[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Ha! I'm afraid, that your dismissive attitude to me is no surprise, but that pales into insignificance when it comes to your dismissive attitude to the TRUTHFUL reality of just what Clinton did - and that was certainly FAR MORE than just 'her job'.

The question of whether Clinton knew that her client was guilty or not, will only ever be truly known to herself and her client, but the logical assumption - based upon her own words in the video under discussion - is that she either DID know, or at least greatly SUSPECTED as much.

And therein lies the problem, because it is not the question of whether she should have continued to defend her client or not, whilst knowing or suspecting that he was guilty, that indicts Clinton of being an unscrupulous, dishonest and thoroughly callous bitch, but more just HOW she freely CHOSE to conduct his defence.

Legal ethics do not come into this, because - despite precedents of Defence Attorney's continuing to plead a case for their client's innocence when they KNEW they were guilty which date as far back as the 'Courvoisier' murder case of 1840, and as recently as the 2006 case of David Westerfield (more below) - NO hard and fast ruling on just what the Defence Attorney should or should not do, exists.

So arguably, Clinton did nothing wrong in continuing to defend Taylor. whist knowing or suspecting that he was indeed guilty, but the manner in which she freely elected to defend this evil bastard is beyond belief, because her wholly reprehensible tactics in so coldly and cruelly attacking the little 12 year old victim, destroying her credibility, and vilely shifting blame and culpability for Taylor's evil ONTO her, is not only INDEFENSIBLE, but mirrors the equally disgusting case from 2006 which is mentioned above.

In that notorious case, a San Diego Defence Attorney named Steve Feldman, was defending an evil bastard called David Westerfield who abducted and slaughtered a little girl - Danielle Van Dam- whose body had never been found.

During plea bargaining, the prosecutor offered not to seek the death penalty if Feldman would get his client to disclose the location of the body so the poor girl's family could have at least the consolation of affording her a proper burial.

Westerman agreed to Feldman to accept this 'deal' and disclosed to Feldman the location of little Danielle's body.

So Defence Attorney Feldman KNEW beyond any doubt that Westerfield was guilty.

By their own efforts, however, the police found Danielle's corpse BEFORE the plea bargain deal was officially sealed and the deal was 'off'.

At trial, the disgusting Feldman conducted an aggressive defence and attacked Danielle's poor grief-struck parents and forever shamed them and besmirched their reputations by bringing to light, the totally irrelevant fact that they sometimes held 'sex parties' and suggested that one of their guests could have abducted and murdered their daughter.

YET this bastard KNEW that Westerfield was guilty.

At least Feldman's dishonest, deceitful, and unethical tactics FAILED and Westerfield was found guilty and is currently on Death Row awaiting his rightful execution.

UNLIKE Clinton's client who, thanks to her dishonest, deceitful, and unethical tactics SUCCEEDED in 'winning' her guilty client a mere two months imprisonment.

And UNLIKE Clinton, there are NO tapes around of Feldman BOASTING and LAUGHING at his own 'cleverness' in attacking people he knew were innocent because he KNEW his client was GUILTY.

I do not blindly and slavishly support any pop star, actor, politician, or political party so fanatically, that I lose all rationality and objectivity when it comes to RECOGNISING and ADMITTING any flaws and imperfections in them, so I will STAND behind my opinion, whether you dismiss it so readily or not.

Again, defense solicitors sometimes have to defend terrible people. They can't just sell them up the river during the trial or they'd never work again. Just like prosecutors sometimes send innocent people to prison. Both sides have to work with what they have to win the case.

Also, where's your proof that there was any wrongdoing on Hillary's part? Like I said before, this is all built on circumstantial evidence and guilt by association. That video and this whole story is just a desperate attempt by Trump and his supporters to gain some ground and it's completely hypocritical given that, if we were to use the same tactics on Trump, he'd be classed as a rapist. Hillary's not been brought up on any charges, Trump's got an underage sex lawsuit in December.

Your last paragraph is not worth talking about, stop acting like a victim because nobody is discounting your opinion in fact you're just looking for an argument judging by the other essay you wrote in this topic. Your little jab at the end at everyone who happens to disagree with you is also unneeded and deeply hypocritical.