File: The Hillary Clinton Tapes.swf-(9.55 MB, 240x176, Other)
[_] Anon 2749817 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 2749874 Wow so hillary clinton helped a 12-year old child rapist get off.
>> [_] Anon 2749878 >># And then she got him off.
>> [_] Anon 2749884 Allah bless Americastan
>> [_] Anon 2749893 >># Lawyers have to defend everyone anon, that is what balances the system
>> [_] Anon 2749894 >># what about justice?
>> [_] Anon 2749895 >># Eh.
>> [_] Anon 2749901 Murica needs to know before they elect dat bitch. Someone should send this to CNN
>> [_] Anon 2749903 >># One of our Founding Fathers, John Adams, successfully defended the soldiers who did the Boston Massacre Justice for all
>> [_] Anon 2749910 Wow, so Hillary Clinton did her job and did it well. That's nice.
>> [_] Anon 2749911 >># SHe states that she knew he was guilty with that poly comment, and yet she stil ldefends him. Zero integrity
>> [_] Anon 2749916 >># Polygraph tests aren't admissible in courts anyway. Also, a good lawyer will defend any case regardless of guilt, so >># is right.
>> [_] Anon 2749919 >># >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.
>> [_] Anon 2749922 >># yea, you're right, we should just lynch people if enough people think they deserve it!
>> [_] Anon 2749924 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2749925 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2749927 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2749929 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2749930 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2749931 >># >personal integrity. >lawyers You seem to be confused.
>> [_] Anon 2749933 >># it depends on the case. there are cases where you should refuse to defend someone.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2749941 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2749947 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2749948 >># Jesus, what fucking stupid hole did you crawl out of?
>> [_] Anon 2749951 >># don't forget >is running for president I voted for Obama, I'm not voting for this cunt
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2749954 >># Enjoy wasting your vote on Rand Paul.
>> [_] Anon 2749955 >># Defense lawyers aren't bound by morals, get used to it. They're essentially mercs.
>> [_] Anon 2749956 >># well i'm not wrong >># i'm starting to see a lot of political figures are more like mercs
>> [_] Anon 2749959 >># Yeah, you don't make it very far on campaign trails without catering to a few lobbies.
>> [_] Anon 2749961 >># You're objectively wrong.
>> [_] Anon 2749970 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2749973 >># This. >># God, I hope you're 16.
>> [_] Anon 2749975 >># >i do expect it for political figures. What fantasy version of Earth do you live in?
>> [_] Anon 2749979 >># underageb& pls
>> [_] Anon 2749981 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2749984 >># >># you know i'm right. just admit it. >># i'm getting more into the ethics of it idk about hillary or that specific case.
>> [_] Anon 2749985 >># >you know i'm right. just admit it. No, you're a huge fag.
>> [_] Anon 2749989 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2749991 >># do you understand what being a lawyer means? you can't just drop a case because you think the defendant is guilty
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 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? http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.ht ml?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/series 81.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.
>> [_] Anon 2749999 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2750004 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2750007 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2750012 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2750013 >># 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?
>> [_] Anon 2750015 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2750016 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2750017 >># >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
>> [_] Anon 2750018 >># >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.
>> [_] Anon 2750021 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2750022 >># 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?
>> [_] Anon 2750024 >># I can't see this leading to corruption at all.
>> [_] Anon 2750025 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 2750027 >># good point. yeah you're probably right.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2750029 >># we dont have a justice system, we have a legal system
>> [_] Anon 2750032 >># I hope you realize how semantically bullshit your statement is.
>> [_] Anon 2750036 >># 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."
>> [_] Anon 2750040 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBHbJzpr oj0 this stuff is nuts. from what i've researched he seems legit.
>> [_] friendsofsandwiches 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 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.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2750079 >># 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
>> [_] Anon 2750084 >># 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. >># i was getting at >># but it was debunked by >>#
>> [_] [卍] Texas [ Öffentlichkeitsarbeit Stuhl] !AxNg7yblys 2750095 >># >># If you didn't notice she said that she used her own underwear, and got the man to testify for her case.
>> [_] Anon 2750100 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 2750104 OP is a faggot, go ahead and post that clip from the fucking Newsroom while you're at it.