Tweety demonstrates abysmal ignorance of

the most basic principle of American Law: An accused is innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to have effective representation by a competent counsel to ensure that the State prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Nowhere in that right is it required that the accused's counsel must first believe in the client's innocence.

Tonight Tweety and his pirennial favorite Michelle Bernard did a tag-team hit piece on Hillary based on a tape of an interview Hillary had with a local reporter years ago when, as a young court-appointed lawyer Hillary represented a man accused of raping a young girl in Arkansas. The audio tape of that conversation was the basis for this 'segment'.

Tweety had already (as usual knowing nothing about the actual facts) clearly decided that the man was guilty, and couldn't for the life of him understand how, as a court-appointed lawyer Hillary could possibly have made the State prove the charges against her client. He announced that he 'didn't like criminal defense attorneys' anyway and that he 'knew how they were supposed to behave - he's seen Tom Cruise films and TV shows". Honestly.

Tag to Michelle Bernard who, as an attorney herself, really knows better. She proceeded to go on a long harangue intended to crucify Hillary for having brought the Police's screw-up of losing the only piece of forensic evidence to the court's attention. Bernard spent all of her time (and most of Joan Walsh's) viciously attacking Hillary for having the audacity to represent a person who was accused of rape! Never mind that Hillary had not chosen to take the case but had been legally required to do so (Bernard falsely implied that Hillary had actively sought the case). Never mind that the accused passed a lie detector test. Never mind that the State royally screwed up the case by losing the only forensic evidence against him. Nope. It was just too shocking for her and Tweety that Hillary could effectively represent a person who Tweety and Bernard had already decided was guilty. And, since the man wasn't convicted, why it's obviously Hillary's fault and we need to roundly condemn her for having done so. The final, most damning evidence against Hillary? The audio tape of the interview with the Arkansas reporter has Hillary chuckling about certain aspects of the case as she was discussing it with him! Bernard seems to believe that this by itself is prima facie evidence that the tape is highly damaging and so is certainly going to 'be a big problem for Hillary' in the future.

Joan Walsh, the other 'panelist' was genuinely hard pressed to even get a word in edgewise. She did her best to attempt to explain to both Tweety and Bernard that Hillary had been required to take the case as a court appointed Public Defender. Walsh eventually got so frustrated by the blatant ganging up and totally one-sided presentation that she finally openly accused Bernard of giving a 'slanted presentation'. This prompted Tweety to talk over Walsh and rapidly end the segment.

The notion that any accused person in the United States has the absolute right to be defended at trial by a competent counsel who forces the State to PROVE its case obviously sticks in Tweety and Bernard's craw. In their eyes Hillary's client was already obviously guilty so Hillary should have ignored her oath as an Attorney and her obligation as an Officer of the Court and should have railroaded her court-appointed client because (according to them) Hillary may personally not have been convinced of her client's innocence. Sounds like something straight out of Hannity.