Hillary's war on women:Blamed 12 year old for her own rape:Knew client was guilty:smeared child

[Care4all]

You mean she was a lawyer, was assigned a case, and did her job?

How outrageous!

Tell me something when you LIE for your client are you serving JUSTICE or yourself?

There's no evidence she lied about anything.

The evidence had been cut out of the underwear and she KNEW that.
The underwear with the evidence removed was sent to the lab and she KNEW that.
So she knowingly WITHHELD information that WOULD have led to JUSTICE FOR that rape victim.

Just like she WITHHELD information of a Supreme court justices files during Watergate.

When you on PURPOSE withhold TRUTH from a court to serve your purpose you are in fact LYING to the court as lawyers are just as sworn to tell the truth in order to uphold the ethics of that profession.

you are so full of crud dark fury...

she probably could have been disbarred if she told the prosecutor how to proceed against her own client. The prosecution did not do their jobs.... THAT my dear was not the defense lawyer's job, nor in their position, could they do a thing about it...without breaking their oath.

A defense attorney has the FULL right to ask the judge to DQ them.

huh? you're nuts! no way, jose could she have asked for that.... you live in Never Never land, don't you?

 

[DarkFury]

You mean she was a lawyer, was assigned a case, and did her job?

How outrageous!

Tell me something when you LIE for your client are you serving JUSTICE or yourself?

There's no evidence she lied about anything.

The evidence had been cut out of the underwear and she KNEW that.
The underwear with the evidence removed was sent to the lab and she KNEW that.
So she knowingly WITHHELD information that WOULD have led to JUSTICE FOR that rape victim.

Just like she WITHHELD information of a Supreme court justices files during Watergate.

When you on PURPOSE withhold TRUTH from a court to serve your purpose you are in fact LYING to the court as lawyers are just as sworn to tell the truth in order to uphold the ethics of that profession.

She didn't "withhold" anything - investigators for the prosecution are the ones who lost the piece of underwear that supposedly had the evidence in question.

She withheld the FACT she KNEW the evidence existed.

 

[DarkFury]

Tell me something when you LIE for your client are you serving JUSTICE or yourself?

There's no evidence she lied about anything.

The evidence had been cut out of the underwear and she KNEW that.
The underwear with the evidence removed was sent to the lab and she KNEW that.
So she knowingly WITHHELD information that WOULD have led to JUSTICE FOR that rape victim.

Just like she WITHHELD information of a Supreme court justices files during Watergate.

When you on PURPOSE withhold TRUTH from a court to serve your purpose you are in fact LYING to the court as lawyers are just as sworn to tell the truth in order to uphold the ethics of that profession.

you are so full of crud dark fury...

she probably could have been disbarred if she told the prosecutor how to proceed against her own client. The prosecution did not do their jobs.... THAT my dear was not the defense lawyer's job, nor in their position, could they do a thing about it...without breaking their oath.

A defense attorney has the FULL right to ask the judge to DQ them.

huh? you're nuts! no way, jose could she have asked for that.... you live in Never Never land, don't you?

I have FOUR lawyers in my family and my grandfather was a judge. Lawyers CAN ask to be removed from a case.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You mean she was a lawyer, was assigned a case, and did her job?

How outrageous!

Tell me something when you LIE for your client are you serving JUSTICE or yourself?

There's no evidence she lied about anything.

The evidence had been cut out of the underwear and she KNEW that.
The underwear with the evidence removed was sent to the lab and she KNEW that.
So she knowingly WITHHELD information that WOULD have led to JUSTICE FOR that rape victim.

Just like she WITHHELD information of a Supreme court justices files during Watergate.

When you on PURPOSE withhold TRUTH from a court to serve your purpose you are in fact LYING to the court as lawyers are just as sworn to tell the truth in order to uphold the ethics of that profession.

She didn't "withhold" anything - investigators for the prosecution are the ones who lost the piece of underwear that supposedly had the evidence in question.

She withheld the FACT she KNEW the evidence existed.

Everyone already knew that the prosecution had lost their evidence. There was nothing to "withhold".

 

[Care4all]

There's no evidence she lied about anything.

The evidence had been cut out of the underwear and she KNEW that.
The underwear with the evidence removed was sent to the lab and she KNEW that.
So she knowingly WITHHELD information that WOULD have led to JUSTICE FOR that rape victim.

Just like she WITHHELD information of a Supreme court justices files during Watergate.

When you on PURPOSE withhold TRUTH from a court to serve your purpose you are in fact LYING to the court as lawyers are just as sworn to tell the truth in order to uphold the ethics of that profession.

you are so full of crud dark fury...

she probably could have been disbarred if she told the prosecutor how to proceed against her own client. The prosecution did not do their jobs.... THAT my dear was not the defense lawyer's job, nor in their position, could they do a thing about it...without breaking their oath.

A defense attorney has the FULL right to ask the judge to DQ them.

huh? you're nuts! no way, jose could she have asked for that.... you live in Never Never land, don't you?

I have FOUR lawyers in my family and my grandfather was a judge. Lawyers CAN ask to be removed from a case.

she did ask to be removed...was denied by the judge according to an eye-witness/colleague

 

[DarkFury]

The evidence had been cut out of the underwear and she KNEW that.
The underwear with the evidence removed was sent to the lab and she KNEW that.
So she knowingly WITHHELD information that WOULD have led to JUSTICE FOR that rape victim.

Just like she WITHHELD information of a Supreme court justices files during Watergate.

When you on PURPOSE withhold TRUTH from a court to serve your purpose you are in fact LYING to the court as lawyers are just as sworn to tell the truth in order to uphold the ethics of that profession.

you are so full of crud dark fury...

she probably could have been disbarred if she told the prosecutor how to proceed against her own client. The prosecution did not do their jobs.... THAT my dear was not the defense lawyer's job, nor in their position, could they do a thing about it...without breaking their oath.

A defense attorney has the FULL right to ask the judge to DQ them.

huh? you're nuts! no way, jose could she have asked for that.... you live in Never Never land, don't you?

I have FOUR lawyers in my family and my grandfather was a judge. Lawyers CAN ask to be removed from a case.

she did ask to be removed...was denied by the judge according to an eye-witness/colleague

Well the witness is LYING. She was a PAID lawyer NOT a PD so she COULD balk. The judge has NO say in HIRED lawyers.

 

[DarkFury]

Thus far the lying scum bag has told THREE stories about how she became the lawyer..
Did Clinton take the case voluntarily or was she appointed by the court?

In "Living History," Clinton wrote that the criminal court judge appointed her, and that she "couldn't very well refuse the judge's request." The 2008 Newsday story quotes then-Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson who refers to her as being "appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County." However, in the newly-released audio tapes Clinton says a prosecutor for the case asked to take the case "as a favor to him."
Hillary Clinton's Handling of 1975 Rape Case Emerges Again

Woman could not tell the truth at anytime.

 

[tinydancer]

You mean she was a lawyer, was assigned a case, and did her job?

How outrageous!

Oh it's not a problem that she did her job. It's just that on the tapes she was cackling over getting a child rapist a reduced charge of "unlawfully fondling of a minor" . Quite pleased with herself it seems that not only did she win but that she won knowing the son of a ***** was guilty.