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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.)

Why do you keep pretending she wasn't court appointed?? It's really dishonest.

I haven't seen evidence that she couldn't have gotten out of the case.

I am not a public defender. If I were, it would be different. But, given that I'm not, I can say this: I would practically bet all of my assets that I could get out of representing an alleged child rapist. I can almost guarantee you I could convince a judge that I'm not the right lawyer for such a case.

You haven't seen evidence?? It's a matter of public record!! Can you read? You bet you could convince a judge to let you out of it?? Only if you either lied to the court to get them to believe you had a conflict (like you were friends with the victim or something). You don't lie to the court though, because that's illegal and unethical. Or you can whine and cry and tell the court you are temperamentally incapable of doing your job. In which case you better be prepared to be ignored and appointed anyway.
I'm a prosecutor. I know you can't get out of judicial appointments unless the judge wants to let you out.
A friend of mine was a court appointed defender of a local drug kingpin (in a small town area) who was accused of child molestation. My friend had little kids the age of the victim at the time. He couldn't stand it. Begged to be let out of it. Court didn't let him off.

What was the basis of HRC's request to not be appointed? That's relevant information that I haven't seen.

Your friend was in private practice (i.e., not doing public defense work) and was nevertheless asked to represent an alleged child molester, but, despite his best efforts to persuade the judge to "want to let [him] out," he couldn't get out of it? Do I have that right? Have you considered that he might not be as persuasive a lawyer as you think?

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Yes he was in private practice. In a small town (not unlike Little Rock) and was a successful lawyer. No one wants to do that work and the courts know it. So no, they don't let them out. Judges say things like "Being a professional means doing things you don't want to do." You might get a nice one who lets you off, but it's totally luck of the draw. You should really stop opening on things you clearly have no clue about.

Tell me more! Do they really assign horrible cases of indigent king-pin (how is anyone an indigent king-pin?) child molesters to random successful private practitioners? Is it like the draft? That's what it sounds like based on your post.

I'll tell you one thing I have a clue about. I haven't been so drafted yet. I'm definitely a good enough lawyer and sufficiently financially successful that I will for sure never be made to defend someone who I believe is a child rapist or a child molester. You can take that to the bank.

Yep. Happened. I'm guessing you don't practice in a small town and don't know that they often have lists of all the lawyers and assign them as defenders. Because there isn't a sufficient public defenders office. It's kind of stunning how ignorant you are. It's not all the DC corporate law bubble. What a great thing that you are so fortunate to never have to be assigned such a task. And can look down on all the lawyers who do have to do that constitutionally necessary and vital work. I will never have to either (being a prosecutor). But I sure as heck am not ignorant of the duties and responsibilities of those who do. But please, put your head back in the sand and judge away. I'm sure you'd get out of that assignment no problem. Hillary probably just wasn't as smart as you are. ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.)

Why do you keep pretending she wasn't court appointed?? It's really dishonest.

I haven't seen evidence that she couldn't have gotten out of the case.

I am not a public defender. If I were, it would be different. But, given that I'm not, I can say this: I would practically bet all of my assets that I could get out of representing an alleged child rapist. I can almost guarantee you I could convince a judge that I'm not the right lawyer for such a case.

You haven't seen evidence?? It's a matter of public record!! Can you read? You bet you could convince a judge to let you out of it?? Only if you either lied to the court to get them to believe you had a conflict (like you were friends with the victim or something). You don't lie to the court though, because that's illegal and unethical. Or you can whine and cry and tell the court you are temperamentally incapable of doing your job. In which case you better be prepared to be ignored and appointed anyway.
I'm a prosecutor. I know you can't get out of judicial appointments unless the judge wants to let you out.
A friend of mine was a court appointed defender of a local drug kingpin (in a small town area) who was accused of child molestation. My friend had little kids the age of the victim at the time. He couldn't stand it. Begged to be let out of it. Court didn't let him off.

What was the basis of HRC's request to not be appointed? That's relevant information that I haven't seen.

Your friend was in private practice (i.e., not doing public defense work) and was nevertheless asked to represent an alleged child molester, but, despite his best efforts to persuade the judge to "want to let [him] out," he couldn't get out of it? Do I have that right? Have you considered that he might not be as persuasive a lawyer as you think?

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Yes he was in private practice. In a small town (not unlike Little Rock) and was a successful lawyer. No one wants to do that work and the courts know it. So no, they don't let them out. Judges say things like "Being a professional means doing things you don't want to do." You might get a nice one who lets you off, but it's totally luck of the draw. You should really stop opening on things you clearly have no clue about.

Tell me more! Do they really assign horrible cases of indigent king-pin (how is anyone an indigent king-pin?) child molesters to random successful private practitioners? Is it like the draft? That's what it sounds like based on your post.

I'll tell you one thing I have a clue about. I haven't been so drafted yet. I'm definitely a good enough lawyer and sufficiently financially successful that I will for sure never be made to defend someone who I believe is a child rapist or a child molester. You can take that to the bank.

I don't think you're really a lawyer. Just putting that out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.)

Why do you keep pretending she wasn't court appointed?? It's really dishonest.

I haven't seen evidence that she couldn't have gotten out of the case.

I am not a public defender. If I were, it would be different. But, given that I'm not, I can say this: I would practically bet all of my assets that I could get out of representing an alleged child rapist. I can almost guarantee you I could convince a judge that I'm not the right lawyer for such a case.

You haven't seen evidence?? It's a matter of public record!! Can you read? You bet you could convince a judge to let you out of it?? Only if you either lied to the court to get them to believe you had a conflict (like you were friends with the victim or something). You don't lie to the court though, because that's illegal and unethical. Or you can whine and cry and tell the court you are temperamentally incapable of doing your job. In which case you better be prepared to be ignored and appointed anyway.
I'm a prosecutor. I know you can't get out of judicial appointments unless the judge wants to let you out.
A friend of mine was a court appointed defender of a local drug kingpin (in a small town area) who was accused of child molestation. My friend had little kids the age of the victim at the time. He couldn't stand it. Begged to be let out of it. Court didn't let him off.

What was the basis of HRC's request to not be appointed? That's relevant information that I haven't seen.

Your friend was in private practice (i.e., not doing public defense work) and was nevertheless asked to represent an alleged child molester, but, despite his best efforts to persuade the judge to "want to let [him] out," he couldn't get out of it? Do I have that right? Have you considered that he might not be as persuasive a lawyer as you think?

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Yes he was in private practice. In a small town (not unlike Little Rock) and was a successful lawyer. No one wants to do that work and the courts know it. So no, they don't let them out. Judges say things like "Being a professional means doing things you don't want to do." You might get a nice one who lets you off, but it's totally luck of the draw. You should really stop opening on things you clearly have no clue about.

Tell me more! Do they really assign horrible cases of indigent king-pin (how is anyone an indigent king-pin?) child molesters to random successful private practitioners? Is it like the draft? That's what it sounds like based on your post.

I'll tell you one thing I have a clue about. I haven't been so drafted yet. I'm definitely a good enough lawyer and sufficiently financially successful that I will for sure never be made to defend someone who I believe is a child rapist or a child molester. You can take that to the bank.

Yep. Happened. I'm guessing you don't practice in a small town and don't know that they often have lists of all the lawyers and assign them as defenders. Because there isn't a sufficient public defenders office. It's kind of stunning how ignorant you are. It's not all the DC corporate law bubble. What a great thing that you are so fortunate to never have to be assigned such a task. And can look down on all the lawyers who do have to do that constitutionally necessary and vital work. I will never have to either (being a prosecutor). But I sure as heck am not ignorant of the duties and responsibilities of those who do. But please, put your head back in the sand and judge away. I'm sure you'd get out of that assignment no problem. Hillary probably just wasn't as smart as you are. ?

Sorry. Doesn't matter where I live. There is no way I would defend someone I believe to be a child molester.

I never said HRC wasn't smart. Did any PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.)

Why do you keep pretending she wasn't court appointed?? It's really dishonest.

I haven't seen evidence that she couldn't have gotten out of the case.

I am not a public defender. If I were, it would be different. But, given that I'm not, I can say this: I would practically bet all of my assets that I could get out of representing an alleged child rapist. I can almost guarantee you I could convince a judge that I'm not the right lawyer for such a case.

You haven't seen evidence?? It's a matter of public record!! Can you read? You bet you could convince a judge to let you out of it?? Only if you either lied to the court to get them to believe you had a conflict (like you were friends with the victim or something). You don't lie to the court though, because that's illegal and unethical. Or you can whine and cry and tell the court you are temperamentally incapable of doing your job. In which case you better be prepared to be ignored and appointed anyway.
I'm a prosecutor. I know you can't get out of judicial appointments unless the judge wants to let you out.
A friend of mine was a court appointed defender of a local drug kingpin (in a small town area) who was accused of child molestation. My friend had little kids the age of the victim at the time. He couldn't stand it. Begged to be let out of it. Court didn't let him off.

What was the basis of HRC's request to not be appointed? That's relevant information that I haven't seen.

Your friend was in private practice (i.e., not doing public defense work) and was nevertheless asked to represent an alleged child molester, but, despite his best efforts to persuade the judge to "want to let [him] out," he couldn't get out of it? Do I have that right? Have you considered that he might not be as persuasive a lawyer as you think?

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Yes he was in private practice. In a small town (not unlike Little Rock) and was a successful lawyer. No one wants to do that work and the courts know it. So no, they don't let them out. Judges say things like "Being a professional means doing things you don't want to do." You might get a nice one who lets you off, but it's totally luck of the draw. You should really stop opening on things you clearly have no clue about.

Tell me more! Do they really assign horrible cases of indigent king-pin (how is anyone an indigent king-pin?) child molesters to random successful private practitioners? Is it like the draft? That's what it sounds like based on your post.

I'll tell you one thing I have a clue about. I haven't been so drafted yet. I'm definitely a good enough lawyer and sufficiently financially successful that I will for sure never be made to defend someone who I believe is a child rapist or a child molester. You can take that to the bank.

I don't think you're really a lawyer. Just putting that out there.

+1. This person doesn't even know how court appointments work. And somehow thinks that being a good lawyer gets you out of an unwanted assignment. Yeah, that's the ticket. (Not to mention HRC was a very young lawyer at that point. So even if she was good, hadn't built a rep yet and had lots of dues to pay.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.)

Why do you keep pretending she wasn't court appointed?? It's really dishonest.

I haven't seen evidence that she couldn't have gotten out of the case.

I am not a public defender. If I were, it would be different. But, given that I'm not, I can say this: I would practically bet all of my assets that I could get out of representing an alleged child rapist. I can almost guarantee you I could convince a judge that I'm not the right lawyer for such a case.

You haven't seen evidence?? It's a matter of public record!! Can you read? You bet you could convince a judge to let you out of it?? Only if you either lied to the court to get them to believe you had a conflict (like you were friends with the victim or something). You don't lie to the court though, because that's illegal and unethical. Or you can whine and cry and tell the court you are temperamentally incapable of doing your job. In which case you better be prepared to be ignored and appointed anyway.
I'm a prosecutor. I know you can't get out of judicial appointments unless the judge wants to let you out.
A friend of mine was a court appointed defender of a local drug kingpin (in a small town area) who was accused of child molestation. My friend had little kids the age of the victim at the time. He couldn't stand it. Begged to be let out of it. Court didn't let him off.

What was the basis of HRC's request to not be appointed? That's relevant information that I haven't seen.

Your friend was in private practice (i.e., not doing public defense work) and was nevertheless asked to represent an alleged child molester, but, despite his best efforts to persuade the judge to "want to let [him] out," he couldn't get out of it? Do I have that right? Have you considered that he might not be as persuasive a lawyer as you think?

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Yes he was in private practice. In a small town (not unlike Little Rock) and was a successful lawyer. No one wants to do that work and the courts know it. So no, they don't let them out. Judges say things like "Being a professional means doing things you don't want to do." You might get a nice one who lets you off, but it's totally luck of the draw. You should really stop opening on things you clearly have no clue about.

Tell me more! Do they really assign horrible cases of indigent king-pin (how is anyone an indigent king-pin?) child molesters to random successful private practitioners? Is it like the draft? That's what it sounds like based on your post.

I'll tell you one thing I have a clue about. I haven't been so drafted yet. I'm definitely a good enough lawyer and sufficiently financially successful that I will for sure never be made to defend someone who I believe is a child rapist or a child molester. You can take that to the bank.

Yep. Happened. I'm guessing you don't practice in a small town and don't know that they often have lists of all the lawyers and assign them as defenders. Because there isn't a sufficient public defenders office. It's kind of stunning how ignorant you are. It's not all the DC corporate law bubble. What a great thing that you are so fortunate to never have to be assigned such a task. And can look down on all the lawyers who do have to do that constitutionally necessary and vital work. I will never have to either (being a prosecutor). But I sure as heck am not ignorant of the duties and responsibilities of those who do. But please, put your head back in the sand and judge away. I'm sure you'd get out of that assignment no problem. Hillary probably just wasn't as smart as you are. ?

Sorry. Doesn't matter where I live. There is no way I would defend someone I believe to be a child molester.

I never said HRC wasn't smart. Did any PP?

Ok. You're not even tracking the logic of your own post. You just said you're a good enough lawyer you'd never have such an assignment. You don't get it. In smaller jurisdictions everyone gets the court appointed assignments (unless you're a prosecutor). They don't have enough defenders. The richest lawyer in town gets those assignments too. A relationship with the judge can get you out of it, as does a real conflict. But "I don't want to defend a rapist" is not a real conflict. You learn this very early as a lawyer. You clearly lied when you said you were one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.)

Why do you keep pretending she wasn't court appointed?? It's really dishonest.

I haven't seen evidence that she couldn't have gotten out of the case.

I am not a public defender. If I were, it would be different. But, given that I'm not, I can say this: I would practically bet all of my assets that I could get out of representing an alleged child rapist. I can almost guarantee you I could convince a judge that I'm not the right lawyer for such a case.

You haven't seen evidence?? It's a matter of public record!! Can you read? You bet you could convince a judge to let you out of it?? Only if you either lied to the court to get them to believe you had a conflict (like you were friends with the victim or something). You don't lie to the court though, because that's illegal and unethical. Or you can whine and cry and tell the court you are temperamentally incapable of doing your job. In which case you better be prepared to be ignored and appointed anyway.
I'm a prosecutor. I know you can't get out of judicial appointments unless the judge wants to let you out.
A friend of mine was a court appointed defender of a local drug kingpin (in a small town area) who was accused of child molestation. My friend had little kids the age of the victim at the time. He couldn't stand it. Begged to be let out of it. Court didn't let him off.

What was the basis of HRC's request to not be appointed? That's relevant information that I haven't seen.

Your friend was in private practice (i.e., not doing public defense work) and was nevertheless asked to represent an alleged child molester, but, despite his best efforts to persuade the judge to "want to let [him] out," he couldn't get out of it? Do I have that right? Have you considered that he might not be as persuasive a lawyer as you think?

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Yes he was in private practice. In a small town (not unlike Little Rock) and was a successful lawyer. No one wants to do that work and the courts know it. So no, they don't let them out. Judges say things like "Being a professional means doing things you don't want to do." You might get a nice one who lets you off, but it's totally luck of the draw. You should really stop opening on things you clearly have no clue about.

Tell me more! Do they really assign horrible cases of indigent king-pin (how is anyone an indigent king-pin?) child molesters to random successful private practitioners? Is it like the draft? That's what it sounds like based on your post.

I'll tell you one thing I have a clue about. I haven't been so drafted yet. I'm definitely a good enough lawyer and sufficiently financially successful that I will for sure never be made to defend someone who I believe is a child rapist or a child molester. You can take that to the bank.

I don't think you're really a lawyer. Just putting that out there.

+1. This person doesn't even know how court appointments work. And somehow thinks that being a good lawyer gets you out of an unwanted assignment. Yeah, that's the ticket. (Not to mention HRC was a very young lawyer at that point. So even if she was good, hadn't built a rep yet and had lots of dues to pay.)

Are you a lawyer? If so, how can you not understand being a good lawyer means you work things to your advantage via argument? What do you imagine lawyers do? Do you they they just recite memorized law in your mind?

(But I like the Jon Lovitz reference!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.)

Why do you keep pretending she wasn't court appointed?? It's really dishonest.

I haven't seen evidence that she couldn't have gotten out of the case.

I am not a public defender. If I were, it would be different. But, given that I'm not, I can say this: I would practically bet all of my assets that I could get out of representing an alleged child rapist. I can almost guarantee you I could convince a judge that I'm not the right lawyer for such a case.

You haven't seen evidence?? It's a matter of public record!! Can you read? You bet you could convince a judge to let you out of it?? Only if you either lied to the court to get them to believe you had a conflict (like you were friends with the victim or something). You don't lie to the court though, because that's illegal and unethical. Or you can whine and cry and tell the court you are temperamentally incapable of doing your job. In which case you better be prepared to be ignored and appointed anyway.
I'm a prosecutor. I know you can't get out of judicial appointments unless the judge wants to let you out.
A friend of mine was a court appointed defender of a local drug kingpin (in a small town area) who was accused of child molestation. My friend had little kids the age of the victim at the time. He couldn't stand it. Begged to be let out of it. Court didn't let him off.

What was the basis of HRC's request to not be appointed? That's relevant information that I haven't seen.

Your friend was in private practice (i.e., not doing public defense work) and was nevertheless asked to represent an alleged child molester, but, despite his best efforts to persuade the judge to "want to let [him] out," he couldn't get out of it? Do I have that right? Have you considered that he might not be as persuasive a lawyer as you think?

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Yes he was in private practice. In a small town (not unlike Little Rock) and was a successful lawyer. No one wants to do that work and the courts know it. So no, they don't let them out. Judges say things like "Being a professional means doing things you don't want to do." You might get a nice one who lets you off, but it's totally luck of the draw. You should really stop opening on things you clearly have no clue about.

Tell me more! Do they really assign horrible cases of indigent king-pin (how is anyone an indigent king-pin?) child molesters to random successful private practitioners? Is it like the draft? That's what it sounds like based on your post.

I'll tell you one thing I have a clue about. I haven't been so drafted yet. I'm definitely a good enough lawyer and sufficiently financially successful that I will for sure never be made to defend someone who I believe is a child rapist or a child molester. You can take that to the bank.

Yep. Happened. I'm guessing you don't practice in a small town and don't know that they often have lists of all the lawyers and assign them as defenders. Because there isn't a sufficient public defenders office. It's kind of stunning how ignorant you are. It's not all the DC corporate law bubble. What a great thing that you are so fortunate to never have to be assigned such a task. And can look down on all the lawyers who do have to do that constitutionally necessary and vital work. I will never have to either (being a prosecutor). But I sure as heck am not ignorant of the duties and responsibilities of those who do. But please, put your head back in the sand and judge away. I'm sure you'd get out of that assignment no problem. Hillary probably just wasn't as smart as you are. ?

Sorry. Doesn't matter where I live. There is no way I would defend someone I believe to be a child molester.

I never said HRC wasn't smart. Did any PP?

Ok. You're not even tracking the logic of your own post. You just said you're a good enough lawyer you'd never have such an assignment. You don't get it. In smaller jurisdictions everyone gets the court appointed assignments (unless you're a prosecutor). They don't have enough defenders. The richest lawyer in town gets those assignments too. A relationship with the judge can get you out of it, as does a real conflict. But "I don't want to defend a rapist" is not a real conflict. You learn this very early as a lawyer. You clearly lied when you said you were one.

Okay. If you say so. My point is that there is literally no universe in which I would defend someone I believe to be a child molester or rapist. There isn't. I would always get out of it. Whatever it took. Even if it meant moving my domicile. (I would probably find a way to be successful at the next city too.)

Stop acting like graduating from law school is some amazing, golden superpower. It's not.

Wouldn't it be funny if Jeff could verify whether I'm a lawyer? And wouldn't it be funny if Jeff could further verify that I went to a better law school than you, graduated with higher honors than you, and am more successful as a lawyer than you?

Sorry, PP. There are actually people in the world who won't help people who they believe rape children.

[Anonymous]

You're not really much of a lawyer then, are you? I mean, it's nice for you that you have principles and there are lines that you won't cross. But what you're talking about doing -- refusing to take a case because of your personal feelings -- goes against the oath every lawyer takes when they swear into a bar. Most states, including Arkansas, have this language in their oath: "I will not reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the impoverished, the defenseless, or the oppressed."

For a normal person, not wanting to defend a rapist seems moral. But when you're actually a lawyer, it's the other way around, and refusing such a case because of your personal feelings is immoral because it's your sworn duty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're not really much of a lawyer then, are you? I mean, it's nice for you that you have principles and there are lines that you won't cross. But what you're talking about doing -- refusing to take a case because of your personal feelings -- goes against the oath every lawyer takes when they swear into a bar. Most states, including Arkansas, have this language in their oath: "I will not reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the impoverished, the defenseless, or the oppressed."

For a normal person, not wanting to defend a rapist seems moral. But when you're actually a lawyer, it's the other way around, and refusing such a case because of your personal feelings is immoral because it's your sworn duty.

Do you understand that the language you quoted doesn't mean you're not allowed to reject cases?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're not really much of a lawyer then, are you? I mean, it's nice for you that you have principles and there are lines that you won't cross. But what you're talking about doing -- refusing to take a case because of your personal feelings -- goes against the oath every lawyer takes when they swear into a bar. Most states, including Arkansas, have this language in their oath: "I will not reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the impoverished, the defenseless, or the oppressed."

For a normal person, not wanting to defend a rapist seems moral. But when you're actually a lawyer, it's the other way around, and refusing such a case because of your personal feelings is immoral because it's your sworn duty.

Lawyers refuse to take cases all the time. For every reason. For no reason. For big reasons. For small reasons. Imagine the best criminal lawyer you can think of. Do you think all a poor criminal defendant has to do is walk into that lawyer's office and ask nicely for the lawyer to represent him, and then the lawyer is ethically obligated to do so?

That's not how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Okay. If you say so. My point is that there is literally no universe in which I would defend someone I believe to be a child molester or rapist. There isn't. I would always get out of it. Whatever it took. Even if it meant moving my domicile. (I would probably find a way to be successful at the next city too.)

Stop acting like graduating from law school is some amazing, golden superpower. It's not.

Wouldn't it be funny if Jeff could verify whether I'm a lawyer? And wouldn't it be funny if Jeff could further verify that I went to a better law school than you, graduated with higher honors than you, and am more successful as a lawyer than you?

Sorry, PP. There are actually people in the world who won't help people who they believe rape children.

NP. I'm not a lawyer and even I know you're being dumb here. Sometimes there are clients you cannot refuse. Ooh, but your amazing, golden superpower is being superior, right? Will you next claim to be a doctor who would refuse to treat a child rapist?

Dang, Hillary Derangement Syndrome is real and strong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're not really much of a lawyer then, are you? I mean, it's nice for you that you have principles and there are lines that you won't cross. But what you're talking about doing -- refusing to take a case because of your personal feelings -- goes against the oath every lawyer takes when they swear into a bar. Most states, including Arkansas, have this language in their oath: "I will not reject, from any consideration personal to myself, the cause of the impoverished, the defenseless, or the oppressed."

For a normal person, not wanting to defend a rapist seems moral. But when you're actually a lawyer, it's the other way around, and refusing such a case because of your personal feelings is immoral because it's your sworn duty.

Lawyers refuse to take cases all the time. For every reason. For no reason. For big reasons. For small reasons. Imagine the best criminal lawyer you can think of. Do you think all a poor criminal defendant has to do is walk into that lawyer's office and ask nicely for the lawyer to represent him, and then the lawyer is ethically obligated to do so?

That's not how it works.

When it's assigned it does. You're embarrassing yourself.