is it to wife up some skatz goon and adjudicate his 2011-2014 baseball parking lot assault cases
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.Originally Posted by Suicide King
You understand what a lawyers job is right?
Umm, I think you need to tweet that to her. She doesn't post here.
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
Mr Bone
Wow, sonatine finally got out of the house. That haircut is very coge. Wp
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Drexel
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
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)
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Drexel
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
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.
"Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Drexel
"ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine
"Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis
"DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER
I'm asking you, do you understand what a lawyers job is? Also do you understand someone's constitutional right to a fair trial?Umm, I think you need to tweet that to her. She doesn't post here.
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.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
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.I'm asking you, do you understand what a lawyers job is? Also do you understand someone's constitutional right to a fair trial?
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.
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.
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).
But I doubt Pence was disappointed with tonight's debate performance.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Reply With Quote
