fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3471 ]

[ SECRET POST #3471 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3471 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Brooklyn Nine-Nine]

__________________________________________________

04.

[1931: Scheherazade at the Library of Pergamum]

__________________________________________________

05.

[outlander, ontd-sassenach]

__________________________________________________

06.

(Voltron: Legendary Defender)

__________________________________________________

07.

[Michael Kamen]

__________________________________________________

08.

[Captain America (MCU), Daredevil (MCU), Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, and Bleach]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 27 secrets from Secret Submission Post #496.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

You mean her husband? Pretty sure that was more than once. Or the case with the 12-year old victim where she laughed about getting a guilty guy off on a technicality?

Or the case with the 12-year old victim where she laughed about getting a guilty guy off on a technicality?

Are you referring to her doing her job as a defense attorney

Or do you believe that those accused of certain crimes should not have the best representation possible available to them

Considering we have an anon who thinks "due process is bullshit" further downthread...

It's a pretty big leap from "doing your job as a defense attorney" to "laughing because justice was not served"

an ethical defense attorney would focus not on acquitting someone who is guilty but on bargaining for the best plea deal hopefully with a focus on rehabilitation where applicable

(not that I think most defense attorneys are ethical necessarily)

(also not that I know whether Hillary actually did that, just making a point about legal defense)

an ethical defense attorney would focus not on acquitting someone who is guilty but on bargaining for the best plea deal hopefully with a focus on rehabilitation where applicable

IANAL a lawyer but I am pretty sure this is not how the legal profession views the question, at least.

And, I mean, there are some pretty obvious problems that arise here, you know. Like, for instance, defense attorneys don't actually have perfect knowledge of who is or is not guilty.

It's a pretty big leap from "doing your job as a defense attorney" to "laughing because justice was not served"

For those curious, there's video/transcripts of her discussing the case, and she laughs about him passing the polygraph test "[That] forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs". In other words, she knew the guy was a rapist, got him off on a technicality (I believe part of the little girl's underwear had been thrown away by the forensics people) and can laugh about the whole thing. That's disturbing to me.

I can understand how a defense attorney could feel it was okay to get a criminal off the hook, but to find it a laughing matter later, when the victim was a little girl? That's just unbelievably cold.

You can read a description of her interview and the recording of it here.

Link doesn't work

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/16/listen-to-hillary-clinton-laugh-while-talking-about-getting-a-suspected-child-rapist-off-the-hook/

or here

Ugh. Never say a bad word about my commitment to earnest and open debate, motherfucker, I just went to The Blaze for you.

here's a link to the actual relevant Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4

Anyway, all that says to me is that - 10 years after the fact - she was able to separate the specifics of the case from the legal maneuvering around it. I suspect that kind of thing is common among people doing that kind of job, you know? And the legal maneuvering which she - of course - had to do and was right to do given her job.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

blitzwing - 2016-07-06 00:01 (UTC) - Expand

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

(Anonymous) - 2016-07-06 05:52 (UTC) - Expand

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

blitzwing - 2016-07-06 10:59 (UTC) - Expand

A plea bargain? You mean like what she actually did?

A defense attorney can advise their client to take a deal, but they cannot enter a guilty plea on their client's behalf. If a client refuses to take a deal, their attorney is expected to continue to defend them to the best of their ability, including pointing out any improprieties in the investigation and the trial. Doing so is being ethical.

I never said they put in the plea bargain for the client?

I'm not sure how any of this contradicts what I'm saying actually. Sure point out improprieties. Sure point out bad evidence. Doesn't mean you have to act like your client is innocent if they're not and be disrespectful to the plaintiff.

Until they're convicted? Yes, you do. As far as the law and every ethics board in the country is concerned, your client is innocent until convicted. Unless you're claiming an affirmative defense (insanity, mental disease or defect, etc.), if you even insinuate that you believe your client is guilty, you can be hauled before an ethics board and either censured or disbarred.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

diet_poison - 2016-07-07 20:30 (UTC) - Expand

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

lady_dragoon - 2016-07-07 20:42 (UTC) - Expand

an ethical defense attorney would focus not on acquitting someone who is guilty but on bargaining for the best plea deal hopefully with a focus on rehabilitation where applicable

If they want to lose their license to practice law, sure. As a defense attorney, your job is to get your client acquitted. If it looks like that absolutely won't happen, then your job is to get your client the best plea deal you can.

As your client's counsel, you are acting in their best interests, not what you think is good for your conscience.

That's...pretty similar to what I said.

If a person is guilty but there's no legally valid evidence to convict them on, then legally they are innocent. However, if the evidence stacks up against them, then they should make a plea deal, which is what I said.

And either way - it's not cool to laugh at or about the plaintiff while doing your job.

That's...pretty similar to what I said.

It's not the same, though. You said:

an ethical defense attorney would focus not on acquitting someone who is guilty

Unfortunately for you, that is exactly what an ethical defense attorney does. Acquittal is your ultimate goal, whether the client is guilty or not. That's your job.

Sometimes, the evidence is on the prosecution's side, but the jury isn't. In those cases, an ethical defense attorney would not advise their client to plead out. Why definitely get your client prison time when there's a good chance they'll be acquitted? Any attorney who did advise a plea when there's a very good chance at acquittal is looking at major consequences for not acting in the client's best interest.

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

diet_poison - 2016-07-08 14:38 (UTC) - Expand

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

lady_dragoon - 2016-07-08 14:57 (UTC) - Expand

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

diet_poison - 2016-07-08 18:51 (UTC) - Expand

Re: So trump is a literal child rapist. TW Rape. Child Abuse.

lady_dragoon - 2016-07-08 19:03 (UTC) - Expand

I'm referring to her laughing about getting a child rapist off the hook. Pretty sure there's nothing in the description for a defense attorney position that says "Must look back with amusement on helping the rapist of a 12-year old girl avoid a conviction."

A small chuckle isn't "look[ing] back with amusement," it's coping with the horrible things you have to do when you take a job as a defense attorney.

And I'm sorry she didn't do the prosecutor's job for them, but that's not a failure.

"WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant.

WHAT'S FALSE: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant's lawyer, she did not laugh about the the case's outcome, she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story," she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not "free" the defendant."

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

she did not laugh about the the case's outcome

So, how do you explain the recording I linked to? What you said is only true by the most extremely pedantic interpretation.

she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty

Same with this. "He passed the polygraph test...forever destroying my faith in polygraph tests."

Do tell me what that's meant to imply.

Just in case anyone was considering taking blitzwing seriously, here's a solid debunking of that line of bullshit.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

Really, considering blitzy is linking to fucking The Blaze as a source, debunking is basically redundant.

I hope people know better than to take blitzwing seriously about... anything.

Blitzy's basically a piece of performance art at this point. The only people who take them seriously anymore are either new or diet poison.

...wtf makes you think I take Blitzy seriously? They and I fight all the time

what comm are you on?

ETA: unless you think it means I think they're not a troll. In which case, hi anon, my name is diet poison and I like to argue with trolls (it's a bad habit)

(I don't think Blitzy is always a troll, but sometimes they are, and I very often disagree with them either way)

Edited 2016-07-07 20:38 (UTC)

What, you think they made up that recording? That's a good Hillary inpersonator if so, lmao.

Edited 2016-07-06 11:00 (UTC)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only