11-06-2016, 02:33 PM
(11-06-2016, 01:20 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You're supposed to be a lawyer...wouldn't being good at hiding the evidence imply people have looked for the evidence? If I've never even been accused, would a good lawyer suspect it's because I'm merely good at hiding evidence?
So if you were a criminal you would not worry about hiding evidence until AFTER you had been accusedf and investigated?
A skilled lawyer like myself would assume that the people who are best at hiding evidence are the ones who have never been accused at all.
(11-06-2016, 01:20 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So putting on your lawyer hat - is lack of evidence proof of innocence?
It is just as much proof of innocence as it is proof of guilt.
Basically you are trying to say that lack of evidence against you only proves you are innocent until you are accused then lack of evidence proves that you are guilty but just good at hiding evidence.
Like I said before, if you are talking about proof of kickbacks and bribes then you have to show what benefit was given for these bribes and kickbacks. Hillary would have no way of hiding those. So what are they?
