Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate that fake southern accent. She uses it when it's to her advantage.

If you can't imagine a situation where, in 1975, a young female attorney from Chicago by way of Wellesley and Yale felt she needed to adopt a certain mode of dress, behavior, and speaking in order to effectively conduct business in a judicial system dominated by older men in a small southern city (town), then you clearly haven't the foggiest fucking notion of what life used to be like for women, especially in certain areas if the country and in certain lines of work.

Not the "foggiest fucking notion"? I'm not PP, and I don't care much about the accent. (I think most all politicians are performers by nature.) But come on. Not everything is necessarily the result of sexism and not everyone who disagrees with you is a horrible sexist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate that fake southern accent. She uses it when it's to her advantage.

If you can't imagine a situation where, in 1975, a young female attorney from Chicago by way of Wellesley and Yale felt she needed to adopt a certain mode of dress, behavior, and speaking in order to effectively conduct business in a judicial system dominated by older men in a small southern city (town), then you clearly haven't the foggiest fucking notion of what life used to be like for women, especially in certain areas if the country and in certain lines of work.

Not the "foggiest fucking notion"? I'm not PP, and I don't care much about the accent. (I think most all politicians are performers by nature.) But come on. Not everything is necessarily the result of sexism and not everyone who disagrees with you is a horrible sexist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you people fucking serious

I would do absolutely everything she did if asked to represent a criminal defendant

What the fuck is wrong with you guys, and there is really no excuse because like everyone on here is a fucking JD

Well, it's comforting to know that you and most others here, would be comfortable with HRC defending someone who just raped your own 12-yr old daughter. And during trial humiliated and discredited her.

May all your 12-yr old daughters enjoy the same fate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate that fake southern accent. She uses it when it's to her advantage.

If you can't imagine a situation where, in 1975, a young female attorney from Chicago by way of Wellesley and Yale felt she needed to adopt a certain mode of dress, behavior, and speaking in order to effectively conduct business in a judicial system dominated by older men in a small southern city (town), then you clearly haven't the foggiest fucking notion of what life used to be like for women, especially in certain areas if the country and in certain lines of work.

Anonymous wrote:I hate that fake southern accent. She uses it when it's to her advantage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary took the case at the request of the court. In this country defendants are entitled to an attorney, and the attorney is obliged to do all they legally can to get the defendant acquitted.

She had to defend her client but she did not have to smear a little girl who got raped. That is really ugly.

She didn't even have to defend the guy. He had a right to legal representation but not to hers. She made a choice about both taking the case and about how she approached it (in tone and substance).

Jesus Christ.

Anonymous wrote:Are you people fucking serious

I would do absolutely everything she did if asked to represent a criminal defendant

What the fuck is wrong with you guys, and there is really no excuse because like everyone on here is a fucking JD

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary took the case at the request of the court. In this country defendants are entitled to an attorney, and the attorney is obliged to do all they legally can to get the defendant acquitted.

She had to defend her client but she did not have to smear a little girl who got raped. That is really ugly.

She didn't even have to defend the guy. He had a right to legal representation but not to hers. She made a choice about both taking the case and about how she approached it (in tone and substance).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hillary took the case at the request of the court. In this country defendants are entitled to an attorney, and the attorney is obliged to do all they legally can to get the defendant acquitted.

She had to defend her client but she did not have to smear a little girl who got raped. That is really ugly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you people fucking serious

I would do absolutely everything she did if asked to represent a criminal defendant

What the fuck is wrong with you guys, and there is really no excuse because like everyone on here is a fucking JD

Well, it's comforting to know that you and most others here, would be comfortable with HRC defending someone who just raped your own 12-yr old daughter. And during trial humiliated and discredited her.

May all your 12-yr old daughters enjoy the same fate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you people fucking serious

I would do absolutely everything she did if asked to represent a criminal defendant

What the fuck is wrong with you guys, and there is really no excuse because like everyone on here is a fucking JD

Well, it's comforting to know that you and most others here, would be comfortable with HRC defending someone who just raped your own 12-yr old daughter. And during trial humiliated and discredited her.

May all your 12-yr old daughters enjoy the same fate.

Anonymous wrote:Are you people fucking serious

I would do absolutely everything she did if asked to represent a criminal defendant

What the fuck is wrong with you guys, and there is really no excuse because like everyone on here is a fucking JD

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why so many people take issue with this whole story.

She discredited a 12-year old rape victim when she was a defense attorney by putting a statement in the affidavit about the mental stability of the child.

Then, in Nov., 2015, as a candidate for president, she makes the following tweets:

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

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

So, as an attorney, she lends doubt to the credibility of the child’s story in the affidavit "because it was her job."
Then, as a candidate, she says all rape victims should be believed "because it is her job."

Just a bit of conflict here........Which is it?

You discredit yourself. The statement in the affidavit had absolutely no impact on anyone. It didn't discredit the girl or anyone else. The case was resolved without the affidavit because the State lost key evidence.

It impacted the VICTIM. Read the article.

I've read the article. The victim was impacted by the incompetence of the prosecutors who threw away evidence. The victim didn't get upset with Clinton until recently when the tape was released.

Can you see why it was painful for the victim to hear Clinton's laughter on the tape? I feel for her. Once again, I understand that the affidavit was not used and that no laws were broken. It is still pretty awful.

I am the pp whose dad quit criminal law when he got a racist murderer a $1 fine. When he spoke about that case 50 years later, he looked like he would cry every time. I took that to heart and I am having some trouble excusing Hillary's behavior.

So your dad apparently is a man of inflexible principle who decided he should "quit criminal law," whatever that means, presumably because the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proving guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. Isn't that wonderful for innocent individuals charged with a crime they didn't commit who are assigned an overworked CJA lawyer looking simply to plea out the case and move on. I'm guessing he wasn't a law professor who had just started a legal aid clinic. By the way, no court is going to allow an attorney to withdraw simply because her client tutns out to be a detestable monster. Can you begin to imagine how quickly a clinic would be shuttered if it became known that the attorneys failed to conduct their own independent investigation and failed to bring evidence relating to the credibility of the victim to the attention of the Court. In the end, this predator did jail time, probably not enough but I'm guessing it was bad enough given how he would have been treated by fellow inmates given the nature of the crime, because the prosecution and/or police f'ed up. Maybe you should speak with your father about the nature of the ethical responsibilities an attorney takes in when representing a client. Defending someone in a criminal proceeding is an eye-opening experience, particularly if you believe him to be guilty, and it would be pretty shocking to see someone beat a lie detector if you thought they were a fairly reliable investigative tool back in the day. Someone like that would stay with me and continue to be the source of great unease and discomfort.

I am not really sure what your point is. Once again, I was not criticizing Clinton for defending a rapist. I was criticizing her decision to go after the character of the child victim. Do we really have to do that in cases of child rape? I know this was standard practice when the rape victim was an adult but this seems different to me.

I was also astonished when listening to the tape. I have spent a lot of time with lawyers in my lifetime. My entire family is a bunch of lawyers. I remember one Thanksgiving dinner when it was just nine male lawyers and myself (a young woman at the time) and yet I have never seen lawyers laugh about their victories when discussing sickening cases of child rape. I am not talking about nice, liberal lawyers either. I am talking about a bunch of serious, tough A-hole lawyers who were very proud to brag about themselves. And yet, if the subject turned to child rape or murder or any seriously violent crime against an innocent, no one was laughing. That is seriously nasty. If there are lawyers who think that is acceptable, please enlighten me on that too.

It's easy to understand how a young woman in an extremely uncomfortable work situation might laugh or otherwise express her discomfort inappropriately. But you, who want to convince us you're so empathic, don't seem to realize this.

I bet you post here about Bill Clinton's sex life, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why so many people take issue with this whole story.

She discredited a 12-year old rape victim when she was a defense attorney by putting a statement in the affidavit about the mental stability of the child.

Then, in Nov., 2015, as a candidate for president, she makes the following tweets:

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

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

So, as an attorney, she lends doubt to the credibility of the child’s story in the affidavit "because it was her job."
Then, as a candidate, she says all rape victims should be believed "because it is her job."

Just a bit of conflict here........Which is it?

You discredit yourself. The statement in the affidavit had absolutely no impact on anyone. It didn't discredit the girl or anyone else. The case was resolved without the affidavit because the State lost key evidence.

It impacted the VICTIM. Read the article.

I've read the article. The victim was impacted by the incompetence of the prosecutors who threw away evidence. The victim didn't get upset with Clinton until recently when the tape was released.

Can you see why it was painful for the victim to hear Clinton's laughter on the tape? I feel for her. Once again, I understand that the affidavit was not used and that no laws were broken. It is still pretty awful.

I am the pp whose dad quit criminal law when he got a racist murderer a $1 fine. When he spoke about that case 50 years later, he looked like he would cry every time. I took that to heart and I am having some trouble excusing Hillary's behavior.

So your dad apparently is a man of inflexible principle who decided he should "quit criminal law," whatever that means, presumably because the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proving guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. Isn't that wonderful for innocent individuals charged with a crime they didn't commit who are assigned an overworked CJA lawyer looking simply to plea out the case and move on. I'm guessing he wasn't a law professor who had just started a legal aid clinic. By the way, no court is going to allow an attorney to withdraw simply because her client tutns out to be a detestable monster. Can you begin to imagine how quickly a clinic would be shuttered if it became known that the attorneys failed to conduct their own independent investigation and failed to bring evidence relating to the credibility of the victim to the attention of the Court. In the end, this predator did jail time, probably not enough but I'm guessing it was bad enough given how he would have been treated by fellow inmates given the nature of the crime, because the prosecution and/or police f'ed up. Maybe you should speak with your father about the nature of the ethical responsibilities an attorney takes in when representing a client. Defending someone in a criminal proceeding is an eye-opening experience, particularly if you believe him to be guilty, and it would be pretty shocking to see someone beat a lie detector if you thought they were a fairly reliable investigative tool back in the day. Someone like that would stay with me and continue to be the source of great unease and discomfort.

I am not really sure what your point is. Once again, I was not criticizing Clinton for defending a rapist. I was criticizing her decision to go after the character of the child victim. Do we really have to do that in cases of child rape? I know this was standard practice when the rape victim was an adult but this seems different to me.

I was also astonished when listening to the tape. I have spent a lot of time with lawyers in my lifetime. My entire family is a bunch of lawyers. I remember one Thanksgiving dinner when it was just nine male lawyers and myself (a young woman at the time) and yet I have never seen lawyers laugh about their victories when discussing sickening cases of child rape. I am not talking about nice, liberal lawyers either. I am talking about a bunch of serious, tough A-hole lawyers who were very proud to brag about themselves. And yet, if the subject turned to child rape or murder or any seriously violent crime against an innocent, no one was laughing. That is seriously nasty. If there are lawyers who think that is acceptable, please enlighten me on that too.