PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Mase on August 22, 2016, 02:44:16 PM
-
This is who we want for President?
-
When has Hilary Clinton NOT lied when it might benefit her personally?
-
Wow, this needs to go far and wide.
-
caveat: IANAL
I'm sure the clinton buttkisser wannabees will point out the lawyer's responsibility to vigorously defend the client.
otoh - I served on one jury in my lifetime (a rape case). As unimpressive as the defense attorny was, at least he didn't attack or humiliate the victim.
Hey, maybe the ethics of lawyers had advanced out of the sewer by the early 80s. (I crack myself up)
Imagine what would have happened if the lawyer was someone running on the Republican ticket...
-
caveat: IANAL
I'm sure the clinton buttkisser wannabees will point out the lawyer's responsibility to vigorously defend the client.
Correct, but this demonstrates her win at all costs personality. And by winning I mean HER winning. Not you, not me, not our country, not even a helpless little 12yr od girl.
HER.
Despicable.
-
Imagine what would have happened if the lawyer was someone running on the Republican ticket...
No kidding.
In fact, I expect Jeff to chime in here soon with some evidence that Trump did something bad too, just to take the spotlight off of HRC.
-
No kidding.
In fact, I expect Jeff to chime in here soon with some evidence that Trump did something bad too, just to take the spotlight off of HRC.
Is the donald a lawyer?
(serious question - not an attempt to be pro/con wrt the donald)
-
Is the donald a lawyer?
(serious question - not an attempt to be pro/con wrt the donald)
No. He just used them for nefarious (but legal) purposes.
-
No kidding.
In fact, I expect Jeff to chime in here soon with some evidence that Trump did something bad too, just to take the spotlight off of HRC.
Jeff is so in the tank for Hillary that he should just admit that as the purpose for endlessly trashing Trump.
-
With any luck the sill be my last post. It isn't up to a defense attorney to decide someone's guilt or innocence. That is the job the Judge and/or jury. The job a defense attorney is to give his or her client the best defense the law allows, period. The fact that Clinton was able to get someone off who had that quantity of damning evidence against him (which the State had a nearly unlimited budget to collect, by the way) shows that she was a crack defense attorney.
The fact that none of you realize this very, very simple aspect of our justice system suggests that you are
Complete
Fucking
Morons
These have been the words of Steingar, signing off. Goodbye.
-
Well, perfesser can't demand of us his ideology is the one and only true ideology, so he storms out mad.
In the classroom setting he can preach his spew and hold the students grades over their heads if they don't agree with him.
Like I've said before, take the academic out of the protected area of a classroom and they quickly find out how most don't agree with them, and there is nothing they can do about it....
Well, except storm away pissed off.
-
These have been the words of Steingar, signing off. Goodbye.
coward
-
I think the main objection is not that she vigorously defended a guilty client, but that she gloated and laughed and cackled about it afterwards.
-
I think the main objection is not that she vigorously defended a guilty client, but that she gloated and laughed and cackled about it afterwards.
That was exactly my thought. She was so proud that she got him off with only "time served" and he only served two months.
Steingar,
I'm sorry you took this so hard. I know it is difficult when your hero is indefensible, but I really hope you don't decide to leave the forum.
-
With any luck the sill be my last post. It isn't up to a defense attorney to decide someone's guilt or innocence. That is the job the Judge and/or jury. The job a defense attorney is to give his or her client the best defense the law allows, period. The fact that Clinton was able to get someone off who had that quantity of damning evidence against him (which the State had a nearly unlimited budget to collect, by the way) shows that she was a crack defense attorney.
The fact that none of you realize this very, very simple aspect of our justice system suggests that you are
Complete
Fucking
Morons
These have been the words of Steingar, signing off. Goodbye.
-
Jeff is so in the tank for Hillary that he should just admit that as the purpose for endlessly trashing Trump.
Oh please.
-
With any luck the sill be my last post. It isn't up to a defense attorney to decide someone's guilt or innocence. That is the job the Judge and/or jury. The job a defense attorney is to give his or her client the best defense the law allows, period. The fact that Clinton was able to get someone off who had that quantity of damning evidence against him (which the State had a nearly unlimited budget to collect, by the way) shows that she was a crack defense attorney.
The fact that none of you realize this very, very simple aspect of our justice system suggests that you are
Complete
Fucking
Morons
These have been the words of Steingar, signing off. Goodbye.
Steingar, I have always tried to be fair and adult with you, despite our very tough debates.
But if your characterization of those of us who have sympathy for this victim and disdain for the methods of her rapist's heartless lawyer is that we are "complete fucking morons," then go fuck yourself, and don't even come back, you fucking pussy.
Your melodrama of hurt feelings, leaving, coming back, and believing that you are the smartest man in the room all signal the extreme short-man complex and self disdain that you must have.
-
Steingar, I have always tried to be fair and adult with you, despite our very tough debates.
But if your characterization of those of us who have sympathy for this victim and disdain for the methods of her rapist's heartless lawyer is that we are "complete fucking morons," then go fuck yourself, and don't even come back, you fucking pussy.
Your melodrama of hurt feelings, leaving, coming back, and believing that you are the smartest man in the room all signal the extreme short-man complex and self disdain that you must have.
I have always suspected that the professor had a serious inferiority complex to go with a massively out sized ego and every now and then he proves me right.
-
I think you are all being too hard on Steingar. After all, it must be tough being a liberal on this board. And everyone has bad days.
Also, it is distressing when you realize your Emperor has no clothes. (Please, don't anyone do anything with that; the visuals would be too hard to unsee).
-
I think you are all being too hard on Steingar. After all, it must be tough being a liberal on this board. And everyone has bad days.
Also, it is distressing when you realize your Emperor has no clothes. (Please, don't anyone do anything with that; the visuals would be too hard to unsee).
When the clown prince of the progressive religion calls us all out that way, the parasite gets what he asked for.
He'll be back and then get his girl panties in a twist about something and run away again.... and again.... and again....
-
I think you are all being too hard on Steingar. After all, it must be tough being a liberal on this board. And everyone has bad days.
Also, it is distressing when you realize your Emperor has no clothes. (Please, don't anyone do anything with that; the visuals would be too hard to unsee).
Nope. This was an unsolicited drive by, not an attempt at debate.
-
Nope. This was an unsolicited drive by, not an attempt at debate.
You may be right. But I still hate to see him go. Even if it seems the only thing I ever agree with him on is food. (except for that vegetarian fetish of his).
-
Oh please.
Come on, it had to be true. He's doing everything possible to make sure Hillary wins, to our eventual doom.
-
Steingar, I have always tried to be fair and adult with you, despite our very tough debates.
But if your characterization of those of us who have sympathy for this victim and disdain for the methods of her rapist's heartless lawyer is that we are "complete fucking morons," then go fuck yourself, and don't even come back, you fucking pussy.
Your melodrama of hurt feelings, leaving, coming back, and believing that you are the smartest man in the room all signal the extreme short-man complex and self disdain that you must have.
Stan, don't hold back, let it all out!
-
Nope. This was an unsolicited drive by, not an attempt at debate.
He must have been hanging with AP...
-
Come on, it had to be true. He's doing everything possible to make sure Hillary wins, to our eventual doom.
Trumpkins ensured Hillary's victory when they nominated an unhinged lunatic.
I would not vote for Hillary with a gun to my head.
-
I would not vote for Hillary with a gun to my head.
With the tendency of progressives to emulate the Third Reich, that type of 'motivation' may be closer than you think.
-
Perfesser is watching his hero going down in flames with her latest scandals, and it's just more than he can watch.
-
I think the main objection is not that she vigorously defended a guilty client, but that she gloated and laughed and cackled about it afterwards.
Of course, what she was laughing at isn't clear in the snippets that may or may not have been taken out of context to create a false impression, but hey, who needs truth. It just gets in the way anyway. Like when the attorney suppressed evidence. Only the judge can do that, so that is one lie.
And of course, we have to assume that the guy is guilty of rape. These seems kind of an easy assumption, but it also assumes that the video told the truth about the case. Having caught it in one lie, I can't conclude that the rest of it is true.
-
Of course, what she was laughing at isn't clear in the snippets that may or may not have been taken out of context to create a false impression, but hey, who needs truth. It just gets in the way anyway. Like when the attorney suppressed evidence. Only the judge can do that, so that is one lie.
And of course, we have to assume that the guy is guilty of rape. These seems kind of an easy assumption, but it also assumes that the video told the truth about the case. Having caught it in one lie, I can't conclude that the rest of it is true.
I call bullshit on the statement only a judge can suppress evidence. You as an attorney know better than that.
-
Of course, what she was laughing at isn't clear in the snippets that may or may not have been taken out of context to create a false impression, but hey, who needs truth. It just gets in the way anyway. Like when the attorney suppressed evidence. Only the judge can do that, so that is one lie.
And of course, we have to assume that the guy is guilty of rape. These seems kind of an easy assumption, but it also assumes that the video told the truth about the case. Having caught it in one lie, I can't conclude that the rest of it is true.
Are you honestly trying to get us to believe that a defense attorney can't hide (suppress) evidence?
-
I call bullshit on the statement only a judge can suppress evidence. You as an attorney know better than that.
An attorney could hide evidence that only he or she knows about, but we are talking prosecution's evidence here. So the most an attorney can do is to make a motion to the judge to have the evidence excluded, if there is some grounds to do so.
That is how is works in real court, not what you see on TV.
-
Are you honestly trying to get us to believe that a defense attorney can't hide (suppress) evidence?
A DEFENSE attorney cannot hide/suppress evidence that the PROSECUTOR has. If the defense attorney hides evidence, no one but the defendant is likely to know about it and he/she is not likely to spill the beans on his/her lawyer.
-
An attorney could hide evidence that only he or she knows about, but we are talking prosecution's evidence here. So the most an attorney can do is to make a motion to the judge to have the evidence excluded, if there is some grounds to do so.
That is how is works in real court, not what you see on TV.
Again, I call bullshit.
-
A DEFENSE attorney cannot hide/suppress evidence that the PROSECUTOR has. If the defense attorney hides evidence, no one but the defendant is likely to know about it and he/she is not likely to spill the beans on his/her lawyer.
That's not what was suggested. You are twisting this.
-
That's not what was suggested. You are twisting this.
That's what lawyers do. The better they are at it, the more they earn.
-
Again, I call bullshit.
To which state's courts are you licensed to practice?
-
That's not what was suggested. You are twisting this.
Yes, it is, but I did neglect to state the obvious that we were talking about a defense attorney suppressing the prosecutions evidence. I neglected to restate the premise of the original video for the readers at home.
-
It is true that a Lawyer has to represent their client zealously, within the bounds of the law.
I don't know that Clinton violated or exceeded the bounds of the law in her zealous defense, but that is a large part of why people hate lawyers. But she surey defended that scum zealously. And she was proud of it. And she makes me sick.
-
Yes, it is, but I did neglect to state the obvious that we were talking about a defense attorney suppressing the prosecutions evidence. I neglected to restate the premise of the original video for the readers at home.
I hope you aren't actively practicing law.
-
To which state's courts are you licensed to practice?
Nice deflection. Play your lawyer games elsewhere with an audience that doesn't know better.
-
It is true that a Lawyer has to represent their client zealously, within the bounds of the law.
I don't know that Clinton violated or exceeded the bounds of the law in her zealous defense, but that is a large part of why people hate lawyers. But she surey defended that scum zealously. And she was proud of it. And she makes me sick.
what she did was apparently legal.
what she did was hardly moral or ethical (is someone going to defend her attacks on the victim?)
-
Nice deflection. Play your lawyer games elsewhere with an audience that doesn't know better.
Just because you celebrate ignorance as a virtue doesn't mean I have to join you on the ship of fools.
-
Just because you celebrate ignorance as a virtue doesn't mean I have to join you on the ship of fools.
You are gifted in that you use deception as a cloak for brilliance. But you lack the intelligence in that you can't realize most people see right through it.
-
what she did was apparently legal.
what she did was hardly moral or ethical (is someone going to defend her attacks on the victim?)
Correct, the legalities is a red herring, the real point of this is to show where her heart is. If she has one....
-
Typical progressive evasion. When in trouble, change the point and demand the other side prove something else entirely.
OF COURSE Hilary Clinton is a hero to a progressive from San Francisco. Who would ever doubt that?
-
Steingar, I have always tried to be fair and adult with you, despite our very tough debates.
Utterly true
But if your characterization of those of us who have sympathy for this victim and disdain for the methods of her rapist's heartless lawyer is that we are "complete fucking morons," then go fuck yourself, and don't even come back, you fucking pussy.
I really didn't want to do this. What you have done is tried the defendant in the court of public opinion, dispensing with two centuries worth of jurisprudence. The defendant faced a jury of his peers and was found innocent of the crime. Since you weren't on the jury and don't know anything about the case save what you've read on the internet, I'll defer to the jury. I also have tremendous sympathy for the victim of this crime, I truly do. But we have mechanisms in place to adjudicate these issues. Our mechanisms aren't perfect, nothing man-made ever is. But they work well enough to keep our society together despite our sometimes profound differences.
Your melodrama of hurt feelings, leaving, coming back, and believing that you are the smartest man in the room all signal the extreme short-man complex and self disdain that you must have.
My feelings are in no way hurt, I'm not a huge fan of Mrs. Clinton and never have been. But reading comments that show profound ignorance of our mechanisms of jurisprudence truly pushed over the edge. There is no point to arguing politics with idiots, and people who don't have a grade-school understanding of how the law works are just that. Moreover, Mrs. Clinton should receive nothing but praise for her actions in this case. She did her job, and if what I'm reading is true she did it well. If you think she did something illegal in this court case you should be specific. My guess is she vigorously defended her client to the full extent of the law, which is what a good defense attorney is supposed to do.
I really and truly hope that none of you are ever accused of a crime. But if you find yourself in a courtroom, i hope you have a lawyer like Mrs. Clinton, who will carry out a vigorous defense and not prejudge you.
-
I want my lawyer to ethical. I would not accept trash like the corrupt CAB doormat as my lawyer.
-
I want my lawyer to ethical. I would not accept trash like the corrupt CAB doormat as my lawyer.
Ethics smectics. If I'm accused of a crime and am facing jail time I want my lawyer to do everything permissible under the law to keep me the fuck out. I don't care about ethical, I care about legal. Sadly, those two things aren't always the same.
-
Ethics smectics. If I'm accused of a crime and am facing jail time I want my lawyer to do everything permissible under the law to keep me the fuck out. I don't care about ethical, I care about legal. Sadly, those two things aren't always the same.
I happen to agree with you.
But it wasn't me that she got off. And neither you nor I would have committed such a horrendous crime. And Hillary is unethical, unless somehow, ethics fit her agenda. Then she is all for it.
-
I don't care about ethical, I care about legal.
and this is one of the differences between you and me.
-
To me, it's not what she did. She is legally and ethically bound to do everything she can within the bounds of the law to protect the interests of her client. It's how she felt about it afterwards. She was proud of her accomplishment in getting the scumbag off.
Most defence lawyers I know would have done the same, but at the end of the day, they would most certainly not been proud of their accomplishment. They would have been resigned to the fact that they did what they had to do, not happy that they had the opportunity.
-
To me, it's not what she did. She is legally and ethically bound to do everything she can within the bounds of the law to protect the interests of her client. It's how she felt about it afterwards. She was proud of her accomplishment in getting the scumbag off.
Most defence lawyers I know would have done the same, but at the end of the day, they would most certainly not been proud of their accomplishment. They would have been resigned to the fact that they did what they had to do, not happy that they had the opportunity.
Good post. Except that you misspelled "defense".
;)
-
Most defence lawyers I know would have done the same, but at the end of the day, they would most certainly not been proud of their accomplishment. They would have been resigned to the fact that they did what they had to do, not happy that they had the opportunity.
so, attacking a 12-year old rape victim is something people expect lawyers to do?
It is really sad that unethical behavior is expected of lawyers.
-
so, attacking a 12-year old rape victim is something people expect lawyers to do?
It is really sad that unethical behavior is expected of lawyers.
"Providing a vigorous defense" and adhering to the standards of ethics often conflict. Is it any surprise that Clinton will fall on the side of unethical behavior in order to make the most money?
The problem is that people like Steingar have no problem with this.
-
so, attacking a 12-year old rape victim is something people expect lawyers to do?
It is really sad that unethical behavior is expected of lawyers.
Actually, doing everything within the law to protect the interests of the client is the ethical obligation of the lawyer.
You're getting confused between "ethical" and "moral".
-
You're getting confused between "ethical" and "moral".
check the definition of "ethical" and "moral"
-
check the definition of "ethical" and "moral"
Thankfully Jeff only pretends to be a lawyer on the Internet.
-
Thankfully Jeff only pretends to be a lawyer on the Internet.
He also happens to be right. The difference between morals and ethics being discussed here is in the context of the legal profession and calls for more than a standard dictionary definition. The work of a defense attorney is a fantastic example of this. A defense attorney defending a client against a charge of murder knows that murder is morally wrong and that the perpetrator deserves punishment, but her professional ethics require her to defend the client to the best of her abilities even if she knows her client is guilty.
-
He also happens to be right. The difference between morals and ethics being discussed here is in the context of the legal profession and calls for more than a standard dictionary definition. The work of a defense attorney is a fantastic example of this. A defense attorney defending a client against a charge of murder knows that murder is morally wrong and that the perpetrator deserves punishment, but her professional ethics require her to defend the client to the best of her abilities even if she knows her client is guilty.
Ah yes, another "those definitions don't apply".
-
Ah yes, another "those definitions don't apply".
Negative! The correct definitions apply.
Ref.: (http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/mrpc/mcpr.authcheckdam.pdf)ABA MODEL CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, Pg. 48, CANON 7. A LAWYER SHOULD REPRESENT A CLIENT ZEALOUSLY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW, Ethical Considerations, Duty of the Lawyer to a Client
-
He also happens to be right. The difference between morals and ethics being discussed here is in the context of the legal profession and calls for more than a standard dictionary definition. The work of a defense attorney is a fantastic example of this. A defense attorney defending a client against a charge of murder knows that murder is morally wrong and that the perpetrator deserves punishment, but her professional ethics require her to defend the client to the best of her abilities even if she knows her client is guilty.
Are you claiming that lawyers have different definitions of ethics and morality?
and lest anyone be confused. I fully support having an attorney zealously acting in the interest of his client. Where I apparently I differ from some here is that I believe that my attorney should do so legally and ethically. The end does not justify the means.
-
Are you claiming that lawyers have different definitions of ethics and morality?
Most words have multiple definitions. You just have to use the right one for the context. Vigorously defending an admitted murderer is ethical for his/her defense attorney. As long as we're in agreement on that, there is no argument.
-
Most words have multiple definitions. You just have to use the right one for the context. Vigorously defending an admitted murderer is ethical for his/her defense attorney. As long as we're in agreement on that, there is no argument.
Then it seems that we are in agreement on that.
A detail could be in the, well, definition of "vigorously". (and no, I'm not going to the "depends on what the definition of 'is' is" rathole)
-
He also happens to be right. The difference between morals and ethics being discussed here is in the context of the legal profession and calls for more than a standard dictionary definition. The work of a defense attorney is a fantastic example of this. A defense attorney defending a client against a charge of murder knows that murder is morally wrong and that the perpetrator deserves punishment, but her professional ethics require her to defend the client to the best of her abilities even if she knows her client is guilty.
Steingar said he doesn't care if she is ethical, as long as what she did was legal.
I disagree with that philosophy when we are talking about someone that wants to be President. They must be BOTH.
(queue Jeff; "But Trump too"
-
Steingar said he doesn't care if she is ethical, as long as what she did was legal.
But was it legal? Since the ABA Rules of conduct have been brought up, let's examine them, keeping in mind that the rules for Arkansaw are a little different.
Was it legal for her to take a pair of underwear with the crotch cut out of it to a lab for testing, then present the results as evidence of innocence when she knew that the testing was irrelevant? The relevant piece of underwear had been cut out and tested by the prosecution and found to contain both the blood of the victim and the semen of the defendant. Clinton might as well tested her own underwear for all the relevance it had on the case. To me, this would seem to fall under DR 7-102 (A)(2) -Knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law... She knew that claim was unwarranted and had no relevance.
Was it legal for her to insist that the girl was psychologically unstable? Keep in mind that she knew that the girl had been raped, she knew what the evidence from the prosecution was. Did she fail to follow the DR 7-102 (B)(1) because she knew that her client had, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal.
Set aside the unethicalness of what she did in getting a person she knew to be guilty of rape of a 12 year old girl a sentence equivalent to possession of drugs. I think there is a fair argument that what she did was not legal.
Either way - it is in such a grey area that to me it disqualifiers her to be president.