Juanita Broadrick - Clinton rape victim - doing a live AMA on Reddit now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's a dirty, horrible dog. I'm voting for the person whose name is on the ballot - Hillary.

I haven't read the entire thread but her name is on the ballot, so whatever happens can happen to him.

She enables his behavior and support him. Instead of being "strong and independent" and going out on her own, she stays with Bill...the rapist and assualter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I only read this news story and this thread, so I don't know much about this woman. But here's what I've come away with.

I believe this poor 12 year old girl was lured away in a car by two men, one the defendant 40 year old creep and another a 15 year old creep, and raped and beaten up when she struggled. I believe that was horrible and degrading.

I believe that Hillary Clinton then went on to defend this creep and get his sentence reduced from 30 years to one year based on largely a screw up by the technician who threw away the scrap of panties that proved the rape after the first round of tests on it rather than preserving it. I think Clinton was around 26 years old at the time, so not more than a few years out of law school. Young and not very seasoned or experienced.

I also believe the other parts of this woman's story -- that Clinton asked for the victim to have psychological testing, that Clinton may have insinuated that the girl was looking for older male role models/companionship. I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career. In other words, I believe that Clinton may have felt in her gut that he was guilty even if she did not have concrete evidence to prove that, and yet she still worked hard at getting this scum the best deal she could.

I believe all of this and I feel sorry for this woman, but I'm still okay with Hillary Clinton. Partly it's because I'm a lawyer and I have worked in support of deals that I personally oppose. So I know that's part of the job. And partly it's because I have been a 26 year old woman surrounded by men trying to get my head above water so I can survive to fight another day. And she did survive to do a lot of good for a lot of other people. We're not all saints all the time.

And partly I look at the other choice in this election and I think you've got to be kidding me.

I'm very sorry for this woman and it sounds like she has had a difficult life in part as a result from this terrible rape. But Clinton didn't rape her, and all the things she did in service of her client were standard and considered smart strategy back then. Women internalized and reflected back a lot more sexism twenty years ago than they do now. I know Clinton isn't perfect and she makes mistakes. But I still like her.

And I guess you will believe what you want to believe as long as it serves you, right? Because it is easier to live in denial? And because she is the "lesser of two evils"? (Which she isnt, by the way, Gary Johnson is out there) But, like every other liberal that exists, it is easy to preach make believe ideals as long as you don't have to get your hands dirty.

You are what is wrong with our country. You won't stand up for the right thing because it is easier to go with the flow. Sheep.

+1,000,000

exactly

It's all about the $$$ until it happens to you or to someone close to you.

I'd like to hear you defend Clinton had your 12 yo child been brutally ravaged by some fucked up psycho. Let's see how open-minded you'd be about the judicial system you appear to admire..

Remind me to never use you, as you are clearly unfeeling and probably out for the almighty dollar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

I think she was actually appointed by the court in that case, so no, she could not have declined.

Hillary Clinton was working for a fancy law firm at that time, why would she voluntarily defend an indigent rapist? You guys need to think this through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

A doctor doesn't have to take anyone. In fact, an "Elaine" happened to my friend b/c she, too, was difficult. in the ER - well, another story

However, in this case, while Clinton asked to be removed from the case, I'm sure she tried her hardest to get him the most lenient sentence possible. And guess what?

I would decline. sorry - But defending a man who raped a child and ruined her life is something I would never do. Fire me. She was 12.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

A doctor doesn't have to take anyone. In fact, an "Elaine" happened to my friend b/c she, too, was difficult. in the ER - well, another story

However, in this case, while Clinton asked to be removed from the case, I'm sure she tried her hardest to get him the most lenient sentence possible. And guess what?

I would decline. sorry - But defending a man who raped a child and ruined her life is something I would never do. Fire me. She was 12.

How easy it is to say when it's not your career and bread on the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

You're objectively wrong. In general, lawyers and doctors get to choose their clients/patients. Defendants are entitled to competent representation, not the lawyer of their choosing, and not even necessarily a good lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

A doctor doesn't have to take anyone. In fact, an "Elaine" happened to my friend b/c she, too, was difficult. in the ER - well, another story

However, in this case, while Clinton asked to be removed from the case, I'm sure she tried her hardest to get him the most lenient sentence possible. And guess what?

I would decline. sorry - But defending a man who raped a child and ruined her life is something I would never do. Fire me. She was 12.

How easy it is to say when it's not your career and bread on the line.

It wouldn't just be firing. It would be disbarment and possibly contempt of court for defying a judicial order. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

A doctor doesn't have to take anyone. In fact, an "Elaine" happened to my friend b/c she, too, was difficult. in the ER - well, another story

However, in this case, while Clinton asked to be removed from the case, I'm sure she tried her hardest to get him the most lenient sentence possible. And guess what?

I would decline. sorry - But defending a man who raped a child and ruined her life is something I would never do. Fire me. She was 12.

A doctor DOES have to take everyone. Sure someone can tell a patient in their primary care or specialty practice they won't serve them but that's not what I meant (and you know that, but fine be obtuse). A surgeon can't refuse to remove all tumors from lung cancer patients who smoke, for example, because he or she is really against smoking. An ER doc can't not help someone ODing cause they should lay off drugs. A physician at a free clinic can't refuse to serve someone with HIV because they disagree with the lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

You're objectively wrong. In general, lawyers and doctors get to choose their clients/patients. Defendants are entitled to competent representation, not the lawyer of their choosing, and not even necessarily a good lawyer.

You're wrong. Court appointed lawyers have to do what the court tell them. Stop making shit up. We get it. You hate her and reality takes a backseat to your blind rage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

You're objectively wrong. In general, lawyers and doctors get to choose their clients/patients. Defendants are entitled to competent representation, not the lawyer of their choosing, and not even necessarily a good lawyer.

An ER doc can't refuse patients dipshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

A doctor doesn't have to take anyone. In fact, an "Elaine" happened to my friend b/c she, too, was difficult. in the ER - well, another story

However, in this case, while Clinton asked to be removed from the case, I'm sure she tried her hardest to get him the most lenient sentence possible. And guess what?

I would decline. sorry - But defending a man who raped a child and ruined her life is something I would never do. Fire me. She was 12.

How easy it is to say when it's not your career and bread on the line.

It wouldn't just be firing. It would be disbarment and possibly contempt of court for defying a judicial order. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I realize that. In most jobs, if you say no, you're insubordinate and risk being let go.

sorry - no way would I agree to that

I have two children, an 8 yo boy and a 12 yo girl.

Again, I'd like to see any of you stand up for her if something happened to your own child. I know of what I speak. You, however, have failed to put yourself in the girl''s mother's shoes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

I think she was actually appointed by the court in that case, so no, she could not have declined.

Hillary Clinton was working for a fancy law firm at that time, why would she voluntarily defend an indigent rapist? You guys need to think this through.

So, based on that comment, I'm guessing you never worked at a big-time law firm. Many encourage taking on pro bono opportunities.

(Side note: Is there any way you could stop insulting people? Any way at all? You're not impressing anyone with your insults.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I also think that Clinton ruefully laughed when, in later describing this travesty of a case to an interviewer, she said that her client even passed a lie detector test which made her doubt the accuracy of such tests for the rest of her career

Ruefully laughed? Have you listened to the tape. No regret at all in her laugh--maybe a tad of embarrassment that she was so diabolical in her defense of a man that she was pretty sure had done a horrible thing.

Exactly.

A lawyer is ethically obligated to do what's best for THEIR CLIENT, not society. Clinton did not have a choice. If she had thrown the case people would have assailed her for the rest of her career for being unprofessional.

She could have declined to take the case.

But if every good lawyer does that, we wouldn't have much of a justice system. If you are guilty before you are tried in a court it all falls apart.

Ethics just don't work like that. A lawyer, physician, whoever can't just cherry pick who they want to defend or treat.

A doctor doesn't have to take anyone. In fact, an "Elaine" happened to my friend b/c she, too, was difficult. in the ER - well, another story

However, in this case, while Clinton asked to be removed from the case, I'm sure she tried her hardest to get him the most lenient sentence possible. And guess what?

I would decline. sorry - But defending a man who raped a child and ruined her life is something I would never do. Fire me. She was 12.

How easy it is to say when it's not your career and bread on the line.

It wouldn't just be firing. It would be disbarment and possibly contempt of court for defying a judicial order. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I realize that. In most jobs, if you say no, you're insubordinate and risk being let go.

sorry - no way would I agree to that

I have two children, an 8 yo boy and a 12 yo girl.

Again, I'd like to see any of you stand up for her if something happened to your own child. I know of what I speak. You, however, have failed to put yourself in the girl''s mother's shoes.

You misunderstand again. It would mean not just being fired. It would mean being disbarred - so you could never practice law again. And also possibly going to jail for refusing to follow a court order.
I know of what I speak too. I would defend the guy if I were assigned. I would request to be replaced too (because I'm so not suited to criminal defense work -- I'm very easily creeped out because of bad experiences), but I would do it if it were my professional obligation of the court wouldn't replace me. You suck it up and be a good soldier and do your job. That's what she did. If people don't do that - lot of innocent people go to jail. It's not the lawyers job to be judge and jury.