If anyone feels like debating...

[oyarde]

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...

Oyarde is a great cultural leader here to provide wisdom for you .

 

[John F Kennedy III]

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...

He may still be a good dude, but he has grown childish and that causes him to come off as a cranky old man.

HB survived a crucifixion. He's fine in my book.....he dies in his book though...

Oyarde's a good squaw. I'd smoke peyote in a teepee with him any day.

 

[AZJoe]

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.

1. "Disadvantage" is not limited solely to double jeopardy. What jmdrake has committed is a logical fallacy known as a scope shift. It also shows a lack of understanding of the ethical rules for lawyers. A lawyer is not permitted to use information gained from the representation to disadvantage a former client. The ethical duty not to disadvantage a former client is not limited to risking jeopardy. It is not even limited to criminal matters, or even just to legal matters. It applies to any matters including business opportunities, contracts, marketing, social reputation, personal reputation, business relationships and even personal and family relationships. Except for extremely unlikely scenarios, a lawyer shall not use information gained from representation to disadvantage a former client. That does include revealing confidences, or indicating to third party's that your client was guilty of the greater charge that as dropped, or that your client lied through a polygraph and passed.
2. A private message in rep comment is not a a private message? If jmdrake says so. A silly distraction.
3. Impugning the integrity of the judicial process by laughing about how she got him off with time served, 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.” Its not like she argued that the justice system worked and the prosecutor could not prove its case. Rather she laughed that how she was able to beat the system and acknowledge her client lied and was guilty of the charge - 1st degree rape.
4. HRC blatantly indicated her client lied through the lie detector test and nevertheless passed. By doing so she unequivocally indicated her client was guilty of the charges - first degree rape. That is not something that was "on the record." To the contrary that is exactly what was disputed in the case.
5. I never said she "got him off" even though HRC in the very interview states "she got him off with time served." That is a made up straw man trying to refute an argument not made. Nor would simply "getting someone off" in itself be an ethical violation. In fact it is the duty of the criminal defense lawyer to get the best possible result for their client - i.e "get them off."

 

[Danke]

He may still be a good dude, but he has grown childish and that causes him to come off as a cranky old man.

HB survived a crucifixion. He's fine in my book.....he dies in his book though...

Oyarde's a good squaw. I'd smoke peyote in a teepee with him any day.

Oyarde is a chick that identifies as a man?

 

[oyarde]

Oyarde is a chick that identifies as a man?

Negative , only the more " civilized " become gender confused . We do not have those problems here .

 

[euphemia]

But none of that's true.

Due process is important.

Indeed it is, but that doesn't mean crucifying a little girl on the stand. Children's Defense Fund, indeed.

 

[HVACTech]

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!

I have found... that MOST folks do not even know what the "Constitution" is.
(that includes RPF's)

if you ask this simple question... they think that it is a "trick" question. and that you are trying to fool them.

can you confirm this observation? how can one work on something, or even discuss it... if one does not know what it is?

when I arrive on a jobsite. what I do. is to turn the machine on. I observe what it is doing. and what it is not doing.
and work on the difference.

and now you know everything that I do!

 

[jmdrake]

1. "Disadvantage" is not limited solely to double jeopardy. What jmdrake has committed is a logical fallacy known as a scope shift. It also shows a lack of understanding of the ethical rules for lawyers. A lawyer is not permitted to use information gained from the representation to disadvantage a former client.

Except by the video I posted Hillary didn't do a damn thing you are claiming she did. You are the one committing the logical fallacy here. You are arguing, without a shred of evidence, that Hillary put forward information that was not in the public domain. The facts prove you wrong. Here are the facts.

1) The prosecution had in its possession evidence that would have hung Hillary's client if they and the crime lab had processed it right.
2) The prosecution flubbed screwed up the evidence worse than the prosecution in the OJ trial.
3) Due to the lack of evidence the prosecution was willing to take a plea deal where Hillary's client made and admission of guilt!

Seriously, what part of number 3 are you unable or unwilling to understand? If Hillary's client made a public admission of guilt than Hillary revealed nothing at all by saying this case ruined her belief in the polygraph. Her client said in open court "I'm guilty of X" where X is whatever lesser offense the prosecution allowed him to plead down to.

The ethical duty not to disadvantage a former client is not limited to risking jeopardy. It is not even limited to criminal matters, or even just to legal matters. It applies to any matters including business opportunities, contracts, marketing, social reputation, personal reputation, business relationships and even personal and family relationships.

Right. Because being on a sex offender registry for the rest of your life leaves you open to all sorts of opportunities. :rollyeyes: Seriously you did not think through your reply and you are making yourself look stupid. Do you realize that there are people who are homeless because of being on a sex abuse registry?

Except for extremely unlikely scenarios, a lawyer shall not use information gained from representation to disadvantage a former client. That does include revealing confidences, or indicating to third party's that your client was guilty of the greater charge that as dropped, or that your client lied through a polygraph and passed.

2. A private message in rep comment is not a a private message? If jmdrake says so. A silly distraction.

They are two different things toots. And more importantly YOU STARTED THIS WITH YOUR ATTACK IN YOUR NEG REP TO ME! So quit trying to play like you are some sort of saint jerk. Here is the simple fact. I'm not "defending Hillary" despite your disgusting lying claim that I am. I'm defending the constitution and the rule of law. Those are two things that you don't understand. This whole thread is a "silly distraction."

3. Impugning the integrity of the judicial process by laughing about how she got him off with time served,

You're just lying. She laughed at how stupid the prosecution was for expecting her to violate legal ethics by leaving the room for them to talk to her client alone.

Hillary violated the ethical ”duty to uphold the integrity and honor of the profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts;

Another lie. She did not disrespect the courts. She laughed at a stupid and unethical prosecutor that actually was trying to get her to disadvantage her client by leaving the room so the prosecutor could talk to her client in private.

4. HRC blatantly indicated her client lied through the lie detector test and nevertheless passed. By doing so she unequivocally indicated her client was guilty of the charges - first degree rape. That is not something that was "on the record." To the contrary that is exactly what was disputed in the case.

Another lie, Her client already indicated that he had lied on the polygraph by saying in open court that he was guilty of the lesser charge.

 

[jmdrake]

He may still be a good dude, but he has grown childish and that causes him to come off as a cranky old man.

HB survived a crucifixion. He's fine in my book.....he dies in his book though...

Oyarde's a good squaw. I'd smoke peyote in a teepee with him any day.

I'm the same jmdrake that I've always been. Hell I've turned it down a notch. I always call out BS when I see it. And sorry to hurt your feelings, but the entire premise of this thread is BS. Seriously, your "ally" AZJoe can't make up his mind if Hillary violated ethical duties by helping her client or hurting him. Good grief. If you and he tried to actually bring ethics charges in any court against any lawyer based on this fact pattern you'd be laughed out of the courthouse and if you persisted you'd be put in jail for contempt. Hillary defendant someone accused of a heinous crime and ultimately got him a reduced sentence because the prosecution screwed up and she later laughed at the screw up and the apparent lack of ethics on behalf of the prosecutor (trying to get her to leave the room so the prosecutor could talk to her client alone) and that somehow makes her "evil"? No. Not hardly. Now Hillary Clinton attacking the women that accused Bill when she wasn't Bill's attorney? That was evil. Hillary joining forces will Al Qaeda to kill Qaddafi? That's evil. Hillary starting a war in Syria which has caused tens (hundreds?) of thousands of deaths? That's evil. Hillary pushing for war with Russia because Russia is battling ISIS? That is so freaking evil that it's beyond words. You want to win your fight with the libs? Ask them why Hillary supporting wars against countries that haven't attacked us is okay because Qaddafi and Assad are "bad guys" but somehow Bush was wrong for taking out Saddam who was certainly no better than those two and watch their heads explode. Or.....you can continue trying to explain why Hillary was the bad guy for doing exactly what the just - us system expects a criminal defense attorney to do in those circumstances. Your choice.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

I'm the same jmdrake that I've always been. Hell I've turned it down a notch. I always call out BS when I see it. And sorry to hurt your feelings, but the entire premise of this thread is BS. Seriously, your "ally" AZJoe can't make up his mind if Hillary violated ethical duties by helping her client or hurting him. Good grief. If you and he tried to actually bring ethics charges in any court against any lawyer based on this fact pattern you'd be laughed out of the courthouse and if you persisted you'd be put in jail for contempt. Hillary defendant someone accused of a heinous crime and ultimately got him a reduced sentence because the prosecution screwed up and she later laughed at the screw up and the apparent lack of ethics on behalf of the prosecutor (trying to get her to leave the room so the prosecutor could talk to her client alone) and that somehow makes her "evil"? No. Not hardly. Now Hillary Clinton attacking the women that accused Bill when she wasn't Bill's attorney? That was evil. Hillary joining forces will Al Qaeda to kill Qaddafi? That's evil. Hillary starting a war in Syria which has caused tens (hundreds?) of thousands of deaths? That's evil. Hillary pushing for war with Russia because Russia is battling ISIS? That is so freaking evil that it's beyond words. You want to win your fight with the libs? Ask them why Hillary supporting wars against countries that haven't attacked us is okay because Qaddafi and Assad are "bad guys" but somehow Bush was wrong for taking out Saddam who was certainly no better than those two and watch their heads explode. Or.....you can continue trying to explain why Hillary was the bad guy for doing exactly what the just - us system expects a criminal defense attorney to do in those circumstances. Your choice.

That's cute.

 

[jmdrake]

That's cute.

Whatever. Ask yourself this. With everything that's at stake why hasn't Ron Paul lined up behind Donald Trump? It's because there are some things more important than short term victory. Sacrificing the constitution is not worth short term victory. And one of the bedrock principals of the constitution is the right to an attorney in a criminal matter. According to the video that you want to hang Hillary over, she actually, for once, stood up for the constitution by telling a prosecutor in essence to go to hell when he asked for a private audience with her client. And that prosecutor deserved to be laughed at. There are plenty of other ways to attack Hillary for things she actually did wrong but instead you decided to attack her for something that she actually did right. Not smart. Again sorry it hurt your feelings for me to point that out.

 

[jmdrake]

1. "Disadvantage" is not limited solely to double jeopardy. What jmdrake has committed is a logical fallacy known as a scope shift. It also shows a lack of understanding of the ethical rules for lawyers. A lawyer is not permitted to use information gained from the representation to disadvantage a former client. The ethical duty not to disadvantage a former client is not limited to risking jeopardy. It is not even limited to criminal matters, or even just to legal matters. It applies to any matters including business opportunities, contracts, marketing, social reputation, personal reputation, business relationships and even personal and family relationships. Except for extremely unlikely scenarios, a lawyer shall not use information gained from representation to disadvantage a former client. That does include revealing confidences, or indicating to third party's that your client was guilty of the greater charge that as dropped, or that your client lied through a polygraph and passed.
2. A private message in rep comment is not a a private message? If jmdrake says so. A silly distraction.
3. Impugning the integrity of the judicial process by laughing about how she got him off with time served, 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.” Its not like she argued that the justice system worked and the prosecutor could not prove its case. Rather she laughed that how she was able to beat the system and acknowledge her client lied and was guilty of the charge - 1st degree rape.
4. HRC blatantly indicated her client lied through the lie detector test and nevertheless passed. By doing so she unequivocally indicated her client was guilty of the charges - first degree rape. That is not something that was "on the record." To the contrary that is exactly what was disputed in the case.
5. I never said she "got him off" even though HRC in the very interview states "she got him off with time served." That is a made up straw man trying to refute an argument not made. Nor would simply "getting someone off" in itself be an ethical violation. In fact it is the duty of the criminal defense lawyer to get the best possible result for their client - i.e "get them off."

One more thing AZJoe. I see that you are now to cowardly to respond with anything but a neg rep. It's not a tantrum to call what you are saying lies when I went point by point and showed where you were lying. That said, the only think your hero Donald Trump has left is to call all of his accusers liars. And unlike me he doesn't have proof of the lies. So if that's not being rational and throwing an tantrum then why do you support Trump? You don't have an answer for that do you? Pathetic.

 

[jmdrake]

Indeed it is, but that doesn't mean crucifying a little girl on the stand. Children's Defense Fund, indeed.

Except there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton crucified a little girl on the stand. There's no evidence that the girl ever testified. Watch the video. The prosecution flubbed the evidence and thus they were willing to go with a plea deal. There was no trial.

 

[Champ]

Trying to convince a liberal about the dangers of a large, always growing, always control seeking government, would be akin to trying to convince a North Korean citizen that their own government is an oppressive totalitarian force. You won't get anywhere due to the hundreds of lairs of propaganda crammed into their statist head.

The only thing that I have found to be effective is to teach them some history and hope that can be a kernel of knowledge that they can build from later on. You won't crack the lairs of propaganda in one sitting. Talking about the foundation of "liberalism", how classic liberalism was actually about small government and more power to individuals, and also how it actually has nothing to do with modern day American liberalism will at least get their attention.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Trying to convince a liberal about the dangers of a large, always growing, always control seeking government, would be akin to trying to convince a North Korean citizen that their own government is an oppressive totalitarian force. You won't get anywhere due to the hundreds of lairs of propaganda crammed into their statist head.

The only thing that I have found to be effective is to teach them some history and hope that can be a kernel of knowledge that they can build from later on. You won't crack the lairs of propaganda in one sitting. Talking about the foundation of "liberalism", how classic liberalism was actually about small government and more power to individuals, and also how it actually has nothing to do with modern day American liberalism will at least get their attention.

Yeah they actually unironically link to WaPo, Snopes, RationalWiki, MSM and government articles and stats all the time.

 

[Ender]

Trying to convince a liberal about the dangers of a large, always growing, always control seeking government, would be akin to trying to convince a North Korean citizen that their own government is an oppressive totalitarian force. You won't get anywhere due to the hundreds of lairs of propaganda crammed into their statist head.

The only thing that I have found to be effective is to teach them some history and hope that can be a kernel of knowledge that they can build from later on. You won't crack the lairs of propaganda in one sitting. Talking about the foundation of "liberalism", how classic liberalism was actually about small government and more power to individuals, and also how it actually has nothing to do with modern day American liberalism will at least get their attention.

Absolutely- Liberal used to be a beautiful word that has been stolen and destroyed.

Also, for everyone else:
[MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION] is correct on this:

Hillary defendant someone accused of a heinous crime and ultimately got him a reduced sentence because the prosecution screwed up and she later laughed at the screw up and the apparent lack of ethics on behalf of the prosecutor (trying to get her to leave the room so the prosecutor could talk to her client alone) and that somehow makes her "evil"?

This was obvious to me a while ago, but after being called all sorts of names for pointing out Trump flaws, I had decided to keep my mouth shut. And let me repeat for the millionth time: I cannot stand Clinton.

 

[jmdrake]

Absolutely- Liberal used to be a beautiful word that has been stolen and destroyed.

Also, for everyone else:

[MENTION=849]jmdrake[/MENTION] is correct on this:



This was obvious to me a while ago, but after being called all sorts of names for pointing out Trump flaws, I had decided to keep my mouth shut. And let me repeat for the millionth time: I cannot stand Clinton.

True. Some people [mod edit] can't think straight because they are barking at whatever gnat that flies by. Let's say if Hillary Clinton defended OJ Simpson and then laughed at how stupid the prosecution was to try to get OJ to try on the gloves. So? Only a moron would think that was an ethics violation.

 

[AZJoe]

Hillary talking about her own client:

"Of course he claimed he didn't. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed. Which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs [Hillary laughing]."

"I mean sure we knew he did it [Hillary laughing] but it didn't matter."

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.”
​

The client plead to a lesser offense, not to the rape charges. Hillary publicly admitted her client's guilt on tape.

Here is the view from Professor of Legal Ethics at Chapman University Ronald D. Rotunda, "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, 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.’” http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/

And here is the view from legal analyst and veteran criminal homicide attorney Paul Callan, "she appears to have outed Taylor as a liar and a rapist. By framing the story in this way, Clinton violated not only the attorney-client privilege but also her obligation to fully represent the interests of her client as required by the attorney's Code of Professional Responsibility. It is utterly improper for a defense attorney to reveal a client confidence in this way. " http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/01/opinion/callan-hillary-clinton/