Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim.

Our legal system wouldn't work if people who were accused of horrible crimes couldn't get an attorney to zealously represent them. Defense attorneys are needed, not just to defend the accused, but to keep prosecutors honest.

Some cases are morally worth it. There are, apparently, enough amoral people out there to do the job. Hillary has continues to sho w us this is the case

So only innocent people are entitled to attorneys. The constitution would beg to differ

The Declaration of Independemce affords us free choice. Hillary made one.

Anonymous wrote: So any criminal defense attorneys must give up any dreams of being in politics, Then?

Only if they are named Hillary Clinton.

Seriously, she wasn't even really a defense attorney. She was the professor who founded the legal aid clinic.

So any criminal defense attorneys must give up any dreams of being in politics, Then?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim.

Clinton didn't destroy a 12 year old rape victim. She got the case plea bargained because the State threw away the evidence. Frankly, I hadn't looked into this before and was just accepting the repeated claims that Clinton did something atrocious. My view is that none of the Clintons take prisoners and this would just be one more example. But, now that I've looked into it a bit, I see that the anti-Clinton case is very misleading. Clinton absolutely did nothing wrong in this case.

So you are comfortable with victim blaming and shaming even when it is unnecessary to win the case? That surprises me.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim.

Clinton didn't destroy a 12 year old rape victim. She got the case plea bargained because the State threw away the evidence. Frankly, I hadn't looked into this before and was just accepting the repeated claims that Clinton did something atrocious. My view is that none of the Clintons take prisoners and this would just be one more example. But, now that I've looked into it a bit, I see that the anti-Clinton case is very misleading. Clinton absolutely did nothing wrong in this case.

I would add that she was only working on this case because she was appointed to. She did not want to. But she was appointed because it was a legal aid case and she started the first legal aid clinic in the state of Arkansas.

That is not what the article says, nor what she says in the tape.
She says she took the case because another attorney asked her to because the defendant wanted a woman lawyer. Doesn’t sound like she was “appointed to” it at all.

The other attorney was the prosecutor of the case. Once she agreed to take it, the Court appointed her.

So, then, she agreed to do it. To give the impression that she didn’t have a choice is not accurate.

Yes, she could have refused and ended her legal career. That's always an option. Maybe her career might have even survived such a refusal, we'll never know.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the audio. Lovely. I like when she laughs about the lie detector test. Also gotta love the fake accent. She obviously thinks this whole thing is funny. That poor child.


http://freebeacon.com/politics/audio-hillary-clinton-speaks-of-defense-of-child-rapist-in-newly-unearthed-tapes/

I just listened to that entire recording. Clinton was able to get the case plea bargained because the State mishandled the evidence. Based on what is on the tape, the State threw away the evidence. I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I think Clinton herself would be subject to malpractice charges if she hadn't pursued that in defense of her client.

That is a different point. I am not criticizing a defense attorney for doing her job. It is her skewering of the young girl and her gleeful remarks. This is the antithesis of feminism.

There was no evidence of Clinton "skewering" the girl on the tape. What did I miss?

It is in the affidavit.

NP here. Wasn't the information in the affidavit based upon the investigation and opinion(s) from one of the experts, though? Not sure how a defense attorney raising those issues in an affidavit filed in the case is "skewering" anybody.

Yes, this is exactly right. Clinton simply reported the findings of an expert. Moreover, none of that even made it into court. So, at best, Clinton could be accused of considering skewering a 12-year old, though I would still argue that reporting the findings of an expert is not "skewering". Nevertheless, the skewering never took place.

+1. The articles clearly says that the victim does not even remember ever meeting Clinton at the time. Based on the article, Clinton was appointed by the court and did not seek this client, had the client take a polygraph, sought the opinion of a leading DNA expert (Nobel prize winning no less). I am not sure how this amount to "destroying the victim" and denying her justice. based on the article, justice was denied by the prosecutor, who lost the key piece of evidence. while the victim does not remember Clinton, she does remember how she was treated by law enforcement and the prosecution. She was denied justice and abused by the system then and she is being exploited now by whoever is trying to give legs to this story to hurt Clinton (of whom I am no fan).

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim.

Clinton didn't destroy a 12 year old rape victim. She got the case plea bargained because the State threw away the evidence. Frankly, I hadn't looked into this before and was just accepting the repeated claims that Clinton did something atrocious. My view is that none of the Clintons take prisoners and this would just be one more example. But, now that I've looked into it a bit, I see that the anti-Clinton case is very misleading. Clinton absolutely did nothing wrong in this case.

I would add that she was only working on this case because she was appointed to. She did not want to. But she was appointed because it was a legal aid case and she started the first legal aid clinic in the state of Arkansas.

That is not what the article says, nor what she says in the tape.
She says she took the case because another attorney asked her to because the defendant wanted a woman lawyer. Doesn’t sound like she was “appointed to” it at all.

The other attorney was the prosecutor of the case. Once she agreed to take it, the Court appointed her.

So, then, she agreed to do it. To give the impression that she didn’t have a choice is not accurate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim.

Clinton didn't destroy a 12 year old rape victim. She got the case plea bargained because the State threw away the evidence. Frankly, I hadn't looked into this before and was just accepting the repeated claims that Clinton did something atrocious. My view is that none of the Clintons take prisoners and this would just be one more example. But, now that I've looked into it a bit, I see that the anti-Clinton case is very misleading. Clinton absolutely did nothing wrong in this case.

I would add that she was only working on this case because she was appointed to. She did not want to. But she was appointed because it was a legal aid case and she started the first legal aid clinic in the state of Arkansas.

That is not what the article says, nor what she says in the tape.
She says she took the case because another attorney asked her to because the defendant wanted a woman lawyer. Doesn’t sound like she was “appointed to” it at all.

The other attorney was the prosecutor of the case. Once she agreed to take it, the Court appointed her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim.

Clinton didn't destroy a 12 year old rape victim. She got the case plea bargained because the State threw away the evidence. Frankly, I hadn't looked into this before and was just accepting the repeated claims that Clinton did something atrocious. My view is that none of the Clintons take prisoners and this would just be one more example. But, now that I've looked into it a bit, I see that the anti-Clinton case is very misleading. Clinton absolutely did nothing wrong in this case.

I would add that she was only working on this case because she was appointed to. She did not want to. But she was appointed because it was a legal aid case and she started the first legal aid clinic in the state of Arkansas.

That is not what the article says, nor what she says in the tape.
She says she took the case because another attorney asked her to because the defendant wanted a woman lawyer. Doesn’t sound like she was “appointed to” it at all.

Yes, there was another article posted later on that reconciles being court appointed, taking the case as a favor, and not wanting to do it but being unable to get out of it. They can all be true.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim.

Clinton didn't destroy a 12 year old rape victim. She got the case plea bargained because the State threw away the evidence. Frankly, I hadn't looked into this before and was just accepting the repeated claims that Clinton did something atrocious. My view is that none of the Clintons take prisoners and this would just be one more example. But, now that I've looked into it a bit, I see that the anti-Clinton case is very misleading. Clinton absolutely did nothing wrong in this case.

I would add that she was only working on this case because she was appointed to. She did not want to. But she was appointed because it was a legal aid case and she started the first legal aid clinic in the state of Arkansas.

That is not what the article says, nor what she says in the tape.
She says she took the case because another attorney asked her to because the defendant wanted a woman lawyer. Doesn’t sound like she was “appointed to” it at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim.

Our legal system wouldn't work if people who were accused of horrible crimes couldn't get an attorney to zealously represent them. Defense attorneys are needed, not just to defend the accused, but to keep prosecutors honest.

Some cases are morally worth it. There are, apparently, enough amoral people out there to do the job. Hillary has continues to sho w us this is the case

So only innocent people are entitled to attorneys. The constitution would beg to differ

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim.

Our legal system wouldn't work if people who were accused of horrible crimes couldn't get an attorney to zealously represent them. Defense attorneys are needed, not just to defend the accused, but to keep prosecutors honest.

Some cases are morally worth it. There are, apparently, enough amoral people out there to do the job. Hillary has continues to sho w us this is the case

Clinton was court-appointed. It's not like she was out chasing ambulances or something. She represented this guy as a favor to the prosecutor. Have any of you even read the articles mentioned in this thread?

Edit: I see the PP posted nearly the same thing.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim.

Clinton didn't destroy a 12 year old rape victim. She got the case plea bargained because the State threw away the evidence. Frankly, I hadn't looked into this before and was just accepting the repeated claims that Clinton did something atrocious. My view is that none of the Clintons take prisoners and this would just be one more example. But, now that I've looked into it a bit, I see that the anti-Clinton case is very misleading. Clinton absolutely did nothing wrong in this case.

I would add that she was only working on this case because she was appointed to. She did not want to. But she was appointed because it was a legal aid case and she started the first legal aid clinic in the state of Arkansas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She did her job, and did it well. I'm no fan of Clinton, but I am a huge supporter of defense lawyers, who are supposed to make sure that prosecutors really do prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt.

+1000. People on here seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what criminal defense attorneys do. Even if Clinton actually knew her client was guilty, she still had a duty to zealously represent him.

People understand that. They also understand that, if in Hillary's shoes, they would rather quit than destroy a 12 year old rape victim.

Our legal system wouldn't work if people who were accused of horrible crimes couldn't get an attorney to zealously represent them. Defense attorneys are needed, not just to defend the accused, but to keep prosecutors honest.

Some cases are morally worth it. There are, apparently, enough amoral people out there to do the job. Hillary has continues to sho w us this is the case

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hilary Clinton spoke with a Southern drawl on the tapes? She moved to the South in 1975 when she was already an adult. This doesn't seem a credible assessment of what is on the tapes. Sounds more like she was a lawyer who had a legal duty to defend her client, one who was assigned to her through her firm's pro bono agreement, not one she sought out.

are you surprised Hillary drags out her Southern drawl when it's convenient? She does it quite frequently.

Oh please. Of all the reasons to attack her. I slip into it too if I'm speaking with people from the south. It happens organically. Get over it.

I'm sure it does. And when you visit California you talk like a Valley girl, and when you visit Boston, you talk like a Yahd Bahkah don't you?

Keep defending her.

Yes, PP, some people are like that. I speak five languages, English is not my primary language. Whenever I speak in my native language, I tend borrow the accent in the area where I spend some time. It's involuntary, I promise I have no hidden agenda