Originally posted by no1marauderSomehow I doubt this is true in Arkansas during the 70s.
Generally judges will accommodate indigent defendants on trivial matters like this. If he wasn't happy with his PD and if there were assigned counsel available, what is the BFD with naming one? The guy was facing a charge that could get him 30 years to life; why not get him a lawyer he's comfortable with?
More likely this guy had a connection and the judge was just as corrupt as Hillary.
Originally posted by EladarYou've obviously failed to show any of that; defending an accused charged with a crime hardly endorses the crime they are accused of.
This is just one of many instances where Hillary demonstrates that she is not pro woman.
Hillary is just another liar running for President. I am just pointing it out.
Since so many libtards around here have such strong feelings about rape I wanted to see them once again show themselves to be hypocrites.
Rape is ok as long as Hillary is involved.
Originally posted by EladarLMAO! If he had a connection, he wouldn't have assigned counsel in the first place.
Somehow I doubt this is true in Arkansas during the 70s.
More likely this guy had a connection and the judge was just as corrupt as Hillary.
The guy was 41 years old and worked part time in a bag factory.
Originally posted by EladarIt's up to the legal system to determine if someone is a rapist or not. In this case, he pled to a lesser felony of Unlawful Fondling of a Child and got five years, with all but one year of the sentence suspended.
Helping a rapist go free is the problem. But of course he wasn't a rapist because Hillary defended him.
So he isn't a rapist according to the law. Whether he was, in fact, one neither you or I or anybody who wasn't there on the night of May 10, 1975 really knows.
Originally posted by EladarYes, you never know who might have soooooooooooooooooooooo much influence as to get a judge to assign someone a couple of years out of law school with little experience in criminal law as their attorney in a case that could get them 30 years to life.
You never know who he is related to or who is a friend of the family.
Originally posted by no1marauderIf a person is found guilty he did it.
It's up to the legal system to determine if someone is a rapist or not. In this case, he pled to a lesser felony of Unlawful Fondling of a Child and got five years, with all but one year of the sentence suspended.
So he isn't a rapist according to the law. Whether he was, in fact, one neither you or I or anybody who wasn't there on the night of May 10, 1975 really knows.
If a person is found innocent he didn't do it.
Got it.
Originally posted by no1marauderNever question actions of your betters. Got it.
Yes, you never know who might have soooooooooooooooooooooo much influence as to get a judge to assign someone a couple of years out of law school with little experience in criminal law as their attorney in a case that could get them 30 years to life.
Originally posted by joe beyserI don't understand why you would feel the need to just randomly make up stuff about a flawed candidate like Clinton. Why don't you look at her actual proposals and criticize them? It's not hard.
You will find that those who claim to champion the rights of women and minorities most are those secretly fighting against them. Take a look at Hillary.
