If you have a big problem with the" Hillary defends rapist" story...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

This is as much a no-brainer as Habeas Corpus and torture and abusive signing statements. It is one's perfect right to have contempt for our form of Constitutional government, but DU is a damn funny place to express it.

Many comments on this topic have been suggestions (demands?) that Clinton should have violated the rights of a client and broken her professional oaths.

Had Hillary behaved any differently than described in the infamous Newsday article, she should have been DISBARRED on the spot. It would have been the greatest violation of legal ethics... on par with a doctor intentionally letting a non-terminal patient die.

Ask any lawyer.

And, as to whether any line of defense is "in bounds", that is a determination the JUDGE makes... that's what she's there for. The defense attorney is ethically REQUIRED to try anything that might work, and the judge decides whether it's in bounds or not. (Like judges in movies say all the time... "Hmmm... I'm going to allow that.")

We will never hear Barack Obama citing this story because he is an attorney, and he knows better. This cuts to the very core of legal ethics.

(And if Obama had gotten a thousand alleged rapists acquitted using legally permissible tactics that would discomfit the average layman it would speak highly of his competence and his ETHICS. I am sure some Hillary defenders would smear him with it, and I would pitch a fit. This is a principle thing, not a candidate thing.)