Hillary Defends Child Rapist

[TrumpIsPresident]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...ed-recordings/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ld-rapist.html

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/16/ta...-rapist-video/

http://www.news.com.au/world/hillary...-1226956750920


I guess in the 70's Hillary accepted a case to defend a man who got a 12 year old girl drunk and then raped her. She got his sentence severely reduced by arguing a technicality. It sounds from the tapes that she suggests she knew he was guilty and played the system in his favor anyway. I wonder how the Children's Defense Fund will react to this as they just honored her the other month.


When you post remember two things:

1) Sadly, even scumbag kiddy rapists are entitled to a defense.
2) If this was a right wing politician gearing up for a run the phrase "war on women" would be attached to every article/discussion on this story.


ps. Keep it productive as the wolves are on a "no bad press for Hillary" day today so don't give them any reason to lock it up, as if they need one anyway haha.

[Vyxn]

In a breathtaking story published today in Newsday, details of Hillary Clinton's involvement in a decades-old rape case in Arkansas comes under close scrutiny.

It is really worth reading the whole well-sourced article, but here is the upshot:

Two years into her career of making change and having Day One-readying experience, 27 year old Hillary Rodham was appointed a public defender in a rape case, and played out deep in the gray areas of morality by attacking the 12-year old victim's credibility. Though nobody involved in the case can recall a shred of evidence that the victim had any sort of history of making false claims, Hillary argued it as a centerpiece of her case anyway. And conveniently omitted this aspect of the case from her 2003 book, "Living History."

In 1975, Hillary Rodham, 27, was a court-appointed attorney for an indigent defendant accused of raping a 6th grader in Arkansas. She wrote about it in her 2003 book, "Living History," focusing on technical evidentiary aspects of the case she presented to the court. Not surprisingly, she omitted the damning parts.

The victim was 12 years old. An older man, Thomas Alfred Taylor, was accused of raping her in his car. The man requested a female public defender, which Hillary at first resisted. Once she took the case, however, her defense was aggressive.

In "Living History" and in the Newsday piece, we learn of the issues raised about blood and semen samples, standard criminal defense tactics. But Hillary left out a key piece of the defense.

Newsday explains the omission:


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

Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive.

A man Hillary owes $688,000 to this year says this is just "the best defense possible."

Here's one twist - the victim, now 46, had not realized Hillary Clinton was the defense attorney when Newsday caught up with her (her name was not Clinton then). The victim is not pushing this story - if anything, she is forgiving, even if she has only just become aware of the cynical Clinton attacks on her credibility.


The victim, now 46, told Newsday that she was raped by Taylor, denied that she wanted any relationship with him and blamed him for contributing to three decades of severe depression and other personal problems.

"It's not true, I never sought out older men - I was raped," the woman said in an interview in the fall. Newsday is withholding her name as the victim of a sex crime.

There are some interesting nuggets in the well-sourced piece, such as:


"Taylor was alleged to have raped this girl in a car right near a very busy highway - I told her [Rodham] it seems sort of improbable and she immediately agreed," said Baker, who remembered Rodham as "smart, capable and very focused."

And how about this:


But the record shows that Rodham was also intent on questioning the girl's credibility. That line of defense crystallized in a July 28, 1975, affidavit requesting the girl undergo a psychiatric examination at the university's clinic.

"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."

Dale Gibson, the investigator, doesn't recall seeing evidence that the girl had fabricated previous attacks. The assistant prosecutor who handled much of the case for Mahlon Gibson died several years ago. The prosecutor's files on the case, which would have included such details, were destroyed more than decade ago when a flood swept through the county archives, Mahlon Gibson said. Those files also would have included the forensics evidence referenced in "Living History."

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."

Hillary Clinton never misses an opportunity to remind us of how much of a warrior she is on behalf of vulnerable children. Children vulnerable to the system. Vulnerable to the callousness of adults.

A 6th grader, Hillary? She "fantasized?" She "sought it out from older men?"

Hillary Clinton, saying shame on others.

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/2008/0...ility-UPDATED#

first would like to inform you the Daily Kos is a liberal blog before you start up with the accusations of bias propaganda from a right wing conspiracy site

Daily Kos /ˈkoʊs/ is an American political blog that publishes news and opinions from a liberal point of view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos

ok yes I understand that anyone and every one deserves a competent fair defense, but didn't H. Clinton go to far? did she cross ethical lines? did she have to use the tactic of attacking the victim to put a pedophile back on the street especially when that victim was a 12 year old child?
This type of tactics gives defense attorneys a bad name. this type of tactics keep women from reporting and testifying on rape cases

One thing this revelation will do is throw the "republican war on women" narrative right out the window if Clinton runs
because what could be the worse war on women then attacking the victim in a rape case especially a 12 year old child

[poser765]

I'm relatively certain that the job of a defense attorney is to be an advocate for their clients. Their job, literally, is to get them off the hook, or reduce their sentence as much as possible.

[icausewipes]

1) Sadly, even scumbag kiddy rapists are entitled to a defense.

This pretty much ends the thread.

[Deleted]

Doing her job as shitty as it is, the fat pay cheque will pay for plenty of sleeping pills so she can sleep at night.

[daytonbrown]

So as a public defender she, um, did her job?

[Crissi]

If my defense attourney didnt try his / her damndest to defend me, I'd fire him / her on the spot. Yeah, its a shitty move from the aspect of the 12 year old girl, but thats the job of a defense attorney.

[Twotonsteak]

I'm relatively certain that the job of a defense attorney is to be an advocate for their clients. Their job, literally, is to get them off the hook, or reduce their sentence as much as possible.

I'm inclined to agree with poser on this.

If Hillary was the acting defense attorney, then she was doing her job. Like her or not, like what she did or not, it was still her job.

[Deleted]

So what? She was doing her job, tough shit.

[Vyxn]

I'm relatively certain that the job of a defense attorney is to be an advocate for their clients. Their job, literally, is to get them off the hook, or reduce their sentence as much as possible.

not when you cross ethical lines to do so

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.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/0...ility-UPDATED#

[-aiko-]

Hilary was doing her job? BURN HER AT THE STAKE

[Zvinny]

Defense attorney defends client, groundbreaking news right here.

Sounds like she did what she was supposed to do.

[Xarkia]

Doing her job as shitty as it is, the fat pay cheque will pay for plenty of sleeping pills so she can sleep at night.

I thought her and Bill were broke before becoming President and First Lady???????

[Vyxn]

Hilary was doing her job? BURN HER AT THE STAKE

so slut shaming a 12 year old to get a pedophilia back on the street is doing her job

[Zvinny]

not when you cross ethical lines to do so

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.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/0...ility-UPDATED#

The so called victim doesn't have an axe to grind against the defense attorney? Somehow I don't believe that.

[Deleted]

Questioning the credibility of someone based on nothing more than on your personal suspicion that someone is "emotionally unstable"? Is that actually a fucking thing?

[Activi-T]

Is it "Attempt to shit on Hillary day" today?

She did her job to the best of her ability. If you want to blame anything it's the terrible state of your 'criminal justice system'.

[Drutt]

That is simply a case of her doing her job as a legal professional.

The defense attorney's job is to do everything in their power to get the best result possible for their client. It is a mandatory feature of an adversarial system of trial: both sides fight tooth and nail to prove their case, and the truth will become apparent.

This is something that gets taught to every first year law student.

[Zvinny]

so slut shaming a 12 year old to get pedophilia back on the street is doing her job

Defending her client is.

[KrazyK923]

Yeah this isn't politically motivated at all.

Nope.