File: The Hillary Clinton Tapes.swf-(9.55 MB, 240x176, Other)
[_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)10:30 No.2749817
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)11:58 No.2749874
Wow so hillary clinton helped a 12-year old child rapist get off.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:01 No.2749878
>>2749874
And then she got him off.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:06 No.2749884
Allah bless Americastan
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:20 No.2749893
>>2749874
Lawyers have to defend everyone anon, that is what balances the system
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:23 No.2749894
>>2749893
what about justice?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:24 No.2749895
>>2749894
Eh.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:31 No.2749901
Murica needs to know before they elect dat bitch.
Someone should send this to CNN
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:32 No.2749903
>>2749894
One of our Founding Fathers, John Adams, successfully defended the soldiers who did the Boston
Massacre Justice for all
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:42 No.2749910
Wow, so Hillary Clinton did her job and did it well. That's nice.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:44 No.2749911
>>2749893
SHe states that she knew he was guilty with that poly comment, and yet she stil ldefends him.
Zero integrity
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:47 No.2749916
>>2749911
Polygraph tests aren't admissible in courts anyway.
Also, a good lawyer will defend any case regardless of guilt, so >>2749910 is right.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:49 No.2749919
>>2749916
>didnt even watch the video
>is arguing
lol you're an idiot. He passed the polygraph test and hilary states that she lost her faith in
polygraph.
Thus showing that he knew he was guilty.
If that's the case then being someone with integrity is better than being a good lawyer.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:54 No.2749922
>>2749894
yea, you're right, we should just lynch people if enough people think they deserve it!
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:56 No.2749924
>>2749922
another shit for brains who let the point go over his head.
I'll spell it out for you.
If you think someone is guilty, and you defend them, that shows disregard for your personal
integrity.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:56 No.2749925
>>2749919
She felt like he was guilty anyway. She wasn't a witness.
God, you're naive. I don't want the kind of person whose bullshit sense of "integrity" gets in
the way of doing their job to run my country.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)12:58 No.2749927
>>2749925
If it was mandatory for her to defend him, then maybe you would have a point. But she wasn't
being forced to defend him, so you've got nothing.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:00 No.2749929
>>2749924
I disagree. If you are a lawyer and don't represent someone to the best of your ability due to
personal feelings, that reflects poorly on your integrity.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:00 No.2749930
>>2749927
no kidding in a case like that if i knew my guy was guilty i wouldn't defend him. that's just
fucked up morally. true justice can't be achieved through our legal system apparently.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:01 No.2749931
>>2749924
>personal integrity.
>lawyers
You seem to be confused.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:02 No.2749933
>>2749929
it depends on the case. there are cases where you should refuse to defend someone.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:07 No.2749940
Sounded like it was just her opinion that he was guilty, an opinion she formed before taking the
case. Just like most people when they see any man on trial for rape, they see a rapist.
Especially a man on trial for rape of a child.
But all facts pointed to him not being guilty, anyway. Sounded like the blood stains were
probably his own or someone unrelated to the case, seeing how the prosecution was the one
handling the evidence while the stains were "thrown away." That would have been damning evidence.
So, yeah, she defended someone she blindly thought was guilty. Which is fucked up, but not
exactly what the creator of the doc was going for.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:09 No.2749941
>>2749927
I've got nothing? You have pretensions to ethical authority. Hillary followed the rules, did her
job, and got paid. That not-guilty "rapist" got freedom.
Grow up.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:17 No.2749947
>>2749941
if she knew the guy was guilty and she still helped him get free she is morally corrupt. good
people value integrity over everything else including their jobs.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:18 No.2749948
>>2749947
Jesus, what fucking stupid hole did you crawl out of?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:20 No.2749951
>>2749931
don't forget
>is running for president
I voted for Obama, I'm not voting for this cunt
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:20 No.2749952
There was not enough evidence, he got off with a mild sentence. Such is life.
The fact that she thought he was guilty doesn't matter. The lawyer's opinion is meaningless. They
are there to ensure a fair trial to the defendant and that the rules are followed. She did
exactly that, and apparently also did a good job at it. That's not even taking into account that
her impression could have been wrong and that he wasn't guilty after all - we only get to hear
things from her perspective.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:21 No.2749954
>>2749951
Enjoy wasting your vote on Rand Paul.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:21 No.2749955
>>2749947
Defense lawyers aren't bound by morals, get used to it. They're essentially mercs.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:23 No.2749956
>>2749948
well i'm not wrong
>>2749955
i'm starting to see a lot of political figures are more like mercs
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:28 No.2749959
>>2749956
Yeah, you don't make it very far on campaign trails without catering to a few lobbies.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:29 No.2749961
>>2749933
You're objectively wrong.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:39 No.2749970
>>2749961
if a person with integrity objectively believes their client is guilty then that person would
refuse to defend them. I don't really expect lawyers to have any integrity though. i do expect it
for political figures.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:40 No.2749973
>>2749952
This.
>>2749947
God, I hope you're 16.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:40 No.2749975
>>2749970
>i do expect it for political figures.
What fantasy version of Earth do you live in?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:45 No.2749979
>>2749970
underageb& pls
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:51 No.2749981
>>2749901
Her history as a lawyer where she defended a child rapist has little to no bearing on her ability
as a president. As a lawyer you have to defend everyone. If you're a good lawyer you will succeed
in defending the guilty because to convict the jury must know "beyond a shadow of a doubt"
whether the accused is guilty or not. That's how the American justice system works and it is
absolutely not perfect but it is working as intended as it's better for a hundred guilty men to
walk free than for one innocent man to be imprisoned.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:53 No.2749984
>>2749979
>>2749975
you know i'm right. just admit it.
>>2749973
i'm getting more into the ethics of it idk about hillary or that specific case.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:54 No.2749985
>>2749984
>you know i'm right. just admit it.
No, you're a huge fag.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)13:58 No.2749989
>>2749985
so you're giving up then? that's not really an argument. having badass morals doesn't make me a
fag it just makes me better than you.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:05 No.2749991
>>2749911
do you understand what being a lawyer means?
you can't just drop a case because you think the defendant is guilty
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:07 No.2749993
Okay, so she didn't know he was guilty, she thought he was guilty. If she "knew" he was guilty
without any evidence whatsoever, she's a moron.
Secondly, the prosecution "threw away" what should have been a core piece of evidence. If they
found the girl's blood on his underwear, probably mixed with trace amounts of semen, they would
have been able to convict him in an instant. It's all the evidence they would have needed. Yet,
they threw it away? There was no mention of the lab results being brought up in court, either.
That's extremely suspicious.
It's the Blackstone principal that it is better to let ten guilty men free than to let one
innocent suffer. Innocent until *proven* guilty in a court of law. This maxims are critical to a
free country. Without them, the country would quickly turn into an Orwellian police state.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:08 No.2749994
Hillary was asked to defend him. She could have said no, but she agreed. The moment she agreed,
she was bound to do everything to defend him. Was it ethical? It's debatable; she did her job
correctly but that 'correct job' is not always the best thing to the public's eye, even if it is
demanded by the Bill of Rights. Was she wrong? No.
http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=192
Educate yourself on Legal Ethics. Most of you likely don't have the patience to watch an hour
long video, but if you don't have the patience to actually learn about it before arguing it,
that's your own damn fault.
Here's the full series: https://www.learner.org/resources/series81.html
If Clinton actually did anything ethically wrong, the entirety of the GOP would be screaming it
from the treetops as a Benghazi before Benghazi. It was a rough case, but she's clean here.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:12 No.2749999
>>2749989
The idea of courtroom justice is to let the truth be known so that the jury/judge can make the
most fair decision. As morality is often (if not always) a subjective opinion, not based on fact
it can skew actual justice. Definitely not an infallible system, but better than witch hunts and
lynching.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:21 No.2750004
>>2749999
i wonder if it could be improved if lawyers were encouraged to opt-out if during the case they
became convinced that their client is guilty. a lawyer shouldn't be expected to knowingly defend
a guilty man. the reality of that situation is a person bound by duty to lie in the court.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:24 No.2750007
>>2750004
If lawyers could drop cases just because they think their client may be guilty, no one would
defend high-profile cases like this. What you're asking for is trial by public opinion.
You're a moron.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:27 No.2750012
>>2750004
I'm sure it's happened many, many times where the defense still defends, but barely tries and
uses their knowledge of the system to aid in a guilty verdict, but that in itself is an unethical
act. Each has it's prices to pay, but I'm sure it's made abundantly clear before they pass the
bar what defending a client would entail, so it's hard to pity them.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:29 No.2750013
>>2750007
you're an asshole.
i don't think public opinion is completely out of the question. and the way it is being done
kindof makes sense. if every one of your lawyers ends up believing you're guilty and refusing to
defend you then that seems like pretty decent evidence to me. why not have to defend yourself in
that case?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:31 No.2750015
>>2750013
Because it's not the lawyer's job to decide who is or isn't guilty. They don't get to make that
call. It's the judge/jury's job. A lawyer's job is to present the facts so that the judge/jury
may decide a verdict.
If you think opinions are good evidence, you're completely and totally delusional.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:32 No.2750016
>>2749924
Thinking someone is guilty and knowing they are are two different things. It's innocent until
proven guilty, and regardless of what others think, everyone is entitled to a fair trial and
legal representation.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:32 No.2750017
>>2750013
>i don't think public opinion is completely out of the question
except that's how are justice system is set up. The people who designed it understood very well
that the public is, in fact, retard. The idea is if there is any doubt, the accused should go
free. Even if everyone "knows" he did it
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:33 No.2750018
>>2750013
>We'll just make it so that one untrained individual has to argue against an entire team of
people trained in debate and law
Yeah, this sounds fair. Stop trolling.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:35 No.2750021
>>2750013
If every one of the posters here ends up believing you're a fucking moron and refuse to defend
you, then that seems like pretty decent evidence to me.
You're a fucking moron.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:39 No.2750022
>>2750015
it's not their job but they're in a unique position to know the truth. why not exploit that and
fuck over guilty people who can't afford an evil lawyer?
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:41 No.2750024
>>2750022
I can't see this leading to corruption at all.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:41 No.2750025
>>2750013
Your example just exemplified just how that system doesn't work.
Say a lawyer takes on a client he believes or is paid to believe is guilty just to dump the
client half-way and spread the reason for it was that you don't defend the guilty. Regardless of
the truth of the guilt, the client would be pretty much damned at that point because they're
supposed to have confidentiality. So, this would end of being an exploit until all credibility in
lawyers would be lost.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:43 No.2750027
>>2750025
good point. yeah you're probably right.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:43 No.2750028
>Hillary did something bad 30 years ago
>she can never be president because of that
People change. If we followed that logic George W would never have made it into offi- oh.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:46 No.2750029
>>2749894
we dont have a justice system, we have a legal system
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:51 No.2750032
>>2750029
I hope you realize how semantically bullshit your statement is.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)14:56 No.2750036
>>2750029
The problem is that the average person is mind-bogglingly retarded. Instead of using facts to
determine justice, they define justice as "whatever I think is morally right even though I'm
entitely ignorant about the case."
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)15:05 No.2750040
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBHbJzproj0
this stuff is nuts. from what i've researched he seems legit.
>> [_] friendsofsandwiches 04/15/15(Wed)15:19 No.2750051
Not a big fan of Hillary, but if she did her job, even if she didn't really want to, then in
truth, that elevates her in my eyes, and it looks like the eyes of the more intelligent people on
here.
EVERYONE has the right to due process, (at least until it gets suspended in certain
cases/situations) and when the prosecution does a crap job of presenting it's case, that's not on
the defender. Granted, some defenders will pull stupid and trivial shit just to get the case
thrown out. It's cheap but it works.
The end all question though, is that as a result of this, SHOULD you consider this woman as a
viable presidential candidate?
If you honestly think that she should have walked away after accepting the case and believed he
was guilty, then you are likely the type to have and would still vote for Palin for Prez, and are
the reason why we now refer to America as 'murica.
>> [_] Anynomous 04/15/15(Wed)15:34 No.2750059
Geez..the raper sure got his punshiment, so what is all the hate about a woman who dont wanted to
see him ending on the electrical chair?Some people actualy hope you might can help those people
with a therapy, and if maybe if she did believe in that..she was not morally corrupted she simply
just had hope, and was willing to give a criminal a second chance. That i respect she dont
deserve your stupid hate.All people can do is to submitt a crime themselves when they thing they
have the right to punish a murderer/rapist, but no one starts to think of theme as humans, and no
one is asking themeselfe why the ended up this way doing those horrible things they did. Kinda
sad.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)15:50 No.2750068
I don't even like Hilary but how is this supposed to prove anything?
Lawyers can lose their license if they don't fully represent their clients. Lawyers HAVE to
represent every client they have to the fullest extent, regardless of whether they are guilty or
not.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)15:59 No.2750079
>>2749894
Well if the prosecution wants to charge you whether you're guilty or not, shouldn't someone
defend you whether you're guilty or not?
Sounds balanced and fair to me
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)16:05 No.2750084
>>2750068
i believe people should value integrity over duty. breaking the law is better than breaking your
own ethical code. however in this case it really just depends on whether she knew he was guilty
or not. but also good people just don't become lawyers right? from what i've learned today the
whole job is just asking to be put between a rock and a hard place morally.
>>2750079
i was getting at >>2750022
but it was debunked by >>2750025
>> [_] [卍] Texas [ Öffentlichkeitsarbeit Stuhl] !AxNg7yblys 04/15/15(Wed)16:19 No.2750095
>>2749919
>>2749910
If you didn't notice she said that she used her own underwear, and got the man to testify for her
case.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)16:25 No.2750100
>>2750095
She said she took the underwear from the case with her. I could be wrong, but I don't think
Hilary wears the men's underwear or little girl's underwear, so I think the guy would've been
able to tell.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)16:33 No.2750103
Fuck hilary, but jesus the number of people itt that don't fucking understand due process is
frightening. Lawyers fighting their best to defend clients they don't believe are innocent is
designed to PROTECT THE INNOCENT. It's not the lawyer's job to decide who's guilty or innocent.
>> [_] Anonymous 04/15/15(Wed)16:37 No.2750104
OP is a faggot, go ahead and post that clip from the fucking Newsroom while you're at it.
