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

[Anonymous]

The State of South Carolina has mandatory pro bono. When I practiced there, I was appointed to criminal defendants and family court cases that made me want to lose my lunch. Still obligated to give them a vigorous defense. It sucked. In one case, I ended up representing a stepdad accused of molestation. And I was molested as a child. Still had to represent the guy.

Lawyers have a number of ethical obligations. Two of these are doing pro bono (although in some states it is easier to get around this than others) and vigorously representing your client (which is non- negotiable).

She did her job, and followed the ethical standards of her profession. Did your boss ever tell you to do something that was 100% within your job description but that you didn't like?

PS: no woman takes on rapist as clients in order to make themselves look good or advance their career. There are lots of reasons to say Hillary is an opportunist. This is just not one of them.

[Anonymous]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/

The Washington Free Beacon recently obtained audio from a 1980s interview with Clinton in which she concedes some admittedly disquieting information about how she was able to seize on loopholes to minimize the sentence of the suspect, 41-year-old Thomas Alfred Taylor. Though he faced 30 years to life in prison, Clinton negotiated a plea deal that sentenced him to just one year in county jail and four years of probation

It didn't go to trial because she negotiated a plea deal. Listen to the audio--she brags about blaming the victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/

The Washington Free Beacon recently obtained audio from a 1980s interview with Clinton in which she concedes some admittedly disquieting information about how she was able to seize on loopholes to minimize the sentence of the suspect, 41-year-old Thomas Alfred Taylor. Though he faced 30 years to life in prison, Clinton negotiated a plea deal that sentenced him to just one year in county jail and four years of probation

It didn't go to trial because she negotiated a plea deal. Listen to the audio--she brags about blaming the victim.

Isn't a plea deal in everyone's best interest? She should brag about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/

The Washington Free Beacon recently obtained audio from a 1980s interview with Clinton in which she concedes some admittedly disquieting information about how she was able to seize on loopholes to minimize the sentence of the suspect, 41-year-old Thomas Alfred Taylor. Though he faced 30 years to life in prison, Clinton negotiated a plea deal that sentenced him to just one year in county jail and four years of probation

It didn't go to trial because she negotiated a plea deal. Listen to the audio--she brags about blaming the victim.

Isn't a plea deal in everyone's best interest? She should brag about that.

There is a huge difference between bragging about a successful plea and bragging about "blaming the victim" for the abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She wasn't laughing about the case

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

It makes you wonder why Washington Post didn't obtain this audio as a front page story? Hillary was laughing at the guy beat the polygraph, which means she believed he was guilty. She did her lawyer thing to question the evidence, but where was her moral compass for the rape victim?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hahahahahahahah hahahahH hah

[Anonymous]

No one believes this nonsense, OP. You're preaching to the choir.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She wasn't laughing about the case

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

It makes you wonder why Washington Post didn't obtain this audio as a front page story? Hillary was laughing at the guy beat the polygraph, which means she believed he was guilty. She did her lawyer thing to question the evidence, but where was her moral compass for the rape victim?

Are you saying she should have thrown the case because she knew her client was guilty? That doesn't make sense. That's not a moral compass.

[Anonymous]

Are you saying she should have thrown the case because she knew her client was guilty? That doesn't make sense. That's not a moral compass.

Not the poster to whom you are replying--but she did not need to attack the rape victim--but, contrary to what she says publicly, there are other accusations of this behavior........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you saying she should have thrown the case because she knew her client was guilty? That doesn't make sense. That's not a moral compass.

Not the poster to whom you are replying--but she did not need to attack the rape victim--but, contrary to what she says publicly, there are other accusations of this behavior........

Then maybe this thread should die and we can focus on what is actually a problem vs. what is a lawyer doing her duty under the constitution.

[Anonymous]

Too many lawyers in this area for this thread to fly, OP. Sorry. Maybe try a more gullible crowd.

[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

I would actually think the exact opposite; attorneys who decline to take appointed cases because they dislike the client are doing so for political reasons. Every attorney by the end of law school ought know that their legal obligation is to zealously defend even the most repulsive client.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too many lawyers in this area for this thread to fly, OP. Sorry. Maybe try a more gullible crowd.

A small percentage of the population are lawyers and the rest of the country hate lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too many lawyers in this area for this thread to fly, OP. Sorry. Maybe try a more gullible crowd.

A small percentage of the population are lawyers and the rest of the country hate lawyers.

A small percentage of the population nationwide are lawyers, but approximately 90% of DC are lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She was his court-appointed attorney. I'm sorry that you don't care for the US criminal justice system, but this is how it works. Everyone, no matter how awful, is entitled to representation.

Typical Trump supporter. They all hate America and all that she stands for.