Plibersek - Opposition arse clown

Remove this Banner Ad

Todman said:
You probably think Hilary Clinton is a class act even though she defended two men who raped a 12 year old girl.

Back in 1975, after Hillary Rodham had followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas, she helped create the state's first rape crisis hotline.
Hillary served as the attorney to a 41-year-old, one of two men accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. The girl, a virgin before the assault, was in a coma for five days afterward. She was injured so badly she was told she'd never have children. In 2014, she is 52 years old, and she has never had children, nor has she married. She reports that she was afraid of men after the rape.
A taped interview with Clinton has recently emerged; on it Clinton makes clear that she thought her client was guilty, and she chuckles when reporting that she was able to set him free. In a recent interview, the victim said that Hillary Clinton "took me through Hell" and "lied like a dog." "I think she wants to be a role model… but I don’t think she’s a role model at all," the woman said. "If she had have been, she would have helped me at the time, being a 12-year-old girl who was raped by two guys."
Hillary had her eye on the all-caps resume bullet point: FOUNDS RAPE HOTLINE.
Hillary's chuckles when reminiscing about her legal victory suggest that, in her assessment, her contribution to the ruination of the life of a rape victim is of relatively negligible import.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/07/ten_reasons_i_am_no_longer_a_leftist.html​
Click to expand...
Christ, Todman.

Hillary is not an Australian politician. Not everything and everyone is right vs left.

But that article and blurb you posted gives me a strong indication on the type of person you are.

A quick read shows me that Julie Bishop was paid to defend against asbestos charges.
Hillary Clinton was court appointed, and didn't want to take the case. She had to defend the filth.

Don't you think there is a difference between the two situations?
You don't care?
 
Lester Burnham said:
Click to expand...

Yep -Clinton says she was a lawyer doing her job. She requested to be released and was told she had to do it. So she defended her client to the best of her ability. All good.
She probably isn't Robinson Crusoe in defending a person who may have been guilty.
She has done plenty of good work in her career, have a look at that perhaps.
Tea party must be panicking and clutching desperately at any not very pertinent old stuff-they know she is going to roll them.
It will be great-Hillary there and Tania in charge here!;) Can't wait
 

Log in to remove this ad.

romeoh said:
Yep -Clinton says she was a lawyer doing her job. She requested to be released and was told she had to do it. So she defended her client to the best of her ability. All good.
She probably isn't Robinson Crusoe in defending a person who may have been guilty.
She has done plenty of good work in her career, have a look at that perhaps.
Tea party must be panicking and clutching desperately at any not very pertinent old stuff-they know she is going to roll them.
It will be great-Hillary there and Tania in charge here!;) Can't wait
Click to expand...

Lawyer represents client to the best of her ability. Not much to see here as regards Clinton or Bishop.
 
Todman said:
View attachment 70722
Click to expand...
kWJeqRH.jpg
 
Alexa95 said:
I do. I guess going by your logic on the sources you see left leaning papers just as illegitimate too.
Click to expand...
Well -I don't believe that I used that media outlet as a source in this discussion. These claims have been made by other posters and its not unreasonable to question the vested interest of their source.
So why don't you address the point to the posters who did that instead of bringing up an outlet I certainly haven't mentioned. Just strikes me as a little paranoid old thing.
 
Lester Burnham said:
Lawyer represents client to the best of her ability. Not much to see here as regards Clinton or Bishop.
Click to expand...
Except defending a rapist/client, although unsavory, is the basis of our legal system-everyone is entitled to presumption of innocence and a defence.
That isn't quite the same as withholding compensation payments to asbestos victims. Different sort of case I would have thought.
 
Lester Burnham said:
Lawyer represents client to the best of her ability. Not much to see here as regards Clinton or Bishop.
Click to expand...
Absolutely right. Wonder whether they think about labor members who willingly represent or represented criminals from unions such as cfmeu.
 
romeoh said:
Except defending a rapist/client, although unsavory, is the basis of our legal system-everyone is entitled to presumption of innocence and a defence.
That isn't quite the same as withholding compensation payments to asbestos victims. Different sort of case I would have thought.
Click to expand...

Hilary had a pretty good idea her client wasn't innocent. Not making a judgment on her for that. Lawyers act for their clients whether it is defending rapists or on behalf of industrial companies and government departments.
 
Lester Burnham said:
Hilary had a pretty good idea her client wasn't innocent. Not making a judgment on her for that. Lawyers act for their clients whether it is defending rapists or on behalf of industrial companies and government departments.
Click to expand...
There is still quite a difference between Clinton's case= one of the tenets of a fair legal system. Innocent until/ right to a lawyer etc
And Bishop's= delaying payments so a greedy, culpable company can save money.
Can you see how that is not the same?
What is Clinton doing on this thread in any case?
 
romeoh said:
There is still quite a difference between Clinton's case= one of the tenets of a fair legal system. Innocent until/ right to a lawyer etc
And Bishop's= delaying payments so a greedy, culpable company can save money.
Can you see how that is not the same?
What is Clinton doing on this thread in any case?
Click to expand...
Bishop is required to serve in her clients best interest. This is what she did.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

romeoh said:
There is still quite a difference between Clinton's case= one of the tenets of a fair legal system. Innocent until/ right to a lawyer etc
And Bishop's= delaying payments so a greedy, culpable company can save money.
Can you see how that is not the same?
What is Clinton doing on this thread in any case?
Click to expand...

Because I said something bad about Bishop, they need to go international in a faux defence of her.

As you say, Bishop was actively involved in litigation which was prescribed to prevent cancer sufferers from gaining their rightful compensation.

Clinton was an appointed defence lawyer in a criminal case.

The gap between the two is broader than the Grand Canyon.
 
I find most of the women on the Labour front bench arrogant and paternalistic - worst being Pilbersek, Ellis, Wong, and previously Gillard.

Burke and Bowen come off as simple and straight forward men and I find them appealing as future leaders.

Nonetheless, not sure if the future Prime Minister of the Labor party is even a current shadow minister.
 
Alexa95 said:
Absolutely right. Wonder whether they think about labor members who willingly represent or represented criminals from unions such as cfmeu.
Click to expand...
So many threads to choose from and you end up here bring up CFMEU. There is another thread for that, this is about the great Ms Plibersek, one of my heroes.
 
Alexa95 said:
Bishop is required to serve in her clients best interest. This is what she did.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to get it.
Clinton was defending a person, not yet convicted. Entitled to a fair criminal trial. Then if your client is found guilty-so be it.
A judicial inquiry found Hardie had behaved very badly and so compensation would be a good way to help redeem themselves ( so that is tantamount to being found 'guilty' already, under different criteria).
So the wrongdoers have been identified, and they are your clients and they have behaved very badly and you are helping them withhold money from sick people.
Well, it may be representing your client but it speaks to a lack of ethical rigour.
 
slicedndiced said:
Because I said something bad about Bishop, they need to go international in a faux defence of her.

As you say, Bishop was actively involved in litigation which was prescribed to prevent cancer sufferers from gaining their rightful compensation.

Clinton was an appointed defence lawyer in a criminal case.

The gap between the two is broader than the Grand Canyon.
Click to expand...
Exactly-cannot see why we are having this discussion! For crying out loud!
 
Empire_Persian said:
I find most of the women on the Labour front bench arrogant and paternalistic - worst being Pilbersek, Ellis, Wong, and previously Gillard.

Burke and Bowen come off as simple and straight forward men and I find them appealing as future leaders.

Nonetheless, not sure if the future Prime Minister of the Labor party is even a current shadow minister.
Click to expand...
So you like the strong, majestic type like Speaker Bishop or wishy washy Julie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blue Arrow
  • Poll
Plibersek for Prime Minister now!
Replies
10
Views
706
Johnny Bananas
Johnny Bananas
HurleyHepsHird
Opposition Arseclown Part VI XV IX XII V XVIII, cooker Alex Antic
Replies
5
Views
824
E Shed
E Shed

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top