Hillary Clinton defended older man who raped a 12 year old girl

[Anonymous]

Ethically yes, Morally no. Again you do not understand there is a difference.

I guess you could say an attorney should be admired for putting aside their moral code to maintain their ethical responsibility, and I guess another attorney would see that as laudable. Others, and I would say most people, would rather see it as a character flaw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ethically yes, Morally no. Again you do not understand there is a difference.

I guess you could say an attorney should be admired for putting aside their moral code to maintain their ethical responsibility, and I guess another attorney would see that as laudable. Others, and I would say most people, would rather see it as a character flaw.

Speak for yourself. I think that most people understand the American judicial system and the fact that the court provides attorneys to all defendants, and that those attorneys are bound by their profession to provide a robust defense. If they do not, then they need to do some critical thinking about what life might be like in a country where people are jailed with no advocacy.

It is my sincere hope that young lawyers doing public defender and pro bono work are not refusing to take unpleasant cases on the off chance that they will run for president in 40 years, but I guess that is what you would prefer them to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ethically yes, Morally no. Again you do not understand there is a difference.

I guess you could say an attorney should be admired for putting aside their moral code to maintain their ethical responsibility, and I guess another attorney would see that as laudable. Others, and I would say most people, would rather see it as a character flaw.

For some of us our moral commitment to fairness and justice means that EVERYONE, even guilty scumbags deserve a decent defense and a fair trial. Its a universal principle. Kohlberg placed it at the highest level of moral reasoning.

An emphasis on "bad people must be punished" is at the lowest level, by the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ethically yes, Morally no. Again you do not understand there is a difference.

I guess you could say an attorney should be admired for putting aside their moral code to maintain their ethical responsibility, and I guess another attorney would see that as laudable. Others, and I would say most people, would rather see it as a character flaw.

Speak for yourself. I think that most people understand the American judicial system and the fact that the court provides attorneys to all defendants, and that those attorneys are bound by their profession to provide a robust defense. If they do not, then they need to do some critical thinking about what life might be like in a country where people are jailed with no advocacy.

It is my sincere hope that young lawyers doing public defender and pro bono work are not refusing to take unpleasant cases on the off chance that they will run for president in 40 years, but I guess that is what you would prefer them to do.

Don't bother arguing with PP. PP has the moral reasoning ability of a kumquat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I read, she created a story about the victim (a child)--implying that the child "asked for it"...........it sounded like she went beyond what was necessary for someone that was guilty. She I=may have had a responsibility to defend the assailant--but she did not have the right to make up a story.

The case never went to trial. You don't have the right to make up stories either.

Clinton had a choice to make: herself or this kid. She chose herself.

Actually, she chose her client. The correct choice for a lawyer.

For a lawyer with a loose moral code, yes. As you can see in this thread, other professionals would choose a different path. Comes down to character. Clinton's has, at least, been consistently bad. I'll give her points for staying true-to-self.

Exactly.

No, other professionals said they would take the moral action, which is exactly what she did. This was the morally correct choice. The better physician metaphor is whether you treat a murderer who comes into the ER for life threatening injuries. I would hope most doctors would answer yes.

There are very few legal equivalents to a life threatening emergency. Certainly not this case. Plenty of time to find someone else, especially since we now know she was asked to defend this dirtbag as a favor to the prosecutor.

Favor to the prosecutor is refusable, certainly. But it might/will end your career. There may be times in a legal career when sanctions, jail, or career ending decisions need to be made, but this doesn't seem like one of them. She represented a criminal -- that's what it means to be a public defender.

"Plenty of time to find someone else" is a complete cop out. Either its moral for anyone to take the case or its moral for nobody to take the case. "The most moral option is for you to not personally do it and hope somebody else does it instead" is a nonsensical moral position. (Not to mention that if Clinton in particular did it, a swarm of people would (rightly in this case) accuse her of being hypocritical and arrogant).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ethically yes, Morally no. Again you do not understand there is a difference.

I guess you could say an attorney should be admired for putting aside their moral code to maintain their ethical responsibility, and I guess another attorney would see that as laudable. Others, and I would say most people, would rather see it as a character flaw.

For some of us our moral commitment to fairness and justice means that EVERYONE, even guilty scumbags deserve a decent defense and a fair trial. Its a universal principle. Kohlberg placed it at the highest level of moral reasoning.

An emphasis on "bad people must be punished" is at the lowest level, by the way.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ethically yes, Morally no. Again you do not understand there is a difference.

I guess you could say an attorney should be admired for putting aside their moral code to maintain their ethical responsibility, and I guess another attorney would see that as laudable. Others, and I would say most people, would rather see it as a character flaw.

Speak for yourself. I think that most people understand the American judicial system and the fact that the court provides attorneys to all defendants, and that those attorneys are bound by their profession to provide a robust defense. If they do not, then they need to do some critical thinking about what life might be like in a country where people are jailed with no advocacy.

It is my sincere hope that young lawyers doing public defender and pro bono work are not refusing to take unpleasant cases on the off chance that they will run for president in 40 years, but I guess that is what you would prefer them to do.

Don't bother arguing with PP. PP has the moral reasoning ability of a kumquat.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ethically yes, Morally no. Again you do not understand there is a difference.

I guess you could say an attorney should be admired for putting aside their moral code to maintain their ethical responsibility, and I guess another attorney would see that as laudable. Others, and I would say most people, would rather see it as a character flaw.

Speak for yourself. I think that most people understand the American judicial system and the fact that the court provides attorneys to all defendants, and that those attorneys are bound by their profession to provide a robust defense. If they do not, then they need to do some critical thinking about what life might be like in a country where people are jailed with no advocacy.

It is my sincere hope that young lawyers doing public defender and pro bono work are not refusing to take unpleasant cases on the off chance that they will run for president in 40 years, but I guess that is what you would prefer them to do.

Don't bother arguing with PP. PP has the moral reasoning ability of a kumquat.

You just pissed off a bunch of kumquats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://freebeacon.com/politics/audio-hillary-clinton-speaks-of-defense-of-child-rapist-in-newly-unearthed-tapes/

“The crime lab took the pair of underpants, neatly cut out the part that they were gonna test, tested it, came back with the result of what kind of blood it was what was mixed in with it – then sent the pants back with the hole in it to evidence,” said Clinton (LISTEN HERE). “Of course the crime lab had thrown away the piece they had cut out.”

Clinton said she got permission from the court to take the underwear to a renowned forensics expert in New York City to see if he could confirm that the evidence had been invalidated.

“The story through the grape vine was that if you could get [this investigator] interested in the case then you had the foremost expert in the world willing to testify, so maybe it came out the way you wanted it to come out,” she said.

She said the investigator examined the cut-up underwear and told her there was not enough blood left on it to test.

When Clinton returned to Arkansas, she said she gave the prosecutor a clipping of the New York forensic investigator’s “Who’s Who.”

“I handed it to Gibson, and I said, ‘Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice,’” said Clinton, breaking into laughter.

“So we were gonna plea bargain,” she continued.

When she went before Judge Cummings to present the plea, he asked her to leave the room while he interrogated her client, she said.

“I said, ‘Judge I can’t leave the room, I’m his lawyer,’” said Clinton, laughing. “He said, ‘I know but I don’t want to talk about this in front of you.’”

“So that was Maupin [Cummings], we had a lot of fun with Maupin,” Clinton added.

Reed asked what happened to the rapist.

“Oh, he plea bargained. Got him off with time served in the county jail, he’d been in the county jail for about two months,” said Clinton.

When asked why Taylor wanted a female lawyer, Clinton responded, “Who knows. Probably saw a TV show. He just wanted one.”

Why was she laughing? What sorts of fun she had with Judge Cummings?

Hillary better ditches her women card fast.

The judge didn't want to talk about rape in front of a lady lawyer. It is ridiculous and funny now.