
sheeeit
-
Posts
763 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by sheeeit
-
-
Pretty good show. I have to really disagree with people defending Cummings. If the following is correct (hard to remember everything) then she absolutely should have withdrawn.
The McCarty's, apparently, recommended Cummings to Greg. This seems fine and logical as the McCarty's had used her before. Nothing sinister. However, when Cumming's own investigator said they needed to look at Jonathan, she should have recused herself. The argument that she asked Greg about that approach is not credible. He is not an expert in criminal law and criminal defense techniques. At one point in the interview with the second victim the victim actually said the person that he was with was "Jonathan". He was asked again and said the same thing. A decent defense attorney could get that tid bit in while still claiming the acts did not happen. It just shows how tenuous the memories and testimony of small children can be. It also gives the jury a possible other suspect if they believe something did happen but not sure it was Greg. No reason at all not to get it on the record. Conflict is not always obvious but it helps to look at it from the other perspective. If it were found out later that the prosecutor had a personal relationship with the McCartys and had evidence that Jonathan could be involved and buried that evidence, everyone would rightfully be outraged.
The timeline is also something she should have gone after. By seemingly all accounts, a sexual assault crime reported in mid July was almost certainly to have occurred recently. This should have been pressed much harder. Again, it can be easily incorporated into the "no crime occurred" angle. The boy accused Greg at a time when Greg was no longer there.
The thing about juries, and people in general, is that everyone has their own opinion about things and different evidence is viewed differently by different people. As a result, every potential angle that sheds doubt should be included.
Lastly, to me, the really shitty thing Cummings did was her testimony at the hearing. People are now saying she neeeded to preserve her reputation etc. Those are not invalid points. However, she was interviewed by Hampton many, many times about what she would testify to. There was a clear understanding of what she would say. Then, on the day of or day before the hearing, she changed her tune. That is bullsht to me. If she did not want to get involved or wanted to protect her image then say that in the beginning. Not after hours and hours of prep work by all involved. Total chickenshit move.
-
1
-
-
“Oh..he dead”.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, HtownHorn said:
Twitter gave a platform for the dumbest morons in society to remove all doubt from the rest of the population how stupid they are. It is the Cloak Room on the cream and the clear.
Might be a bit high but high five for “the cream and the clear” reference. Can’t stop laughing
-
40 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:
I just read the DA's review of this. It alleges that Mitchell had a gun between his legs that he was both trying to conceal and reach for.
It turned out to be an air rifle. Which really makes me doubt that he was reaching for it.
Not to derail too much but I was curious too and read the DA report. I am not sure you really did read it. They literally have a picture captured from the cop cam before the shooting that shows the air rifle between the guys legs. I am not sure it matters if he reached for it or not. If anyone, regardless of race, is sitting in a stolen car at night with a weapon between their legs and the cops come up, you will get shot if you do not tell the cops it is there.
As for the Minn case, I am glad they have charged the cop with murder and glad they charged the other cops at the scene. Maybe this will deter cops for covering for each other in the future.
-
Pretty good debate. Lots of good suggestions. To me, there is really only one bottom line- the union. Cops are human and human nature is always going to be human nature for all of eternity (with exception of true sociopaths etc.).
The union set up has made the policing of their own detrimental to the ones doing it. No system is ever going to work if it requires people to do things that are against their own self interests. That is just human nature. If a good cop sees a bad cop doing something wrong and reports it, the union is going to defend the bad cop and make a pariah out of the good cop. A system like that will always fail.
I read on here the cop in Minn had 18 complaints filed against him. As mentioned, hard to know If that is a lot but it seems like a lot. However, he obviously was never fired. It is really, really hard to fire a police officer. Really hard. And it should not be but the union has tremendous power. Everyone who has had kids go through school knows who the bad teachers are at the school. Everyone. But we just hope our kids dont get them because they almost can not be fired. Cops are the same way. In every precinct everyone knows who the bad actors are. Everyone. Yet, they cant say or do shit because the union will protect the bad apples and then the good guys get shit on.
We need to have a 3-5 person panel made up of the police chief and a group of officers that are elected by their own. That group should have 100% power to fire anyone on the force. No questions asked and no appeal. Its certainly possible someone could get fired unjustly but life sucks sometimes. I would also have no problem with all of the transcripts/evidence from these hearings reviewed by the DOJ.
Although it may be unpopular right now, we do need to consider what we are asking of cops. The pay is terrible. The hours are long. The stress is high. They deal with an underbelly that is psychologically demoralizing. And there is no doubt it attracts a certain personality type. I would advocate for a much more tiered pay scale for cops. Start lower but have the ability to get much higher. Use the initial years to weed out the bad apples and then retain the quality ones and pay them to stay.
Not an apples to apples comparison but you will get the gist. I worked for years with trade unions- carpenters, welders, electricians, plumbers etc. You would have 5 guys on a line and 1 would be worthless, 3 would be adequate and 1 would be a stud. Yet, you could not fire the worthless one and you could not pay/reward the stud more than the others. In the end, the studs go do something else and everything gets dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. It is the same currently with cops.
-
7 hours ago, Goo Punch said:
5 Gretzky's would beat the college national Champion 23-0. it would be laughable how easily they'd score. It would be like 5 prime Larry Bird's taking on UVA or Michigan State. It just wouldn't even be close.
This is just fun debate and obviously very subjective, but I do not think you ever played hockey or watched much hockey, certainly not live. How would 5 180 pound guys that are phenomenal skaters and puck handlers etc ever stop another team from scoring? Do you know how physical hockey is? They would beat the 180 pound guys down to a pulp. The 180 guys might not even come out for the 3rd quarter. The college guys could hang out in front of the goal and not one of the 180 guys could move them. Every time a puck went into the corner (which happens 50+ times a game) the 180 guys would get bludgoned.
6 hours ago, Goo Punch said:Gretzky wouldn't make a great defenseman; but what does that have to do with his status as the GOAT? Nothing.
Well it kind of does. When you say NOBODY, I will agree that NOBODY says Gretzky is not the greatest offensive player of all time. NOBODY disputes that. But for the GOAT of all of hockey, you just ignore defense and physicality.
This debate was whether or not MY was a bigger GOAT in basketball than Gretzky in Hockey. I am arguing that Jordan was the very best offensive player in the game. Still holds the highest season scoring average (in an era where total scoring was much lower), holds the highest playoff average all time, holds the highest finals average all time, etc. Plus he is included on almost any list of greatest nba defenders. Holds the record for most 1st team all defense. No one comes close to those combinations.
-
6 hours ago, Goo Punch said:
to put it more succinctly: NOBODY disputes that Gretzky is the hockey GOAT. Nobody. Lemeuix, Ovechkin, Crosby, whoever the best has been at any random time in my life, NOBODY thinks that there's an argument that any of them is even the equal of The Great One.
Perhaps you just don't look very hard. You can google many, many experts that think Orr was better.
Don Cherry- Hard to find more of an expert (played professionally and watched more games than anyone alive)- He says it is Orr. He is certainly "somebody".
More: https://puckprose.com/2016/07/23/bobby-orr-is-greatest-hockey-player-of-all-time/,
Steve Simmons- Arguably the greatest hockey sports writer of all time. Ranked the 100 best in NHL history and has Orr 1 and Gretzky 2. https://nationalpost.com/sports/hockey/nhl/wayne-gretzky-was-great-but-bobby-orr-is-the-greatest-steve-simmons-ranks-the-nhls-100-best-players
Obviously these are just opinions but when you said NOBODY (3 times) thinks anyone else is the goat I gave you 2 unquestionable hockey experts (as opposed to dorks like me who's opinion is just that) that publicly state Orr was better. The point being, there is certainly a debate.
Personally, I think gretzky is the GOAT but , again personally, I think Orr has a better argument for GOAT than any other basketball player has to MJ.
-
2 minutes ago, aggie08 said:
You had me until the last sentence. Seriously, what the fuck?
I believe it. They would all be injured in the first quarter. Seriously though, in his heyday Gretzky was maybe 180 lbs? A team of all Gretzkys could never dig the puck out of the corner. Could never move people out from in front of the goal. Teams would score at will against them. On defense, the other team would just sit back a bit and mug. Games would be like 10-4 against. Hockey is incredibly physical and a team of Gretzkys just could not compete physically. Gretzky had decent speed but was very, very quick and one of his biggest attribute was his agility, in that he could get to a top speed and not lose any agility. He also had incredible hands and an innate feel for the game. But no hockey team ever could compete with just guys like Gretzky. No Houston Rockets/ Golden State Warrior small ball teams. The game is just to physical.
-
At the risk of being booted, I kind of liked the Dr Beeper arguments and kind of agree with him. If say Emmit Smith or Deion Sanders or Christian Mcaffery or any 100 or so world class football, basketball players decided at age 15 to quit their sport and focus entirely on cycling, I think it is very, very likely they would have been a world class cyclists. If Lance, or any great cyclist, quit cycling at 15 and focused on literally any other sport, they likely would not even be good enough to be a college standout. Not to say they are not great athletes and they certainly dominated their sport but they did not compete against the greatest athletes in the world.
On the actual show, I was a big Lance defender until the bitter end but when he said he basically sleeps well at night then it is obvious he still does not get it and is not the least bit sorry for his actions.
-
1
-
-
On 5/31/2020 at 12:24 PM, Goo Punch said:
last night I was drunk, and angry. that said, here in the sober light of day I'm still completely tired of seeing Rex everywhere I go, opining on shit that he is completely clueless about as if he were actually an expert, and/or just saying indefensibly stupid/uninformed shit. last night was the first time that I responded to him "with a bazooka" as he put it, but he's been deserving of the bazooka treatment for a hot minute now. here's the last three things I've seen Rex posting about:
1-About 8 posts in a row blaming Ahmaud Arbery for his own murder. Seriously. The literal stupidest shit I've ever seen posted. Didn't respond to him once, because what the fuck is the point of even arguing with that type of idiocy?
2-Emphatically claiming that Wayne Gretzky is nowhere near as clear of a GOAT in his sport as MJ is in his, when in fact the exact opposite is true. He *knows* that he doesn't know a single fucking thing about Wayne Gretzky, but will that stop him from acting like he's a Gretzky biographer? nope. I politely corrected him this time.
3- "Steph Curry is a PG the same way Allen Iverson was a PG." Again, not just factually wrong, but completely fucking stupid. Only someone who has absolutely no clue what he's talking about could even type that out and post it, but again, that has never stopped Rex. It's a completely lazy and uninformed take. Steph Curry, a point guard, isn't a PG in Rex's mind because all Rex knows about him is that he scores a lot. I can't wait for Rex's take on how Lamar Jackson is a QB the same way Ronnie Brown was in Miami since they both are good at running.
I regret nothing and apologize for nothing. Rex sucks dicks for quarters, which is normally fine when he's not frequenting the same threads as I do. This last week+ of having to listen to his uninformed and retarded takes is only making the present even worse than it already is.
And Rex, I'm not being mean as I "disagree with you", you are saying factually incorrect and stupid shit and I am insulting you for it. Big difference.
Not getting into this fight but I will take exception with your point above about Gretzky. I think Gretzky is the GOAT in hockey but it is not nearly as clear cut as MJ in basketball.
Gretzky was the all time GOAT of GOATS offensively in hockey but he was, self admittedly, a liability on defense. Tom Brady can be argued as the GOAT in football but was he really better than say Lawrence Taylor? Impossible to know. But we do know that Gretzky sucked at defense. Bobby Orr was a great offensive player. He is still 4th all time in points per game average and Gretzky is number 1 but the spread between the two is not that big (1.4 to 1.9) but Orr is considered the greatest nhl defender ever. He was NHL defensive POY 8 times, still a record. He also won the scoring title a few times in his career. The delta between the offensive greatness of Gretzky and Orr is way, way smaller than the delta between them as defenders. Orr is in the top 15 of offensive hockey players ever but Gretzky cant crack the top 500 defenders. All of that to say that Gretzky is still the GOAT but there are very good arguments for others.
During his run, MJ won both scoring titles and defensive titles. It is not even close. 6-0 in finals and mvp all 6 times. Only player in leauge history to win a scoring title, finals, finals mvp and 1st team all defense in the same year, and he did it 4 times.
Think of it this way, a 5 man team of all Jordans probably still wins an NBA championship. A 5 man team of Gretzkys couldnt beat a college team.
-
I really like all of these guys. I already had insights into the actual personalities of all of them except Brady. It always amuses me when you see the guys behind the cameras how they are actually kind of dorky, except for Payton. Brady calling everybody baby was kind of surreal. He sounded like a complete and total doofus.
if I was going to rank them on who I would enjoy playing in a member guest with it would be Manning, Mickelson, Woods and a distant Brady. Don’t get me wrong. He is an amazing athlete and an all-time great. He is probably a super guy but I just don’t think he would be that much fun to hang out with.
-
Tough one. Good arguments can be made for all of them. If we are talking 2020 NBA where 3’s are hyper valued and it is necessary for point guards to create their own shots I would say:
nash, cp3, payton, stock, kidd
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:
That mumbo jumbo about him maybe not lying is in the factual background, which is a disorganized mess.
In the argument portion, the only issue they discuss is materiality of the lie. Correction, there is a half-hearted paragraph toward then end where they give some lip service to being unable to prove the lie.
Had Flynn not pled guilty instantaneously with being charged, he would have had the right to transcripts, more than likely. The reason the transcripts are mentioned repeatedly is to reinforce the idea that his lies were immaterial.
OK. Maybe we just disagree. I assumed that the reason the DOJ did not spend much time on the lie aspect was because Flynn's petition did not rely on it. Obviously, everything goes into the equation when two sides are arguing. At the end of the day (especially because the transcripts were never produced) the defense went with a different legal tactic. This is similar to the fact that Flynn;'s plea made no mention of FARA, or Logan Act, or his son's prosecution etc. But all of those things were obviously very important in his decision making.
We will also just have to disagree on the transcript part. Lets take Flynn out of the equation. Do you think it is "right" for the govt to be able to go to a person and accuse them of lying and then not have to share with them the evidence that they have regarding the lie? I am talking from a big picture prospective. It just doesnt seem right to me that the govt can go after someone and cause them considerable financial and reputational harm and use that as leverage to get them to cop a plea and never have to actually show them the evidence. It is like the govt saying we have the proof and it is going to cost you millions of dollars in legal fees to see it. I just did not think the system worked that way.
Anyway, I appreciate the feedback and insights.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:
Folks can read Flynn's statement of offences. It isn't secret. Check out who signed page 6.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download
What do you think that proves anyway? You think people have never plead to things they were innocent of? It happens daily.
How about this other "public" statement anyone can read:
QuoteYeah. Flynn took money from Russia and Turkey and hid it from the US government. That was not legal. Flynn interfered with Obama’s foreign policy by negotiating with Russia and lied to Pence and the FBI about it. That was not legal. Russia and Turkey would have been able to hold all of those illegal actions over Flynn’s head while he was head of the DNI. Flynn was a clear risk to US national security. He should have known better. Flynn isn’t a victim. He’s another example of those around trump with malfeasance tempered by incompetence.
Stupid is as stupid does.
-
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:
The exculpatory nature of that evidence is extremely remote.
While the Brady obligation is serious, evidence can be viewed as exculpatory in hindsight very easily.
Even the government's motion to dismiss does not contend that he didn't lie.
It contends that the lies were not material because they were no longer investigating Flynn's ties or wrongdoing vis a vis Russia.
You can read the motion here. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-dojs-motion-to-dismiss-charges-against-michael-flynn
What's funny is, it doesn't really lay out a coherent story about what was wrong with the investigation. It just recites a bunch of little irregularities and Page and Strzok.
I get all of that, and I just used 1 example. You are the attorney, but it certainly seems to me that if you were negotiating a plea deal regarding your client lying to the FBI and the agents that did the interview stated that they did not think your client was lying, that you would be able to use that in your negotiations. Especially considering they (flynn and his lawyer) never got to see the transcript. If in a 5 minute phone call there was 10 seconds of Kislyak asking about sanctions and Flynn telling him they would talk about that after the inauguration (a completely forgettable 10 seconds) then you would tell the fbi to go pound sand.
And without getting way off in the legal weeds, it is being alleged that the fbi used prosecuting his son as leverage against flynn to plea. I don't think there is anything wrong with that but don't they have to disclose that in his plea? Since they were wanting to use him in future cases as a witness, doesn't the other team and the jury deserve to know that the fbi used prosecuting his son as leverage? Shouldn't that have a bearing on his credibility?
I am not sure you are correct about the governments motion. It does include this ""The Government is not persuaded that it could show that Mr. Flynn committed a false statement under its burden of proof," the filing said. "The statements in question were not by their nature easily falsifiable. In his interview, Mr. Flynn offered either equivocal ('I don’t know') or indirect responses, or claimed to not remember the matter in question." Seems like that says they didn't think he lied or, at a minimum, that they could prove it.
I am genuinely curious why you (and any other attorneys on here) will not comment on the fact that the govt was able to put pressure on flynn for lying in his call and not have to give him a copy of the call transcript.
-
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:
He waited six weeks?
We're still waiting for Trump to do something.
Hard to tell how much teeth all these have but it is incorrect to say this admin has not done anything to Russia.
And yes, Trump is still an idiot.
-
1 hour ago, Longhorn said:
What would be the crime committed if he did “talk materially about sanctions” on the transcript?
If he did talk materially about sanctions then it would be very, very hard to say he didn't remember doing so to the fbi. In that instance, he should be charged with lying because the lie would be 1) intentional/knowingly and 2) material to an underlying investigation about russian election interference. Number 2 would still be a little specious but it would certainly cause more scrutiny.
Hopefully we get the transcript. What has been "leaked" is that when asked about sanctions by the fbi, he said something to the effect of "i dont remember talking about sanctions specifically. We might have but I don't think so." It was reported that Kislyak asked about sanctions in some capacity and Flynn said Trump and Putin can discuss that on their call after the inauguration.
-
Captain Ant, Hayduke etc are really trying hard to not look at the facts. Flynn may be a bad guy but even bad guys deserve due process.
As mentioned previously, Flynn was NEVER acting as some secret foreign agent and never hid ANYTHING from the public or government. For his dinner with Putin, Flynn notified the DIA (that is the intelligence arm of the Defense Department) prior to his trip, was briefed and counseled by the DIA on what to expect and look for in his trip and was then debriefed by the DIA when he returned. Nothing secretive or unethical or illegal at all.
On the Turkey stuff, Flynn registered as a lobbyist and signed a contract from a private business and private individual that had ties to Turkey. Flynn asked counsel who he should file the contract with and counsel told him to file with Congress through the Lobbying Disclosure Act because his client was not the government and no government funds were used to pay him. He did file with them. Again, nothing secretive or unethical or illegal at all.
On his guilty plea, as mentioned by the attorneys above, people plead guil;ty to things they are not guilty of all of the time for lots of reasons. I agree that if Flynn simply wanted a "do over" I would say fuck him, he plead so he needs to accept the deal he made. However, as we now know based on the recent files being declassified, the FBI hid exculpatory evidence from Flynn and his lawyer. Just as one simple example, the FBI uses their "notes" as evidence all of the time. As a result, they were legally obligated to turn over any notes they had on Flynn. The original FBI agents that interviewed Flynn and detailed the interview said the case on him should be closed and that, the fbi interviewers told their superiors that they did not think Flynn lied to them. Obviously, those notes alone would have a huge bearing on whether or not he would make a deal. it would be extremely difficult to convince a jury he was lying when the original interviewers claimed he was not lying and they had the transcript of the call between Flynn and Kislyak already and no new information was added.
The fbi signed 3 sworn affidavits with the judge saying they had provided all of the evidence they were required to give. 3 times. They lied.
Further (and I would love either Wulaw or Twice to chime in on this), the fbi never made the actual transcript of the call between flynn and kislyak available to flynn or his lawyers. I really don't see how that is legal but it appears it is.
Hopefully the call transcript gets released. If Flynn, did talk materially about sanctions, then he should go to jail. If he didn't, then the fbi guys should go to jail.
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:
Like many things it was probably legal because you cannot prove the intensions of the parties. Flynn's first lawyers were bending over to get on the right side of the special counsel and were willing to make a deal on the condition that evidence would not have to be revealed.
Not sure I follow. Are you suggesting Flynn's original lawyers were just trying to appease the special counsel so they could cut a good deal for Flynn? That when they cut the deal, they knew there was more evidence out there but agreed to bury it in order to cut a deal? That sounds like malpractice.
-
45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:
No, most pleas occur some time after the case is fully charged, indicted. Usually months, sometimes years, see, e.g., Lori Laughlin. In that interim, the government is subject to its Brady obligations and the obligation is not discharged or mooted by the guilty plea. But it is ended by the guilty plea: you have no right to further discovery once you plead.
But when you plead before you are even charged, you pretty effectively waive any right to receive any discovery at all.
As an aside, I am curious about your take on the withholding of the transcript of the call between Flynn and Kislyak from Flynn and his lawyers. Did you know that was legal? That kind of shocks me. If I read it correctly, you can be questioned by the FBI about a phone call and then later the FBI can come back to you and accuse you of lying about the phone call and when you say that you did not lie and ask them to show you the transcript of the call where you are accused of lying they can basically say no. Then they can start grinding on you and costing you tons of money and you do not even know how to respond because there is no record for you to see and, of course, you likely have no memory of the actual call specifics. How would you personally counsel someone in that situation?
-
28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:
No, most pleas occur some time after the case is fully charged, indicted. Usually months, sometimes years, see, e.g., Lori Laughlin. In that interim, the government is subject to its Brady obligations and the obligation is not discharged or mooted by the guilty plea. But it is ended by the guilty plea: you have no right to further discovery once you plead.
But when you plead before you are even charged, you pretty effectively waive any right to receive any discovery at all.
Thanks. Sounds like he had inept lawyers. Is there a distinction between what he had a right to receive and what the DOJ told him? Not sure how to phrase the question, but in reading about the case, it says that on at least 3 occasions the prosecutor, Van Grack, signed sworn affidavits to the judge that he had turned over everything he was required to turn over. Obviously that was a lie as we now know. It just seems strange that the government can get into court, in front of a judge on multiple occasions, and swear they had turned everything over, and then make a deal that says you can't have any more info after the deal.
Seems it would be nearly impossible to counsel your client that way. If counsel tells their client, we have seen all of the evidence and based, on that, you need to plead because they will gut us if we go to court, so you plead. But then later find out the prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence, you have no recourse? I know the law is funny sometimes but that just doesn't make sense.
Is the distinction "pleading before being charged"? Obviously there was a ton of back and forth between the parties as they hammered out a deal. So is it just a technicality that he shouldn't get discovery after a plea?
-
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:
Counterpoint.
By pleading guilty simultaneously with being "indicted,"** Flynn waived his right to discovery from the government and any right or claim under Brady for wrongful withholding.
**I say indicted because he was never indicted. His plea agreement was filed simultaneously with an information charging a crime. An information is filed before a case is given to a grand jury. A defendant has the right to have his case put before the grand jury. Flynn waived that, too.
Interesting. Is that the case in any plea deal? if I am understanding what you are saying, the government can withhold exculpatory evidence from a defendant and if that defendant pleads guilty, then the government gets away with it? That seems unlikely? What am I missing?
-
22 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:
Totes norms. - 'stasis' Mom
This is and was completely normal.
-
23 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:
Paige was never indicted. I doubt the public is going to find it earth shattering that a FISA was granted to listen to a guy who is a self-proclaimed "informal advisor to the Kremlin", while the Kremlin was engaged in digital warfare against the US.
Lulz. Page said he was an advisor to the Kremlin in his marketing of himself for his own financial benefit and said it was on energy related matters. There are 1000s of other finance folks, and 1000s of attorneys and 100,000s of business guys that tout their relationship with russia and the Kremlin. Are they all spies? Should we surveil all of them?
greg kelley's guilty verdict overturned
in Daily Texan
Posted
This line of thinking is completely ridiculous considering how Cummings changed her entire approach the day of the hearing. It is inexcusable. She leads them on for hours and hours and hours of work and prep time and strategy etc preparing for the hearing. She is a huge part of their case. She knows this and is helping all the way up to the end. Then at the last minute decides her professional reputation is more important than her client getting out of prison for a crime he did not commit.