011-2014 baseball parking lot assault cases
we give you time served for the dodgers being deplorable until this year
Umm, I think you need to tweet that to her. She doesn't post here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicide King
You understand what a lawyers job is right?Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Dragons
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DragonsUmm, I think you need to tweet that to her. She doesn't post here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicide King
4DRK is in full-on post Republican meme mode SK, don't stop his flow
How many drinks deep are you 4?
heres the best part you get to stop talking now corrigan cuz you are a boring fag consider yourself the person who holds the tray at weddings poking your head in asking if anyone wants canape
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToasterOvenMr Bone
Wow, sonatine finally got out of the house. That haircut is very coge. Wp
you dont come at my mans like that anon faggot nerds unless you have peking duck pictures on twitter ready in under 4 minutes
Who let randy quaid back on the internets
(Insert pic of lol wow)
Gare is making a legit play to singlehandedly ruin a potential 200,000 view thread with his terminal horribleness
I love trump, want him to win, but if the feds oversee the elections in swing states its pretty much over.
Tyde is god.
Fuck the libtards.
Over n out.
I'm asking you, do you understand what a lawyers job is? Also do you understand someone's constitutional right to a fair trial?Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DragonsUmm, I think you need to tweet that to her. She doesn't post here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicide King
as much as I consider Muck Ficon to the be most immature mega knob on this site...
he is perfectly justified religiously red repping Gare
So you have no idea how elections work. That's a shock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mintjewlips
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicide KingI'm asking you, do you understand what a lawyers job is? Also do you understand someone's constitutional right to a fair trial?Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Dragons
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.
Mitt Romney lost the election four years ago because of doing exactly this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrigan
The Democrats didn't seem very forgiving of his "47%" comment, even though he was clearly talking about election strategy (in what was supposed to be a closed and friendly setting) and where they should allocate their resources.
Great answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetCheckBet
I thought the same about how Hillary should have praised Trump for being entertaining, but noted that America doesn't need that in the White House.
I couldn't think of what Trump should say about Hillary which wouldn't empower her campaign but your idea is a good one.
Trump did WAY better in this debate than the first one.
I realize that the bar was pretty much on the floor, and he couldn't do any worse, but he mostly did this time what his supporters were hoping he'd do last time.
While the female moderator came off as really bitchy at times, at least I will give both moderators credit for asking some tough questions of Hillary this time, whereas Lester Holt asked none.
I did not agree with Trump that they were treating him unfairly with the debate, and even if they were, he shouldn't have whined about it.
Trump got off a few good one-liners, such as the line about Abraham Lincoln, and even the controversial "You'd be in jail" quip, which I took as more of a claim that she wouldn't have gotten away with her crimes if he were in power, rather than a threat to jail her once he takes office. (He did talk about hiring a special prosecutor to investigate her again, though, which was a mistake for him to say.)
Trump occasionally rambled and made unclear references to things, while Hillary was always easy to understand. But he did way better than last time regarding controlling the rambling. Actually, Hillary did ramble once, and that was during her ill-advised Abe Lincoln answer.
Hillary smiled at inappropriate times, such as Trump's first mention of the 33,000 deleted e-mails. The last thing she should be doing during that topic is smiling, as it appears she's smiling about getting away with someting.
Neither candidate had a very good answer on health care. It seemed clear that neither had any clue how to either fix the ACA or put something better in its place -- something which doesn't bode well for people like me.
I actually think Trump did a little better than Hillary in this debate, but he got killed last time, and he's still being dogged by the video released Friday, so I don't see this doing enough to get him the votes back that he's lost since September 26.
Druff, what was your reaction to the leaked trump tapes? And where does it rank in comparison to Hillary's indiscretions
This tweet was from October 8 (and I believe it).Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
But I doubt Pence was disappointed with tonight's debate performance.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/flash...ry?id=42686582
Days after President Clinton admitted to having an inappropriate relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Trump said Clinton was a “victim” and critiqued the physical appearances of various women with whom Clinton had been accused of having extramarital relations at different times.
“It’s like it's from hell, it's a terrible group of people,” Trump said in an interview with FOX News' Neil Cavuto on Aug. 19, 1998.
Asked by Cavuto if Clinton’s image as a “quasi-sex symbol” stood to somehow benefit from the alleged extramarital relations, Trump took issue with the characterization.
“I don't necessarily agree with his victims, his victims are terrible,” Trump said. “He is really a victim himself. But he put himself in that position.”
“The whole group, Paula Jones, Lewinsky, it's just a really unattractive group. I'm not just talking about physical," he said.
“Would it be any different if it were a supermodel crowd?” Cavuto then asked.
“I think at least it would be more pleasant to watch,” Trump replied.
My reaction is that it looks really bad, and it's probably the final nail in the coffin of his campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypt
As far as actual scandals go, I don't think it's that huge.
Had such a tape surfaced regarding George W. Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, it would be a huge scandal, because all of these guys were known to generally be good, moral men who behaved in a gentlemanly fashion.
Trump has always been boorish, rude, disrespectful, and likely degrading to women. Anyone paying attention should have noticed this about him by now.
However, Trump is correct that Bill Clinton is just as bad (perhaps worse), and Hillary stood by him all of this time, despite knowing about these actions for at least 40 years. So this means she endorses them to some degree, and must take ownership of his behavior when she attempts to run for President. It also doesn't help that Hillary has publicly attacked some of Bill's accusers.
Basically, whoever wins this thing, we will have a pervert living in the White House who doesn't respect women, and has probably done some highly inappropriate things in that area.
I can't stand Hillary and I'm not much of a fan of Trump as a politician but he was cut off way too much tonight in times when he should been allowed to respond.
Their should never be favoritism by mediators in any presidential debate.
Americans have a huge decision and these fools are trying to limit time the candidates can speak?? REALLY??? It's not as if the big network news don't control broadcasting already interrupting it for special alerts whenever they want to so why the hell do they care if this debate goes over 30 minutes to an hour which limits our candidates from making the points they are trying to do so in order to educate American people to make their decision in a month?
This is a common misconception. George W. Bush was probably just as bad as Trump was when Bush was in his younger years but he did it in a more playful way. Also, George W. Bush eventually stopped drinking and acting like a frat boy, however, he didn't stop putting his foot in his mouth about other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffMy reaction is that it looks really bad, and it's probably the final nail in the coffin of his campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krypt
As far as actual scandals go, I don't think it's that huge.
Had such a tape surfaced regarding George W. Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, it would be a huge scandal, because all of these guys were known to generally be good, moral men who behaved in a gentlemanly fashion.
Trump has always been boorish, rude, disrespectful, and likely degrading to women. Anyone paying attention should have noticed this about him by now.
However, Trump is correct that Bill Clinton is just as bad (perhaps worse), and Hillary stood by him all of this time, despite knowing about these actions for at least 40 years. So this means she endorses them to some degree, and must take ownership of his behavior when she attempts to run for President. It also doesn't help that Hillary has publicly attacked some of Bill's accusers.
Basically, whoever wins this thing, we will have a pervert living in the White House who doesn't respect women, and has probably done some highly inappropriate things in that area.
I know GW Bush drank a lot and probably did drugs, but I never heard about him harassing women.Quote:
Originally Posted by John StamosThis is a common misconception. George W. Bush was probably just as bad as Trump was when Bush was in his younger years but he did it in a more playful way. Also, George W. Bush eventually stopped drinking and acting like a frat boy, however, he didn't stop putting his foot in his mouth about other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
I'd have thought that would have come out in either of the two elections he went through, especially considering how close and contentious they both were.
Here's Barack Obama saying the word "Pussy".
Can we impeach him now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKYmiWiNqOw
Men who drink and use cocaine more than likely try to fuck as many women as they can. Id say 75% + of guys like this are pussy hounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffI know GW Bush drank a lot and probably did drugs, but I never heard about him harassing women.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Stamos
I'd have thought that would have come out in either of the two elections he went through, especially considering how close and contentious they both were.
i agree re hillary's answer, but completely disagree on trump's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffGreat answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by BetCheckBet
I thought the same about how Hillary should have praised Trump for being entertaining, but noted that America doesn't need that in the White House.
I couldn't think of what Trump should say about Hillary which wouldn't empower her campaign but your idea is a good one.
as someone who is a moderate and hates him, i think he knocked it out of the park with his answer. for that brief moment, he actually seemed like a civil and well mannered individual. he came across as the bigger person than hillary, who couldn't bring herself to say anything nice about trump and instead praised his kids. keep in mind that his temperament is the only thing keeping out of the white house (probably). that was the one non cringeworthy moment of the debate.
Druff, you simply hate Hillary too much to be objective. CNN poll shows Hillary won 57 to 34 percent. It could be too small of a sample, but seriously. You can't say that you didn't get tingly all over when you heard Trump blurt out that Hillary would be in jail if he were president. Come on, buddy. Admit that it gave you a bit of political boner. No shame in that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffThis tweet was from October 8 (and I believe it).Quote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
But I doubt Pence was disappointed with tonight's debate performance.
For your enjoyment, I found a video clip by CNN that shows Trump promising to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary's lies and corruption.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2...l-debate-2016/
And now, be honest: You'd really really really would like to vote for Trump with a clear conscience just to have Hillary feel the wrath of justice. Right? Heck! California is going to be landslide for Clinton this election. Go out the polls and pull that lever for Trump! It won't matter electorally, but you'll feel good knowing you did your part for all those victims of her evil deeds.
in case anyone didn't already know this, he is actually reading a passage from a book.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
http://www.mediaite.com/online/was-p...ibs-and-pussy/
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DragonsUmm, I think you need to tweet that to her. She doesn't post here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicide King
What's it like to be 408mike?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicide KingI'm asking you, do you understand what a lawyers job is? Also do you understand someone's constitutional right to a fair trial?Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Dragons
I posted a tweet from someone that felt maligned by a presidential candidate. I did not offer commentary on her words or anything else.
I just want it to sit there and needle the people that are the most butthurt about all things women's issues - except when it's against literally anyone who's been raped by Bill Clinton or come against Hillary.
My thoughts on wtf a lawyer does are not any part of the reasoning behind what she said, nor does it matter. What matters is that she put it out there, and for some reason, her pain becomes me not understanding what a lawyer does? You cannot deny her pain, so you try to project a false narrative on me?
You can attempt to shoot the messenger I guess, but it doesn't change that she feels the way she does and I literally dare you to bring it up to her.
I feel like he won the battle last night but lost the war. Try explaining all of this crap to your kids. BTW Mitt Romney never looked so good. Ill take a boring middle of the road Republican anyday at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charham
Hillary is a pro-choice moderate Republican, Romney has no magic bullet for that. The fact is, Romney is a born political punching bag; he's the hopes and dreams of the biggest loser joke religion in America and all the magic underwear in the world isnt going to get him past the 'courtesy vote' threshold against anyone to the right of Willie Horton.
This election is gold. Never been happier not to be from the US.
Calm down Todgers. She did not over step her job as a lawyer, or falsify any facts. You're better than this Todd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffIt 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicide King
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.
You have to take responsibility for what you're posting. She was appointed by a judge to that case and did her sworn duty as an officer of the court. You posting that is just dumb, and pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DragonsQuote:
Originally Posted by Suicide King
I posted a tweet from someone that felt maligned by a presidential candidate. I did not offer commentary on her words or anything else.
I just want it to sit there and needle the people that are the most butthurt about all things women's issues - except when it's against literally anyone who's been raped by Bill Clinton or come against Hillary.
My thoughts on wtf a lawyer does are not any part of the reasoning behind what she said, nor does it matter. What matters is that she put it out there, and for some reason, her pain becomes me not understanding what a lawyer does? You cannot deny her pain, so you try to project a false narrative on me?
You can attempt to shoot the messenger I guess, but it doesn't change that she feels the way she does and I literally dare you to bring it up to her.