U.S. Elections: Apocalypse upon the horizon

[OldGimletEye]

23 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

 But the accused deserves competent, legal representation regardless of how the victim, or anyone else, feels.  And the people who defend them should be praised, not condemned.  Simple as that.  

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with my post or just adding to it.

But, yeah, basically I agree with what you're saying here. Even if a person feels there is something wrong with with criminal process in the US, you know, Clinton isn't the one that started it. When she defended that client, the US basically had the same criminal legal system, for 200 years, more or less. She was doing what she had been taught or learned from other practitioners

Also, if you're a criminal defense lawyer and you're on the fence about investigating something, you probably should investigate it, even if you have doubts said investigation will turn anything up. And if you're on the fence about filing a motion on behalf of your client, you probably should file the motion, so long as it isn't downright frivolous.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, BloodRider said:

Isn't that illegal.  I mean the first time it happened, I wrote it off as ineptitude, the second time as brashness, this time he deserves to get dinged by the law.

Is that because he's soliciting donations from foreigners, or because he's pledging to match the donation up to $2 million?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Disregarding the "up to $2 million" part, the thing about matching donations is just bizarre. It's his campaign. Shouldn't he have donated as much as he could already?

[DraculaAD1972]

35 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, both of those things are true. She is angry at Clinton, and does think that Clinton lied (though I'm not sure about what, precisely). That is certainly her view, and I'm very sympathetic towards it. It does not, however, indicate a moral failing. 

Here's the problem I have with your viewpoint: what was Clinton to do otherwise? If she refuses to represent this rapist, her clinic idea is gone and the notion of representing the poor is out the window. Or worse, she gets put in contempt and someone else represents him anyway. If she fails to do a good job in representation, the judge and the whole system looks at her as either incompetent or in contempt. And if she attempts to aid the complainant in any way after she is the representative of the defendant she is unable to practice law in any capacity for the rest of her life. 

 

 

I absolutely agree that she was obliged to do her job effectively. I understand that this is what defenders do. I'm not saying defenders should be barred from office. But imagine if it was Trump on record with such comments. I get that people become cynical and use laughter as a way of dealing. So perhaps I'm conflating this with other possible evidence of Hillary's character, such as Juanita Broaddrick's testimony, Benghazi, Hillary's crazed comments about obliterating Iran, the email secrecy, the lie about being shot at, the Haiti controversy, this is by no means an exhaustive list. She is not fit to be president. She is a danger to the world, as is Trump. But I get that Trump is a more immediate danger to Americans. And I was impressed by Hillary's debate performance.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, MerenthaClone said:

So, back in the day, I showed up on-scene to an accident where a drunk driver had head-on'd into another car. First EMS unit on-scene, others en route.  The drunk driver was obviously the more injured based on initial triage.  My partner intubated him while I went to stabiliize the other injury.  Other units arrived, took over care of the first, and we booked it the fuck out of there with the drunk driver in the back.  Should the family of the other driver be mad that the drunk who caused the accident got treated first?  Probably.  Would I be, were I their family?  Of course.  Did we make the right medical, ethical decision?  You bet your ass.  People are allowed to be upset by the outcomes of some systems.  I'd be pissed as fuck were I the victim, too.  But the accused deserves competent, legal representation regardless of how the victim, or anyone else, feels.  And the people who defend them should be praised, not condemned.  Simple as that.  

 Really well put. Kudos. Those rules are there for a very good reason. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is that because he's soliciting donations from foreigners, or because he's pledging to match the donation up to $2 million?

 Soliciting donations from foreigners, despite being warned on a couple of occasions that this is illegal.

 http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/288031-trump-campaign-solicits-illegal-foreign-donations-despite-warnings

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

I absolutely agree that she was obliged to do her job effectively. I understand that this is what defenders do. I'm not saying defenders should be barred from office. But imagine if it was Trump on record with such comments. I get that people become cynical and use laughter as a way of dealing. So perhaps I'm conflating this with other possible evidence of Hillary's character, such as Juanita Broaddrick's testimony, Benghazi, Hillary's crazed comments about obliterating Iran, the email secrecy, the lie about being shot at, the Haiti controversy, this is by no means an exhaustive list. She is not fit to be president. She is a danger to the world, as is Trump. But I get that Trump is a more immediate danger to Americans. And I was impressed by Hillary's debate performance.

I think the key difference is that Hillary was assigned, and legally and ethically bound to take steps to defend the alleged criminal, which can involve entering into distasteful territory in carrying out that duty which is fundamental to the proper functioning of the legal system. Whereas if Trump as a private citizen business man rocked up on some news channel and started casting baseless aspersions on the reliability and psychological stability of a girl who accused his friend of rape, then that would be deserving of condemnation.

I'll refer you also to this piece which specifically shows that Benghazi and the emails in particular do not warrant being included in the list of things that should objectively disqualify Hillary from the office of the president. Even though you would be justified in being very annoyed about it.

 

[James Arryn]

Lots of points to cover. 

Re: lesser evil/trolley, first unlike many here I do happen to think this qualifies as two evils as opposed to evil vs. unlikeable. My principle concern with US Presidents is foreign policy, and the fact that Clinton's a hawk, the fact that every single one of us know right now, today that she will choose to kill foreigners in foreign lands for the sake of US material gain is IMO a form of evil. It's one US voters are very used to their leaders making, and have therefore become very comfortable with, but that doesn't change what it is. War should always be the last resort, but what makes a hawk a hawk is that it very much isn't. 

Now, that said, this is also a clear example of a lesser evil compared to Trump. For one thing, he might be just as evil re: foreign policy, and likely much more combustible. Secondly, though foreign policy is my primary concern, his domestic policy philosophy is so riddled with evil that it has made it much more of a concern for me. Third, I think the most powerful nation putting that kind of overt bigot in charge is just a horrible precedent for the world.

Right now the world seems to be leaning back to the right, and bigotry is making a bit of a comeback, but a Trump win would hearten all kinds of racists, sexists, homophobes and religious bigots out there. The incidents of outright 1950's style racism that followed on the immediate heels of the Brexit win are the kinds of things I'm talking about, and this would be yet another even bigger win for the forces of turning back the moral clock.

Re: Clinton's defending an accused rapist. I'd never actually heard about this before, and it's interesting, but (aside from the laughing part, which I don't understand) I don't see anything she did that could be considered wrong. Unless you object to the entire principle of a justice system based on the presumption of innocence, she did what she's supposed to do. In an adversarial system, none of the parties are supposed to embody justice in and of themselves; justice is the end result of the grind between two opposing forces overseen by a judge who ensures that the grind occurs within the legal parameters. So I don't think she'd have been wrong even if she had gone to trial...or defended someone accused of a racially motivated murder, or someone who's supposed to have bombed a mosque, or w/e. Yes, there are defense lawyers out there who try and break the system to make money getting accused criminals off, but the evils present there are the willingness to break the rules and the monetary motivation. The willingness to represent accused criminals is simply not an evil in this process. I cite the Thomas More speech from A Man For All Seasons re: giving the devil the benefit of the law. The law can either be trusted to apply to everyone or it cannot be trusted to apply to anyone.

There does seem to be something of a recent movement to suggest that the presumption of innocence should not apply to sexual assault cases, but that's a frightening prospect to me. 

Re: shaming Clinton with Bill's infidelity, I still don't understand how his cheating is her burden to carry. If we're talking about her behaviour towards his accusers, okay, that's on her. But I can't for the life of me see how she is accountable for his behaviour. Now that said, I've read today that in the debate she cited Bill's economic policy success as to her credit, and I don't really get that being on her slate either, but these are slightly different types of faulty reasoning. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I really don't get Benghazi. Yes it was a tragedy. Yes there could have been better security for Ambassador Stephens.

But the lack of security was partially due to the Ambassador's own overconfidence. Was there realistically enough time to authorize and anlayze whatever reponse (drone strike, SEAL team 6, whatever) after the attack began to rescue the ambassador. I mean it's not first, and won't be the last time US diplomatic staff were killed by terrorists.

[OldGimletEye]

12 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

So I don't think she'd have been wrong even if she had gone to trial.

Just want to point one thing. It's never the attorney's final decision to go to trial or not go to trial. That final decision is for the client to make.

Now you can and should give advice on what the client should do based on your best professional opinion of the client's chances of prevailing at trial, but it's his decision  to ultimately make. Not the attorneys.

[Starkess]

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So basically you're saying competent defence attorneys should be automatically disqualified from running for president because they got guilty people off, even though, in this case she didn't actually get the guy off.

I mean, it's not like our second President presented a robust defense of British soldiers who killed Boston citizens during the Boston Massacre or anything.

[OldGimletEye]

16 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

I really don't get Benghazi. Yes it was a tragedy. Yes there could have been better security for Ambassador Stephens.

I think it's pretty simple. For years, Republicans liked to hold themselves out as the ones competent at foreign policy and military affairs. And generally, the public believed them on that. They had that credibility.

And then came Dubya, who ruined all that. Republicans knew he was a disaster. Anyone remember General Shinseki? Back when the Chicken Hawkery was strong?

Being pissed about Dubya ruining their credibility on foreign affairs and military affairs, they tried to hit Obama hard on something they've traditionally been seen strong on in the public's mind.

That, and well, they have always hated Hillary.

[LongRider]

9 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But the accused deserves competent, legal representation regardless of how the victim, or anyone else, feels.  And the people who defend them should be praised, not condemned.  Simple as that.  

Well said, and thank you. 

Trump and his 'law and order' bellowing really scares me.  That type of 'law and order' fills up prisons with minorities given over long sentences. That is not the path to racial justice nor does it make lives better for the minority communities he is trying to convince us he wants to 'help.'  It's a dog whistle to let his supports know he'll gladly put the brown folks in jail. 

ugh

[Mexal]

Well, I guess he's not going to change his debate preparation for the next one. Seems he actually bought the narrative sold to him by his reddit/4chan supporters who used bots/macros to vote in every open poll immediately posted by a website.

[mormont]

8 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Well, I guess he's not going to change his debate preparation for the next one.

No, Trump thinks the problem was that he didn't hit Clinton hard enough, not that he didn't hit the books hard enough. Winging it got him this far, why change?

[OldGimletEye]

I think the Great Depression was largely caused by monetary problems. Specifically both the Bank of France and the United States Federal Reserve hoarding too much gold and causing deflation.

Had the Great Depression had not happened or the response been better to it, then maybe World War 2 would have never happened. Plus there is the plain old fact that millions of people were put of work, causing untold misery. Here in the United States unemployment reached about 25%.

The hard money men of the 1930s were wrong back then. And their progeny, today's hard money clowns are wrong today.

The inadequate response to the last financial crises has been extremely hard on many people. The doctrine of “expansionary austerity” was a failure. If the response had been better, then we might not have seen the rise of people like Trump in the first place.

Over the last eight years the Republican party’s statements about monetary policy has been truly cringe worthy. Statements pushing for the return to the gold standard are insane.

And what does Trump do? He doubles down on the crazy. His latest from the debate.

“We have a Fed that’s doing political thing...."

Source Here

Well of course, if the Fed raised rates right now we “would see some bad things happen.” Like duh!!!

The discussion we should be having is how do we get out of this low interest rate and low inflation environment without causing deflation or reducing the nominal flow of spending. And this issue isn’t only confined to the US. Most countries are having similar issues. But, what Trump chooses to do is engage in a bunch of conspiracy mongering. He either knows better and his being completely cynical here. Or Mr. “You can’t touch my awesome business experience” truly just doesn’t know what he is talking about. Of course, I guess to be a little fair to him, he’s just repeating standard conservative nonsense.

 

[OldGimletEye]

47 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Well, I guess he's not going to change his debate preparation for the next one. Seems he actually bought the narrative sold to him by his reddit/4chan supporters who used bots/macros to vote in every open poll immediately posted by a website.

Just livin in his own little world, isn't he?

[sologdin]

9 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Yes, there are defense lawyers out there who try and break the system to make money getting accused criminals off, but the evils present there are the willingness to break the rules and the monetary motivation. The willingness to represent accused criminals is simply not an evil in this process. I cite the Thomas More speech from A Man For All Seasons re: giving the devil the benefit of the law. The law can either be trusted to apply to everyone or it cannot be trusted to apply to anyone.

even this does not necessarily indicate a defect.  defense counsel's job is to frustrate the plaintiff's/prosecutor's case, and it is certainly consistent with the postmodern bourgeois liberal order for them to expect reasonable remuneration therefor. as long as the frustration proceeds in accordance with the ethical rules for attorneys, the rules of court/procedure/evidence, and the applicable substantive law, it  is not something about which anyone should complain--lest the complainers be revealed conclusively as agitators against the rule of law itself.

and here's the bolt text, just because it is indeed beyond kickass:

Quote

 

MARGARET Father, that man's bad.

MORE There is no law against that.

ROPER There is! God's law!

MORE Then God can arrest him.

ROPER Sophistication upon sophistication!

MORE No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal.

ROPER Then you set man's law above God's!

MORE No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact-I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God . . .

(He says this last to himself)

ALICE (Exasperated, pointing after RICH) While you talk, he's gone!

MORE And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

ROPER So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

 

 

[BloodRider]

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is that because he's soliciting donations from foreigners, or because he's pledging to match the donation up to $2 million?

Soliciting donations from foreigners.

[OldGimletEye]

11 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Yes, there are defense lawyers out there who try and break the system to make money getting accused criminals off, but the evils present there are the willingness to break the rules and the monetary motivation. The willingness to represent accused criminals is simply not an evil in this process. I cite the Thomas More speech from A Man For All Seasons re: giving the devil the benefit of the law. The law can either be trusted to apply to everyone or it cannot be trusted to apply to anyone.

.

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

even this does not necessarily indicate a defect.  defense counsel's job is to frustrate the plaintiff's/prosecutor's case, and it is certainly consistent with the postmodern bourgeois liberal order for them to expect reasonable remuneration therefor. as long as the frustration proceeds in accordance with the ethical rules for attorneys, the rules of court/procedure/evidence, and the applicable substantive law, it  is not something about which anyone should complain--lest the complainers be revealed conclusively as agitators against the rule of law itself.

and here's the bolt text, just because it is indeed beyond kickass:

 

I just want to add a little more to this. The United States has an adversial system. Under that system, nobody has an obligation to prove the other side's case. Certainly there are ethical rules about affirmatively putting forth material misrepresentation of fact to a tribunal or another party. That is an ethical violation for attorneys. But, basically, so long as attorney doesn't do that or help or permit his client in doing it, there is no obligation under the adversial system to help the other side out or to be fair.

Maybe the adversial system isn't the best system of obtaining justice. But, that is another debate and I don't hear conservatives questioning the basic nature of the US system of justice. Certainly, it would be odd for them do so, since they often talk about "what this country was founded upon."

Let's say you're a criminal defense lawyer. You're talking to client in private. And during this conversation the client basically admits to committing a crime. Maybe he did what the state actually charged him with or maybe it's a lesser included offense. Can you, at that point, run off and tell the prosecutor, the judge, or the victims that your client is guilty? No you can not. What he told you is privileged. And you are required to keep mum about that information.

Suppose the same client, who admitted to you that he was guilty, insist on taking his case to trial. Are you acting unethicaly as criminal lawyer if you respect the client's wishes. No you are not. The accused is entitled to make the state prove its case. And as the attorney, you are expected and entilted to question and poke holes in the state's case.

Now let's say you take the case the trial knowing full well your client is guilty. That situation can present some thorny ethical issues for the attorney because you are never allowed to affirmatively make a material misrepresentation of fact. For instance, knowing your client is quilty, you couldn't put him on the stand to testify that he didn't committ the crime. But, you can and are entitled to do things like cross examining the state's witnesses, questioning their version of events, their memories, biases, and if expert witnesses, their qualifications and so forth.

Here is another example. Suppose your handing a drunk driving case. And your client admits to you in private that he was three sheets to the wind when he got pulled over, but in your opinion, after investigating the case, there were some irreqularities in the stop. Should you refrain from filing a motion to supress evidence just because you know the client was in fact quilty of drunk driving. No you should file the motion. Not doing so would be professional malpractice.

Also, often, when a criminal lawyer initially takes in a client, the criminal lawyer often doesn't know if the client is truly quilty or not. Now as the criminal lawyer investigates the facts he may very well come to the belief that the client is in fact quilty, even if the client insist he isn't. But whatever the criminal lawyer comes to believe about the client's guilt or innocence doesn't matter as it isn't the criminal lawyer's job to play judge and prosecutor under the US legal system. The criminal lawyer's job is to give the client the best advice and representation possible, without breaking the rules of professional conduct. If criminal lawyer believes the client is quilty, but believes the state's case isn't strong, then he needs to advise the client to take the case to trial. That's the way it works under the US system.

And the fact is the actions of prosecutors aren't always on the level. They often engage in some mighty suspect behavior. Usually, the main problem is just over-charging defendants. The potential for abuse of the state's privileges to punish criminal wrongdoing is enormous. And that is the reason why we have chosen to give criminal defense lawyers wide lattitude in our system. Innocent people do get convicted and go to jail. And people do get overcharged for offenses.

This whole thing about Hillary's defense of a criminal client is the result of an overactive conservative imagination. It's yet another episode in the story of the conservative that cried wolf one too many times.