'I had obligation to defend rapist'

[Warrior102]

Hillary's used to defending rapists.
Look who she married.

 

[BlindBoo]

That is what you post to refute what I said?

Wow.

Sort of makes you look like....well.....what do they call it?....a sheeple?

Is that all you got? When a lawyer make a plead bargain for their client, do they know their client is guilty?

Yes. That's why they plea.

But you have not been paying attention to the thread.

The claim was that Clinton asked to be removed from the case and the judge refused. She admits she knew he was guilty....so if such is true, all she had to do was say to the judge "I believe he is guilty and my sentiments will compromise my ability to ensure a proper defense"....

For if she did, he would have immediately granted her request.

So she is full of shit when she claims she asked the judge to relieve her.

That was my point all along.

Pay attention next time.

You responded to my first post which was my original reaction to the hit piece featured in the OP.

Upon further review of the case...........BFD

 

[JFK_USA]

I understand lawyers have the obligation to defend the defendant, but that doesn't mean they should get them off at any cost. Our justice system is a joke, where rapists and pedophiles get off lightly thanks to shitbag lawyers like Clinton. They all knew this scumbag was guilty, and yet pleaded him down to walking. Disgusting.

That's the whole point. Regardless whether or not she THINKS he was guilty. Her job is to give her client the best defense without prejudice. That's what matters in the legal system.

If you want a robust legal system, that's what it requires. We shouldn't punish lawyers for doing their job. If we let prosecutors have all the power, we'll have a kangaroo court system that is stacked against the defense.

And I will not let my partisan politics get in the way of that. If Marco Rubio got a rapist off due to a prosecutor's error, I would be saying "Good job Marco, you did your job as a lawyer." Why? Because that's his job.

 

[Star]

IMO, it takes ethics to defend a child rapist. Been there done that got the go cup. It sucked. But you either believe in the constitution or you don't.

Are you saying you are an attorney?

Because if you are, I don't believe you.

Only for one reason.....

AN attorney does not need to "assume innocent until proven guilty".

As a matter of fact, they are taught NOT TO.

They are taught to determine if, in fact, they can defend the person OR if they believe in the person.

So my guess is you are not an attorney.

What law enforcement really mean when they say they "sweat" someone is they harass a person into a mistake. It's my belief that when one of my cop friends says they know someone is guilty but they can't prove it, they're usually right but-----but if they can't prove it, well...

There's a well known case "The Green River Killer" case here in Western Washington that a flamboyant cop named Sheriff Dave Reichert takes credit for solving - he didn't, a scientist working in a DNA lab did but-----but Dave Reichert has never been one to let facts get in the way of his publicity.

During the height of the Green River killings I was working in the Sea-Tac area, Sheriff Reichert assumed he knew who the killer was and started a 24/7 sweating process on what turned out to be an innocent man. The sweating was so overwhelming that the man Sheriff Reichert "knew" was guilty lost his job, his wife divorced him, a judge trusted Sheriff Reichert's word about the (assumed) "evidence" and put a restraining order on the guy so he couldn't even visit his children etc., etc. After a couple of years of sweating this guy, Sheriff Reichert's victim committed suicide.

My guess is Reichert really did think he "knew" who the Green River Killer was but-----but it's not up to law enforcement or officers of the court to make that judgment, it's up to the court-----it's up to the court to weigh the evidence and pass judgment. It's just my guess but I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that while Hillary Clinton may have "felt" her client was guilty, as an officer of the court she knew it was her obligation to present the evidence to the court in a non-biased way and let the chips fall where they may - if only Congressman Dave Reichert (R-WA) would have had the same commitment to American jurisprudence...?



Dave Reichert did NOT catch the Green River Killer


by Goldy — Monday, 3/31/08

I know it’s kinda like pissing into the wind, but ...

<snip>

...on the shameless myth-making behind Dave Reichert’s claim to fame as the man who allegedly caught the Green River Killer:

“[Dave Reichert] desecrated the victims. The public ought to know that,” says Seattle University journalism and criminal justice Professor Tomás Guillén… “He got elected based on Green River, when in fact, he didn’t solve it and he didn’t win against Gary Ridgway,” says Guillén who covered the Green River story for the Seattle Times from its beginnings and has written two books on the subject.
​

Really, the public ought to know, but they don’t, because our local media has been as complicit in perpetrating the myth as Reichert has himself, and they appear totally unwilling to admit their mistake. Reichert’s whole political career is built on a lie — a lie that permeates his discussion of nearly every issue…

Why is Reichert against choice for women? When asked, he’s told an interviewer: “I have a great respect for life. I’ve seen a lot of death in my career, worked Green River, seen lots of dead bodies.”
​

That’s just shameless, and quite frankly, our local reporters, who should know better, are doing themselves and their readers a great disservice when they let him get away with this. If Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations can be pronounced dead because she lied about the dangers on a tarmac in Bosnia — a tiny footnote in her personal biography — then surely Reichert’s political credibility should be called into question for fabricating his entire public persona.

Dave Reichert did NOT catch the Green River Killer! That is a fact. And our local media has an obligation to tell voters the truth.

.