I recently made a blog post about the disgusting tactic aimed to derail a high-office appointment of a candidate because of the candidate's history of being a criminal defense attorney and representing an "unpopular" client.
The tactic actually worked in derailing President Obama's choice to nominate a worthy candidate #JudgeJaneKelly and instead to nominate a white male with no history of criminal defense Judge Merrick Garland, against whom a disciplinary complaint/letter was recently filed, and the complainant seeks to testify at Judge Garland's confirmation hearing, if that hearing ever happens.
The letter, addressed to Judge Garland, contains a phrase: "As chief judge, you have fostered a culture of corruption in the E. Barrett
Prettyman Courthouse".
We truly needed to reject nomination of an honest criminal defender to instead put on the U.S. Supreme Court another corrupt judge, who is "strongly deferential" to "big government" power.
Being "strongly deferential" (in other words, biased) in favor of the government, the government that appears in front of Judge Garland in civil rights cases in the federal D.C. Circuit of Columbia Court, as a defendant - is, obviously, a good qualification for advancement to the top positions in the U.S. Government.
Being an honest criminal defense attorney opposing efforts of the government to accuse, often falsely, often on false evidence, individuals and put them through the hell of the American criminal "justice" system is, instead, a disqualification from a high governmental office in the U.S.
Since the tactic worked with #JudgeJaneKelly and, previously, against President Obama's nominee Debo P. Agebile who was not confirmed for the position of the Director of the Division of Civil Rights in the U.S. Justice Department because of his successful motions on behalf of an unpopular criminal defendant. In other words, Mr. Agebile was, allegedly, a bad candidate for public office because he was a good criminal defense attorney and civil rights attorney who took his job seriously - the tactic is now used against presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
While being no fan of Hillary Clinton for the position of President of the United States, as a dispassionate observer of the circus that the presidential campaign has become, I can state that the use against Mrs. Clinton of the fact that she represented - as an assigned counsel - in 1975, a person accused of child rape, indicates that her opponents are getting desperate.
The attack also shows that people have no understanding of the concept of presumption of innocence, claiming that she represented "a child rapist".
No, she represented a person who was presumed innocent, and was accused of child rape.
Even when attorneys represent people convicted of most heinous crimes, even conviction in this country - with rampant judicial and prosecutorial corrutpion and now-frequent exoneration, some of them from death row, many of them because of prosecutorial misconduct - even a conviction is not conclusive proof that that particular person committed a crime.
An innocent person facing death penalty will most likely falsely confess to save his/her life.
95% or more of criminal cases are "resolved" in this country through plea bargains, where often innocent people accept the lesser of two evils.
To blame an attorney to try to defend people in such situations - especially when such an attorney, like in Mrs. Clinton's case in 1975 - was court-appointed, is to put constitutional law of this country on its head.
And - once again, before casting such allegations, opponent of Mrs. Clinton should think whether they look as they looked when they used this little smear tactic against her - desperate.
No comments:
Post a Comment