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

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Clinton take the case voluntarily or was she appointed by the court?

In "Living History," Clinton wrote that the criminal court judge appointed her, and that she "couldn't very well refuse the judge's request." The 2008 Newsday story quotes then-Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson who refers to her as being "appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County." However, in the newly-released audio tapes Clinton says a prosecutor for the case asked to take the case "as a favor to him."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/hillary-clinton-dogged-by-1975-rape-case/

The prosecutor asked her to take the case as a favor and then the judge appointed her. She probably could have refused, but it would have burnt some bridges. Regardless, our legal system provides the accused an attorney. If you have an issue with that, there are several other countries with legal systems with which you might be more comfortable and you should probably experience.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the "system." We are pointing out that she nothing more than an opportunistic cynic.

[jsteele]

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.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone has a problem with the "system." We are pointing out that she nothing more than an opportunistic cynic.

Next you are going to try to convince me that there is no Easter Bunny?

[Anonymous]

She should be lauded for taking a repugnant case. Just as the Jewish lawyer who defended the Nazis marching on Skokie. Or the black lawyer defending the KKK.

It is a reprehensible job sometimes. But essential. And to do so under such circumstances requires a great deal of courage.

And if, as PP suggests, she did this because she was a political climber, that doesn't make sense. A case like this is way too much a hot potato. Political climbers like safe easy wins. Not controversy.

[Anonymous]

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that 27 year-olds who are new to the job market are not typically in a position to buck tradition and refuse a case that has been assigned to them by a judge.

Remember that Clinton was part of the first generation in which women routinely attended law school. Women represented only about 4% of lawyers in 1970. For her to turn down a case what was assigned to her would have not only burnt bridges for herself, but for any woman lawyer.

[Anonymous]

John Adams defended the perpetrators of the Boston Massacre. http://www.john-adams-heritage.com/boston-massacre-trials/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:alleged rape of a 12 yo seems to meet the threshold for repugnancy to decline, if you are a staunch believer in rape victims' rights.

Though if you are a young and ambitious political climber, those principles may not be as important as not getting crossways with a local judge / prosecutor you need to help you on the way up

This is BS. As a rape survivor, I still believe that our justice system has an obligation to provide competent defense to anyone accused of a crime, even the crime of rape which you can imagine I feel especially strongly about. Any lawyer who doesn't believe in this very basic and fundamental tenet of the American legal system should be disbarred.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.[/quote

She wasn't laughing about the case

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:alleged rape of a 12 yo seems to meet the threshold for repugnancy to decline, if you are a staunch believer in rape victims' rights.

Though if you are a young and ambitious political climber, those principles may not be as important as not getting crossways with a local judge / prosecutor you need to help you on the way up

This is BS. As a rape survivor, I still believe that our justice system has an obligation to provide competent defense to anyone accused of a crime, even the crime of rape which you can imagine I feel especially strongly about. Any lawyer who doesn't believe in this very basic and fundamental tenet of the American legal system should be disbarred.

And each lawyer can choose his/her own moral path

[jsteele]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

That notion is often beyond the capacity for comprehension of many posters here.

[Anonymous]

Hillary Clinton is a very powerful candidate. That's obvious by posts like these, that have to reach soooo far to find excuses for people to not vote for her.

She will win. Your multiple weak and overly sensational posts against her are all the proof I need.

[Anonymous]

I helped put a 19 year old in jail for six months. He was accused of raping a 14 year old girl to get back at her mother. Who was supposed to be holding drugs for him but she sold/used them instead.

He was innocent. Id'd out of a high school year book. And it was mistaken identity. He had no prior criminal record including no prior juvenile record.

It was 26 years ago and I still feel guilty that I was part of depriving an innocent person his freedom, even if "only" for six months (pending trial). There are many innocent people in jail. After conviction, too. I know that first hand. There MUST be lawyers who defend people accused of heinous crimes. The innocent person may one day be you. Or your husband. Or brother. Or son.

And everyone is innocent until proven guilty. In this country at least.