[Action80]

I feel like we've forgotten who this thread is actually about, can a mod please split all this irrelevant Hillary bullshit into its own thread please?

Wait, you provided the snopes "fact check," in response to my evidence concerning Ashley Biden writing in her diary she didn't feel safe showering around Brandon and his hairy legs.

You stated snopes didn't find the claim credible because THEY didn't find anything to support it.

That's right, and you haven't provided anything to support it either.  You really shouldn't keep doubling down on claims that you can't support.

When snopes claims something is false, you can pretty much guarantee it is true.

[markjo]

When snopes claims something is false, you can pretty much guarantee it is true.

I trust Snopes a lot more than I trust you.  At least Snopes cites their sources so that you can fact check them yourself, which seems to be a lot more than you're willing to do.

[stack]

If Clinton was appointed she could have tried taking it above the judge's head. She also could have quit if she felt that she was being asked to do something which compromised her morals. She could have also sued. From what you posted it doesn't sound like she didn't do much to remedy the situation at all.

Please provide some evidence that one can go over the judge's head or sue somebody
Looks like you're just making things up.

During the Nuremberg trials being told to do something immoral wasn't an acceptable excuse for the Nazis to avoid justice. And unlike the Nazi situation, there wasn't a potential SS Officer holding a gun to Clinton's head to force her to do immoral things. She willingly did this, and she is fully culpable here.

As a defense attorney you are demanded to defend your client to the best of your ability. What do you think public defenders do all day when appointed to a case? Are all public defenders who believe their client is guilty immoral for defending them?

This all in the constitution:

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

And as the prosecutor said in the case, "Once Clinton was assigned, Gibson said, she had a legal obligation to represent Taylor to the fullest, and she did."

[Action80]

When snopes claims something is false, you can pretty much guarantee it is true.

I trust Snopes a lot more than I trust you.  At least Snopes cites their sources so that you can fact check them yourself, which seems to be a lot more than you're willing to do.

Snopes cited nothing in claiming the Ashley Biden diary was false.

I don't really care what you trust or who you trust.

[Action80]

If Clinton was appointed she could have tried taking it above the judge's head. She also could have quit if she felt that she was being asked to do something which compromised her morals. She could have also sued. From what you posted it doesn't sound like she didn't do much to remedy the situation at all.

Please provide some evidence that one can go over the judge's head or sue somebody
Looks like you're just making things up.

https://lawyersorbit.com/can-a-court-appointed-lawyer-refuse-a-case/
"Regardless of the fact that they have the authority to deny cases, they rarely think of refusing cases."

[markjo]

Snopes cited nothing in claiming the Ashley Biden diary was false.

Because that wasn't the claim.  The claim was that Ashley Biden supposedly wrote something in her diary about being afraid to shower because of her father and Snopes could not find any such entry in the leaked diary.  Do you have a link to the page in her diary where she made that entry or are you just taking some internet rando's word for it that it exists?

[Tom Bishop]

Please provide some evidence that one can go over the judge's head or sue somebody
Looks like you're just making things up.

Courts have Human Resource departments like many other organizations. Ie. Maryland Courts Human Resources

Hillary Clinton was selected because the child rapist was demanding a woman attorney. Hillary Clinton could have escalated the matter to HR and filed an ethics complaint, or she could have complained that she was being singled out to do something undesirable based on her gender. Gender is a protected class. This could be construed as sexual discrimination.

If that didn't work judges can also be sued for administrative decisions. They are not immune from that.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/can-i-sue-the-court/

Can I Sue the Court?

~

Judges also do not have immunity regarding administrative decisions like hiring and firing court employees, and their immunity is limited when acting unconstitutionally.

Clinton was a public defender working for the court. Appointing employees falls under the same umbarella as hiring employees and is an administrative decision. The judge could have been sued.

She could have also simply quit. Nothing was actually forcing her to represent a child rapist.

As a defense attorney you are demanded to defend your client to the best of your ability. What do you think public defenders do all day when appointed to a case? Are all public defenders who believe their client is guilty immoral for defending them?

There are professions that involve doing immoral things, yes.

This all in the constitution:

Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

And as the prosecutor said in the case, "Once Clinton was assigned, Gibson said, she had a legal obligation to represent Taylor to the fullest, and she did."

The constitutional amendment is in regards to the state's responsibility, not her personal responsibility. She could have refused or quit without breaking the law. The state cannot refuse.

None of that makes it moral to represent someone who you believe to be a child rapist. None of that forces her to represent a child rapist. She willingly represented a child rapist who she believed was guilty.

[Lord Dave]

Its funny how Tom is like:

"Fuck the constitution.  If someone appears guilty, we should just not give them a lawyer."

Lawyers are specifically trained to be morally impartial.  Because someday, they might have to represent someone horrible.  Someone so evil that God himself wouldn't love them.  And by law, that person must have a defence that will do the best job they can.

It sucks but thats the job.   Sure, maybe Clinton could have quit.  But she'd probably be disbarred for failing to perform her duty simply becauae of the defendant's alleged crimes.  And that would not be ok  in any court system.

As for a lawsuit:
What would be the lawsuit?  She had no conflict of interest.  No protected reason why she couldn't do this job except for "I don't wanna.".

It would be like if you, in your job, decided that the worse part of your job shouldn't be something you have to do.  Give it to some other person.  Let them suffer.

[Action80]

Tom said nothing of the sort.

There is nothing in the law that says a defendant must have the defense do the best job they can.

The defendant is entitled to counsel bound by criminal procedure in the jurisdiction.

That is it.

[Roundy]

 It's definitely a breach of ethics to not make an honest effort to defend your client, no matter the case.

Hillary Clinton is evil because she did her duty as a professional attorney. Tom gonna Tom lol

[Action80]

It's definitely a breach of ethics to not make an honest effort to defend your client, no matter the case.

Hillary Clinton is evil because she did her duty as a professional attorney. Tom gonna Tom lol

It is evil to defend a child rapist if you know they are guilty.

Kinda unsurprising reading you think that it's not.

[stack]

Tom said nothing of the sort.

There is nothing in the law that says a defendant must have the defense do the best job they can.

The defendant is entitled to counsel bound by criminal procedure in the jurisdiction.

That is it.

It's not a law, but a rule set forth by the American Bar Association (ABA).

Rule 1.3 Diligence - Comment
Client-Lawyer Relationship
[1] A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client's cause or endeavor. A lawyer must also act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client's behalf.

Ever hear of these ABA penalties for violating their rules; disbarment, suspension, sanction, and public or private censure?

[Magicalus]

I've seen the options of Hillary being a terrible person and Hillary being a good lawyer set forward, but there is a third:

She's a REALLY bad lawyer, who doesn't know about any of the ways she could have escaped the trial, and just got lucky to win.

I thought he got acquitted, my bad. Though, this does add to my theory working.

[stack]

Please provide some evidence that one can go over the judge's head or sue somebody
Looks like you're just making things up.

Courts have Human Resource departments like many other organizations. Ie. Maryland Courts Human Resources

Hillary Clinton was selected because the child rapist was demanding a woman attorney. Hillary Clinton could have escalated the matter to HR and filed an ethics complaint, or she could have complained that she was being singled out to do something undesirable based on her gender. Gender is a protected class. This could be construed as sexual discrimination.

If that didn't work judges can also be sued for administrative decisions. They are not immune from that.

She also could have died her hair, got colored contacts, stolen a dead person's SSN and created a new identity, flown to Ibiza (no extradition) and live out her days as an ex-pat on the lam from the Arkansas judiciary.

How far do you want to go with all of your speculative extrapolations?

None of that makes it moral to represent someone who you believe to be a child rapist. None of that forces her to represent a child rapist. She willingly represented a child rapist who she believed was guilty.

How do you know that she "believed" he was guilty before she accepted the appointment? The polygraph thing took place after she accepted the appointment...

Clinton laughed after she said: “Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. 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.”

If you want to play your speculative extrapolation game, maybe the reason she asked the judge to not appoint her was because she was just uncomfortable with child rape cases in general regardless of guilt of innocence of the defendant. Maybe she just wasn't into handling rape cases. Maybe she didn't "believe" the defendant was guilty until after she begrudgingly accepted the appointment and got a look at all the evidence.

[Lord Dave]

Tom said nothing of the sort.

There is nothing in the law that says a defendant must have the defense do the best job they can.

The defendant is entitled to counsel bound by criminal procedure in the jurisdiction.

That is it.

They are also innocent until proven guilty.  FYI.

[markjo]

She's a REALLY bad lawyer, who doesn't know about any of the ways she could have escaped the trial, and just got lucky to win.

Saying that she won implies that the defendant was acquitted.  He wasn't.  The case never went to trial.  Instead, he plead guilty to a lesser charge in a plea deal that she worked out with the DA.  This is quite common in our judicial system, even for people charged with horrible crimes.

[markjo]

Hillary Clinton was selected because the child rapist was demanding a woman attorney. Hillary Clinton could have escalated the matter to HR and filed an ethics complaint, or she could have complained that she was being singled out to do something undesirable based on her gender. Gender is a protected class. This could be construed as sexual discrimination.

No, she could not go to HR because she was not employed by the court.

In 1975, Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was a 27-year-old law instructor running a legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.

[Tom Bishop]

She also could have died her hair, got colored contacts, stolen a dead person's SSN and created a new identity, flown to Ibiza (no extradition) and live out her days as an ex-pat on the lam from the Arkansas judiciary.

How far do you want to go with all of your speculative extrapolations?

She could have done that. Instead, she chose to fight on the side of a child rapist. Reprehensible.

None of that makes it moral to represent someone who you believe to be a child rapist. None of that forces her to represent a child rapist. She willingly represented a child rapist who she believed was guilty.

How do you know that she "believed" he was guilty before she accepted the appointment? The polygraph thing took place after she accepted the appointment...

It is clear that she believed he was guilty at the time he passed the polygraph. She did not remove herself from the case. Hillary Clinton willingly defended the actions of a child rapist.

Clinton laughed after she said: “Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. 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.”

If you want to play your speculative extrapolation game, maybe the reason she asked the judge to not appoint her was because she was just uncomfortable with child rape cases in general regardless of guilt of innocence of the defendant. Maybe she just wasn't into handling rape cases. Maybe she didn't "believe" the defendant was guilty until after she begrudgingly accepted the appointment and got a look at all the evidence.

Clinton did not try hard enough to remove herself from the case. There are many women who would quit their job if they found that they were forced to defend the actions of a child rapist.

Hillary doesn't mention that she tried escalating the issue beyond the judge. Other public defenders say that it is permissible to reject a case they find too immoral.

https://www.quora.com/In-the-USA-can-a-public-defender-refuse-to-defend-someone

No, she could not go to HR because she was not employed by the court.

In 1975, Clinton — then Hillary Rodham — was a 27-year-old law instructor running a legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.

Private lawyers don't get "appointed" to cases. This clinic was likely being funded by the courts. And if it wasn't, then Clinton has even less of excuse for defending the actions of a child rapist as a private lawyer.

[stack]

She also could have died her hair, got colored contacts, stolen a dead person's SSN and created a new identity, flown to Ibiza (no extradition) and live out her days as an ex-pat on the lam from the Arkansas judiciary.

How far do you want to go with all of your speculative extrapolations?

She could have done that. Instead, she chose to fight on the side of a child rapist. Reprehensible.

Apparently, you are unaware of the fundamental right of "Innocent until proven guilty", as pointed out previously by others.  Emphasis on 'proven'.

There's all kinds of stuff in the U.S. Constitution about the rights of the accused. You should read up a little on it. Here's a head start, the concept comes from the Constitutional Due Process protections provided under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as other statutes and case law.

[Action80]

She also could have died her hair, got colored contacts, stolen a dead person's SSN and created a new identity, flown to Ibiza (no extradition) and live out her days as an ex-pat on the lam from the Arkansas judiciary.

How far do you want to go with all of your speculative extrapolations?

She could have done that. Instead, she chose to fight on the side of a child rapist. Reprehensible.

Apparently, you are unaware of the fundamental right of "Innocent until proven guilty", as pointed out previously by others.  Emphasis on 'proven'.

There's all kinds of stuff in the U.S. Constitution about the rights of the accused. You should read up a little on it. Here's a head start, the concept comes from the Constitutional Due Process protections provided under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as other statutes and case law.

Nothing Tom wrote indicates he isn't aware of earth-shattering news concerning the rights of the defendant. God, you better contact the Justice Department and let them know too, just in case.