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.)

[emilyg]

1. k/r

[Occam Bandage]

2. K&R. Clinton acted completely ethically.

[BeatleBoot]

52. I heard Rush Limbaugh say the same thing last week

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. Considering that the victim bears no ill will toward HRC, I fail to see

the outrage

[papau]

18. 15 y old said he had sex with her - but she denied as she "liked the 15 y old" = hard to

see the problem

except for the Obama smear Hillary 24/7 crowd I doubt this would even make the media

[LisaL]

58. 15 year old was not Hillary's client, so what difference does it make

that he admitted having sex with the girl?

[John Q. Citizen]

59. Hillary acted ethically. But the story isn't a hit piece, anymore than the story

about Sinclair was a hit piece.

News articles don't have to be hit pieces just because our candidate is involved.

I support Obama, but I actually hold Hill in higher esteem as a result of the article, because it speaks to the fact that she is a professional and that she did the best job she could for her client.

Please don't interpret this as snarky, I'm serious about an accused persons right to a vigorous defense.

[LisaL]

61. How do you not see this as a hit piece?

Digging something up from over 30 years ago?
And especially considering most of the documents in this case got destroyed by the flood?

[John Q. Citizen]

89. For one thing, the article presents the story from a whole number of sides.

There are extensive quotes from both Hill supporters and from disinterested parties who make the point that Hillary was acting entirely ethically.

It also make the point that Hillary is a very hard worker. Hill's supporters say she's a fighter. This story seems to bear that out. In this case her job, her duty, was to fight for her client.

Like I said, I have new found esteem for her after reading the story. Being a defense lawyer is a very tough line of work. You have to defend people that others might find indefensible.

The peep was convicted (on a plea bargain) and did jail time.

I couldn't call this a hit piece in any way shape or form. Hillary mentions this case in her book. It's news because Hillary is running for president, just as the Sinclair allegations were news because Obama is running for president. And I have equal disgust for anyone attempting to make hay out of this article as I do for anyone who tried to make hay out of the Sinclair allegations.

[LisaL]

101. The documents in the case have been lost in the flood.

What were the results of the forensic tests? The article doesn't say.
Even though the article does say Hillary worked hard, would you not agree that the article isn't trying to show her in a positive light?
Starting with how Hillary behaves in crisis. What crisis there was? She was assigned to defend an indigent client. How does crisis even come into it?

[dailykoff]

111. The July 28, 1975 affidavit where Hillary lies about the 12-year old was not lost.

link: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story?page=3

[Fredda Weinberg]

120. But it is and frankly, brings HRC out in a good light. So thank you n/t

[dailykoff]

121. Instead of helping a 12-year old rape victim, HRC lied about her.

That does NOT put her in a good light.

[Fredda Weinberg]

122. HRC lied and the court stayed silent? I find that unlikely. Of course

you could provide evidence for this accusation, but I doubt it.

[dailykoff]

123. Evidence:

In the July 28, 1975 affidavit, Hillary accuses the victim of being a liar, and claims she invited the rape to occur:

"I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing," wrote Rodham, without referring to the source of that allegation. "I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body."

The victim vehemently denies these claims in the recent Newsday interview, and excerpts from the original filings make it plain that Hilly basically invented them out of whole cloth:

"I have ... been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experience and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant's, are even more prone to such behavior," she wrote in her July 28 affidavit. "She exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way."

link: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story?page=4

Lying about a 12-year rape victim is unconscionable, unethical, and despicable.

[LisaL]

I don't see any evidence in your post.

None whatsoever. It's not nice to make stuff up.
You don't know that Hillary didn't have sources telling her these things.

[dailykoff]

128. She supplies no source and the victim denies Hillary's claims:

The victim was visibly stunned when handed the affidavit by a reporter this fall. "It kind of shocks me - it's not true," she said. "I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story?page=4

In other words, Hillary was lying about a 12-year old rape victim to get a 41-year old rapist off the hook.

[LisaL]

129. I am tired of arguing with this nonsense.

She didn't name her sources, but apparently she didn't need to, as the judge apparently did approve the evaluation.
Just because she didn't name her sources, doesn't mean she lied about their existence.

[dailykoff]

133. She gives one source: "an expert in child psychology"

but what do you know, gives no name. She simply made up lies to help her case. That's unethical.

[LisaL]

135. You are confused.

She didn't claim the expert in child psychology was her source.

[dailykoff]

137. She gives no source for her claims about the girl, correct,

and the 'expert' is just a shabby cloak for her mendacity.

[dorktv]

148. "I have been told..." She said she had been told, not that "this young

woman is a lying sack of poo and should be thrown in the gaol." Mighty big difference there.

[Fredda Weinberg]

127. You post irrelevancies and call it evidence? Find me a statement

and refutation. The poor girl was denying her boyfriend ... HRC was kind in her professional language.

[dailykoff]

130. The victim herself denied Hillary's claims this fall:

From the Newsday article:

The victim was visibly stunned when handed the affidavit by a reporter this fall. "It kind of shocks me - it's not true," she said. "I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story?page=4

In other words, Hillary lied about a 12-year old rape victim to get a 41-year old rapist off the hook.

[Fredda Weinberg]

139. You got bubkus. The victim wasn't cooperating at the time, HRC

said she'd been told - not that she heard from the victim herself. What a load of nuthin.

[dailykoff]

140. So you're saying the victim is lying and invited the rape?

Now where have I heard that line before.

[Fredda Weinberg]

141. I'm saying the victim wasn't victimized by HRC n/t

[dailykoff]

143. Hillary LIED about her, forced her to testify (yes, read the article),

and helped her rapist get off with a light sentence. I'd call that victimization.

[Fredda Weinberg]

155. HRC did her job as the court demanded. I call that public service

When you can compare your record to hers, then you may judge.

[John Q. Citizen]

50. Fredda, what the victim said has no bearing. Hillary behaved ethically by

preparing the best case possible for her client.

It never went to court, but that's besides the point also.

I support Obama but I am adamantly opposed to anyone, especially Obama supporters attempting to make political hay out of Hillary doing her job. I feel the same about anyone who tried to make political hay out of the unsubstantiated accusations against Obama involving Sinclair.

It's both wrong and it's stupid.

I would be arguing the same if the case didn't involve Hillary but some unknown defense lawyer and some unknown client.

Life is messy. The constitution is messy. But Hillary acted completely and totally ethically.

[Fredda Weinberg]

117. Of course the reflections of a first hand observer are relevant. And her

judgment too ... we're not talking legal ethics here. The question is HRC's demeanor: was she out of control or professional? In this instance, we can hear from someone who was part of the case - and not one you would expect to be sympathetic.

[CoffeeCat]

72. The victim is still suffering...

As a six-grader she was raped. Not only did her perpetrator receive a lenient sentence and get away with
the crimes he committed against her, she was told--by the state--that she asked for it because "she fantasized
about having sex with older men"--which is what Hillary Clinton wrote about this six-grader.

This girl is a drug addict today. She suffers from depression and other personal pain. No doubt this experience
traumatized her and it sounds like her own mother was dismissive of what happened to her and was mainly interested
in getting the legal proceedings finished quickly, and quietly.

This girl was only 11 years old! She was made to believe that she was the bad one and the one who deserved it.

Society failed her. Her mother failed her. The criminal justice system failed her.

Judging from her rampant drug use, that continues today--no doubt she is still trying to douse the pain that
this trauma caused her.

She doesn't blame Hillary Rodham Clinton or anyone else--but herself--because that's all she's ever known.

Our society took her humanity, wadded it up and threw it into the trash.

Do you actually expect that she has enough dignity or self awareness to actually have "ill will" toward
anyone in that horrendous, traumatic situation? That would require strength and confidence that was destroyed
when this person was 11.

[Fredda Weinberg]

119. She doesn't blame HRC because HRC didn't victimize her. She

was raped and her boyfriend was part of the nightmare. I've been a young girl - her predicament is familiar.

So don't bring a political agenda to a criminal case. Apparently, everyone went through the motions professionally - that's all that matters when questioning HRC's demeanor.

[RetroLounge]

4. Don't waste your breath...

It's scorched earth all day long here.

This place fucking disgusts me.

RL

[Bluebear]

78. You said it.

[rodeodance]

93. i know--think i saw threads--I can't believe the comments I read--from DU members. I think

some days I have seen it all but the vile continues.

[MadBadger]

5. I agree

[Yael]

6. You can defend an "alleged rapist" without saying the victim was trolling for it

Especially a 12 year old girl.

[dailykoff]

16. Bingo.

Thanks for putting it succinctly.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. False, It is either the best defense or it isn't.

A lawyer is ethically FORBIDDEN to be compassionate or decent or any of that stuff.

If it is the best defense and it is not illegal, a layer has an oath to pursue that defense the same way a doctor has an oath to preserve life.

It's not optional.

[Yael]

23. She made her choice, now she gets to live with it.

[CoffeeCat]

65. Yes, and we have the right to judge her actions...

I can look at this case and be disgusted with Hillary Clinton.

She could have easily provide a solid defense for this man without
suggesting that this six-grade girl harbored sexual fantasies for
older men--and therefore she wanted it and asked for it.

Hillary Clinton did not have to go down that road. An attorney crafts
the defense and she could have avoided blaming the victim.

She chose to blame the victim.

Please do not suggest that Hillary had no choice. She had choices. Lots of them.

I am sickened by her choices.

Lots and lots of little girls are raped. Many attorneys defend these guys and they
don't do it by suggesting that these little girls really want to have sex with adult
men and fantasize about it--in order to garner a lenient sentence.

It's bullshit and it's a heinous, unscrupulous, brazen tactic.

All of you defending this sick choice--have no shame.

[rodeodance]

98. Even many mature Obamafolks were appaulled by comments on those threads. Shameful.

[Quixote1818]

36. If she had to go to that defense then she must not have had much to go with

thats scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

54. Public defenders almost always have very little to work with

It's the nature of the job.

Had Barack or Michelle Obama been in the same position they would have acted the same way.

Many, many publicly minded people work a PDs after law school. It is shit work for low money, but idealistic lawyers are drawn to it.

[Yael]

92. Blamed a 12 year old for a 41 year old raping them?

No matter if Christ himself declared that sane, I wouldn't give him my vote.

[Firespirit]

25. That's what bothers me about this story

From the little FACT that can be gleaned from the posts about it, it seems that it was acknowledged by the defense that sex took place, and it looks like that would make it a slam-dunk for statutory rape at a bare minimum. 12-year-olds cannot consent, let alone "ask for it." Unless there was no legal age of consent at the time in that state.

[Yael]

32. Going for the jugular when there is no need for that

Scorched-earth, 1970s style.

[Quixote1818]

39. Thank you! Very well put! People are missing the most important points

in this topic.

[LisaL]

44. People are not missing the points because the points are not true.

[Firespirit]

45. You're welcome -- it seems some ppl don't think it was rape if the boy was 15

The emotional difference between a 12-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy, a kid in high school, is an enormous gulf. I am strongly for "Romeo and Juliet" laws, but I think that the younger one party is, the less the age difference should be before it is considered rape.

[dailykoff]

53. Taylor (the rapist) was 41. The 15-year old was a third party:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story?page=2

[LisaL]

55. Again, 15 year old was not her client.

[Quixote1818]

41. Your post should be a new topic. It deserves a lot of visibility. nt

[LisaL]

42. I don't know how you could have possibly gleaned that,

because the article says nothing of the sort.
It never said Hillary's client acknowledged that the sex took place between himself and the 12 year old.

[Firespirit]

51. How exactly does "she pursued him" as a defense NOT acknowledge it?

If the defense was that there was no rape because there was no sex, then whether she pursued him wasn't relevant, was it?

[John Q. Citizen]

107. Would you be so kind as to provide where Hillary said she was trolling for it?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2934440,print.story

I have read that darned article three times and I can't find that in there.

Maybe I missed it. Thanks.

This is all I can find

"I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing," wrote Rodham, without referring to the source of that allegation. "I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body."


As far as I can see she was 'attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim.'

That's not saying the victim was asking for it. Defense lawyers often attempt to impeach the credibility of witnesses in a case. That's standard.

[MercutioATC]

7. The controversy isn't about her doing her job, it's her choice of clients.

Yes, once an attorney accepts a case, they are ethically bound to be an advocate for that client.

However, attorneys choose their clients.

...unless she was a public defender at the time????

[MadBadger]

8. I think I read that this was court assigned.

I could be wrong.

[MercutioATC]

12. I just read it again, and you're correct.

...in that case, she was ethically bound to provide a vigorous defense.

[Occam Bandage]

10. She was a public defender.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. My understanding is that she was court-appointed.

If so, she had to take the case.

[creeksneakers2]

73. The article says she tried to turn down the case but the judge

wouldn't let her.

[Yael]

80. She CHOSE to blame the victim on this.

A 12 year old child whose 41 year old rapist admitted to sex.

She didn't have to go scorched-earth on this child, she chose to.

[creeksneakers2]

159. The rapist didn't admit to sex

And the only reason the claims about desires for older men were brought up were for a motion to have the victim examined by a psychiatrist.

[dailykoff]

20. No, it's about her choice of tactics. The one she chose was wrong, like torture.

But lots of folks think torture is okay too. :shrug:

[LisaL]

40. She was assigned as a public defender.

She didn't chose the guy. He was indigent.

[JohnnyLib2]

9. Profound thanks. Recommended.

3 attorneys in this family all agree--and one of them is a * supporter!
(disclaimer: she married in)

IMO, it speaks volumes that the folks posting this story seem totally unaware of the points you have made. God help us. :hi:

[sandnsea]

13. If she had evidence it was true

Then yes, she had an obligation to present it. If she didn't, well, then not so much. We don't know, either way.

[Egnever]

14. As a hillary hater I have to agree with this

This is about the lamest attack I have seen on her yet. Having said that after hillary's latest stunts I cant say I hope it doesn't work.

[mckeown1128]

15. You are mischaracterising the complaints...

It isn't that she defended a possible rapist... Hell, that was what she was supposed to do. It was the "the 12 year old fantasised about and sought out the rapist" part. It wasn't necessary and was dirty tactic. While legal...it was unethical. She could have defended her client without implying that the client wanted sex the whole time she was being raped.

[MadBadger]

24. It would be unethical to not do everything you can to get your client off IMO

[papau]

26. the 15 yr old admitted to being sought out and raping her - where is problem?

[LisaL]

49. 15 year old was not her client.

Can you people comprehend what it is you are reading?

[Garbo 2004]

60. The rapist Clinton defended was the 41 yr old, not the 15 yr old. n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. It is not unethical

If you are using ethical to mean "what I think is good or decent" that's your business, but "ethical" is no a good word to use because failing to mount the best legally permissible defense is the ULTIMATE violation of legal ethics.

Seriously, had she done any less she would have deserved to have been disbarred, and if it were provable that she had let her sense of conventional decency foreclose a line of defense, she would have been disbarred.

It's among the worst things a lawyer can do. What you propose as decent or ethical would have been, as a matter of ethics, equivalent to bribing a juror.

[sandnsea]

46. It is illegal if it is a lie

An officer of the court cannot present a known lie to the court. That is also being missed in this rush to say a lawyer has a legal obligation to provide a full defense.

[dailykoff]

47. Legal ethics and ethical behavior are two standards,

and the standard of what is legally ethical is far lower than what is humane. Hilly took the low road.

[creeksneakers2]

74. The article isn't clear

but says Hillary had the 12 year old examined at the college she worked for. The claim that the girl sought out sex with older men could have come from the examiners. Then Hillary would have no way of not using the evidence.

[quakerboy]

19. Thank you

This Obama supporter says enough of this crap. She did her job, in a distastefull yet ethical way. Who hasn't had to choose between what we wanted to do and what we ethically needed to do. There are enough other issues to deal with without making more up for shock value.

[mudesi]

21. You're right about one thing

Obama won't cite this, because he's not slinging mud like Hillary Clinton has been for the last few weeks.

[ErnestoG]

22. Obama never tried to tear apart a 12 year old rape victim.

And you can take that to the bank...or post nomination. Whatever you prefer.

[Yael]

27. What is it about the tactics used that is escaping people about this?

...she asks rhetorically

[Firespirit]

70. Probably the DU "Bash Rape Victims" squad

If the defense was "she sought him out, and a 15 year old says he had sex with her (which she denies), so that proves she was after older men," that is a despicable defense on multiple levels. One, if there was sex, it was statutory rape. And two, that defense basically amounts to "she was a dirty little slut, and as such, neither she nor any woman who ever dares to want sex from a completely different guy can claim to be raped." Why is that so hard to get?

[Yael]

81. She was 12, he was 41

What about that is so difficult for these people?

Damn.

[papau]

30. no - indeed he was in bed with slum landlords that refuse to repair/make livable the units

[Cameron27]

28. Thanks K&H

I won't even post in those disgusting threads. I donate money to the ACLU, and believe me, there are times that I feel sick when I see what they're defending, but we have a system of justice that demands Consitutional protection for even the most vile.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. I agree 100% percent. I support Obama, but I really really support the right of an accused person to

have a vigorous defense in a court of law. Hillary acted ethically, and I hope that Obama supporters won't try to use this to make it appear that she didn't.

It would be both unfair and unwise.

[Yael]

37. You would support an attorney going after a 12 year old girl by saying

"she wanted it" when the case was already made that sex had indeed taken place?

I guess 'statutory rape' isn't of concern to you.

THIS is why rape victims hesitate to come forward. Blame the victim -- and in this case, there was no need as guilt was already proven.

[John Q. Citizen]

76. Guilt was never proved except the fonding charge the defendant copped a plea to.

A defense lawyer defends people charged with crimes.

That's what Hillary did. Read the story all the way through. Hillary never said "she wanted it."
It wasn't a cut and dried case. But that is besides the point anyway.

And the defendant wasn't charged with statutory rape. He was charged with first degree aggravated sexual assault.

If you prefer to live in a society where people charged with crimes aren't given the best defense possible, work to repeal the constitutional protections that defendants have.

[Yael]

83. My argument on this is tactics

She CHOSE to go scorched-earth on a 12 year old. The 41 year old admitted the act took place. She had plenty of leverage, but still took the opportunity to claim "she was hooking for it".

And in 2008 has the brass balls to call out David Schuster for the pimp comment.

Integrity be damned.

I have resisted being labeled a "Hill Hater" but I am getting fucking close.

[John Q. Citizen]

103. I hate being forced to defend Hill. the same thing happened in the 90's Everything

the repos were upset about, I didn't get it, and they never talked about what I was pissed off about.

Hillary made a filing to the court, in order to get a psychological evaluation. The prosecutions case was problematic because of a number of reasons, read the article.

A defense attorney only has integrity if they provide the best, strongest, most able defense possible for their client. She took the case under court order, she didn't seek out the case, and she didn't make a pile of dough.

In my mind, calling out Schuster on his inappropriate comment wasn't the problem, the problem was attempting to continue calling him out on it long after she had already done it. She milked it. But complaining originally wasn't all that big of a deal.

[dailykoff]

109. Hilly lied about a 12-year old to get a 41-year old rapist off the hook.

In the affidavit Hilly claims:

"I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing," wrote Rodham, without referring to the source of that allegation. "I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body."

The victim vehemently denies these claim in the Newsday interview and the filings make it plain that Hilly basically pulled them out of her butt:

Rodham's fluency on the topic is evident in her filings. "I have ... been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experience and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant's, are even more prone to such behavior," she wrote in her July 28 affidavit. "She exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way."

Lying about a 12-year is unethical, yes. Very.

[John Q. Citizen]

125. The problem is that there is no proof that Hillary wasn't informed about this, by

someone.

I think it sounds possibly fishy, but there is no evidence to prove it's fishy. Maybe Hill had a basis for that. Maybe not. We can't tell at this point all these years later one way or another.

I can't prove that she wasn't informed of that, can you?

It's fine to have your suspicians, but I wonder what suspicians other people had (and probably still do, if they missed the lastest article) about the Sinclair thing?

I think your problem is you can't divorce in your mind the crime of the perp from the defense provided by the court under the constitution. The fact that the victim denies that she made any other accusations doesn't mean that Hillary didn't hear there were from somebody else. Maybe she did maybe she didn't, but there's no evidence either way.

You and a bunch of other people up thread were claiming Hill said "she asked for it." Were you lying? or were you mistaken? See, anybody reading the whole thread might come to the conclusion that you were lying on purpose in an attempt to make Hill look bad. But I don't know if that's true or not. My guess is you were mistaken. But what do I know?

In the same vain, I don't know that Hill didn't hear from someone that accusations had been made before. Was she lying? Was the person she says she heard it from lying? Or mistaken? It's impossible to tell really.

We already know the retired cop said the victim's story changed at least somewhat.

So Hillary filed a motion to get a psych examination and she supported it with "what somebody told her." There was an examination and that's gone.

The victims family and the victim wanted the whole thing to end. The case had problems from the DAs point of view. So the perp copped a plea. It happens all the time.

[dailykoff]

136. No source is named in the affidavit and the victim was shocked to read the charges:

From the Newsday article:

The victim was visibly stunned when handed the affidavit by a reporter this fall. "It kind of shocks me - it's not true," she said. "I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story?page=4

[John Q. Citizen]

144. But hill didn't attribute the information to the victim, she attributed it to some unnamed

source. That's not evidence either way as to whether Hill was given information or not. So it's not a gotcha.

I still can't find anything in the article that shows Hill behaved unethically. You can believe the worst or not. But it's not a smoking gun.

It may have negative political fall out.

The story isn't a hit piece, it's very fair as far as I can tell. But the story is emotionally charged for a lot of reasons.

[dailykoff]

145. Lying about a 12-year old is unethical. The victim, now an adult, called it a lie.

If you can't get your brain around that, I'm sorry, but it's completely obvious.

[John Q. Citizen]

149. The fact the victim says she never made any other allegations doesn't mean the childs teacher didn't

tell Hill that the child had made other allegations, does it, for example?

Does the child have a neighbor who said that? I don't know, do you?

You are assuming that because the victim, 35 years later, says she didn't do that, that nobody else said that she did.

It's why you aren't a lawyer or a judge, because you have jumped to the conclusion, based only on a newspaper article, that Hill is lying.

You are assuming that. You don't know that the girls mother didn't tell Hill that, do you? Maybe the mother lied to Hill because she didn't want the case to go to trial. You don't know.

[KAZ]

31. Who the hell are you to tell anyone to switch parties?

Why don't you switch boards.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

57. Point taken and title changed

[KAZ]

62. Thanks Kurt!

[Yael]

84. Thank you

[cooolandrew]

34. Yes,this is just how the law is we all are allowed representation. Being hard on the kid could be...

...issue though. Considering I didn't like HRC trying to frame barack as deviatn on his voting record wrongly I won't touch this one as it has a smilar slant.

[Yael]

38. Being hard on the kid IS the issue that some of us are standing up for

Not her defense of a client who had already admitted he had statutory raped a 12 year old.

[creeksneakers2]

77. The client denied anything happened at all n/t

[Yael]

85. The 41 year old client admitted that he had sex with a 12 year old girl

and this doesn't concern you at all?

That speaks volumes.

[LisaL]

97. It's a false claim on your part.

[dailykoff]

110. The victim sure doesn't think it's a false claim.

Read the article.

[creeksneakers2]

160. From the article:

"Taylor was a tight-lipped client, never wavering from his claim that he'd driven all the passengers home that night without stopping in the ravine, according to Dale Gibson."

One begins caring by getting the facts right.

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. Agreed

Good post!!

[BeatleBoot]

43. I heard the Vince Foster "Scandal" isn't going away either

Rush Limbaugh said so...


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[CoffeeCat]

48. Oh please, poor Hillary! They made her blame the victim!

What you are suggesting is factually inaccurate.

You are suggesting that if Clinton had not used her ham-handed, overly aggressive tactics--to defend
that alleged child molester, that she would have been disbarred.

That's utter bullshit and you know it.

An attorney defending an alleged child rapist should defend the client. You can produce his clean record, alibis,
character witnesses and you can surely ask the victim questions and include her testimony.

However, to assert that what Hillary Clinton did to this sixth-grade girl--is somehow par for the course
and essential to her job--is a lie. Hillary Clinton asserted that this sixth-grade girl "fantasized about
older men" and wanted the rape to happen.

That's over the top. That did NOT have to happen.

Furthermore, it's called CONJECTURE. The victim NEVER stated that she had fantasies about older men. However,
somehow Hillary pulled out her powerful mind-reading abilities and wrote this in the affidavit as evidence.

The victim has come forward, all these years later--to say that she never fantasized about this man, and also
that she never came forward before and accused someone of "attacking her body", which is what Hillary Clinton
wrote in the affidavit--according to the article.

Hillary Clinton had no evidence that this girl harbored such fantasies OR that she came forward with other
stories of rape.

CONJECTURE!

What we have here people is an overzealous law student--Hillary Clinton--looking to make her mark. This sixth-grade girl--who
suffers STILL to this day because of what she endured at the hands of this rapist and at the hands of the government
who insisted that SHE ASKED FOR IT--had no one to protect her.

Your ill-informed assumption that Hillary Clinton was absolutely legally and professionally bound to
tearing apart this girl's credibility by insisting that "she fantasized about sex with older men", is
utterly preposterous.

Hillary Clinton made the CHOICE to build that up as part of her defense. What an awful, shameful, disgusting
choice it was!

[dailykoff]

69. She basically went to the dark side.

It might be legal, but it's still wrong.

[Yael]

86. Well done.

[Johnny__Motown]

56. It speaks to her priorities, Maybe she should have refused the case, instead she cashed the check

[Garbo 2004]

66. The thing is, if the court appoints you to defense you can't just say, no thanks, I'd rather not.

Not that simple or easy to get out of.

[Yael]

87. The tactics you employ ARE your choice

She chose destroying a 12 year old girl whose 41 year old attacker admitted to the act.

[LisaL]

96. He didn't admit to "the act."

Nowhere in the article does it say that Hillary's client admitted to having sex with the girl.

[Garbo 2004]

99. Actually no he didn't admit to it and I'm not defending anything in the defense. But the idea of

the poster that I responded to that Clinton could just say to the judge who appointed her, I don't want this case and walk away isn't exactly the case.

[RetroLounge]

67. She was a PUBLIC DEFENDER.

idiot.

RL

[mrreowwr_kittty]

63. I'm an Obama supporter and I think this a non-issue.

She was a defense attorney, doing her best to defend her client. This was prior to Rape Shield laws, and in a very different time. PLEASE do not hand the GOP a bullshit issue to use against a potential Democratic candidate! Whatever my problems with Clinton, I do not believe for one minute that she will not be a great President when it comes to women's issues.

Stop this, please.

[dailykoff]

71. She was ready to tear a 12-year old rape victim apart on the witness stand

and you're sure she'll be a great president when it comes to women's issues?

Are you joking?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

79. 32 years ago! Yes!

I know, I get what you are saying about the "35 years" but PLEASE stop this! HRC still may be our nominee so please stop handing the GOP something to "Willie Horton" our candidate on! This was prior to Rape Shield laws! She was doing her best to represent her client. As much as I do not think she is the best to be President (I am a HUGE Obama supporter) I do not think she should be excoriated for this. My dad was a criminal defense attorney, and he explained how the law works. She was doing her job.

[dailykoff]

82. The problem is that there's a higher standard than the way the law works.

Hillary was willing to destroy a 12-year old to earn her chops. Fine, she was doing her job. So were the interrogators in Abu Ghraib. That doesn't make it right by any but the crudest of ethical standards.

[depakid]

91. I bet neither you nor any Obama supporter would say that if it were your case

she was defending....

[dailykoff]

95. What if it was her 12-year old daughter who was raped?

Or yours, or mine? Would she permit such a tactic to be used? Would you?

[dkf]

64. Do all defense attorneys say that 12 year old rape victims "asked for it"?

If all you people defending Hillary are right, then this should be a standard line for defense attorneys of pedophile rapists.

I don't think that is true.

[John Q. Citizen]

105. Please post from the article where Hill said "she asked for it." You are reading other posts above

and nowhere in the srticle does it say that.

I support Obama. But I also support facts.

So go for it. Where did Hill say in her filing that "she asked for it."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2934440,print.story

[dkf]

106. From the article.

"I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing," wrote Rodham

[John Q. Citizen]

115. Yes, she's implying the victim made it up, and she's asking for a psych evaluation to

help determine if that was the case.

Also in the article:

Most damaging to the case, the retired detective says, was the girl's "infatuation" with the teenage boy, which she refused to admit, leading to serious inconsistencies in her statements about the incident.

The victim says it was her mother, who had recently been abandoned by her husband, who pushed for a quick plea deal to avoid the humiliation of having her daughter testify in open court. The mother, who died several years ago, was so eager to end the ordeal she coached her daughter's statements and interrupted interviews with police, Dale Gibson recalls.

"We both wanted it to be over with," the victim told Newsday. "They kept asking me the same questions over and over. I was crying all the time."

**********
Look, I hate to have to defend Hill. I support Obama. But there is no good evidence that Hill did anything unethical or wrong.

Defense lawyers defend people who are arrested for crimes. She was ordered by a judge to take the case and she did a very good job on this case.

The perp was convicted, though not of the original charge, he copped a plea.

[dkf]

118. I guess the question is where did she get the information

that the girl fantasized about older men and all and that she had a history of accusing people of touching her body. There is no one named and no substantiation.

The girl said there was nothing in her past to suggest such a thing.

[dailykoff]

126. From an unnamed "expert in child psychology"

and the victim denies the claims:

The victim was visibly stunned when handed the affidavit by a reporter this fall. "It kind of shocks me - it's not true," she said. "I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story?page=4

That's Hilly's 35 years of experience -- lying about children to get rapists off the hook.

[John Q. Citizen]

138. No, you are misreading. The information about 'previous accusations' isn't

related to the "expert in child psychology."

And the retired detective said the case had other problems: Most damaging to the case, the retired detective says, was the girl's "infatuation" with the teenage boy, which she refused to admit, leading to serious inconsistencies in her statements about the incident.

The victim says it was her mother, who had recently been abandoned by her husband, who pushed for a quick plea deal to avoid the humiliation of having her daughter testify in open court. The mother, who died several years ago, was so eager to end the ordeal she coached her daughter's statements and interrupted interviews with police, Dale Gibson recalls.

"We both wanted it to be over with," the victim told Newsday. "They kept asking me the same questions over and over. I was crying all the time."



If you want to pin this all on Hill, I think you are biased. Hill sought a psych examination, and supported it both with "information" and with opnion from an 'expert.'

But the case had other problems and the plea bargain was the wishes of the victim and the family.

This stuff happens all the time. I don't think you have enough to go on to support your statement - "lying about children to get rapists off the hook."

But don't let that stop you. I'm sure it won't.

[dailykoff]

142. Hillary lied about the girl's claims. The girl said so herself this fall.

If you till can't figure that out, please reread the article or my posts as I've explained it about twenty times now.

[John Q. Citizen]

146. We should do away with courts and just rely on reporters and memories that

are 35 years old.

Do you have proof that nobody told Hill that they had knowledge that the girl had made other accusations?

The whole point of that "other accusations" was to ask the court to order a psych evaluation. It wasn't used as evidence to exonerate.

The case had other problems, the girls story had inconsistencies according to the cop, and the family and the girl wanted a plea deal. So the court accepted a plea bargain.

You can have your suspicians that Hill fudged her request for a psych evaluation, but it's bearing on the case as a whole is almost non-existent. And your suspicians aren't evidence, and neither is the fact that the woman said she never made any other allegations. It's quite possible she didn't and it still doesn't prove Hill fudged on her psych evaluation request.

I suppose somebody could ask Hill who gave her the information.

[dailykoff]

147. JQ, Hilly did not substantiate her claim and the victim denies it.

If you want to somehow pretend Hilly behaved ethically, fine. That's your opinion. Mine is that she threw the 12-year old under the bus and was about to do wheelies on her.

Anyway I'll see you tomorrow as it's bedtime for dailykoff. :hi:

[John Q. Citizen]

150. When a motion is filed, substanciation isn't required. That's why before someone

is convicted of anything, they have a right to present evidence.

What if the girl is lying? Or forgot an incident that happened when she was 9 that somebody else informed Hillary about.

I'm not saying Hill didn't lie, because I don't know. But neither do you.

Any way, good night to you too. Have a good one.

[dkf]

152. Can she say someone told her something when they didn't

in order to justify asking for a psychiatric evaluation?

And how credible does that person need to be in order for her to assert it?

Could she coach her defendant to say such a thing in order to put this in an affidavit?

I'm wondering what the boundaries are on this.

[John Q. Citizen]

131. That's the crux of the biscuit. But there's no way to tell either way.

[dkf]

132. I have a feeling she may be asked about this.

I hope she has a good answer.

FYI, I saw a blog on this at Politico.com so it may be a live story.

Also found this comment at DKos:

"UPDATE - To be more clear at what the gray area is here, officers of the court have a responsibility - an ethical responsibility - to adhere to principles of scrupulous honesty. When Hillary signed that affidavit, she was giving a sworn oath that she had knowledge and evidence that the 6th grader had a history of making false charges. That's what the affidavit says. But nobody, including the victim who has no axe to grind, believes this has any truth. That's the core of the Newsday story.

That is the difference between zealous defense and breaching ethical responsibility.

And every lawyer here knows it."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/24/164324/479/466/463280

[eridani]

68. That she was following standard SOP doesn't exactly mean that SOP is good n/t

[tekisui]

75. It's a bullshit smear story.

She was doing her job. period.

[Yael]

90. By saying that a 12 year old rape victim was "asking/hoping" for it?

Even though the 41 year old attacker admitted the attack took place?

Scorched earth against a 12 year old. Yay Hillary.

[rodeodance]

88. Thanks. I really appreciate your post.

[Yael]

94. Because you believe blaming 12 year old girls for 41 year old men attacking them

is a prudent thing?

[rodeodance]

100. I have read your posts on this. I choose not to engage with you.

edited to add word--read.

[Yael]

104. I don't blame you

You have NO defense on this. None.

[rodeodance]

108. That was an ASSumption on your part. Actually your posts are not worth my time.

Enough said.







104. I don't blame you

You have NO defense on this. None.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

102. PS: addition to OP > > > >

The "sex shops near schools" thing Hillary trotted out against Obama a while back is similarly bogus. It's a class of inflammatory things that rings a negative bell for folks who don't understand the complexities of the system... whether the complexities of the Constitution, the legislative process, or criminal law.

I am not disputing that this story is horrible for Hillary as a political matter.

Just noting that that's a sad reality of our ignorant, reactive and unsophisticated electorate, not something to applaud.

[dailykoff]

113. Hillary LIED about a 12-year old girl to get a 41-year old rapist off the hook.

That's pretty serious.

[LisaL]

124. How exactly did you come up with this?

Where is your evidence that Hillary lied about anything?

[dailykoff]

134. The victim herself denied Hillary's claims this fall:

From the Newsday article:

The victim was visibly stunned when handed the affidavit by a reporter this fall. "It kind of shocks me - it's not true," she said. "I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life."

link: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story?page=4

In other words, Hillary lied about a 12-year old rape victim to get a 41-year old rapist off the hook.

[AX10]

112. Everyone has a right to a defense.

Had DU lost it's moral authority to take-on the Neo-Cons on this issue?
It looks like it. Seeing that they defend the rights of the accused when the accused are facing the Neo-Cons, but when HRC defends their rights, it's a sin. :eyes:

[dailykoff]

114. An ethical defense. Lying about a 12-year old is not ethical.

Period.

[Yael]

116. If you approve of blaming a 12 year old for their own rape by saying they "sought it"

then your ethics aren't even worth discussing.

[peacebaby3]

151. I'm posting in this thread just as I have in others.

As an Obama supporter and 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.

[mckeown1128]

157. they admited the act took place...

Hillary's defense didn't need to include saying that the 12 year old sought it out.

[peacebaby3]

158. They admitted that the two had sex. Until they made a deal, she was defending

her client against rape charges. She would also be required to stand by her client in presenting all mitigating circumstances for him in a sentencing report to the court. This is her obligation as an attorney and anyone on this board who posts otherwise either has no clue what they are talking about or should lose their license if they practice law.

While the laws were certainly different at the time and I'm not in Arkansas and haven't read the state criminal code, this is basic for any attorney representing their client in a criminal matter.

[Usrename]

153. That's not true. You're just plain wrong.

If she knew that the lies she was presenting the court were not true, she has no ethical obligation to present them. The opposite is true.

You have been watching too many tv shows.

[Perry Logan]

154. BREAKING: Obama supporters win "Sleazies" award for 17th straight week.

[Mass]

156. If it was the opposite, the Clintons people would be all over Obama for sexism.

And they would be justified.

[sepulveda]

161. what she did was right, ethical, and her duty.

note : i am NOT a hillary for president person

but...

i totally support what she did in this case. a lot of people who pay lip service to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and trial by jury lose their principles in cases like this.

it is NOT the job of hillary to prove the innocent of her client.

a defense attorney's job is to, within the law (for example, they cannot knowingly present perjured testimony, etc.) vigorously defend their client.

and yes, that means (frequently) attacking the credibility of victims and witnesses. that is what the defense frequently does, especially in cases like this.

if you don't like it, fine. but alleged rape victims, even if juveniles don't get a free pass to accuse somebody of a crime, and then not be subject to cross-examination.

if you believe in civil rights, then you believe in the right of the defense to have a vigorous defense. the job of the defense is NOT (as several have stated) to "prove the client innocent". it's to (at a minimum) try to establish reasonable doubt. it is not the defense's job to be nice to the person who is accusing their client, if being nice means the client is getting less than a vigorous, agressive defense.

sometimes freedom is hard. it's not all light and glory. sometimes it's ugly. but you can't be "kind of sort of " for defendant's rights. and if you are for the right of defense to present a case, then you accept that alleged victims are going to have their credibility, memory, motives, etc. questioned as long as it is within the bounds of legal procedure (establish foundation, bla bla bla).

you're not for freedom of speech if you only support speech that does not offend you. and you are not for civil rights, jury trial, and an adversarial justice system if you cannot deal with the fact that a defense attorney's job is to present a defense. not a nice defense. not a defense that makes you feel good. but the best defense possible, given the case facts.

NO witness or victim is above cross examination, and being picked apart by a defense attorney. we are talking somebody's freedom here - years in prison or freedom.

our justice system is based on the precept that it is better that 10 guilty parties go free, than one innocent is convicted.

you don't have to know all the case facts here to know that based on what i have read - hillary did her job. maybe this guy was complete scum, guilty as hell, etc. and maybe the accuser is a victim of a terrible crime and telling the truth. that's irrelevant to the fact that in an adversarial justice system we expect the defense to advocate for their side, and that often means attacking the accuser (within the bounds of law/procedure).