Rape Victim: Hilary put me through Hell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilary Clinton spoke with a Southern drawl on the tapes? She moved to the South in 1975 when she was already an adult. This doesn't seem a credible assessment of what is on the tapes. Sounds more like she was a lawyer who had a legal duty to defend her client, one who was assigned to her through her firm's pro bono agreement, not one she sought out.

are you surprised Hillary drags out her Southern drawl when it's convenient? She does it quite frequently.

Oh please. Of all the reasons to attack her. I slip into it too if I'm speaking with people from the south. It happens organically. Get over it.

I'm sure it does. And when you visit California you talk like a Valley girl, and when you visit Boston, you talk like a Yahd Bahkah don't you?

Keep defending her.

NP. Setting aside the question of Clinton's behavior, the focus on the southern accent is bizarre and unfair. I grew up in blue collar Massachusetts, with a Boston accent that would curl your ears. I came to DC for college and have lived here for 20 years. I no longer have a Bostn accent, at all. I never tried to get rid of it, it just faded away and now I sound like any other mid-Atlantic resident. If I had moved to Alabama, I bet I'd have a twang now.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why so many people take issue with this whole story.

She discredited a 12-year old rape victim when she was a defense attorney by putting a statement in the affidavit about the mental stability of the child.

Then, in Nov., 2015, as a candidate for president, she makes the following tweets:

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

So, as an attorney, she lends doubt to the credibility of the child’s story in the affidavit "because it was her job."
Then, as a candidate, she says all rape victims should be believed "because it is her job."

Just a bit of conflict here........Which is it?

You discredit yourself. The statement in the affidavit had absolutely no impact on anyone. It didn't discredit the girl or anyone else. The case was resolved without the affidavit because the State lost key evidence.

It impacted the VICTIM. Read the article.

I've read the article. The victim was impacted by the incompetence of the prosecutors who threw away evidence. The victim didn't get upset with Clinton until recently when the tape was released.

Can you see why it was painful for the victim to hear Clinton's laughter on the tape? I feel for her. Once again, I understand that the affidavit was not used and that no laws were broken. It is still pretty awful.

I am the pp whose dad quit criminal law when he got a racist murderer a $1 fine. When he spoke about that case 50 years later, he looked like he would cry every time. I took that to heart and I am having some trouble excusing Hillary's behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, generally speaking, yes, it's wrong to even attempt to undermine the character of a 12-year-old girl who was raped. But I see defense attorneys as an exception to that general rule, because our entire criminal legal system only works if the defendants are afforded a zealous advocate who fights tooth and nail for their clients -- innocent or guilty. It's the only way we can hope to ensure that those found guilty are in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Laws that stated that a rape victim's character was relevant in a rape charge were wrong, and it's right that they were changed. But while they were on the books, I would expect nothing less of a defense attorney to use what was available to represent her client well.

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, generally speaking, yes, it's wrong to even attempt to undermine the character of a 12-year-old girl who was raped. But I see defense attorneys as an exception to that general rule, because our entire criminal legal system only works if the defendants are afforded a zealous advocate who fights tooth and nail for their clients -- innocent or guilty. It's the only way we can hope to ensure that those found guilty are in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Laws that stated that a rape victim's character was relevant in a rape charge were wrong, and it's right that they were changed. But while they were on the books, I would expect nothing less of a defense attorney to use what was available to represent her client well.

This!

Lining up here too

[Anonymous]

I have to wonder how the victim’s mother felt about this whole case.
I know that had it been my daughter, I would have been livid with the treatment she received from the whole damn legal system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to wonder how the victim’s mother felt about this whole case.
I know that had it been my daughter, I would have been livid with the treatment she received from the whole damn legal system.

Yes, and Hillary Clinton got a good laugh out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why so many people take issue with this whole story.

She discredited a 12-year old rape victim when she was a defense attorney by putting a statement in the affidavit about the mental stability of the child.

Then, in Nov., 2015, as a candidate for president, she makes the following tweets:

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

So, as an attorney, she lends doubt to the credibility of the child’s story in the affidavit "because it was her job."
Then, as a candidate, she says all rape victims should be believed "because it is her job."

Just a bit of conflict here........Which is it?

You discredit yourself. The statement in the affidavit had absolutely no impact on anyone. It didn't discredit the girl or anyone else. The case was resolved without the affidavit because the State lost key evidence.

It impacted the VICTIM. Read the article.

I've read the article. The victim was impacted by the incompetence of the prosecutors who threw away evidence. The victim didn't get upset with Clinton until recently when the tape was released.

Can you see why it was painful for the victim to hear Clinton's laughter on the tape? I feel for her. Once again, I understand that the affidavit was not used and that no laws were broken. It is still pretty awful.

I am the pp whose dad quit criminal law when he got a racist murderer a $1 fine. When he spoke about that case 50 years later, he looked like he would cry every time. I took that to heart and I am having some trouble excusing Hillary's behavior.

Well, you can't expect Clinton or anyone else to react the same way your dad did. Look, no one is saying that the victim isn't entitled to feel how she feels. I imagine that ANY reminder of that case would be painful for her. But you have to understand that most attorneys are pretty removed from what they do on a day to day basis. That's not to say they are cold-hearted people in general. But it's a job, and a tough one at times, and to do that job, you often have to distance yourself from it. A lot of criminal defense attorneys who do this for a number of years get burned out for this very reason and it all takes a toll. But not everyone would react the same. Feel however you want about Clinton, but I don't think this is a good example of how terrible of a person she may be.

[Anonymous]

I hate that fake southern accent. She uses it when it's to her advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why so many people take issue with this whole story.

She discredited a 12-year old rape victim when she was a defense attorney by putting a statement in the affidavit about the mental stability of the child.

Then, in Nov., 2015, as a candidate for president, she makes the following tweets:

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

So, as an attorney, she lends doubt to the credibility of the child’s story in the affidavit "because it was her job."
Then, as a candidate, she says all rape victims should be believed "because it is her job."

Just a bit of conflict here........Which is it?

You discredit yourself. The statement in the affidavit had absolutely no impact on anyone. It didn't discredit the girl or anyone else. The case was resolved without the affidavit because the State lost key evidence.

It impacted the VICTIM. Read the article.

I've read the article. The victim was impacted by the incompetence of the prosecutors who threw away evidence. The victim didn't get upset with Clinton until recently when the tape was released.

Can you see why it was painful for the victim to hear Clinton's laughter on the tape? I feel for her. Once again, I understand that the affidavit was not used and that no laws were broken. It is still pretty awful.

I am the pp whose dad quit criminal law when he got a racist murderer a $1 fine. When he spoke about that case 50 years later, he looked like he would cry every time. I took that to heart and I am having some trouble excusing Hillary's behavior.

Well, you can't expect Clinton or anyone else to react the same way your dad did. Look, no one is saying that the victim isn't entitled to feel how she feels. I imagine that ANY reminder of that case would be painful for her. But you have to understand that most attorneys are pretty removed from what they do on a day to day basis. That's not to say they are cold-hearted people in general. But it's a job, and a tough one at times, and to do that job, you often have to distance yourself from it. A lot of criminal defense attorneys who do this for a number of years get burned out for this very reason and it all takes a toll. But not everyone would react the same. Feel however you want about Clinton, but I don't think this is a good example of how terrible of a person she may be.

Believe me, I know that most attorneys are removed. And my dad was not always a great guy, to be honest. He was a lawyer and he did what lawyers do, but he did have a conscience and he did not talk about other people's extreme suffering with laughter.

[Anonymous]

And this is exactly what's wrong with our country. People rely on flashy headlines instead of facts and have no understanding of or appreciation for our system of government and legal system. So many people twist "facts" to fit their preconceived ideas. Remember that article, but it's my opinion? No, it's not your opinion, you're actually just wrong. Factually wrong.

This entire thread is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Are you people fucking serious

I would do absolutely everything she did if asked to represent a criminal defendant

What the fuck is wrong with you guys, and there is really no excuse because like everyone on here is a fucking JD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why so many people take issue with this whole story.

She discredited a 12-year old rape victim when she was a defense attorney by putting a statement in the affidavit about the mental stability of the child.

Then, in Nov., 2015, as a candidate for president, she makes the following tweets:

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

So, as an attorney, she lends doubt to the credibility of the child’s story in the affidavit "because it was her job."
Then, as a candidate, she says all rape victims should be believed "because it is her job."

Just a bit of conflict here........Which is it?

You discredit yourself. The statement in the affidavit had absolutely no impact on anyone. It didn't discredit the girl or anyone else. The case was resolved without the affidavit because the State lost key evidence.

It impacted the VICTIM. Read the article.

I've read the article. The victim was impacted by the incompetence of the prosecutors who threw away evidence. The victim didn't get upset with Clinton until recently when the tape was released.

Can you see why it was painful for the victim to hear Clinton's laughter on the tape? I feel for her. Once again, I understand that the affidavit was not used and that no laws were broken. It is still pretty awful.

I am the pp whose dad quit criminal law when he got a racist murderer a $1 fine. When he spoke about that case 50 years later, he looked like he would cry every time. I took that to heart and I am having some trouble excusing Hillary's behavior.

Well, you can't expect Clinton or anyone else to react the same way your dad did. Look, no one is saying that the victim isn't entitled to feel how she feels. I imagine that ANY reminder of that case would be painful for her. But you have to understand that most attorneys are pretty removed from what they do on a day to day basis. That's not to say they are cold-hearted people in general. But it's a job, and a tough one at times, and to do that job, you often have to distance yourself from it. A lot of criminal defense attorneys who do this for a number of years get burned out for this very reason and it all takes a toll. But not everyone would react the same. Feel however you want about Clinton, but I don't think this is a good example of how terrible of a person she may be.

Believe me, I know that most attorneys are removed. And my dad was not always a great guy, to be honest. He was a lawyer and he did what lawyers do, but he did have a conscience and he did not talk about other people's extreme suffering with laughter.

I thought the laughter was in reference to the validity of a lie detector test? You are really mischaracterizing what happened here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why so many people take issue with this whole story.

She discredited a 12-year old rape victim when she was a defense attorney by putting a statement in the affidavit about the mental stability of the child.

Then, in Nov., 2015, as a candidate for president, she makes the following tweets:

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

So, as an attorney, she lends doubt to the credibility of the child’s story in the affidavit "because it was her job."
Then, as a candidate, she says all rape victims should be believed "because it is her job."

Just a bit of conflict here........Which is it?

You discredit yourself. The statement in the affidavit had absolutely no impact on anyone. It didn't discredit the girl or anyone else. The case was resolved without the affidavit because the State lost key evidence.

It impacted the VICTIM. Read the article.

I've read the article. The victim was impacted by the incompetence of the prosecutors who threw away evidence. The victim didn't get upset with Clinton until recently when the tape was released.

Can you see why it was painful for the victim to hear Clinton's laughter on the tape? I feel for her. Once again, I understand that the affidavit was not used and that no laws were broken. It is still pretty awful.

I am the pp whose dad quit criminal law when he got a racist murderer a $1 fine. When he spoke about that case 50 years later, he looked like he would cry every time. I took that to heart and I am having some trouble excusing Hillary's behavior.

Well, you can't expect Clinton or anyone else to react the same way your dad did. Look, no one is saying that the victim isn't entitled to feel how she feels. I imagine that ANY reminder of that case would be painful for her. But you have to understand that most attorneys are pretty removed from what they do on a day to day basis. That's not to say they are cold-hearted people in general. But it's a job, and a tough one at times, and to do that job, you often have to distance yourself from it. A lot of criminal defense attorneys who do this for a number of years get burned out for this very reason and it all takes a toll. But not everyone would react the same. Feel however you want about Clinton, but I don't think this is a good example of how terrible of a person she may be.

Believe me, I know that most attorneys are removed. And my dad was not always a great guy, to be honest. He was a lawyer and he did what lawyers do, but he did have a conscience and he did not talk about other people's extreme suffering with laughter.

I thought the laughter was in reference to the validity of a lie detector test? You are really mischaracterizing what happened here

I thought she sounded highly amused when she talked about the defendant lying on the lie detector test and when she explained that she learned that lie detector tests are not accurate. She also sounded amused and gleeful when she talked about the victim's blood being cut out of the underwear. This is my subjective reaction. It is really not something to argue about. I found her amusement disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why so many people take issue with this whole story.

She discredited a 12-year old rape victim when she was a defense attorney by putting a statement in the affidavit about the mental stability of the child.

Then, in Nov., 2015, as a candidate for president, she makes the following tweets:

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

So, as an attorney, she lends doubt to the credibility of the child’s story in the affidavit "because it was her job."
Then, as a candidate, she says all rape victims should be believed "because it is her job."

Just a bit of conflict here........Which is it?

You discredit yourself. The statement in the affidavit had absolutely no impact on anyone. It didn't discredit the girl or anyone else. The case was resolved without the affidavit because the State lost key evidence.

It impacted the VICTIM. Read the article.

I've read the article. The victim was impacted by the incompetence of the prosecutors who threw away evidence. The victim didn't get upset with Clinton until recently when the tape was released.

Can you see why it was painful for the victim to hear Clinton's laughter on the tape? I feel for her. Once again, I understand that the affidavit was not used and that no laws were broken. It is still pretty awful.

I am the pp whose dad quit criminal law when he got a racist murderer a $1 fine. When he spoke about that case 50 years later, he looked like he would cry every time. I took that to heart and I am having some trouble excusing Hillary's behavior.

So your dad apparently is a man of inflexible principle who decided he should "quit criminal law," whatever that means, presumably because the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proving guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. Isn't that wonderful for innocent individuals charged with a crime they didn't commit who are assigned an overworked CJA lawyer looking simply to plea out the case and move on. I'm guessing he wasn't a law professor who had just started a legal aid clinic. By the way, no court is going to allow an attorney to withdraw simply because her client tutns out to be a detestable monster. Can you begin to imagine how quickly a clinic would be shuttered if it became known that the attorneys failed to conduct their own independent investigation and failed to bring evidence relating to the credibility of the victim to the attention of the Court. In the end, this predator did jail time, probably not enough but I'm guessing it was bad enough given how he would have been treated by fellow inmates given the nature of the crime, because the prosecution and/or police f'ed up. Maybe you should speak with your father about the nature of the ethical responsibilities an attorney takes in when representing a client. Defending someone in a criminal proceeding is an eye-opening experience, particularly if you believe him to be guilty, and it would be pretty shocking to see someone beat a lie detector if you thought they were a fairly reliable investigative tool back in the day. Someone like that would stay with me and continue to be the source of great unease and discomfort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why so many people take issue with this whole story.

She discredited a 12-year old rape victim when she was a defense attorney by putting a statement in the affidavit about the mental stability of the child.

Then, in Nov., 2015, as a candidate for president, she makes the following tweets:

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

So, as an attorney, she lends doubt to the credibility of the child’s story in the affidavit "because it was her job."
Then, as a candidate, she says all rape victims should be believed "because it is her job."

Just a bit of conflict here........Which is it?

You discredit yourself. The statement in the affidavit had absolutely no impact on anyone. It didn't discredit the girl or anyone else. The case was resolved without the affidavit because the State lost key evidence.

It impacted the VICTIM. Read the article.

I've read the article. The victim was impacted by the incompetence of the prosecutors who threw away evidence. The victim didn't get upset with Clinton until recently when the tape was released.

Can you see why it was painful for the victim to hear Clinton's laughter on the tape? I feel for her. Once again, I understand that the affidavit was not used and that no laws were broken. It is still pretty awful.

I am the pp whose dad quit criminal law when he got a racist murderer a $1 fine. When he spoke about that case 50 years later, he looked like he would cry every time. I took that to heart and I am having some trouble excusing Hillary's behavior.

So your dad apparently is a man of inflexible principle who decided he should "quit criminal law," whatever that means, presumably because the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proving guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. Isn't that wonderful for innocent individuals charged with a crime they didn't commit who are assigned an overworked CJA lawyer looking simply to plea out the case and move on. I'm guessing he wasn't a law professor who had just started a legal aid clinic. By the way, no court is going to allow an attorney to withdraw simply because her client tutns out to be a detestable monster. Can you begin to imagine how quickly a clinic would be shuttered if it became known that the attorneys failed to conduct their own independent investigation and failed to bring evidence relating to the credibility of the victim to the attention of the Court. In the end, this predator did jail time, probably not enough but I'm guessing it was bad enough given how he would have been treated by fellow inmates given the nature of the crime, because the prosecution and/or police f'ed up. Maybe you should speak with your father about the nature of the ethical responsibilities an attorney takes in when representing a client. Defending someone in a criminal proceeding is an eye-opening experience, particularly if you believe him to be guilty, and it would be pretty shocking to see someone beat a lie detector if you thought they were a fairly reliable investigative tool back in the day. Someone like that would stay with me and continue to be the source of great unease and discomfort.

I am not really sure what your point is. Once again, I was not criticizing Clinton for defending a rapist. I was criticizing her decision to go after the character of the child victim. Do we really have to do that in cases of child rape? I know this was standard practice when the rape victim was an adult but this seems different to me.

I was also astonished when listening to the tape. I have spent a lot of time with lawyers in my lifetime. My entire family is a bunch of lawyers. I remember one Thanksgiving dinner when it was just nine male lawyers and myself (a young woman at the time) and yet I have never seen lawyers laugh about their victories when discussing sickening cases of child rape. I am not talking about nice, liberal lawyers either. I am talking about a bunch of serious, tough A-hole lawyers who were very proud to brag about themselves. And yet, if the subject turned to child rape or murder or any seriously violent crime against an innocent, no one was laughing. That is seriously nasty. If there are lawyers who think that is acceptable, please enlighten me on that too.