Hillary and the pedophile

[Koko78]

Like the old song says.....

 

...There it is

 

There what is? What he said is not correct. There is no such thing as attorney-client confidentiality based upon answers to questions asked by a third party.

[Deranged Rhino]

As a lawyer hired to defend a pedophiliac rapist, she did the right thing. As a feminist, she did the wrong thing taking the case in the first place.

Was she a public defender? I don't want Hillary to run, let alone win, but if she was a public defender she wouldn't have much say in whether she got the case or not would she?

[Nanker]

Was she a public defender? I don't want Hillary to run, let alone win, but if she was a public defender she wouldn't have much say in whether she got the case or not would she?

According to the originally linked article, she was appointed by the court because the slime ball wanted to be represented by a female lawyer. This is likely before Hillary hit the big time (and big man Webb) when she joined the Arkansas law firm, Dewey Cheatem, and Howe.

[John Adams]

I respectfully disagree with you Koko.

 

Its one thing to do your job defending a client from a rape charge..........................

 

Its entirely another to laugh and brag about it several years later

 

.

 

She's not laughing off the rape. She's telling a story about people involved in the case.

 

Hillary is a sneaky liar but this laughter-gate is much ado about nothing.

 

Now the Right-PC police will make this into a big thing and Hillary will have to issue an apology. And god I'll feel so much better about it.

 

There what is? What he said is not correct. There is no such thing as attorney-client confidentiality based upon answers to questions asked by a third party.

 

I only play a lawyer on TV but what you said is not right.

 

Not sure where she divulged confidential attorney-client communications in that audio. I listened to it a few days ago but mostly it seemed like she was telling stories of things that happened around the case or things that were in the public. If she said, "My client was telling me "blah blah blah," then she'd be breaking attorney client confidentiality."

[IDBillzFan]

Now the Right-PC police will make this into a big thing and Hillary will have to issue an apology. And god I'll feel so much better about it.

 

Spend enough time watching the Left PC media piss their pants over a Mitt Romney college prank and you can't help spend a few moments delighting in the turned table.

[Koko78]

I only play a lawyer on TV but what you said is not right.

 

Not sure where she divulged confidential attorney-client communications in that audio. I listened to it a few days ago but mostly it seemed like she was telling stories of things that happened around the case or things that were in the public. If she said, "My client was telling me "blah blah blah," then she'd be breaking attorney client confidentiality."

 

Yeah... I play one in real life. What I said was correct. You are also correct in that she did not divulge anything privileged.

[DC Tom]

Spend enough time watching the Left PC media piss their pants over a Mitt Romney college prank and you can't help spend a few moments delighting in the turned table.

 

There is that, yes.

[John Adams]

Yeah... I play one in real life. What I said was correct. You are also correct in that she did not divulge anything privileged.

 

You may want to look for another role in real life.

 

You said "There is no such thing as attorney-client confidentiality based upon answers to questions asked by a third party. "

 

That's incorrect. If a third party asks a question and an attorney answers it by divulging something privileged, the disclosure waives the A-C privilege. It would be a problem.

Edited June 23, 2014 by John Adams

[Koko78]

You may want to look for another role in real life.

 

You said "There is no such thing as attorney-client confidentiality based upon answers to questions asked by a third party. "

 

That's incorrect. If a third party asks a question and an attorney answers it by divulging something privileged, the disclosure waives the A-C privilege. It would be a problem.

 

Holy Christ, you're dense. Pay attention here: THERE IS NO CONFIDENTIALITY IF THE DEFENDANT ANSWERS A QUESTION POSED TO HIM BY A THIRD PARTY. There is no such thing as confidentiality if there is someone other than a client and his attorney in the room.

 

Is that really so !@#$ing hard to understand?

[IDBillzFan]

Holy Christ, you're dense. Pay attention here: THERE IS NO CONFIDENTIALITY IF THE DEFENDANT ANSWERS A QUESTION POSED TO HIM BY A THIRD PARTY. There is no such thing as confidentiality if there is someone other than a client and his attorney in the room.

 

Is that really so !@#$ing hard to understand?

 

But then the defendant is protected by the little known Attorney-Client-Some Other Person in the Room Confidentiality clause.

[DC Tom]

Holy Christ, you're dense. Pay attention here: THERE IS NO CONFIDENTIALITY IF THE DEFENDANT ANSWERS A QUESTION POSED TO HIM BY A THIRD PARTY. There is no such thing as confidentiality if there is someone other than a client and his attorney in the room.

 

Is that really so !@#$ing hard to understand?

 

So if the defendant is asked a question by a third party, and answers that question, the defendant's attorney is no longer bound by confidentiality?

 

 

Yeah, I remember seeing that on Law & Order.

[Koko78]

So if the defendant is asked a question by a third party, and answers that question, the defendant's attorney is no longer bound by confidentiality?

 

 

Yeah, I remember seeing that on Law & Order.

 

Yeah, cause that's what I said... word for word. C'mon Tom, you're smarter than that.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Koko78

[John Adams]

Holy Christ, you're dense. Pay attention here: THERE IS NO CONFIDENTIALITY IF THE DEFENDANT ANSWERS A QUESTION POSED TO HIM BY A THIRD PARTY. There is no such thing as confidentiality if there is someone other than a client and his attorney in the room.

 

Is that really so !@#$ing hard to understand?

 

The ridiculous thing you said bears repeating "There is no such thing as attorney-client confidentiality based upon answers to questions asked by a third party."

 

Said another way regarding the scenario you were talking about, since you don't follow your own lahgik, "There is no such thing as attorney-client confidentiality based upon answers [by the attorney Hillary] to questions asked by [the interviewer]."

 

The person answering was Hillary Clinton. The person asking was the third party interviewer. No one else was in the room. Interviewer asked attorney. This is not a scenario where the lawyer and client are talking and someone overhears it. If she answers the third party and mentions something privileged, she waives the privilege.

 

Now Mr. TV Lawyer, do you get it yet?

 

You are wrong. Perhaps you can consult a real lawyer and have them explain this to you.

[Koko78]

The ridiculous thing you said bears repeating "There is no such thing as attorney-client confidentiality based upon answers to questions asked by a third party."

 

Said another way regarding the scenario you were talking about, since you don't follow your own lahgik, "There is no such thing as attorney-client confidentiality based upon answers [by the attorney Hillary] to questions asked by [the interviewer]."

 

The person answering was Hillary Clinton. The person asking was the third party interviewer. No one else was in the room. Interviewer asked attorney. This is not a scenario where the lawyer and client are talking and someone overhears it. If she answers the third party and mentions something privileged, she waives the privilege.

 

Now Mr. TV Lawyer, do you get it yet?

 

You are wrong. Perhaps you can consult a real lawyer and have them explain this to you.

 

Since you seem to want to act like a dumbass and are now intentionally misquoting me to explain my "lahgik", let's review this again:

 

Anything said by the client to the attorney alone is privileged. Anything said by the client (you know, such as being asked questions be a polygraph examiner or in open court or whenever anyone else is in the room) in the presence of the attorney is not privileged. Can you follow this so far? I hope so, because this really isn't as hard as you're trying to make this.

 

Those non-privileged statements are - I would normally assume you could guess this part, but your complete lack of reading comprehension in this thread precludes that possibility - not privileged. That means, because you don't seem to understand this, that the attorney can talk about what was said by her client in the presence of the third party later. Because they're not privileged statements.

 

As for the person interviewing Clinton a decade later, I have absolutely no idea why you think I ever at any point said anything about the person interviewing Clinton mattered, other than a basic lack of reading comprehension.

 

 

 

 

Now I know why Tom just defaults to "you're an idiot". It makes life far easier than responding to this brand of stupidity.

[Alaska Darin]

I'm pretty sure this thread is all the proof anyone will ever need on why the judicial system sucks.

[4merper4mer]

 

 

Now I know why Tom just defaults to "you're an idiot". It makes life far easier than responding to this brand of stupidity.

 

Tom doesn't call people idiots based on their misinterpretation of a poorly written and cryptic statements that seem to indicate a lawyer can answer any question after the fact as long as a third party asks it.

 

In your rush to come to the defense of your girl you left out the phrase .....,to the client during the proceedings, which would have made things more clear.

[John Adams]

Since you seem to want to act like a dumbass and are now intentionally misquoting me

 

You mean where I keep quoting you is where I'm misquoting you? That's new "counselor."

 

 

Anything said by the client to the attorney alone is privileged. Anything said by the client (you know, such as being asked questions be a polygraph examiner or in open court or whenever anyone else is in the room) in the presence of the attorney is not privileged. Can you follow this so far? I hope so, because this really isn't as hard as you're trying to make this.

 

Actually, I explained this to you before. Glad you get it now.

 

Those non-privileged statements are - I would normally assume you could guess this part, but your complete lack of reading comprehension in this thread precludes that possibility - not privileged. That means, because you don't seem to understand this, that the attorney can talk about what was said by her client in the presence of the third party later. Because they're not privileged statements.

 

As for the person interviewing Clinton a decade later, I have absolutely no idea why you think I ever at any point said anything about the person interviewing Clinton mattered, other than a basic lack of reading comprehension.

 

 

Now I know why Tom just defaults to "you're an idiot". It makes life far easier than responding to this brand of stupidity.

 

Here's what you said Boy Blunder. ""There is no such thing as attorney-client confidentiality based upon answers to questions asked by a third party."

 

That statement was in the context of a discussion about Hillary waving A-C privilege based on her answers in the interview. So I'd say that context was relevant. But maybe you were having a discussion with an unseen presence here on PPP.

 

When crayonz goes serious to correct you, you've lost. You'd be better off if he was calling you a Canadian.

 

I suggest you brush up on your law. You're the expert right? Want to go a few rounds on Marbury vs. Madison legal eagle? Roe v. Wade?

[Magox]

A few points, from a political point of view, it absolutely can and should be a liability for Hillary Clinton, and here's why:

 

 

1) I don't know if you guys remember, but when Obama kicked off his campaign to go against Mitt Romney, he addressed the issue of his opponents career in private equity. Basically it went like this, "Mitt was a successful Wall Street guy, he made lots of money of for millionaires and billionaires, there is nothing wrong with that, but it came at the expense of jobs being shipped overseas to place like China, and I don't think those are the sort of qualities the American public want for a president".

 

Never mind the fact that he wasn't being completely forthtelling on his career, but none the less this line of attack became a central part of how they systematically delegitimized his success.

 

Keeping this in mind, here are a few points to consider regarding this case with Hillary.

 

2) Despite what some of the reports say that she was the defendant's court appointed attorney, that is not what Hillary says on the audio. What she says is that the prosecutor contacted her and wanted a female attorney, and if she would do it as a "favor" to him. In which she accepted. Which implies that she voluntarily took the case. That's an important point, simply because you know, Hillary is a "champion" for women and girls.

 

3)

"I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs."

 

Obviously she knew he was guilty. Yes, even if you know your client is guilty, as a lawyer, you are suppose to still give your best defense. But lets just keep this in mind going forward.

 

4) One of the key portions of evidence that defense had, was the missing portion of the underwear that had the blood on it. Somehow the prosecution lost it. Hillary goes on to explain how she found this world-renowned forensic expert, and how she traveled over to New York to see him, and that the purpose of her visit was to show her this underwear that had the missing blood portion to see whether or not it would still be useful evidence for the prosecution. The forensic expert stated according to Hillary "Can't Prove anything" , that it was worthless. She got on the phone with the prosecution, told him "Well this guy is ready to come from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice!" Then she goes on to laugh, in mid sentence mind you.She wasn't obviously laughing at the victim, but she was laughing at the idea of that it was a to "prevent a miscarriage of justice". Completely understanding the irony, the irony in that the real miscarriage of justice was the ridiculously lenient one year sentence.

 

 

5) Knowing that her client was guilty, this is what Hillary had to say in a written affidavit regarding the 12 year old rape victim:

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”Clinton also wrote that a child psychologist told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” especially when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”

 

So she's smearing the 12 year old child's character by basically saying that she was fantasizing hooking up with older men. Yeah, sure, she did her job, but that's cold.

 

 

6) In the interview from the rape victim

 

The victim vigorously denied Clinton’s accusations and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never accused anyone of attacking her before her rape.“I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying,” she said. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.”

 

So she categorically denies it.

 

 

Conclusion:

 

Back to the Romney attack. "Mitt was a successful Wall Street guy, he made lots of money of for millionaires and billionaires, there is nothing wrong with that, but it came at the expense of jobs being shipped overseas to place like China, and I don't think those are the sort of qualities the American public want for a president" Well, that obviously was fair game, because it was part of a narrative that helped elect him as president. For Hillary, sure, she did what some good lawyers would do. She smeared the character of the victim to discredit their claims, despite knowing that they were true and was a little lucky that the prosecution bungled the case with the lost bloody underwear. Good ruthless lawyering skills.

 

 

Great.But for the American public, are those the qualities you want from a supposed champion of girls and women's rights? Hardly. It runs completely counter to that narrative. That she voluntarily took a case to defend a pedophile, she knew that he was guilty, yet she smeared the character of a 12 year old rape victim in order to help secure victory. Then goes on to callously and insensitively smugly chuckles at the irony of her defense that she wanted to "prevent a miscarriage of justice" on the pedophile's behalf.

 

 

"Hillary was a good defense attorney, and she certainly helped some bad folks get out of doing some serious time, which is what some lawyers do, but sometimes it came at the expense of some innocent victims, and I don't think those are the sort of qualities the American pubic want for a president"

Edited June 23, 2014 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

"Hillary was a good defense attorney, and she certainly helped some bad folks get out of doing some serious time, which is what some lawyers do, but sometimes it came at the expense of some innocent victims, and I don't think those are the sort of qualities the American pubic want for a president"

 

For months prior to Barack Obama's initial WH victory, many of us were adamantly pounding the desk trying to explain to anyone who would listen that Obama is a thin-skinned community organizer who couldn't lead a parade if you spotted him a car parked in front of a parade. Few would listen, as most on the left repeatedly and simply accused us of being racists. Today virtually the entire free world -- save the remaining few Obama knob-gobblers -- recognize that Obama has the leadership skills of a mop, and the country and world is all the worse for it.

 

Thanks to the left's ability to interchange the phrase "racist" with "misogynist," we are going to wake up in four years, Hillary at the helm, and many will be thinking to themselves, "Wow, this is one vindictive, spiteful, hateful B word."

 

But again, it will be too late.

Edited June 23, 2014 by LABillzFan