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

[Anonymous]

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.”

[Anonymous]

Did you just hear about this?

Yawn.

[Anonymous]

Look, Clinton was <b>assigned</b> this case through a pro bono lawyers project. She gave a robust defense, as she was ethnically obligated to do.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Whether she was court appointed or not, she did the right thing and applauded not castigated.

I am all for holding people accountable for their questionable behavior. Your behavior is very questionable.

Signed - No Way in Hell a Hillary Fan

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Po. Should be applauded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.

Of course. That job does not fall to the attorney for the accused, who has a different ethical obligation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.

Of course. That job does not fall to the attorney for the accused, who has a different ethical obligation.

lol

[Anonymous]

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/

[Anonymous]

http://www.newyorklegalethics.com/how-to-deal-with-the-truly-repugnant-client/

Looks like she could have declined to represent him even if court appointed, at least in NY. I assume most states allow for this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.newyorklegalethics.com/how-to-deal-with-the-truly-repugnant-client/

Looks like she could have declined to represent him even if court appointed, at least in NY. I assume most states allow for this

Rather than assuming, why not look up the relevant statute for the state she was living in at the time?

[jsteele]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.