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.

Look, generally speaking, yes, it's wrong to even attempt to undermine the character of a 12-year-old girl who was raped. But I see defense attorneys as an exception to that general rule, because our entire criminal legal system only works if the defendants are afforded a zealous advocate who fights tooth and nail for their clients -- innocent or guilty. It's the only way we can hope to ensure that those found guilty are in fact guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Laws that stated that a rape victim's character was relevant in a rape charge were wrong, and it's right that they were changed. But while they were on the books, I would expect nothing less of a defense attorney to use what was available to represent her client well.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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.

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

Oh, fun, let's distort each other's words! So, you are in favor of summary execution without trial?

The victim was not blamed or shamed. Clinton consulted a child psychologist and reported the findings in a affidavit. However, it turned out that because the State lost the evidence, they didn't go to trial. So, the affidavit became unnecessary. Because there was not a trial, we have no idea whether Clinton would have chosen to submit the expert findings. Maybe, probably even, but we don't know for sure. You are basing your entire case on something Clinton might have been prepared to do, but didn't actually do.

I am not distorting your words.You said she did nothing wrong. I have not said that defending the rapist was wrong. I have said that her comments on the little girl were wrong. That is victim blaming and in this case it was entirely unnecessary. I come from a family of attorneys and I went to law school but did not become an attorney myself. You can get an "expert" to say anything you want. This is on Hillary and it speaks to her lack of feminist conscience. I am not saying no one should vote for her because of this. I am saying it adds to my already low opinion of her. And I will be voting for her. And yes, I read the articles and most of the affidavit.

In that case, you should be aware that the affidavit was not used. If you think that the simple act of writing something on a paper which never makes it into court is doing something wrong, then Clinton did something wrong. All the times that I've heard about this case, I got the impression that Clinton practically stood up in court and called the girl a lying slut. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Just to be clear, "blaming" the girl would suggest that Clinton claimed the girl was at fault for the rape. Clinton did not do that. "Shaming" the girl would suggest that Clinton made the girl feel bad about being raped. Clinton did not do that. The ffidavit doesn't show Clinton doing either of those things either. So, I don't know where you get the idea that I am comfortable with "victim blaming and shaming".

Anonymous 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?

Oh give it a rest. The very fact that you have to dig back 40 years to find something to throw at her should tell you you are desperate.

FWIW, accusing Hillary of not being a feminist is about the silliest thing you people try. On a par with "Obama is anti-American." Patently false and simply dumb.

Tell us what YOU thought, at the time, about GWB's military service? I'm sure you also thought that was desperate too. AMIRITE?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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.

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

Oh, fun, let's distort each other's words! So, you are in favor of summary execution without trial?

The victim was not blamed or shamed. Clinton consulted a child psychologist and reported the findings in a affidavit. However, it turned out that because the State lost the evidence, they didn't go to trial. So, the affidavit became unnecessary. Because there was not a trial, we have no idea whether Clinton would have chosen to submit the expert findings. Maybe, probably even, but we don't know for sure. You are basing your entire case on something Clinton might have been prepared to do, but didn't actually do.

I am not distorting your words.You said she did nothing wrong. I have not said that defending the rapist was wrong. I have said that her comments on the little girl were wrong. That is victim blaming and in this case it was entirely unnecessary. I come from a family of attorneys and I went to law school but did not become an attorney myself. You can get an "expert" to say anything you want. This is on Hillary and it speaks to her lack of feminist conscience. I am not saying no one should vote for her because of this. I am saying it adds to my already low opinion of her. And I will be voting for her. And yes, I read the articles and most of the affidavit.

NP -- her comments reporting what an expert had said about the victim? How were they unnecessary? Had the state already dropped the case when she submitted the affidavit?

I am done with this argument. If people can't see that it is wrong to blame a 12 year old rape victim who ended up in a coma, then the discussion is simply hopeless.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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.

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

Oh, fun, let's distort each other's words! So, you are in favor of summary execution without trial?

The victim was not blamed or shamed. Clinton consulted a child psychologist and reported the findings in a affidavit. However, it turned out that because the State lost the evidence, they didn't go to trial. So, the affidavit became unnecessary. Because there was not a trial, we have no idea whether Clinton would have chosen to submit the expert findings. Maybe, probably even, but we don't know for sure. You are basing your entire case on something Clinton might have been prepared to do, but didn't actually do.

I am not distorting your words.You said she did nothing wrong. I have not said that defending the rapist was wrong. I have said that her comments on the little girl were wrong. That is victim blaming and in this case it was entirely unnecessary. I come from a family of attorneys and I went to law school but did not become an attorney myself. You can get an "expert" to say anything you want. This is on Hillary and it speaks to her lack of feminist conscience. I am not saying no one should vote for her because of this. I am saying it adds to my already low opinion of her. And I will be voting for her. And yes, I read the articles and most of the affidavit.

NP -- her comments reporting what an expert had said about the victim? How were they unnecessary? Had the state already dropped the case when she submitted the affidavit?

jsteele 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.

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

Oh, fun, let's distort each other's words! So, you are in favor of summary execution without trial?

The victim was not blamed or shamed. Clinton consulted a child psychologist and reported the findings in a affidavit. However, it turned out that because the State lost the evidence, they didn't go to trial. So, the affidavit became unnecessary. Because there was not a trial, we have no idea whether Clinton would have chosen to submit the expert findings. Maybe, probably even, but we don't know for sure. You are basing your entire case on something Clinton might have been prepared to do, but didn't actually do.

I am not distorting your words.You said she did nothing wrong. I have not said that defending the rapist was wrong. I have said that her comments on the little girl were wrong. That is victim blaming and in this case it was entirely unnecessary. I come from a family of attorneys and I went to law school but did not become an attorney myself. You can get an "expert" to say anything you want. This is on Hillary and it speaks to her lack of feminist conscience. I am not saying no one should vote for her because of this. I am saying it adds to my already low opinion of her. And I will be voting for her. And yes, I read the articles and most of the affidavit.

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.

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?

Oh give it a rest. The very fact that you have to dig back 40 years to find something to throw at her should tell you you are desperate.

FWIW, accusing Hillary of not being a feminist is about the silliest thing you people try. On a par with "Obama is anti-American." Patently false and simply dumb.

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.

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

Different PP here. How do you know it was unnecessary to win the case? None of us know all of the facts of that case. You are making an assumption. Like it or not, that's how those cases were handled back then. I'm sure most defense attorneys would have done exactly the same thing. And do you know what happens to criminal defense attorneys who fail to raise a standard defense on behalf of their client? They get sued by those clients for inadequate representation of counsel. Look, being a criminal defense attorney is not a glamorous job. Some of your clients may be likable, most probably aren't. But all of them are entitled to a lawyer. If you ever find yourself in need of one, you'll damn sure want one who will do his or her best to represent you, regardless of their personal feelings toward you or the victim.

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.

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

Oh, fun, let's distort each other's words! So, you are in favor of summary execution without trial?

The victim was not blamed or shamed. Clinton consulted a child psychologist and reported the findings in a affidavit. However, it turned out that because the State lost the evidence, they didn't go to trial. So, the affidavit became unnecessary. Because there was not a trial, we have no idea whether Clinton would have chosen to submit the expert findings. Maybe, probably even, but we don't know for sure. You are basing your entire case on something Clinton might have been prepared to do, but didn't actually do.

Anonymous wrote:

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

I know. There is the part where Jefferson wrote about King George "In his tyranny, he has made legal aid attorneys take cases against their will" and then later wrote "our creator has endowed us with the right to refuse labor, if we are lawyers, except maybe if we are black slave lawyers"

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If your point is that you won't vote for her, fine. If your point is that no one else should vote for her, this isn't the most compelling reason to convince the undecided.