Rape Victim: Hilary put me through Hell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim. [/quote]



I absolutely would quit before I would hurt a child. And in fact my own father quit criminal law when he got a racist murderer a $1 fine. That was the end of his criminal law career. Do the right thing.

But your own father did not quit that case before he got that racist murderer a $1 fine, now did he. He finished the job he was tasked to do. So using your warped logic, your father was far worse than Hilary because he got a murderer basically acquitted. BTW, Hilary was not a criminal lawyer. It was a case court appointed to her, and she did not have a legitimate reason to conflict out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim. [/quote]



I absolutely would quit before I would hurt a child. And in fact my own father quit criminal law when he got a racist murderer a $1 fine. That was the end of his criminal law career. Do the right thing.

You must be very proud of your father. We need more people like him in this world.

Yes, to let racist murderers get away with it for $1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can a lawyer tell me if it is the norm, in cases of child rape, for an attorney to make claims about the character of a child possibly enticing an older man to rape her? The affidavit claims that this little girl is emotionally unstable and she seeks out older men and also makes false claims about them. The child is 12 years old. I know this happens with adult victims but is it necessary when the rape victim is a child?

It's certainly not the norm today - whether the victim is a child or an adult. But back then, sadly, the victim's character was very much at issue. The rules and procedure have since changed. The information from the affidavit was obtained during the investigation, and the victim apparently made some inconsistent statements. The affidavit also contains information from the defense's expert, a child psychologist or psychiatrist. In other words, the information in the affidavit was not created by Clinton and as discussed up thread, it was never actually used in the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim.

Clinton didn't destroy a 12 year old rape victim. She got the case plea bargained because the State threw away the evidence. Frankly, I hadn't looked into this before and was just accepting the repeated claims that Clinton did something atrocious. My view is that none of the Clintons take prisoners and this would just be one more example. But, now that I've looked into it a bit, I see that the anti-Clinton case is very misleading. Clinton absolutely did nothing wrong in this case.

So you are comfortable with victim blaming and shaming even when it is unnecessary to win the case? That surprises me.

Oh, fun, let's distort each other's words! So, you are in favor of summary execution without trial?

The victim was not blamed or shamed. Clinton consulted a child psychologist and reported the findings in a affidavit. However, it turned out that because the State lost the evidence, they didn't go to trial. So, the affidavit became unnecessary. Because there was not a trial, we have no idea whether Clinton would have chosen to submit the expert findings. Maybe, probably even, but we don't know for sure. You are basing your entire case on something Clinton might have been prepared to do, but didn't actually do.

I am not distorting your words.You said she did nothing wrong. I have not said that defending the rapist was wrong. I have said that her comments on the little girl were wrong. That is victim blaming and in this case it was entirely unnecessary. I come from a family of attorneys and I went to law school but did not become an attorney myself. You can get an "expert" to say anything you want. This is on Hillary and it speaks to her lack of feminist conscience. I am not saying no one should vote for her because of this. I am saying it adds to my already low opinion of her. And I will be voting for her. And yes, I read the articles and most of the affidavit.

Not surprising. Logic is definitely missing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim. [/quote]



I absolutely would quit before I would hurt a child. And in fact my own father quit criminal law when he got a racist murderer a $1 fine. That was the end of his criminal law career. Do the right thing.

You must be very proud of your father. We need more people like him in this world.

Yes, to let racist murderers get away with it for $1.

See that is the thing. My father was not a great guy and he was young at the time. This was over 50 years ago. Possibly more like 55 years. He took the case and regretted it for the rest of his life. My point was that Clinton laughed about this case on tape. My father, who was not a great a man felt guilt and remorse when he talked about that murder trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can a lawyer tell me if it is the norm, in cases of child rape, for an attorney to make claims about the character of a child possibly enticing an older man to rape her? The affidavit claims that this little girl is emotionally unstable and she seeks out older men and also makes false claims about them. The child is 12 years old. I know this happens with adult victims but is it necessary when the rape victim is a child?

It's certainly not the norm today - whether the victim is a child or an adult. But back then, sadly, the victim's character was very much at issue. The rules and procedure have since changed. The information from the affidavit was obtained during the investigation, and the victim apparently made some inconsistent statements. The affidavit also contains information from the defense's expert, a child psychologist or psychiatrist. In other words, the information in the affidavit was not created by Clinton and as discussed up thread, it was never actually used in the case.

Either way, it is pretty sick to talk about a child that way.

[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.

The kicker is PPP's father didn't quit his case. He defended his murderer to the end. Yet, PPP wants to condemn Hilary for something PPP's own dear father did not do - quit in the middle of a case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim.

Clinton didn't destroy a 12 year old rape victim. She got the case plea bargained because the State threw away the evidence. Frankly, I hadn't looked into this before and was just accepting the repeated claims that Clinton did something atrocious. My view is that none of the Clintons take prisoners and this would just be one more example. But, now that I've looked into it a bit, I see that the anti-Clinton case is very misleading. Clinton absolutely did nothing wrong in this case.

So you are comfortable with victim blaming and shaming even when it is unnecessary to win the case? That surprises me.

Oh, fun, let's distort each other's words! So, you are in favor of summary execution without trial?

The victim was not blamed or shamed. Clinton consulted a child psychologist and reported the findings in a affidavit. However, it turned out that because the State lost the evidence, they didn't go to trial. So, the affidavit became unnecessary. Because there was not a trial, we have no idea whether Clinton would have chosen to submit the expert findings. Maybe, probably even, but we don't know for sure. You are basing your entire case on something Clinton might have been prepared to do, but didn't actually do.

I am not distorting your words.You said she did nothing wrong. I have not said that defending the rapist was wrong. I have said that her comments on the little girl were wrong. That is victim blaming and in this case it was entirely unnecessary. I come from a family of attorneys and I went to law school but did not become an attorney myself. You can get an "expert" to say anything you want. This is on Hillary and it speaks to her lack of feminist conscience. I am not saying no one should vote for her because of this. I am saying it adds to my already low opinion of her. And I will be voting for her. And yes, I read the articles and most of the affidavit.

Not surprising. Logic is definitely missing.

Funny. But no, I had better things to do with my life. Lawyers tend to be very unhappy people and I saw the light before I took it that far.

[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.

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.

The kicker is PPP's father didn't quit his case. He defended his murderer to the end. Yet, PPP wants to condemn Hilary for something PPP's own dear father did not do - quit in the middle of a case.

You are deliberately missing my point but we know this thread is infested with lawyers and that is what they do. I am not saying that Clinton should not have defended the rapist. I am saying she lacks a conscience when she laughs about it later on tape. That might not seem important to you but it does to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Well, it's comforting to know that you and most others here, would be comfortable with HRC defending someone who just raped your own 12-yr old daughter. And during trial humiliated and discredited her.

May all your 12-yr old daughters enjoy the same fate.

Case never went to trial. Hilary did not discredit the victim. If anybody discredited the victim, it was the child's psychologist and prosecutor. PP, do you see how your biases have distorted your reality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Well, it's comforting to know that you and most others here, would be comfortable with HRC defending someone who just raped your own 12-yr old daughter. And during trial humiliated and discredited her.

May all your 12-yr old daughters enjoy the same fate.

Yours first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary took the case at the request of the court. In this country defendants are entitled to an attorney, and the attorney is obliged to do all they legally can to get the defendant acquitted.

She had to defend her client but she did not have to smear a little girl who got raped. That is really ugly.

She didn't even have to defend the guy. He had a right to legal representation but not to hers. She made a choice about both taking the case and about how she approached it (in tone and substance).

Idiot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary took the case at the request of the court. In this country defendants are entitled to an attorney, and the attorney is obliged to do all they legally can to get the defendant acquitted.

She had to defend her client but she did not have to smear a little girl who got raped. That is really ugly.

She didn't even have to defend the guy. He had a right to legal representation but not to hers. She made a choice about both taking the case and about how she approached it (in tone and substance).

Jesus Christ.

Sorry, are you suggesting he would have taken the case or would not have?

DP, Well actually yes, JC would have taken the case. Why, because JC defends everyone and as he hung on the cross he was willing to plead to the father on behalf of both men who hung on each side of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you can't imagine a situation where, in 1975, a young female attorney from Chicago by way of Wellesley and Yale felt she needed to adopt a certain mode of dress, behavior, and speaking in order to effectively conduct business in a judicial system dominated by older men in a small southern city (town), then you clearly haven't the foggiest fucking notion of what life used to be like for women, especially in certain areas if the country and in certain lines of work.

Not the "foggiest fucking notion"? I'm not PP, and I don't care much about the accent. (I think most all politicians are performers by nature.) But come on. Not everything is necessarily the result of sexism and not everyone who disagrees with you is a horrible sexist.

Look, you don't even have to go back to the 70's. If any of you are watching the O.J. American Crime Story, look at how the judge, defense attorneys, media, et al. went after Marcia Clark. They openly bullied her about babysitting, child care issues, hair, clothes, walk, etc. Women have come along way from the judicial sexist antics of the 70s and 90s, but I'm sure many of the younger females care not and are very dismissive of the progress made on behalf of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anybody who thinks rape victims of any age are going to do well under a Trump presidency is delusional. This is a man who raped his wife and wants to screw his own kid.

Rodger that