By Lynn Cheney's standards...

[Cold Fusion38]

Anyone who defends an ACCUSED rapist condones rape....

Anyone who defends an ACCUSED murderer condones murder....

Anyone who defends an ACCUSED pedophile condones pediphilia....

Anyone who defends an ACCUSED embezzler condones embezzeling....


Lynn Cheney stands AGAINST our system of justice and the COURAGEOUS and HIGHLY ETHICAL defense attorneys who step up and defend the RIGHTS of ACCUSED criminals.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's one thing to defend an accused criminal, and give them the best defense possible.

It's another to try your hardest to get a criminal who you know has committed the crime, off.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Can't hear you Allie you idiot.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol.

Cold has an inverted penis.

 

[Coyote]

There is no difference. Any lawyer is ethically obligated to give the best defense possible.

No matter how much you hate the crime or the criminal they still deserve that under our system of justice. Justice is supposed to be impartial.

I don't always like it (O.J. anyone?), but I rather have that even with it's miscarriages - then not.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well Coyote you understand our system of JUSTICE and OBVIOUSLY Lynn Cheney DOESN'T!

 

[AllieBaba]

There is no difference. Any lawyer is ethically obligated to give the best defense possible.

No matter how much you hate the crime or the criminal they still deserve that under our system of justice. Justice is supposed to be impartial.

I don't always like it (O.J. anyone?), but I rather have that even with it's miscarriages - then not.

They deserve a defense. But attorneys are NOT obligated to hoodwink juries and judges. They are supposed to provide a good defense but they are not supposed to hide a criminal's criminal activity from those who pass judgment.

 

[Coyote]

Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's one thing to defend an accused criminal, and give them the best defense possible.

It's another to try your hardest to get a criminal who you know has committed the crime, off.

Do you see the difference?

Because we know that every single person locked up in Guantanamo is guilty, right?


Including the few hundred they've found innocent and let go?

 

[AllieBaba]

Sure. But defense attorneys are unethical if they know a client committed the crime, and they portray them as though they didn't.

 

[Coyote]

Well Coyote you understand our system of JUSTICE and OBVIOUSLY Lynn Cheney DOESN'T!

Lynn Cheney is a partisan hack desperately trying to rehabilitate her father's legacy by smearing his successors.

She comes off rather shrill.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's one thing to defend an accused criminal, and give them the best defense possible.

It's another to try your hardest to get a criminal who you know has committed the crime, off.

Do you see the difference?

Because we know that every single person locked up in Guantanamo is guilty, right?


Including the few hundred they've found innocent and let go?

Hey, they were let go.

And it's a whole different scenario.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's one thing to defend an accused criminal, and give them the best defense possible.

It's another to try your hardest to get a criminal who you know has committed the crime, off.

Do you see the difference?

Because we know that every single person locked up in Guantanamo is guilty, right?


Including the few hundred they've found innocent and let go?

Hey, they were let go.

And it's a whole different scenario.

How so?

Those lawyers who got their clients OUT of Guantanamo because they were innocent - Would you have a problem with them working for the Justice Dept?

 

[manu1959]

There is no difference. Any lawyer is ethically obligated to give the best defense possible.

No matter how much you hate the crime or the criminal they still deserve that under our system of justice. Justice is supposed to be impartial.

I don't always like it (O.J. anyone?), but I rather have that even with it's miscarriages - then not.

They deserve a defense. But attorneys are NOT obligated to hoodwink juries and judges. They are supposed to provide a good defense but they are not supposed to hide a criminal's criminal activity from those who pass judgment.

criminal defense attorneys don't ask them if they are innocent or guilty ...they don't want to know.....they don't need to know....it is about the law ..... they can't hide activity....it is against their ethical oath...spend some time with a crimnal defense attorney they will explain it....

 

[manu1959]

Sure. But defense attorneys are unethical if they know a client committed the crime, and they portray them as though they didn't.

how would they know they committed the crime....

 

[AllieBaba]

There is no difference. Any lawyer is ethically obligated to give the best defense possible.

No matter how much you hate the crime or the criminal they still deserve that under our system of justice. Justice is supposed to be impartial.

I don't always like it (O.J. anyone?), but I rather have that even with it's miscarriages - then not.

They deserve a defense. But attorneys are NOT obligated to hoodwink juries and judges. They are supposed to provide a good defense but they are not supposed to hide a criminal's criminal activity from those who pass judgment.

criminal defense attorneys don't ask them if they are innocent or guilty ...they don't want to know.....they don't need to know....it is about the law ..... they can't hide activity....it is against their ethical oath...spend some time with a crimnal defense attorney they will explain it....

They don't necessarily ask. But they often know. And if they know their client is guilty, duty to justice comes before duty to their clients.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They deserve a defense. But attorneys are NOT obligated to hoodwink juries and judges. They are supposed to provide a good defense but they are not supposed to hide a criminal's criminal activity from those who pass judgment.

criminal defense attorneys don't ask them if they are innocent or guilty ...they don't want to know.....they don't need to know....it is about the law ..... they can't hide activity....it is against their ethical oath...spend some time with a crimnal defense attorney they will explain it....

They don't necessarily ask. But they often know. And if they know their client is guilty, duty to justice comes before duty to their clients.

*attack removed. sorry.*

You're completely wrong. Even guilty people deserve representation - and EVERY SINGLE PERSON deserves a lawyer who will fight their very best for them. Even the guilty ones.

 

[Article 15]

They deserve a defense. But attorneys are NOT obligated to hoodwink juries and judges. They are supposed to provide a good defense but they are not supposed to hide a criminal's criminal activity from those who pass judgment.

criminal defense attorneys don't ask them if they are innocent or guilty ...they don't want to know.....they don't need to know....it is about the law ..... they can't hide activity....it is against their ethical oath...spend some time with a crimnal defense attorney they will explain it....

They don't necessarily ask. But they often know. And if they know their client is guilty, duty to justice comes before duty to their clients.

Bwuh?

 

[AllieBaba]

criminal defense attorneys don't ask them if they are innocent or guilty ...they don't want to know.....they don't need to know....it is about the law ..... they can't hide activity....it is against their ethical oath...spend some time with a crimnal defense attorney they will explain it....

They don't necessarily ask. But they often know. And if they know their client is guilty, duty to justice comes before duty to their clients.

*attack removed. sorry.*

You're completely wrong. Even guilty people deserve representation - and EVERY SINGLE PERSON deserves a lawyer who will fight their very best for them. Even the guilty ones.

I never said they don't deserve representation.
I said attorneys aren't obligated to get guilty people off.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They don't necessarily ask. But they often know. And if they know their client is guilty, duty to justice comes before duty to their clients.

*attack removed. sorry.*

You're completely wrong. Even guilty people deserve representation - and EVERY SINGLE PERSON deserves a lawyer who will fight their very best for them. Even the guilty ones.

I never said they don't deserve representation.
I said attorneys aren't obligated to get guilty people off.

They absolutely ARE obligated to do everything within the law in their attempt to get their clients off. Even if their clients are guilty.