Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

US Election Thread 2016


Red Phoenix
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure because i'm not knowledgable on criminal law but i think they have something known as the American model where they can refuse cases on moral repugnancy and have more freedom over refusing a client.

You're right. Just checked. But there's exceptions. Such as when the court appoints a designated lawyer. As appears to be the case re: this rape trial.

 

Not much Clinton could do about it, without severe career repercussions, by the looks of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, threatening to throw a political opponent in jail if you win an election is something you'd expect from Mugabe or some other semi-dictatorial loon.

 

Hasn't Corbyn pledged to have Tony Blair tried for war crimes if elected Prime Minister?

 

Not that I disagree with your point, like...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hasn't Corbyn pledged to have Tony Blair tried for war crimes if elected Prime Minister?

No, he hasn't. He said that if Blair has committed a criminal offence under international law he should stand trial for it. Which a supporter of the rule of law such as yourself will unequivocally agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hasn't Corbyn pledged to have Tony Blair tried for war crimes if elected Prime Minister?

 

Not that I disagree with your point, like...

Yeah.

 

He was prancing round that stage at the Echo Arena, leading chants of "lock him up! lock him up!" and pledging to put "crooked Tony" in Walton.

 

It was exactly the same as what Trump done did.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton has friends that include Rothschilds. If the Trumpoid tried to put her in prison if he won, he'd probably be persuaded otherwise at some point.

He'd have no power to put her in jail. Basic Montesquieu separation of powers stuff. The only thing he could do is push for a judicial prosecution/enquiry. And, then, even the slightest hint of influencing that forum by Trump would render it and it's ruling to be biased and corrupt.

 

It's just (more) empty populist posturing from Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He'd have no power to put her in jail. Basic Montesquieu separation of powers stuff. The only thing he could do is push for a judicial prosecution/enquiry. And, then, even the slightest hint of influencing that forum by Trump would render it and it's ruling to be biased and corrupt.

 

It's just (more) empty populist posturing from Trump.

 

Yeah it was a stupid thing to say. It was worth a laugh and had some entertainment value, but he's not helping himself at all saying things like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they have a smoking gun then why aren't they using it?

 

They claim to be all about openness and accountability. If that was true, they would just release all the stuff they have.

 

Instead, they time their releases to impact upon the election. That makes them a political pressure group, not a bunch of whistleblowers.

 

Incidentally, if they have all this stuff on Clinton, they must also be sitting on a mountain of stuff about Trump. One should definitely ask why they're not releasing any of that, and why we have to hear about Trump boasting about sexually assaulting women from conventional news outlets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they have a smoking gun then why aren't they using it?

 

I've no idea if they have a smoking gun or not, or what that could even relate to. Was just sharing the link and am probably going to be on twitter for a while seeing what people have found from what's new.

 

Might try and post back with a summary of a few things later, or at least link the best article I can find that does the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They claim to be all about openness and accountability. If that was true, they would just release all the stuff they have.

 

Instead, they time their releases to impact upon the election. That makes them a political pressure group, not a bunch of whistleblowers.

 

Incidentally, if they have all this stuff on Clinton, they must also be sitting on a mountain of stuff about Trump. One should definitely ask why they're not releasing any of that, and why we have to hear about Trump boasting about sexually assaulting women from conventional news outlets.

By your own standard then the mainstream press is a political pressure group?

Yay or nay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just listened to the recording, turns out she didn't laugh at the 12 year old girl, she was laughing at the situation. But she was almost bragging that she got the man off on a rape charge and admitted she knew he was guilty by saying "I had him take a polygraph...which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs". 

 

In fairness i don't think that's uncommon for a criminal defence lawyer but it does show her complete lack of morals that she knew a man raped a 12 year old and didn't have any scruples about defending him. Nor did she seem to care about justice not being carried out and getting a pedophile off with a two month suspended sentence.

 

It's generally the job of a criminal defence lawyer to provide a defence for the alleged criminal.

 

It's hardly her fault the prosecution fucked up an open goal of a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as they openly come out and support candidates then...

Hey it was a straightforward question he doesn't answer. I didn't prejudge his answer either way but if he agrees then all the press hold things back for legal and other reasons.

When they released military files wikileaks were accused of releasing dangerous information.

I suspect it's assanges publicising his outfit by serializing it that grates him but all the mainstream media outlets do that and I never heard him cry about that process once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...