Meet the Real Hillary Clinton

[Flopper]

So are you saying she should have refused to defend the person?

Had you read the entire article you'd know the answer to that question.

I have not only read your link but I'm familiar with the adversarial position argument. For a defense attorney not to offer his client the best defense he can provide is unethical. It is not the job of defense attorneys to decide on the guilt or innocence of their client. If he or she believes a client is guilty and offers less than a best effort defense, then the attorney is not only robbing the client of a fair trial but is taking the decision of guilt or innocent away from the jury. The only way our judicial works is if both the prosecution and the defense do their best to prosecute or defend the accused, leaving the decision of guilt or innocents to the jury.

Everything you assume is wrong. I have a Juris Doctorate from one of the best law schools in the State of Florida and what I told you is what I was taught, which is: The duty to aggressively defend a client does not include lying in court. Lying in court is a violation of the Code of Ethical Conduct for attorneys and judges and can result in punishment. Most attorneys get away with lying because no one finds out about it. Hillary was just plain stupid for admitting she knew her client was guilty.

PS: Here is a link for you. I gave you the first one I found because I don't have that much sand at the top of the hourglass and am not going to waste my time convincing you of what I know to be true.

Lawyer Thinks Client is Guilty: Does It Matter? Criminal Law Process | Nolo.com

As your link says, no attorney really knows if their client is guilty. They may think they are guilty but that does not relieve them of the burden of advocating the innocence of their client. If defense attorneys refused to argue the innocence of their clients because they believed them guilty, there would be no point in a trial. If you are a student of the law, then you know quite well, that for our judicial system to work, the defense attorney must give their client their best possible defense even though they may believe the client to be guilty.

A lawyer is not allowed to lie, period. Mrs. Tuzla lied about a 12-year-old girl well below the age of consent.

A lawyer is not allowed present evidence that they know is false, fraudulent, or perjured. However in cross examination they make certainly ask leading and loaded questions, particular if the witness is hostile.

So are you saying she should have refused to defend the person?

Had you read the entire article you'd know the answer to that question.

I have not only read your link but I'm familiar with the adversarial position argument. For a defense attorney not to offer his client the best defense he can provide is unethical. It is not the job of defense attorneys to decide on the guilt or innocence of their client. If he or she believes a client is guilty and offers less than a best effort defense, then the attorney is not only robbing the client of a fair trial but is taking the decision of guilt or innocent away from the jury. The only way our judicial works is if both the prosecution and the defense do their best to prosecute or defend the accused, leaving the decision of guilt or innocents to the jury.

Everything you assume is wrong. I have a Juris Doctorate from one of the best law schools in the State of Florida and what I told you is what I was taught, which is: The duty to aggressively defend a client does not include lying in court. Lying in court is a violation of the Code of Ethical Conduct for attorneys and judges and can result in punishment. Most attorneys get away with lying because no one finds out about it. Hillary was just plain stupid for admitting she knew her client was guilty.

PS: Here is a link for you. I gave you the first one I found because I don't have that much sand at the top of the hourglass and am not going to waste my time convincing you of what I know to be true.

Lawyer Thinks Client is Guilty: Does It Matter? Criminal Law Process | Nolo.com

As your link says, no attorney really knows if their client is guilty. They may think they are guilty but that does not relieve them of the burden of advocating the innocence of their client. If defense attorneys refused to argue the innocence of their clients because they believed them guilty, there would be no point in a trial. If you are a student of the law, then you know quite well, that for our judicial system to work, the defense attorney must give their client their best possible defense even though they may believe the client to be guilty.

A lawyer is not allowed to lie, period. Mrs. Tuzla lied about a 12-year-old girl well below the age of consent.

Of course a lawyer can lie just like anyone else, just not in a court of law and this case was never brought to trial because the accused plead guilty. As far as what Clinton may have said after the trial was her opinion at the time.

The Clinton opposition must be pretty weak to drag up Clinton's first defense case just out of law school 40 years ago in which she worked as co-council on a case that never came to trial. This is the third time in the last 10 years, rightwing media has tried to gain traction with this.