She

[notes1]

you are a hypocrite. you justify a lawyer getting off a criminal, as doing their job. it is the job of a an investor to maximize their returns, on that investment. no difference, if done legally.

post after post, you position yourself as being the moral authority for the country. what you believe is often far from what others/I believe.

[FAA]

lawyer getting off a criminal, as doing their job. Job of  an
investor to maximize their return on investment. no difference,
if done legally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Not much to argue on this point.

[notes1]

[QUOTE=FAA] lawyer getting off a criminal, as doing their job. Job of  an
investor to maximize their return on investment. no difference,
if done legally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Not much to argue on this point.

QUOTE]

you watch, he will.

[Tedlark]

So how morally corrupt is the defense attorney who gets their client off when they KNOW the client was guilty?

[DaBurglar]

you are a hypocrite. you justify a lawyer getting off a criminal, as doing their job. it is the job of a an investor to maximize their returns, on that investment. no difference, if done legally.

post after post, you position yourself as being the moral authority for the country. what you believe is often far from what others/I believe. Yeah watch, I'm gonna......You are not very good at debating, its that simple.   You create simple linear points and then criticize anyone (me) who points out that the issues and topics are simply MORE complex than you are allowing for in the argument you make.....Where have I positioned myself as the "MORAL authority" of the country?   THAT is one more example of YOU plopping what YOU think or perceive me to be and then expanding it outward so as to try and make me into some type of supervillain so that YOU can then swoop in and be the MORAL authority (because you and your PERSONAL responsibility code are JUST THAT, a moral standard that you want to tout and force everyone to acknowledge).....I would also like you to prove to me though, that what "I BELIEVE is far from what others believe"......where's your data?  Sample size?   oh sure, obviously you BELIEVE that I am Far from what you believe, even though I have shown over and over that i actually AGREE with you on MANY MANY things....I think that is what bugs you most, is that you and I are ALIKE more than you want to admit.Finally......YOU TELL ME, what is the OBLIGATION (what you call "the JOB") of a Defense ATTORNEY?    I'm serious, ANSWER THIS QUESTION because until or unless you do, this is just another personal disagreement about insignificant and meaningless things between you and I.....Do you really understand how the US justice system, courts etc work?  Do you know the RIGHTS of accused individuals?    I honestly have my doubts given your statements here and attempt to equate a defense attorney doing her LEGALLY MANDATED, PROFESSIONALLY OBLIGATED JOB, and some filthy rich guy trying to become even filthier and richer by using TOTALLY IMMORAL tactics (even if they are barely within the letter of the law....)   its laughable you call me a hypocrite.....I'm now going to forget you did.ALL I did was point out the ABSURDITY of the original YOUTUBE video posted, and how wrong it is in the many things it says and the points it makes......I STILL agreed with the point everyone was making about Hillary, I just said that the video and the case  discussed were NOT the correct way(s) to criticize and point out all her many huge flaws.   

[DaBurglar]

So how morally corrupt is the defense attorney who gets their client off when they KNOW the client was guilty?

Ignoring the baiting nature of this question, I am going to seriously and earnestly address this (actually quite GOOD) question.......you are asking something that is a moral conundrum.....but the bottom line is this:    Defense Attorneys are NOT obligated to take on ANY and ALL cases they are handed (even public defenders, if their reasons are sound and have merit, are able to walk away from any case they feel conflicts/compromises their personal beliefs or standards, etc.)   BUT ONCE an attorney ACCEPTS a case, he/she/it is legally obligated to act in the clients BEST interest and do ALL that can be done within the boundaries established to help the client.A defense attorney is not (nor DOES NOT) 'GET ANYONE OFF' ...... the defense attorney is "an advocate" for the defendant, meaning they act and speak on behalf of the client.     When a TRULY guilty person TRULY "gets away with something", or "GETS OFF"  as you put it, the blame or responsibility lies with one of the following:1)  The jury (obviously, as in the OH-JAY Simpleton case.)2)  The Judge3)  the prosecution or the Police/Investigative forces (again as in the above referenced miscarriage of justice)...this may also include forensic authorities who blow it or drop the ball or otherwise screw the pooch.it is NOT the fault of the defense attorney, not in anyway shape or form......and this specific example in the youtube video of one case from Hillary's legal career is just WRONG WRONG WRONG to try and say this proves or shows Hillary's many bad qualities or traits......SHE HAS THEM (bad qualities), in SPADES, I am just again saying that this video and the attempts to use it in the way people have is just WRONG and it actually gives he defenders the ammunition they need to counterattack those of us who criticize Hillary rightfully so!Defense attorneys routinely must "defend" clients they strongly suspect, or even KNOW, to have actually committed the crime for which they are accused.   This is almost unavoidable......but if you simply replace the word(s)   DEFENSE ATTORNEY, with the tern "ADVOCATE", you begin to see exactly HOW a upright and morally "good" defense attorney can actually knowingly defend a guilty party......Seriously folks, those of you who hate Hillary (and I myself, while not taking it to a personal level, do indeed  "HATE" what she represents and stands for) need to stop this absurd moral contortioning and trying to contrive or invent new, more sensational ways of expressing this hatred.  In this case you inadvertently attacked one of the bedrock principles of out Legal Justice system and how it is practiced.I submit that if any of you are ever in a position of being ACCUSED of any serious wrongdoing (regardless of guilt or innocence)  YOU WILL WANT a attorney with the zeal and commitment and sense of obligation (as well as the craftiness) of the one seemingly displayed in this video.

[Tedlark]

DaBurglar you contradicted yourself. First you say that defense attorneys do not have to take every case but then you say that defense attorneys routinely must "defend" clients they strongly suspect, or even KNOW, to have actuallt committed the crime for which they are accused.

Defense attorneys take cases where they may have a hunch their client may be guilty for one reason: THE MONEY.

And again, you say a defense attorney does not get anyone off but your last sentence totally says otherwise.

Edited to add: if you think defense attorneys don't get people off, I offer two words as rebuttal: OJ Simpson.

[notes1]

he is simply diverting, does it all the time. he knows the point I was making, has no answer, so he changes the subject. it is a common practice of the left. mention something negative in the world, that has been caused by O or H and they bring up bush.

everyone knows the role of an attorney. defend their client rigorously and legally. same goes for an investor, maximize your investment, legally.

in that vein, criticisms of T business practices should not be confused with some sort of moral deficiency anymore than whoever H defended. if they were done legally, that was their job.

[DaBurglar]

  he is simply diverting, does it all the time. he knows the point I was making, has no answer, so he changes the subject. it is a common practice of the left. mention something negative in the world, that has been caused by O or H and they bring up bush.

everyone knows the role of an attorney. defend their client rigorously and legally. same goes for an investor, maximize your investment, legally.

in that vein, criticisms of T business practices should not be confused with some sort of moral deficiency anymore than whoever H defended. if they were done legally, that was their job. [quote]he is simply diverting, does it all the time. he knows the point I
was making, has no answer, so he changes the subject. it is a common
practice of the left. mention something negative in the world, that has
been caused by O or H and they bring up bush.
[end quote]What the  FOOK  are you talking about?!?!?!    Seriously, what did I "divert", and what point were you making that I have "NO ANSWER FOR", and what subject did I change??This is 100% BS, and deep within your impacted bowels, you KNOW IT.........you just cannot keep up with me, cannot keep straight the numerous points of logic I utilize in constructing my arguments so you resort to these cheap (and getting cheaper as time goes by) shots..... And most preposterously of all, you JUST committed the exact thing you accuse me of doing, in your post above........I am discussing and refuting the usage of this case from 1975 where HILLARY defends someone as an example of all of her bad points, I point out how wrong it is to do so, and then YOU, in desperation and for reasons only YOU really know, plop this turd into the mix:"it is a common practice of the left. mention something negative in
the world, that has been caused by O or H and they bring up bush."  ??????   ridiculous, stupid, desperate, inane.....and ultimately, unhelpful in salvaging your position in this latest discussion/debate.Your "NEED" to pigeonhole me into the "LEFT" is also pathologically silly as well......NEVER, in all that has been said or posted on this forum, have I ever heard you even mention or motion towards "the center" (which is where I CONCSIOUSLY choose to place myself at least when beginning to evaluate any specific issue or topic....)But this thread was not about RIGHT/LEFT or anything of the sort......it was about how the legal system works, what it is and what it is not, what a defense Attorney  does , etc etc.   And ultimately, how INCORRECT it is/was to apply to the chorus of (otherwise legit) criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[notes1]

But this thread was not about RIGHT/LEFT or anything of the sort......it was about how the legal system works, what it is and what it is not, what a defense Attorney  does , etc etc.   And ultimately, how INCORRECT it is/was to apply to the chorus of (otherwise legit) criticism of Hillary Rodham Clinton.


as usual, wrong again. it was never about how the legal system works. it was about providing balanced media coverage of both candidates, both parties positions. if the press wants to bring up T warts...fine, but include the past history of both. if it is the job of one person to defend the accused, it was the other persons job to invest and make money.