I'll Be Nice And Defend Hillary -- Because There's Something She Shouldn't Be Attacked On

[THUNDER HANDS]

and that's this rape victim "attack" story that's circulating now.

Yeah, it's news because nobody heard of it before. But it's not an example of evil motives or intentions on her part.

When you're fresh out of law school, a lot of young lawyers get their first start in legal aid - the defense of people who can't afford lawyers.

As a court reporter, I've seen many young legal aid attorneys defend clients they don't particularly like. I've seen them defend rapists, murderers, child molestors, drug dealers, carjackers, thugs, gang members, ect.

They HAVE to defend these people.

Most of the time, they plead and beg them to take a guilty plea. It would be in their best interest to do so, because they'd end up receiving a lesser sentence.

But a lot of the time these criminals think they're smarter than the cops and the D.A. - or they think the victim won't come forward to make a statement - so they go ahead and plead innocent to make the State prove them guilty.

And it's the legal aid attorney's job to defend them.

The attorney may want them to take a guilty plea, but no matter how hard they try, if their client wants to go forward with a contested trial, that lawyer took an oath to defend them and preserve their rights - and that's what they have to do.

Usually, in cases like rape or child molestation, that means attacking the credibility of the witness or the victim. It's not pretty. It's not nice. But it has to be done if you're going to provide an adequate defense.

And most of the lawyers despise doing it. They go home feeling sick about it.

I have no doubt Hillary felt the same way.

So I'm not going to attack her over this. And you shouldn't either. She had a job to do and she did it. She didn't ask for it. It was handed to her. She was just being a professional.

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

[Alexander]

1. Agreed. Hillary has many things to be ashamed of but this isn't one of them.

[LisaL]

2. Exactly. Talk about grasping at straws. It's pathetic.

Attacking her for doing her job, over 30 years ago, I might add.
How low can you go?

[zabet]

3. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[shadowknows69]

4. I agree

You can't fault a defense lawyer for doing his/her job.

[yourguide]

5. I'm suspect of this myself

and choose to take a pass on commenting on this.

I hope other obama supporters choose the same path.

[Flabbergasted]

6. Want to bet the GOP was holding onto this story until she got the nod. BTW I agree with you.

[LisaL]

13. Oh for crying out loud. The story was in her book.

[Flabbergasted]

18. It would have been used during the GE against her. I also think it's a non-issue.

[joeybee12]

7. Our judicial system supposedly guarantees everyone a fair trial...

...and that means EVERYONE...people who we might think deserve one, are guaranteed it.

[skipos]

8. Yes, there are a million reasons to dislike Hillary but

I don't think this is one of them.

I have no doubt that Mark Penn and the Clintons would use this against Obama if the roles were reversed, but Obama supporters shouldn't sink to their level.

[I Vote In Pittsburgh]

9. agreed n/t

[MH1]

10. I think I agree with you.

I haven't read the story in depth but what you say makes sense.

I am much more concerned with who she is now then how she handled a client's defense early in her legal career. If my own professional credibility was subjected to assessment of the decisions I made when just starting out...well jeez, I don't even want to think about that!

[sandnsea]

11. Attorneys told me they protected civil rights

And made sure nothing outlandish was done in the course of a criminal case. They did not tell me they tried to turn 12 year old rape victims into whores. Without reading the actual case, it's difficult to know whether she had to do this or not. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion either way.

[THUNDER HANDS]

25. if your client tells you to question something, they usually do

if your client tells you, she used to call me all the time and ask me to come over - most of the time the attorney is going to question the victim and ask if they called them and asked them to come over.

and the way the legal aid system works, at least in NY, is that if a criminal fires his legal aid lawyer, they can't appoint another legal aid lawyer to defend him - the entire legal aid system is disqualified from representing him, he has to get a different public defender unit to do it. in New York it's called an 18B panel. I'm not sure how that works in other states though.

[sandnsea]

33. Only if there was real corroboration

If it was just a desperate line of questioning, I don't think most lawyers would do it. Without seeing the rest of the defense, I have no way of knowing whether she called other witnesses to back up her claim. If it was just a desperate act, like we're seeing from her now, then it was uncalled for. But we don't have all the facts at this point.

[LisaL]

43. What witnesses? Do you people even read the article?

The case never went to trial.
What questioning?
I doubt she ever got to question the girl.
The girl did not remember her, as she did not realize Hillary was the lawyer.

[sandnsea]

49. Yes witnesses

Do you think, oh, the skies open and folks just fall into the witness stand? People are questioned before trials, although I did not know this had not gone to court, which doesn't make a hill of beans difference. She made it clear she was willing to do anything to get the guy off, and he got a plea deal because of it.

"However, that account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to aNewsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim."

[no name no slogan]

12. Completely agree.

It was her JOB, FFS. She is legally and ethically obligated to provide the best defense she can for her client. It's a lawyer thing.

[truedelphi]

14. I was not fond of this attack for two reasons

One being the reason you detailed Magic rat

Two: there should be a moratorium on hwo many years you can go back over. You slugged a kid in kindergarden, so what?

If the charge wasn't murder or child abuse, then several decades down the line, the charge should be nul and void.

[yourguide]

21. Your actions as an adult

are far different than comparing your actions as a child and an adult. Magic got it right, this second reason is not.

[ORDem]

15. Nothing in the article suggested she pushed for a plea deal, nor

was there any expression of remorse on her part mentioned. Do you have evidence of remorse? On the contrary, it appears she worked night and day on discrediting the 12 year old (wow, isn't Hillary tough!) as one would expect from any self-absorbed, workaholic hill climber.

Everyone has a choice btw. They didn't hold a gun to her head.

And to her credit, she did quite well, getting the pedophile off with a year in jail and probation. Nice work!

:dem:

[THUNDER HANDS]

29. i think it would be hard to determine if she did push for one

unless they interviewed Hillary directly. She would be the only one who knows or not. Well, her and her supervisor at the time. And the criminal.

[scheming daemons]

16. Agree 100%.

Mods... please delete any and all threads about this.


Obama doesn't need us to being doing this.


Mckeown.... hate to call you out.... but our candidate would not approve of your thread.

[Zueda]

17. She at least ought to stop trumpeting her so called

history of child advocacy.

[LisaL]

19. Ridiculous claim.

Her history of child advocacy got nothing to do with her being appointed to defend her client and doing the best job she could.

[Zueda]

26. It's not a "claim". Simply a suggestion.

Would you have been able to do this?

How would you feel if this 12 year old girl was your sister or daughter?

[PeaceNikki]

30. How about blaming the DA for not doing a better job advocating for the kid?

That's who was being paid with taxpayer dollars to prosecute the guy.

[malletgirl02]

83. the DA

Yeah, it looks like the DA was a crappy lawyer. If the DA was a better advocate for the girl he or she could have saw this coming.

[LisaL]

46. If I were a lawyer (which I am not), then I would have to

defend clients to the best of my ability.
Otherwise, why even become a lawyer?
Whatever you want it or not, everybody in this country has a right to an attorney.

[Tarc]

22. As I just posted in another topic

Attacking lawyers for, um, doing their job is pretty pathetic. Even the lowest of dirtbags in our society get legal counsel, and if that counsel did not represent their client's rights to the best of their ability in a court of law, then they would, rightly, face sanctions and possible disbarment.

If you don't like what lawyers do day in and day out, fine, but don't you dare have the goddamned gall to single out Hillary Clinton to the exclusion of all others for doing it.

[Zueda]

36. Sure she was just doing her job...

but when she uses her background in childhood development in this fashion then she should not use anything regarding children as part of her campaign platform.

She cannot have her cake and eat it too.

[Tarc]

53. You really are an idiot if this is the point you're going to try to make hay with here

No one's buying it. Other than the most diehard of Obamaniacs of course.

[Zueda]

60. You suppose she enjoyed this?

I bet she did. She likes the "fun part".

[rodeodance]

72. they have no shame. simple as that.

[tokenlib]

20. I agree except for one point.......

What about the victim who sees that same defense attorney today running for president?

Just for a moment I'm trying to place myself into her mind.

It's sobering.

The story should remain buried. But how does that grown up victim feel today?

[LisaL]

24. Oh give me a break.

The victim didn't even realize Hillary was the lawyer until she was told by the reporters.

[Yossariant]

31. If the defense attorney does NOT attack the victim's credibilty, what's left?

There would never be rape trials if we have to presume that the complainant is telling the truth.

Everybody would just have to plead guilty.

Nonsense.

:shrug:

[Mme. Defarge]

23. Obama supporter here

who totally agrees with the OP.

Thanks!

[union_maid]

27. You're right

A lawyer is required to advocate for his or her client. Lawyers are not the judge or the jury, and they shouldn't be. To do less her best for her client could mean a loss of license, at least. Judges need for defendents to be properly defended in order to have a valid trial. It sounds like she did what she was supposed to do.

[Abacus]

28. I must be obtuse

If someone told me that I had to defend a rapist and denigrate the character of a 12 year child in the process, I'd be looking for another job or a different career. What am I not getting?

[THUNDER HANDS]

32. that when you're a lawyer, you start out defending criminals

sometimes. It's a stepping-stone in your career.

Plus, you're not always defending guilty people, either.

[PeaceNikki]

34. The 5th and 6th Amendments?

That give criminal defendants the right to be represented by an attorney.

:shrug:

We can't pick and choose which civil rights we like when.

[Abacus]

51. I never said or implied

that he didn't have the right to an attorney.

[PeaceNikki]

52. Yes you did.

[Abacus]

62. No, I didn't.

I said that *I* could not defend a rapist. If I did not believe the person to be a rapist, then I would have no trouble representing that individual.

Is there no line that you as an individual have where you would decide that you could not perform the role of defense atty? If you had seen the abuse occur, would you still be willing to defend him? I understand what is necessary for the process to work, but cognitive dissonance sets in too early for me to personally be able to do it and I would like to hope for the same of a presidential candidate.

Next up, "I was just following orders."

[PeaceNikki]

66. Well, you're not even a lawyer at all, are you?

The Right to Adequate Representation applies to all. And if you completed law school, passed the bar were a lawyer and were appointed this case by the court, you just might feel differently about who is and is not "worthy" of your services.

[Abacus]

77. Of course not.

You didn't answer my question; do you have a boundary line for a client you would defend, believing the defendant was guilty? Would witnessing the crime affect your decision?

[PeaceNikki]

80. I am not an attorney. I've not been schooled on laws and civil rights and responsibilities.

So I am not in the position to say that I would or would not take any case. I think it reeks of arrogance to say that you are too morally superior to take a case that the court has appointed to you.

And... uh, I'm no lawyer, but I am pretty sure that if one witnesses a crime, they are not eligible to provide legal counsel against the defendant of that crime. That's ALMOST the stupidest question I've read today.

[Abacus]

82. Alright

"I'm no lawyer, but I am pretty sure that if one witnesses a crime, they are not eligible to provide legal counsel against the defendant of that crime."

I am aware of that, but that wasn't the point of my question. I was curious whether or not certainty of guilt would be a factor.

"So I am not in the position to say that I would or would not take any case."

That's a bit of a cop out, but your next statements seem to imply that you would have no such boundary.

"I think it reeks of arrogance to say that you are too morally superior to take a case that the court has appointed to you. "

How morally superior of you.

[PeaceNikki]

84. Yes, I "copped out" of your irrelevant and ridiculous hypothetical question

while at the same time implying I have no moral boundaries.

:eyes:

[Abacus]

88. No,

I was more interested about cognitive dissonance than moral boundaries. Your dodging and dismissal of my question pretty much answers my question anyway.

[sandnsea]

35. The court system requires lawyers to function n/t

[TexasObserver]

37. Suborning perjury is unethical. So is promoting a story you know is false.

You're a court reporter, not a lawyer, as you said. As such, you're not familiar with the either the law, the rules of evidence, or the disciplinary rules that mandate ethical conduct. You transcribe what people say, and if we're lucky, you don't screw it up, and you get the record completed and ready for appeal in a decent amount of time. You're a scribe, one who writes down what is said.

If you want to rationalize your point of view, fine. But please don't tell others they shouldn't be repulsed by attorneys who will say and do anything to get their client off.

The opening scene from the film, Devil's Advocate, was almost exactly the situation Hillary had. Yes, she did go over the line.

Stick to reading back the questions and answers that you're asked by the court to read back, and leave the lawyering to those trained to do so.

[THUNDER HANDS]

41. cute

but last time I checked, no ethical complaints were filed against her in this case, were they?

Thanks. Just checking.

P.S. - when you want to sound all knowledgeable and commanding on an issue, don't reference a Keanu Reeves movie.

[TexasObserver]

58. I'll prove you are not competent to offer the opinions you have. Right here.

1. Name any court in America where you would be allowed to offer expert testimony on legal issues, other than to testify about what court reporters do.

2. Admit that you have sometimes been unable to accurately read back immediately the testimony just given to you, without making reference to an audio tape of the proceeding.

3. Admit that when you prepare deposition testimony, you often get back from lawyers an ERRATA SHEET, which details by page and line the errors you have made in doing your job as a court reporter.

4. Admit that most court reporters who work for a judge have the job not because they're the best, but because they're the person the judge wants for the job.

You're a court reporter, not a lawyer, so pontificate on what you do know.

[THUNDER HANDS]

61. dude, what's your problem?

I've been in many settings where i've seen legal aid attorneys defend their clients. I've talked to them. I know them. I know how they defend their clients and why they use the tactics and arguments they do.

I don't have to defend myself to you.

On top that, I wasn't offering expert testimony on the specifics of legal defense. I was offering anecdotal evidence.

Are you some disgruntled lawyer who got back one too many depositions that made you realize how foolish you sounded when you questioned a witness? That must suck.

[TexasObserver]

67. My problem is your telling people in your OP that this is nothing to be concerned about.

It is. You have your opinion, and you've stated it. But stop telling posters to move along, nothing to see here. That's your uneducated opinion, based upon the anecdotal evidence of what you have observed as a court scribe.

You started the thread and you tried to quell the story and those who find it disturbing. I'm giving posters an educated assessment that you lack the expertise to give.

Because Hillary has proved throughout her lifetime that she will say and do anything to win, including lying, it's consistent with her character and her lack of ethics. This is something you should know by now.

I don't argue law with court reporters any more than I would argue politics with a grade schooler. We're done. Move along.

[THUNDER HANDS]

74. you have 3200 posts in the last 24 days

I'd say you argue with anyone about anything, whether you're an expert in the subject or not.

[TexasObserver]

76. You can count, too.

Put that on your resume.

You generally make decent threads and decent comments. Not so in this one. In this one, you're letting your opinion and ego get the best of you.

I invite you to read my journal, all of it, and you can decide whether I know what I'm talking about or not.

You posted something I take issue with, and I've explained why. You're offended, so you want to make it personal. I'm not going to get dragged into that, because it's a waste of time.

[LisaL]

42. Whatever in the world gives you an idea

that she did go "over the line?" Do you have access to documents in this case?
No, I didn't think so. And nobody else does, considering a lot of documents apparently have been lost in the flood.
You don't even know what the test results showed, cause they've been lost in the flood too.
So, get a clue.

[sandnsea]

50. You are jumping to conclusions again,

You have really got to stop this. You do not know whether she promoted a false story because you do not know whether there was corroborating witnesses.

[TexasObserver]

59. No, I'm not.

You have a tendency to talk about things you know nothing about, and this isn't the first time.

Take your uneducated guesses to someone that impresses.

[sandnsea]

65. Where's your proof

Give me the proof that Hillary didn't have witnesses, or other evidence, to back up her defense.

Don't call me names because you're a lousy lawyer, if you are one at all.

[TexasObserver]

68. Not going to waste any more time with you. History has shown it's pointless.

Read my other posts in this subthread. If that doesn't satisfy you, too bad.

[sandnsea]

71. Yeah because you're always wrong

You made another outrageous charge. Back it up or admit you don't know what she did any more than Magic Rat does. We do not yet have all the facts.

[rodeodance]

75. You are not listening and you do not want to.

[gateley]

38. Agree -- I didn't even bother reading the article because I could just see

it was a situation like you describe.

Thank you for this post.

[ecstatic]

39. I have an uncontrollable negative reaction to child rape nt

[pdxmom]

40. I work for a criminal defense attorney and sometimes it sucks what

we have to do to provide a defense for our clients. I might not like the client and the crime might disgust me, but we have a job to do and it is for a higher purpose - support the Constitution.

But, what I've also learned is that the average person doesn't see it that way, and this could have a negative impact on her. I agree with whoever said somewhere on here, that this was probably something the RW was waiting to pull out in the GE.

[Arkansas Granny]

44. Thank you for explaining this.

[tammywammy]

45. Agreed

[Obamaman2008]

47. A Lawyer that would do this, is not a lawyer that should be President

That is the point. I am sure the rapist deserves a defense. But she didn't have to accept this case, or preform that tactic. She did it because she wanted to improve her career. I do not want someone that can do this type of thing to a little girl because president.

I would not do this as a person, because I am not that kind of person. And I would not vote for someone that was kind of person.

[Marie26]

54. For the last time

She was REQUIRED to accept the case because the court had appointed her. If you want to exclude any lawyer who'd take this case, you'll have to exclude anyone w/a bar license. Because attorneys have to take a court-appointed case unless there's some obvious conflict of interest or other compelling reason why they can't take it (incapacity, etc.) "The client is a scumbag" is not a compelling reason.

[OneBlueSky]

92. "She was REQUIRED to accept the case" . . .

but she was NOT required to attack the accuser . . . particularly a 12-year-old . . .

attacking the accuser is often the last refuge of a scoundrel, er, rapist . . .

as I posted elsewhere, in this particular case it's, well, unseemly . . . because the defense attorney doing the attacking is a) a woman; b) a woman who claims to champion women's rights; and c) a woman who claims to champion women's rights who also happens to be running for president . . . as a Democrat! . . .

could blow over, but I doubt it . . . many more people -- both women and men -- are so much more aware of the realities of things like sexual assault and domestic violence these days . . .

we shall see . . .

[Marie26]

95. That's the Constitution.

The Constitution gives accused defendants the right to confront & cross-examine witnesses against them. Of course the guy was a scoundrel, but if his defense was that the victim made it up, that's the defense that the defense att. has to persue. Basically Clinton is being attacked for fulfilling her obligations as a defense attorney. And it's worth noting that 1.) This case never went to trial; Clinton never cross-examined the victim at all. and 2.) This was not a case that HRC made money on, or wanted to accept. The judge ordered her to represent the Def., and once appointed, she had to represent him to the best of her abilities. She was appointed because she was working at a legal aid clinic that represented poor, indigent people. This is so, so unfair.


"Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

[gravity]

48. Thanks for the clarification

[Straight Shooter]

55. THAS SRE KAOEUPBD OF U RBGS PHAPBLG-EUBG RAT

;)

[THUNDER HANDS]

57. THA*U / SRE -CH

:)

[Straight Shooter]

63. .

KWRAOUR
HR BG

:)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

56. Agreed. And let's not forget that 1975 was a very different time

Not that things have gotten much better viz. the perception of rape, necessarily, but back then it was unthinkable to be sympathetic to any but the most "virtuous" of victims. It was standard practice for defense attorneys to portray plaintiffs as scheming harlots. Even the most ardent feminists, which I've no doubt Hillary was, may have held some fallacious beliefs about the culpability of victims in these situations. If this were 5 years ago, I'd say she deserved to be roundly condemned, but it was 32 years ago. I remember when the movie The Accused came out in the late 80s, how controversial it was because it portrayed a vicious rape from the view of the woman attacked, and because she wasn't a chaste schoolgirl.

[1awake]

64. yes, its all pretty much BS

She did her job and has nothing to answer for on this. The whole thing is ridiculous.

[Midlodemocrat]

69. Why let the facts about the court system get in the way of hyperbole?

I can't believe how low some have sunk on this site. It's truly disheartening.

[rodeodance]

70. same poster just posted a second one -same story. can't we stop this?

[rodeodance]

73. MR--thank you so much.

[Tom Rinaldo]

78. You earned appreciation for this thread, knowing some of your other feelings

Thank you for writing this.

[malletgirl02]

79. I agree

Being a legal aid attorney is tough, and it takes a lot of guts to be one. By being one she did a great service to the Constitution. Plus, she was just out of law school.

edited: for spelling

[ButterflyBlood]

81. If my daugher were raped I wouldn't care: I'd want to smash that defense attorney's head in

Period.

[PeaceNikki]

85. The defense attorney and not the accused? Not the DA?

[ButterflyBlood]

86. The accused too

I see no reason to for the DA.

[Hippo_Tron]

94. And you would have every reason to want to do that...

Which is why we don't design our justice system around the desires of victims' mothers.

[RunningFromCongress]

87. I agree, it's a lawyers job to do everything they can for their client, no matter what their own

views are.

[rexy]

89. Another nod of agreement here.

I understand where people are coming from in not understanding how someone can do this. I personally would not be able to handle it. It's just the way our legal system is. Everyone, including someone as sick as this man, deserves representation. It was a part of her job, and like you said, I'm sure she felt horrible about it.

If anything, I think it shows her strength in being able to defend someone as a part of her job, despite going against her own morals and ethics.

[comradebillyboy]

90. thank you magic rat

[peacebaby3]

91. I posted this in the attack thread, but I'll post it here also. As an Obama supporter, I support

Clinton on this issue.

As someone who works in indigent defense, I fully support Hillary on
this issue. It is her ethical duty to defend her client and yes, she should fully question the accuser and if she has reason to believe the accuser is lying, she is required to question her on the stand as needed. She did exactly what she was supposed to do and if she didn't, she should have lost her license.

Ever heard of the McMartin trial? Sometimes children lie.

<http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/mc... >

There's more, but that is by far one of the best known and most expensive trials in history.

Oh and before you blast me, I'm a female who was raped at age 16 so don't bother with those attacks.

[donheld]

93. I couldn't agree more

Whoever started that story hasn't done anybody any favors.