If you started a foundation to do good works, would you do a background check on your donors?? If you were a criminal defense attorney, would you only represent INNOCENT people???

Have you been smoking that wacky tobacky again?

Believe what you will Excon. It's a judgement call.

If you can listen to her voice laughing about someone escaping justice for the rape of a 12 year old girl, and not see her for the psychopathic **** she is, I can't help you.

If you really believe people will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches, I can't help you. If you can't see a money laundering operation when it's that blatant, I can't help you.

Discernment is something you have or you don't.

Hello some:

Oh, I agree.  And, I wouldn't be pointing it out were it not for adds on TV DUMPING all over Hillary for taking money from bad people.  I also wouldn't be defending her for DOING her job as a criminal defense attorney, were in not for right wingers DUMPING all over her for doing exactly that..

Look..  I'm in business.  I don't do background checks on my customers..  I just don't.  I'm also willing to bet that SOME of my customers are real assholes.  Painting ME as an asshole because some of my customers are, is stupid, stupid, stupid..  That's because I'm sure some of those right wingers have had assholes PUT dollars in their hand, and if that makes them assholes, then so be it..

excon

Hello Mr:

Hello for the 3rd time, Mr.

My posts are disappearing..  So, I'll try it here..

------------

Nope. Not working. Guess you can't insult me today.

Eagles are cool!

If someone paid you hundreds of times more for your services than the service was actually worth, I'd be suspicious. No one is that generous and bad people certainly aren't that generous. It's payment for something else. Period.

Hello again, AS:

I thought right wingers UNDERSTOOD the free market..  No, huh?  As I said above, I'm in business.  I offer PREMIER services, and I charge accordingly..  MOST people think my customers are NUTS to pay that much..  I suppose you think there's something suspicious  going on over here too.. 

Not only do I CHARGE for my premier services, I too, and willing to PAY for premier services..  I eat lunch at the Metropolitan Grill here in Seattle..  My NY Strip steak costs $125, and I GLADLY pay it.  Someone who gets their steaks at Denny's isn't going to understand.

excon

You pay $125 a plate because it's worth that much to you. I don't you know why exactly. Perhaps you like the food. Perhaps you enjoy the social status of being seen to eat there. Perhaps you enjoy being able to condescend to people like me who can't afford to eat there. Perhaps you like the atmosphere. There are reasons, even if you are not consciously aware of what they are. Nobody ever does anything for no reason.

Nobody pays 600 grand to listen to that bitch run her mouth. All the shrinks in the world can't make sense of that one.

Individuals have their psychological quirks. Though corporations are about the bottom line. When the likes of Goldman Sachs does it, there isn't a superficial reason.

Hello again, AS:

I did condescend to you, didn't I??  I apologize for that.  I haven't ALWAYS been able to afford things.  Nonetheless, I point it out to reinforce that people put different values on all sorts of things..  I don't think being able to hit a baseball is worth MILLIONS a year.  But, I understand WHY they're paid like they are..

Do I think that people were buying influence along with her speeches??  Of course..  Is that wrong???  Well, I don't like ANY influence buying, but that's not the way it works.. Everybody tries to buy influence.  Citizen United opened the floodgates to special interest money..  You know that, right?

excon

Well, I wouldn't take money from the Ku Klux Klan.  Sorry.

I wouldn't defend anyone I knew to be guilty either and say they are INNOCENT.  That is not how the law works anyway.

You defend POINTS to keep their conviction fair.

If a client lied to me, I would not defend them. Period.   If they are guilty at the outset, I would do my best to get them a fair trial and not one that would put them in an unnecessary position of having to do more time than they deserve.

  If I were forced to defend them, and I found out they were lying about what they claimed,  I would discuss it with the Judge and see what was the legal course of action that was just and fair. IF I had to continue to defend them, I would do my job and let the system do what it must.

I need full disclosure.  If I do not get that, I can move for a ruling based on the lies my idiot client was trying to get away with,  if possible.  I think I could enter Motions to that effect.

The idea of a fair trial is not to take someone and throw them under the bus whether they are guilty or not.   Give them a fair and just punishment, or if they are innocent, get them off.   That is the idea of a defense.  Not to lie and get them OFF.  What kind of justice is that?

We reserve the right to defend the guilty so the innocent do not get trampled in the process.  You are innocent until you are PROVEN guilty.  My job is to defend that position.  Not lie.

Being guilty or not guilty is based on the facts presented in court in front of a jury. The defense attorney and prosecutor must present the case on the evidence whether guilty or not and hope for the best. Having a good lawyer is imperative.

A little. (You edited your comment after considering "You probably get your steak at Denny's" to have crossed the line. I appreciate the afterthought.) It's true that people vary greatly in what they place value on.

I think that buying influence is an abomination but it's true that the practice is endemic to the U.S. political system. I believe the Clinton Foundation goes way beyond that.

This isn't a right vs left thing. They're all in it together. The Clintons and Bushes are just major figures in a vast international web.

It's a judgement call I admit. If you want to write it off as "vast right wing conspiracy" you can do that. In my judgement there is too much smoke coming from too many different places for there to be no fire.

It has nothing to do with whether a person is innocent or guilty it is that the court ignored the evidence of the case based solely on character assassination. Not only that but the victim came out and spoke on it and said that Hillary willingly lied about her. She was 12 years old. Hillary made the claim that she was "flirty" towards older males and that she had made false accusations before but there was NO evidence for said false accusations. She presented no witnesses.

"During her first few months on the case, Rodham fired off no fewer than 19 subpoenas, affidavits and motions – almost as much paper as was typical for a capital murder case that year, according to case files on microfilm.

She successfully petitioned to obtain Taylor’s underwear for independent testing after the state medical examiner found traces of semen and blood. She also secured Taylor’s release on $5,000 bond after getting his boss at the factory to vouch for him.

But the record shows that Rodham was also intent on questioning the girl’s credibility. That line of defense crystallized in a July 28, 1975, affidavit requesting the girl undergo a psychiatric examination at the university’s clinic.

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” wrote Rodham, without referring to the source of that allegation. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body.”

http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2014/03/25/hillary-rodham-clinton-attacked-12-year-old-rape-victims-credibility-1975/

Without referring to a source??? Independent testing? Yet it was also claimed that the people testing the underwear had accidentally conveniently shredded "most" of the evidence that it wasn't admissible in court.

Furthermore take this into evidence that Hillary did it as a favor for another prosecutor. She was NOT forced. So not only was she not forced but she willingly represented him:

"In Clinton’s first recorded commentary on the case, she said she took the case as a favor for a local prosecutor. In taped conversations that took place in the early 1980s, Clinton told reporter Roy Reed that she was approached by a prosecutor who told her the rapist wanted to be defended by a female lawyer.

“A prosecutor called me years ago, said that he had a guy who was accused of rape and the guy wanted a woman lawyer—would I do it as a favor to him?” said Clinton in audio first released by the Washington Free Beacon in 2014."

http://freebeacon.com/politics/took-20-years-hillary-clinton-say-tried-relieved-rape-case/

Then she lied about it:

“When I was a 27-year-old attorney doing legal aid work at the [University of Arkansas] where I taught in Fayetteville, Arkansas, I was appointed by the local judge to represent a criminal defendant accused of rape,” she said. “I asked to be relieved of that responsibility, but I was not. And I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did.”

Politifact was unable to locate any record that Clinton was appointed by a judge to take the case.

Anyways you can make this into a right wing vs. left wing issue like you always do. If some pompous lawyer did all that to someone you know it would be a different story. You wouldn't say "well at least she knows the law that's ALL that matters right!?!"

What I meant is that anyone when presented with evidence of corruption can choose to believe that it's just enemy propaganda concocted to discredit their candidate. It takes good judgement to decide who is lying and who is telling the truth.

People need to realise that at the highest levels, party politics is just theatre. They need to realise that there is no independent authority. When something like the FBI says that HRC was just careless with her emails, they are not an independent source. They've been ordered, bribed, blackmailed and intimidated to whitewash it.

Occasionally a candidate that is outside the establishment, like Trump or Sanders, has some success and the establishment does everything it can to block them.

I do not advocate any corruption being ignored. Though some practices I consider corrupt are perfectly legal. I believe the Clintons have gone way beyond that.

Hello again, m:

Lemme just copy and paste the response from Some, above:

----------

That is literally NOT what a lawyer does. While a lawyer cannot suborn perjury, a lawyer can also be disbarred with the conduct your stated above.

Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.

---------------

excon

Hello again, Some:

Oh, I know what quid is..  But, as long as she's OUT of office, there's no quo.  You ASSUME there WILL be a quo.  I don't.

Look..  Money IN politics IS a corrupting influence..  But, as long as you don't blast it ACROSS the board, you're just another partisan..

excon

Hello again, Some:

Debbie Wasserman Shultz rigged the election because she's a crony..  It has NOTHING to do with money..   Or, are we talking about money???  I can't tell.  You're jumping all over the place..  I thought we were talking about Hillary and her speeches... 

But, if changing the subject is fine, Citizens United LEGALIZED corruption on a much bigger scale than we're talking about.

I wonder why you don't talk about that??

excon

Excon lmao the entire court documents are on the internet and I've read through them they did indeed do that and Hillary presented no witnesses.. Hillary claimed "she heard."

This was 1975 it was perfectly legal to question rape victims like that. I could provide more evidence but I suspect no matter what I say you won't listen because I am not part of your political affiliation. The only reason you don't consider the evidence is because it's Hillary.

Hello again, m:

Nahh..  It's not Hillary.. In fact, I HATE Hillary for the same reasons YOU do.  What I LIKE, are defense lawyers DOING their jobs, even the Republican ones, because when they give their clients a rigorous DEFENSE, which they're ENTITLED to by law, the entire country benefits..

Yeah, I know you don't get that..  You only like lawyers who defend INNOCENT people, which is, of course, ridiculous.

excon

Hello again, Some:

I didn't defend her because she's a wonderful person, or because right wingers hate her.  I defended her because she DID her job.  Screw principle.

 Do I want her to become president??  I DO..  NOT because she's a wonderful person, but because of FOUR Supreme Court seats.

excon

Hello again, Some:

Couple things..  The fallout from a liberal or conservative court will last a Century..  The fallout from a bad president will last maybe 10 years..  You do the math.  If the Republicans HAD, in fact, appointed centrist judges, you'd be right..  But, they haven't, so you're not.  It ain't no more difficult than that..

excon

PS>  I'd be careful about personal attacks..  You ain't gonna like it if I attack you back..