Quote:
Originally Posted by shazeep
can't figure out if just Stockholm Syndrome, or what
Ah, her first case, defending a child rapist, how apropos.
The recordings, which date from 1983-1987 and have never before been reported, include Clinton’s suggestion that she knew Taylor was guilty at the time. She says she used a legal technicality to plead her client, who faced 30 years to life in prison, down to a lesser charge. The recording and transcript, along with court documents pertaining to the case, are embedded below.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/ |
Isn't a defense attorney's job to ensure that the letter of the law is followed by the prosecution? It's the prosecution's job to offer a seamless case to prosecute a person. Innocent until proven guilty in accordance to the law. Now, does that mean that I'm happy that a child rapist got off? No. However, I'm more upset that the prosecution was sloppy enough to allow an attorney to exploit technicalities to protect their client from prosecution. If you can't trust an attorney to use technicalities to protect you're freedom, who can you trust?