If anyone feels like debating...

[jmdrake]

"Doesn't final legal ethics" - that is gibberish. It is not even a coherent clause.

Legal ethics do not require that you throw your own client under the bus nor do they require that you shed crocidile tears for the other side.

 

[AZJoe]

Legal ethics do not require that you throw your own client under the bus nor do they require that you shed crocidile tears for the other side.

Exactly, which is why she violated professional ethics on multiple levels. (Of course your prior message was simply a nonsensical sentence fragment: "doesn't final legal ethics")
A sampling of the Ethical Rules Hillary violated:

1. Ethical Rule 1.9 mandates that “A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter .. shall not thereafter (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client” - Hillary violated this by effectively admitting in the interview her client was guilty
2. Hillary violated Ethical Rule 1.6, the duty of confidentiality, by acknowledging her client’s guilt, and that he had beaten the polygraph.
3. By impugning the integrity of the judicial process by laughing about how she beat the system, Hillary violated the ethical ”duty to uphold the integrity and honor of the profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts; to act as a member of a learned profession; to conduct affairs so as to reflect credit on the legal profession; and to inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and the public.”​

Lastly, as to your private message, “You wouldn't know an argument if it slapped you in the face dufus.” – This is neither an argument, nor a rational thought. It is ad hominem name-calling of the most immature adolescent level - an emotional tantrum devoid of any reasoning skill.

 

[misterx]

I do feel that anyone accused of such a crime deserves a good lawyer. So yes, they are just doing their job when they get a child-rapist off. Should they be proud of it ? That's a different question. But no matter how repugnant the person, you either believe in due process or you don't.

Now in regards to what Trump said, I don't really care. They are the kinds of comments a drunk college student would make. Not very presidential but who says that matters anymore these days.



So I don't know what is worse. I think both of these things are distracting from the real issues. Are these people actually capable of being president ? Why are we talking about such irrelevances when there are major issues, such as 20 trillion dollar debt, wars, a failed medical system and so on.

If you know the person is guilty then an ethical lawyer would tell them to find another lawyer to represent them if they insist on pleading innocent.

 

[Danke]

If you know the person is guilty then an ethical lawyer would tell them to find another lawyer to represent them if they insist on pleading innocent.

Dutch have never been known for their morality. Quite the opposite actually.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Exactly, which is why she violated professional ethics on multiple levels. (Of course your prior message was simply a nonsensical sentence fragment: "doesn't final legal ethics")
A sampling of the Ethical Rules Hillary violated:

1. Ethical Rule 1.9 mandates that “A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter .. shall not thereafter (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client” - Hillary violated this by effectively admitting in the interview her client was guilty
2. Hillary violated Ethical Rule 1.6, the duty of confidentiality, by acknowledging her client’s guilt, and that he had beaten the polygraph.
3. By impugning the integrity of the judicial process by laughing about how she beat the system, Hillary violated the ethical ”duty to uphold the integrity and honor of the profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts; to act as a member of a learned profession; to conduct affairs so as to reflect credit on the legal profession; and to inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and the public.”​

Lastly, as to your private message, “You wouldn't know an argument if it slapped you in the face dufus.” – This is neither an argument, nor a rational thought. It is ad hominem name-calling of the most immature adolescent level - an emotional tantrum devoid of any reasoning skill.

I used to actually have some respect for jmdrake. It's odd witnessing just how different some members are after returning from my essentially 3 year absence.

 

[Danke]

I used to actually have some respect for jmdrake. It's odd witnessing just how different some members are after returning from my essentially 3 year absence.

What? Drake is a good dude, you too. We might have differences...but you guys r good dudes. Oyarde or HB on the other hand...

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

If you know the person is guilty then an ethical lawyer would tell them to find another lawyer to represent them if they insist on pleading innocent.

Lawyers aren't supposed to be ethical. They are supposed to help their clients. Don't like that ? Then don't become a lawyer.

Even if you know someone is guilty, they still deserve representation.

Lawyers should not become de-facto prosecutors because they want to be ethical.

 

[misterx]

Lawyers aren't supposed to be ethical. They are supposed to help their clients. Don't like that ? Then don't become a lawyer.

Even if you know someone is guilty, they still deserve representation.

Lawyers should not become de-facto prosecutors because they want to be ethical.

Tell it to the bar association: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents.html

Everyone has a right to representation, the point being to ensure a just outcome. When a lawyer knows you are guilty he still has a duty to represent you to the best of his ability, but that does not include pleading innocent and lying to the court. I'm sorry you can't understand that. If you are guilty, and you want to plead innocent then you really don't deserve anything.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Tell it to the bar association: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents.html

Everyone has a right to representation, the point being to ensure a just outcome. When a lawyer knows you are guilty he still has a duty to represent you to the best of his ability, but that does not include pleading innocent and lying to the court. I'm sorry you can't understand that. If you are guilty, and you want to plead innocent then you really don't deserve anything.

Lawyers should not lie for their clients.

 

[jmdrake]

Exactly, which is why she violated professional ethics on multiple levels. (Of course your prior message was simply a nonsensical sentence fragment: "doesn't final legal ethics")
A sampling of the Ethical Rules Hillary violated:

1. Ethical Rule 1.9 mandates that “A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter .. shall not thereafter (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client” - Hillary violated this by effectively admitting in the interview her client was guilty
2. Hillary violated Ethical Rule 1.6, the duty of confidentiality, by acknowledging her client’s guilt, and that he had beaten the polygraph.
3. By impugning the integrity of the judicial process by laughing about how she beat the system, Hillary violated the ethical ”duty to uphold the integrity and honor of the profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts; to act as a member of a learned profession; to conduct affairs so as to reflect credit on the legal profession; and to inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and the public.”​

Lastly, as to your private message, “You wouldn't know an argument if it slapped you in the face dufus.” – This is neither an argument, nor a rational thought. It is ad hominem name-calling of the most immature adolescent level - an emotional tantrum devoid of any reasoning skill.

1) Her client is not at all disadvantaged because of double jeopardy. He cannot be tried for the same crime twice.
2) You just lied. I didn't send you a "private message." I responded to your silly neg rep and silly neg rep comment which had not argument in it with one of my own. Neg reps require you to leave a comment. I will give you another neg rep once I have enough ammo.
3) She did laugh at the justice system. She laughed at polygraphs which are indeed laughable.
4) Nothing that she said in her interview was something that was not on the record. So you just lied again. There was nothing confidential disclosed.
5) She didn't "get him off." She plea bargained it down because the prosecution and/or crime lab screwed up in handling the evidence.

Hell, watch the video itself.



This isn't a tempest in a teapot. It's a tempest in a thimble.

Edit: She also laughed at the idea that the prosecutor tried to get her to leave the room so that he could talk to her client alone. That is indeed worthy of laughter. Any lawyer in this entire country would laugh at that. And if he or she didn't then that person should never be a criminal defense attorney. Really, you just earned all of the contempt that you gave me a second neg rep for.

 

[jmdrake]

Lawyers should not lie for their clients.

Except she didn't lie for her client. She pointed out to the prosecution that they didn't have the evidence to prove their case, which they didn't, and then she pushed for a plea bargain deal which they accepted. Her client didn't "get off." He admitted guilt to a lesser charge.

 

[jmdrake]

I used to actually have some respect for jmdrake. It's odd witnessing just how different some members are after returning from my essentially 3 year absence.

I haven't changed one iota. I did and still do believe in due process of law. You should too if you actually respect the U.S. constitution which calls says that anyone convicted of a crime has a right to an attorney. You are attacking Hillary for actually doing her job right (for once). Don't get side tracked by AZJoe's legal babble that he apparently knows nothing about. If he tried to bring a lawyer up on ethics violation charges for laughing a couple of times in an interview about how incompetent the prosecution was in a case he would be laughed out of court.

 

[juleswin]

Except she didn't lie for her client. She pointed out to the prosecution that they didn't have the evidence to prove their case, which they didn't, and then she pushed for a plea bargain deal which they accepted. Her client didn't "get off." He admitted guilt to a lesser charge.

I think most people would consider 2 months in jail (which was the time he spent in country jail) tantamount to getting off especially for raping a child. I know the job of lawyers can be dirty and she had an obligation to get the best deal for her client but she helped her client get away with child rape.

 

[jmdrake]

I think most people would consider 2 months in jail and time spend tantamount to getting off especially for raping a child. I know the job of lawyers can be dirty and she had an obligation to get the best deal for her client but she helped her client get away with child rape.

And I know of cases of people in prison for child rape who clearly didn't do it. In at least one case the child rapist had to admit on the stand that she was lying. Justice is supposed to be based on the evidence, not the level of emotion surrounding the case. If you happen to be one of those who didn't do it but you cop a plea because it looks like you're going to go down anyway and so know your on the sex abuse registry for the rest of your life did you get away with child rape? For better or for worse we have an adversarial system. Yes sometimes people do things that are unethical, but in the video presented there was nothing unethical. I've heard people claim she laughed about putting the girl on the stand and brow beating her and calling her a liar and all sorts of other nonsense that isn't actually on the tape. Instead we hear how a prosecutor and a crime lab botched collecting evidence from her clients underwear. Further more AZJoe tried to dishonestly turn this around from Hillary was unethical to the rape victim to somehow Hillary was unethical to her client that you say got off? How so? Seriously? He client copping a plea was an admission of guilt to something. So Hillary hasn't now divulged anything people who knew about the case didn't already know. Her client admitted to guilt about something in regards to inappropriate sexual behavior to a child and he will have to deal with the consequences of that for the rest of his life. Everytime he applies for a job or tries to get an apartment or even volunteer for something this will come up. Get off? There is no way in hell I'd want to live the rest of my life like that. Hell, I'd probably end it.

 

[jmdrake]

You tell em that she did her job the same way a gas chamber killer did their job in executing prisoners. Or how a drone pilot did their job raising brown people attending a wedding. And make sure you emphasize the brown people cos they like to fancy themselves as people opposed to racism. Talking about grabbing a woman by her pussy is deplorable but getting a child molester off going to prison by lying and badgering a child victim on the stand when you know she was assaulted is devilish.

Except so far I haven't seen the evidence that she got "a child molester off going to prison by lying and badgering a child victim on the stand." The evidence from the video that I posted is she got the prosecution to cop a plea because the prosecution and/or crime lab botched the physical evidence. It sounds like there wasn't even a trial.

 

[otherone]

I think most people would consider 2 months in jail (which was the time he spent in country jail) tantamount to getting off especially for raping a child. I know the job of lawyers can be dirty and she had an obligation to get the best deal for her client but she helped her client get away with child rape.

Like in OJ's case...BLAME THE PROSECUTION. The state's case must be bullet proof. If it ain't, it's not the defense attorney's fault.

 

[jmdrake]

Like in OJ's case...BLAME THE PROSECUTION. The state's case must be bullet proof. If it ain't, it's not the defense attorney's fault.

Exactly! Good grief some people are ready to throw away the constitution and magna carta just because they hate Hillary Clinton! Seriously if you don't go along with their bat guano crazy idea that this particular accused person shouldn't have had a vigorous defense then you are a "leftist" or "Hillary defender." Seriously it's this kind of lunacy that Ron Paul stands against!

 

[juleswin]

And I know of cases of people in prison for child rape who clearly didn't do it. In at least one case the child rapist had to admit on the stand that she was lying. Justice is supposed to be based on the evidence, not the level of emotion surrounding the case. If you happen to be one of those who didn't do it but you cop a plea because it looks like you're going to go down anyway and so know your on the sex abuse registry for the rest of your life did you get away with child rape? For better or for worse we have an adversarial system. Yes sometimes people do things that are unethical, but in the video presented there was nothing unethical. I've heard people claim she laughed about putting the girl on the stand and brow beating her and calling her a liar and all sorts of other nonsense that isn't actually on the tape. Instead we hear how a prosecutor and a crime lab botched collecting evidence from her clients underwear. Further more AZJoe tried to dishonestly turn this around from Hillary was unethical to the rape victim to somehow Hillary was unethical to her client that you say got off? How so? Seriously? He client copping a plea was an admission of guilt to something. So Hillary hasn't now divulged anything people who knew about the case didn't already know. Her client admitted to guilt about something in regards to inappropriate sexual behavior to a child and he will have to deal with the consequences of that for the rest of his life. Everytime he applies for a job or tries to get an apartment or even volunteer for something this will come up. Get off? There is no way in hell I'd want to live the rest of my life like that. Hell, I'd probably end it.

The point I am trying to make is that if he was indeed guilty of raping the 12 yr old girl, then 2 months in country jail plus sex offender registry(if it was the law att that point) is getting off. That is all I am trying to say and from the tapes, it seems like she knew that he raped her.


Good read up on the case

Newly discovered audio recordings of Hillary Clinton from the early 1980s include the former first lady’s frank and detailed assessment of the most significant criminal case of her legal career: defending a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl.

In 1975, the same year she married Bill, Hillary Clinton agreed to serve as the court-appointed attorney for Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old accused of raping the child after luring her into a car.

The recordings, which date from 1983-1987 and have never before been reported, include Clinton’s suggestion that she knew Taylor was guilty at the time. She says she used a legal technicality to plead her client, who faced 30 years to life in prison, down to a lesser charge. The recording and transcript, along with court documents pertaining to the case, are embedded below.

The full story of the Taylor defense calls into question Clinton’s narrative of her early years as a devoted women and children’s advocate in Arkansas—a narrative the 2016 presidential frontrunner continues to promote on her current book tour.

Her comments on the rape trial are part of more than five hours of unpublished interviews conducted by Arkansas reporter Roy Reed with then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and his wife in the mid-1980s.

The interviews, archived at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, were intended for an Esquire magazine profile that was never published, and offer a rare personal glimpse of the couple during a pivotal moment in their political careers.

But Hillary Clinton’s most revealing comments—and those most likely to inflame critics—concern the decades-old rape case.

‘The Prosecutor Had Evidence’
Hillary Rodham ClintonThe LIFE Picture Collection via Getty Images
Twenty-seven-year-old Hillary Rodham had just moved to Fayetteville, and was running the University of Arkansas’ newly-formed legal aid clinic, when she received a call from prosecutor Mahlon Gibson.

“The prosecutor called me a few years ago, he said he had a guy who had been accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer,” said Clinton in the interview. “Would I do it as a favor for him?”

The case was not easy. In the early hours of May 10, 1975, the Springdale, Arkansas police department received a call from a nearby hospital. It was treating a 12-year-old girl who said she had been raped.

The suspect was identified as Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old factory worker and friend of the girl’s family.

And though the former first lady mentioned the ethical difficulties of the case in Living History, her written account some three decades later is short on details and has a far different tone than the tapes.

“It was a fascinating case, it was a very interesting case,” Clinton says in the recording. “This guy was accused of raping a 12-year-old. Course he claimed that he didn’t, and all this stuff” (LISTEN HERE).

Describing the events almost a decade after they had occurred, Clinton’s struck a casual and complacent attitude toward her client and the trial for rape of a minor.

“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she added with a laugh.

Clinton can also be heard laughing at several points when discussing the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime.

From a legal ethics perspective, once she agreed to take the case, Clinton was required to defend her client to the fullest even if she did believe he was guilty.

“We’re hired guns,” Ronald D. Rotunda, a professor of legal ethics at Chapman University, told the Washington Free Beacon. “We don’t have to believe the client is innocent…our job is to represent the client in the best way we can within the bounds of the law.”

However, Rotunda said, for a lawyer to disclose the results of a client’s polygraph and guilt is a potential violation of attorney-client privilege.

“You can’t do that,” he said. “Unless the client says: ‘You’re free to tell people that you really think I’m a scumbag, and the only reason I got a lighter sentence is because you’re a really clever lawyer.’”

Clinton was suspended from the Arkansas bar in March of 2002 for failing to keep up with continuing legal education requirements, according to Arkansas judicial records.

Public records provide few details of what happened on the night in question. The Washington County Sherriff’s Office, which investigated the case after the Springdale Police Department handled the initial arrest, said it was unable to provide an incident report since many records from that time were not maintained and others were destroyed in a flood.

A lengthy yet largely overlooked 2008 Newsday story focused on Clinton’s legal strategy of attacking the credibility of the 12-year-old victim.

The girl had joined Taylor and two male acquaintances, including one 15-year-old boy she had a crush on, on a late-night trip to the bowling alley, according to Newsday.

Taylor drove the group around in his truck, pouring the girl whisky and coke on the way.

The group later drove to a “weedy ravine” near the highway where Taylor raped the 12-year-old.

Around 4 a.m., the girl and her mother went to the hospital, where she was given medical tests and reported that she had been assaulted.

Taylor was arrested on May 13, 1975. The court initially appointed public defender John Barry Baker to serve as his attorney. But Taylor insisted he wanted a female lawyer.

The lawyer he would end up with: Hillary Rodham.

According to court documents, the prosecution’s case was based on testimony from the 12-year-old girl and the two male witnesses as well as on a “pair of men’s undershorts taken from the defendant herein.”

In a July 28, 1975, court affidavit, Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”

“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior,” Clinton said.

Clinton said the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

But the interview reveals that an error by the prosecution would render unnecessary these attacks on the credibility of a 12-year-old rape victim.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/

Was going to bold the good parts but I think its best if you read the whole thing. Don't look very good for her

 

[otherone]

The point I am trying to make is that if he was indeed guilty of raping the 12 yr old girl, then 2 months in country jail plus sex offender registry(if it was the law att that point) is getting off. That is all I am trying to say and from the tapes, it seems like she knew that he raped her.

Yeah. Another crappy DA not having his ducks in a row .

 

[jmdrake]

The point I am trying to make is that if he was indeed guilty of raping the 12 yr old girl, then 2 months in country jail plus sex offender registry(if it was the law att that point) is getting off. That is all I am trying to say and from the tapes, it seems like she knew that he raped her.


Good read up on the case


http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/

Was going to bold the good parts but I think its best if you read the whole thing. Don't look very good for her

The video speaks for itself. And even your "write up" says nothing about Hillary badgering the girl on the stand. There was no reason for the girl to ever see that affidavit unless the prosecution decided to show it to her and in that case it's on them. The prosecution botched the evidence so the case never went to trial. And I know of cases where there have been girls who have serially falsely accused people of rape. Did that happen in this case? Dunno. You've got a write up of a bunch of hearsay. Did Taylor indeed do what Newsday said he did? Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. But the prosecution botched the case. If they had hard eyewitness testimony they could have gotten a conviction even without any physical evidence. I've seen it happen even when the only witness was a victim who had to admit she perjured herself. There have been a lot of thread on this forum about men getting a raw deal in the justice system especially when it comes to rape. The last thing anybody should want is defense attorneys not doing their job because that might be used against them later in politics. You might think you want that but if you think about it long enough you will probably realize you don't. There are plenty of good reasons to go after Hillary. I, the person AZJoe dishonestly calls in his neg reps a "Hillary Defender", laid out real attacks against Hillary in my first post in this thread. There is no excuse for her publicly going after the woman that have accused Bill and then never apologizing when those women were proved right. None whatsoever. She was not hired as Bill's defense attorney. And how should a wife act when her husband has been accused of something like this? As the wife of the other Bill C accused of sexual assault and rape, the wife of Bill Cosby. She hasn't said jack about the allegations against her Bill. She's quietly stood beside him in support. She hasn't attacked him. But she hasn't attacked any of his accusers, even in the cases where they have been proven wrong. (One of Bill Cosby's accusers said he assaulter her at the Playboy mansion on a night when he wasn't even on the guest list.)