Victim in Clinton rape case comes forward

a reply to: JinMI

What I said was a general remark, not directed at you personally and certainly not a "cheap shot".

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: ipsedixit

I understand your position but I disagree.
She had free will to take on this case and I'm only assuming that she knew the probability of winning.

Public Defenders have free will to take on cases?

She was a female lawyer, in the south, in 1975. It would have been career suicide to turn down a case.

I'm the same age as Hillary. And I know how things were in the work place for a woman in a "man's world" 40+ years ago.

That's not entirely correct.

“The public defender was appointed to represent him and for some reason the public defender, I guess, wanted off or couldn’t handle it, I don’t know what the problem was there,” said Gibson.

Clinton offered yet another variation of the events leading to her taking the case in her autobiography Living History, saying the judge appointed her to the case after Gibson recommended her.

“One day the Washington County prosecuting attorney, Mahlon Gibson, called to tell me an indigent prisoner accused of raping a 12-year-old girl wanted a woman lawyer,” wrote Clinton. “Gibson had recommended that the criminal court judge, Maupin Cummings, appoint me.”

freebeacon.com...

Woman and men alike have quit their positions based upon their ethics.

I've read several versions of how she got this case. So, I'm not going there.

Public Defender is a Public Defender. It was her case. She did her job.

Washington Free Beacon is a Right Wing Rag.

This is good:

Founder of the Free Beacon Michael Goldfarb is an American conservative political writer.

He was contributing editor for The Weekly Standard and was a research associate at the Project for the New American Century

en.wikipedia.org...(political_writer)

a reply to: Annee

Mmmhmm indeed. As did Cochran, Shapiro and Kardashian.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Annee

Mmmhmm indeed. As did Cochran, Shapiro and Kardashian.

Yes, they did.

OJ's trial would probably had a different outcome, if he actually had a jury of his peers.

His peers were rich white people.

Who moved the case from Santa Monica to downtown Los Angeles?

a reply to: Annee

Does it matter? They got their job done.

a reply to: Annee

A public defenders job is not just to get people off the hook. All lawyers, including public defenders, have a code of ethics they are meant to follow.

B. With respect to opposing parties and their counsel:
2. I will not knowingly make statements of fact or of law that are untrue;

5. I will refrain from utilizing litigation or any other course of conduct to harass the opposing party;

C. With respect to the courts and other tribunals:
3. I will voluntarily withdraw claims or defenses when it becomes apparent that they do not have merit or are superfluous;

D. With respect to the public and to our system of justice:
1. I will remember that, in addition to commitment to my client's cause, my responsibilities as a lawyer include a devotion to the public good;

link

originally posted by: GokuVsSuperman0You think she played the system? Then complain that the judicial system needs reforms. But nah that's too complicated, you'd have to read into how the system works and then look into potential reforms to promote equality in the judicial system.

There is a much easier way to reform the judicial system. You get rid of the career politicians who have spent most of their lives in public services creating a corrupt judicial system.

What you shouldn't do is mistake a career politician who is qualified in playing the system for a person who is qualified to fix the system.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Annee

Does it matter? They got their job done.

Yes they did.

Is there a problem?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You are a lawyer?

Public defender?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Annee

A public defenders job is not just to get people off the hook. All lawyers, including public defenders, have a code of ethics they are meant to follow.

B. With respect to opposing parties and their counsel:
2. I will not knowingly make statements of fact or of law that are untrue;

5. I will refrain from utilizing litigation or any other course of conduct to harass the opposing party;

C. With respect to the courts and other tribunals:
3. I will voluntarily withdraw claims or defenses when it becomes apparent that they do not have merit or are superfluous;

D. With respect to the public and to our system of justice:
1. I will remember that, in addition to commitment to my client's cause, my responsibilities as a lawyer include a devotion to the public good;

link

I don't see where any of that applies.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Annee

Does it matter? They got their job done.

Yes they did.

Is there a problem?

Just your hypocrisy, thanks for playing!

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Annee

Does it matter? They got their job done.

Yes they did.

Is there a problem?

Just your hypocrisy, thanks for playing!

You'll need to point out the hypocrisy.

a reply to: ipsedixit

I see your point, but I disagree. I have actually personally witnessed court cases on related subject matter while doing some volunteer work, and I have some insight.

I have seen some defense attorneys who actually seem to sympathize with their clients, and not because they have to. Somehow they see the victim as the bad guy and their client as the poor person who had every right to do what they did and should not be criminalized for it. One sheriff even told me after a trial that he is sure that defense attorney must be a pedo. (that attorney's client went to jail for a long time, despite the attorney's attempts)

Then there are some defense attorneys who actually have a conscience and yet know that their client is guilty. These are the attorneys who encourage their clients to do the right thing and plead guilty, working within the system to come to a fair deal for the accurate charges related to what they did.

In my opinion, the second is an example of what an ethical attorney must do. I think it is a myth that a defense attorney should do everything possible to somehow, through whatever means, even immoral, to get their client off of the hook. I think that a defense attorney's responsibility should be to represent their client within the law to see that they are treated appropriately for their crimes, and not railroaded or falsely convicted.

Certainly if an attorney feels their client is innocent and falsely accused they should do everything within their power to set things straight. But if they know the client is guilty then they should do what they can to be sure they get treated fairly for their crimes within the court system. I think it is totally unethical for an attorney to work to free someone who they know has committed a crime, especially a violent crime.

I know it does not work that way. But in my experience and opinion, it should work that way.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Annee

Does it matter? They got their job done.

Yes they did.

Is there a problem?

Just your hypocrisy, thanks for playing!

You'll need to point out the hypocrisy.

Clearly. Your lack of self-awareness is stunning.

a reply to: Annee

I don't have to be a lawyer to know its wrong to commit perjury. She did not stand in that courtroom and argue that her client was guilty. She knew he was yet claimed he was innocent = perjury. I don't have to be a lawyer to know there is a creed, an oath, that lawyers take upon passing the bar. As those who navigate the judicial system are in a particularly sensitive position in which they could, if they were of such a nature, wrongly influence or take advantage of deficiencies in the system for their own benefit, they are sworn to uphold a creed that is meant to be their guiding light of moral, ethical, professional behavior. killary took such an oath. Obviously it meant very little to her. She will also be required to take an oath if she wins the election. I am certain that oath will be just as meaningless to her.

SInce I read everything about MENA airport and her husband's friendships with people who always managed to walk between the raindrops when they were caught, and how Janet Reno always squashed any investigation, I cannot believe she wasn't a part indirectly to all this. Neither she nor Trump are fit to hold the office of POTUS.

I'd vote for a leprous baboon before I'd vote for **HILLARY CLINTON**

Not that much difference, really--except that the baboon hasn't committed treason, sold state secrets and influence to the highest bidder, absconded with classified information in violation of the law, committed perjury numerous times before Congress, left scores of suspicious deaths in its wake, committed voter fraud in the nomination process, abandoned Americans to die under fire, illegally sold U.S. uranium to Iran via Russia, run guns to Syria from Libya and thereby co-founded ISIS, run a criminal enterprise masquerading as a "foundation", destabilized North Africa, the Middle East, the Black Sea region, Europe, and the South China Sea... and lied and been fired from the Watergate committee... and so much more.

First, you lose with the name calling. elevate yourself.

Second, she was a lawyer doing her job. Get over it. It's history. She broke no laws. She did her job. You don't have to like it... but this is what defense lawyers do. They defend their clients.

Or as Trump might say... She's a winner. It's what she does. She doesn't give up. She makes a case and she wins. She defended the guy and she won. Now she wants to be President and defend the American people. It looks like she's going to win that one too.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Annee

I don't have to be a lawyer to know its wrong to commit perjury. She did not stand in that courtroom and argue that her client was guilty. She knew he was yet claimed he was innocent = perjury.

You have the transcripts, I assume.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Annee

Does it matter? They got their job done.

Yes they did.

Is there a problem?

Just your hypocrisy, thanks for playing!

You'll need to point out the hypocrisy.

Clearly. Your lack of self-awareness is stunning.

Please enlighten.