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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For a lawyer with a loose moral code, yes. As you can see in this thread, other professionals would choose a different path. Comes down to character. Clinton's has, at least, been consistently bad. I'll give her points for staying true-to-self.

Exactly.

No, other professionals said they would take the moral action, which is exactly what she did. This was the morally correct choice. The better physician metaphor is whether you treat a murderer who comes into the ER for life threatening injuries. I would hope most doctors would answer yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have little interest in this thread because I see it as but a blip in her legal/political life. There are only two things that stand out for me. One is she lied as to how she came to be on the case. The other was the following comment.

"He took a lie-detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs," Clinton said about her client on the tapes, which were initially recorded, but never used, in the early 1980s.

Two things about that.

First. She knew he was guilty. Which is not an issue for me as I assume most defense attorney's know they represent guilty individuals.

The second? That poly alone kept her husband from getting hooked up to one over the years.

She has told two different stories about how she came about to take the case. Either they are both true, which is quite possible, or her memory has faded a bit and she made a mistake, or she deliberately lied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have little interest in this thread because I see it as but a blip in her legal/political life. There are only two things that stand out for me. One is she lied as to how she came to be on the case. The other was the following comment.

"He took a lie-detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs," Clinton said about her client on the tapes, which were initially recorded, but never used, in the early 1980s.

Two things about that.

First. She knew he was guilty. Which is not an issue for me as I assume most defense attorney's know they represent guilty individuals.

The second? That poly alone kept her husband from getting hooked up to one over the years.

She has told two different stories about how she came about to take the case. Either they are both true, which is quite possible, or her memory has faded a bit and she made a mistake, or she deliberately lied.

Or she never had a client at all and is trying to cover up Benghazi!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have little interest in this thread because I see it as but a blip in her legal/political life. There are only two things that stand out for me. One is she lied as to how she came to be on the case. The other was the following comment.

"He took a lie-detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs," Clinton said about her client on the tapes, which were initially recorded, but never used, in the early 1980s.

Two things about that.

First. She knew he was guilty. Which is not an issue for me as I assume most defense attorney's know they represent guilty individuals.

The second? That poly alone kept her husband from getting hooked up to one over the years.

She has told two different stories about how she came about to take the case. Either they are both true, which is quite possible, or her memory has faded a bit and she made a mistake, or she deliberately lied.

"However, in the newly-released audio tapes Clinton says a prosecutor for the case asked to take the case "as a favor to him."

So, her memory, perhaps faulty without malice, maybe altered to address something that would hurt a campaign, says one thing...her recorded voice at the time of the event, says another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have little interest in this thread because I see it as but a blip in her legal/political life. There are only two things that stand out for me. One is she lied as to how she came to be on the case. The other was the following comment.

"He took a lie-detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs," Clinton said about her client on the tapes, which were initially recorded, but never used, in the early 1980s.

Two things about that.

First. She knew he was guilty. Which is not an issue for me as I assume most defense attorney's know they represent guilty individuals.

The second? That poly alone kept her husband from getting hooked up to one over the years.

She has told two different stories about how she came about to take the case. Either they are both true, which is quite possible, or her memory has faded a bit and she made a mistake, or she deliberately lied.

Or she never had a client at all and is trying to cover up Benghazi!

Now, that would be one hell of a deflection!

Thanks for the laugh! Well done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Every state is COMPLETELY different on this.

Link to cases where attorney has been jailed or sanctioned by the bar for declining a case on strong personal moral grounds

also now immaterial because she was asked by the prosecutor to take the case not compelled by the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For a lawyer with a loose moral code, yes. As you can see in this thread, other professionals would choose a different path. Comes down to character. Clinton's has, at least, been consistently bad. I'll give her points for staying true-to-self.

Exactly.

No, other professionals said they would take the moral action, which is exactly what she did. This was the morally correct choice. The better physician metaphor is whether you treat a murderer who comes into the ER for life threatening injuries. I would hope most doctors would answer yes.

There are very few legal equivalents to a life threatening emergency. Certainly not this case. Plenty of time to find someone else, especially since we now know she was asked to defend this dirtbag as a favor to the prosecutor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Every state is COMPLETELY different on this.

Link to cases where attorney has been jailed or sanctioned by the bar for declining a case on strong personal moral grounds

also now immaterial because she was asked by the prosecutor to take the case not compelled by the court.

You know a lawyer has been disbarred for leaking evidence of his client's guilt after his client died and only because an innocent person was in prison for the crime, right? You seem to think we're making up that there are actually severe sanctions for this shit.

In any case, whether she could have gotten out of it is a red herring. Getting out of it is the morally incorrect and blameworthy choice, not the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Every state is COMPLETELY different on this.

Link to cases where attorney has been jailed or sanctioned by the bar for declining a case on strong personal moral grounds

also now immaterial because she was asked by the prosecutor to take the case not compelled by the court.

You know a lawyer has been disbarred for leaking evidence of his client's guilt after his client died and only because an innocent person was in prison for the crime, right? You seem to think we're making up that there are actually severe sanctions for this shit.

In any case, whether she could have gotten out of it is a red herring. Getting out of it is the morally incorrect and blameworthy choice, not the opposite.

That's WHY you're not allowed to get out of it in some states. Its not like that rule exists to force lawyers to do immoral stuff, its to require them to behave correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For a lawyer with a loose moral code, yes. As you can see in this thread, other professionals would choose a different path. Comes down to character. Clinton's has, at least, been consistently bad. I'll give her points for staying true-to-self.

Exactly.

No, other professionals said they would take the moral action, which is exactly what she did. This was the morally correct choice. The better physician metaphor is whether you treat a murderer who comes into the ER for life threatening injuries. I would hope most doctors would answer yes.

There are very few legal equivalents to a life threatening emergency. Certainly not this case. Plenty of time to find someone else, especially since we now know she was asked to defend this dirtbag as a favor to the prosecutor.

Favor to the prosecutor is refusable, certainly. But it might/will end your career. There may be times in a legal career when sanctions, jail, or career ending decisions need to be made, but this doesn't seem like one of them. She represented a criminal -- that's what it means to be a public defender.

[Anonymous]

I don't fault her not getting out of it. I do fault attacking the victim and laughing about it years later.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I don't fault her not getting out of it. I do fault attacking the victim and laughing about it years later.

I would fault her for doing those things do, had she done them. But, she didn't do them. It seem no amount of trying to explain this to you guys will be enough. But, there have been multiple links in this thread to explanations of what happened. The fact that you still choose to believe misinformation suggests that you aren't really interested in the truth.

[Anonymous]

In other news, Hillary Clinton once practiced law. Moving on...

[Anonymous]

You people still are conflating morals and ethics. Typical lawyers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You people still are conflating morals and ethics. Typical lawyers

Morally and ethically, public defenders are supposed to represent their clients. Zealously, not just the bare minimum.