Trump vs Clinton. Biggest debate in world history 2am tomorrow. Will you be there?

[claig]

The entire world's movers and shakers, swindlers and fakers, public money piss-takers will be watching in trepidation at what Trump will do to them. The entire world's great and the good, high and the mighty, shifty and flighty will be supporting Hillary. Will you be with the people supporting Trump?

Have you got the ice cream, the chocolate, the biscuits and the matchsticks to keep the eyelids open ready?

As a warm-up, here is Sky News's 30 minute documentary shown last night

"Trump. Could it really happen?"

We will have to agree to disagree on that one claig

I dont doubt that we are just as corrupt as the USA

But they are just as secretive,

claig: ...but a lot of it is at least in the open because it is a free society where they can't stop the truth coming out

The Edward Snowden stuff, you mean?

Kimberley Guilfoyle who is a Fox host, and an attorney, as are lots of the Fox hosts, says on a video called "HILLARY Clinton "Took Me Through Hell"" that Hillary voluntarily chose to defend the child rapist, "she made a choice, she was not a public defender, she took thsi on as private counsel".

yes and i will say the same thing again

Kimberley wasnt there and only ever practiced in the 90's

She has got no idea what it was like to be a female lawyer in the 70's

This is the original Daily Beast article

"Exclusive: ‘Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,’ Rape Victim Says

The woman at the center of the scandal over Hillary Clinton’s defense of an alleged child rapist speaks out in depth for the first time.
...

"For the victim, the tapes prove that while Clinton was arguing in the affidavit that the victim could have some culpability in her own attack, she actually believed that her client was guilty. Taylor’s light sentence was a miscarriage of justice, the victim said."

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html

'Kimberley wasnt there and only ever practiced in the 90's'

Have you ever watched Kimberley Guilfoyle? She is top-notch, smart and clever as is Andrea Tantaros and the other attorneys on Fox. They know all about the justice system and politics and know most of the movers and shakers in politics and the system as well.

claig, I'm not misrepresenting any facts, I'm directly quoting what the prosecutor said. Why would he lie? And I notice no-one else who was there has contradicted him. You seem to be querying aspects of US court procedure which even Trump's acolytes don't question.

I assume the state was paying for the defence lawyer. I suspect the system is similar to the dock brief system we had before the days of legal aid, when an indigent defendant would ask for a lawyer and the judge would pick one for him. The judge wouldn't know or, probably, care how experienced the lawyer was. The prosecutor acts for the state, not the victim.

There is no reason why the court would not facilitate a request for a woman lawyer. It's no skin off anyone's nose, and they would risk an appeal if they refused a request like this without good reason.

As for Ann Coulter, she is generally known as the person Katie Hopkins aspires to be. Have a look at this, , for example.

This defendant ended up pleading guilty, thus avoiding the victim having to go through cross-examination. Perhaps Clinton's work brought that about?

' I'm directly quoting what the prosecutor said. Why would he lie?'

And I am directly quoting what Hillary said on the tape where she said the prosecutor asked if she could do "a favour" because the defendant wanted a "woman lawyer".

'I assume the state was paying for the defence lawyer. '

According to former attorney, Kimberley Guilfoyle, Hillary took the case voluntarily as a private counsel and not as a public defender.

'This defendant ended up pleading guilty, thus avoiding the victim having to go through cross-examination. Perhaps Clinton's work brought that about?'

'Taylor’s light sentence was a miscarriage of justice, the victim said."

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html

But when you take into account what happened to the forensics, it sounds like if that had not been messed up, it may not have been cut and dried.

But he pleaded guilty - what is the relevance of the forensics being messed up?

Blaming Clinton for the sentence is another piece of Trump deceit. The prosecuting attorney agreed a plea deal involving a lesser charge that carried a maximum 5 year sentence. The judge sentenced him to 5 years but suspended four, and allowed two months' credit for time served against the remaining year. And the evidence is that it was the complainant and her mother who pushed for a quick plea deal to avoid a trial. The victim said publicly that her mother, who had recently been left by her husband, wanted to avoid the "humiliation" of her daughter giving evidence in open court; she was so eager to achieve a deal that she coached her daughter in what to say and interrupted police interviews.

Plea bargains aren't at all unusual. In 2014, for instance, 97% of all criminal cases, including rape, were resolved by a plea bargain, and the figures were very similar in the 1970s. The victim was reported in 2008 as saying she bore Clinton no ill will.

claig no one is arguing that Clinton was compelled by law to take the case, just that she was asked to do it. And why shouldnt she have taken the case anyway? Should female lawyers not defend rapists?

'But he pleaded guilty - what is the relevance of the forensics being messed up'

Because "The prosecuting attorney agreed a plea deal involving a lesser charge that carried a maximum 5 year sentence. The judge sentenced him to 5 years but suspended four, and allowed two months' credit for time served against the remaining year."

and the victim says it was a miscariage of justice.

I don't know, but I susect that if the forensics had not been messed up then there would not have been this plea bargain on a lesser charge with the light sentence.

'claig no one is arguing that Clinton was compelled by law to take the case'

We had a quote saying that Hillary was forced to take it and "couldn't very well refuse" the Judge's request.

'And why shouldnt she have taken the case anyway? Should female lawyers not defend rapists?'

She was not a criminal case lawyer with hardly any experience in that and she took it on voluntarily as part of "a favour" according to what she says on the tape and I think she should not have taken it as a favour since that wasn't a law case that she usually took even though she says on the tape that it was a "fascinating" case.

And I am directly quoting what Hillary said on the tape

You mean, you're deliberately cherry-picking the bit that suits your agenda whilst ignoring what she wrote and what the prosecutor said, even though you appear to accept that the prosecutor has no reason to lie.

Kimberley Guilfoyle was not there and has no direct knowledge of the system operating in the state in question in the 1970s. Why does it matter if the defendant was made to pay for his lawyer? It doesn't change the fact that Clinton had no choice in the matter.

Although the US bar does not operate a cab rank rule such as the one that applies to barristers in the UK, I understand that they operate on the basis of very similar principles. There is a general principle, protected by the constitution, that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, which includes the right to legal representation of the accused's choosing. Therefore as a lawyer you don't refuse to act for someone accused of a crime you may find repugnant, because of his right to a fair trial and because, unless you were there, you don't know whether he was guilty or not. If he pleads guilty, as a lawyer you must put forward the best possible mitigation for him.

It would be incredibly dangerous and irresponsible for us, or the US, to get rid of that principle. It would lead to gross miscarriages of justice with innocent people accused of horrendous crimes being unable to defend themselves properly because they could not find a lawyer willing to be associated with them, purely because of the nature of the charge.

The fact that Trump thinks the fact that a lawyer who honourably complies with this principle should be the subject of criticism and misrepresentation for it 40 years later shows precisely how little he understands fundamental principles about the right to justice and a fair trial. And that in turn shows how dangerous he is.

It's the nature of plea bargains that they involve lesser charges. If the forensics had been that badly messed up, it would have been in the defendant's interests to plead not guilty.

She didn't want to take the case, the prosecutor pointed out to her that she couldn't very well refuse a judicial request. Do you think lawyers should refuse to act for people accused of rape? What if the accused is innocent?

'You mean, you're deliberately cherry-picking the bit that suits your agenda whilst ignoring what she wrote and what the prosecutor said, even though you appear to accept that the prosecutor has no reason to lie.'

Can you tell me when Hillary wrote that and whether it was after the tape had been released to the media?

'It doesn't change the fact that Clinton had no choice in the matter.'

Kimberley Guilfoyle says that Clinton was not a public defender, she took it on voluntarily as a private counsel. I expect that Kimberley has enough contacts and sources to be able to check the facts.

Clinton wrote it in her biography in 2003.

Guilfoyle obviously didn't talk to the prosecutor, who was there and who was supremely qualified to give her the facts. Or maybe she did, but found what he had to say inconvenient.

'it would have been in the defendant's interests to plead not guilty.'

According to Ann Coulter, also a lawyer, the girl was in a coma for 5 days.

'Clinton wrote it in her biography in 2003.'

Thanks. The tapes surfaced in 2014.

' The tapes surfaced in 2014.'

Which is why the victim gave an interview to the Daily Beast in 2014 when she discovered what was on the tapes.

Kimberley Guilfoyle's legal experience is limited to eight years in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and she hasn't practised since 2004. What Guilfoyle knows about legal practice in Arkansas twenty years before she started practising law is close to zero.

OK, you are right.

According to Ann Coulter, also a lawyer, the girl was in a coma for 5 days.

That would be Ann Coulter, who is known to be an ultra right wing bigot who wouldn't know the truth if it hit her in the face. The girl says she and her mother wanted a plea bargain.

The victim gave an interview in 2014 because right wing journalists decided to wind her up. What she said in 2008, nearer to the time in question, is inherently more reliable. Moreover, it is backed by what the police said.