Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Breaking: Hillary viciously attacked a 12 Y/O rape victim in court.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:04 PM
Original message
Breaking: Hillary viciously attacked a 12 Y/O rape victim in court.
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 05:33 PM by mckeown1128
Disturbing article. Please read it all.

But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.

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.

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.

"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.


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark2455899...


I would post more... but the 4 paragraph limit. It also shows Clinton spokesman Wolfson defending her actions by saying that as court appointed attorney she had to do it. WTF She had to accuse the little girl of making up the rape and really wanting the older man?!? All because she was the court appointed attorney. This is DISGUSTING. Indefensible. I don't want this person leading America.



On edit: In the zeal of the Clinton supporters attempts to play this down.. They are trying to paint my complaints as being against Hillary representing the rapist. For the record... I believe that EVERY accused person deserves an attorney.

My problem with this story is that Hillary tried to make the case that the girl wasn't really raped because she was supposedly attracted to older men. THAT is not an honest defense. There is a difference between Hillary presenting evidence for her clients innocence. But saying that the little girl somehow wanted to be raped is the problem.

Clinton should not be arguing that a rape victim really wants to be raped!!!


On second edit: Those who say I shouldn't bring up a 32 year old story.... It is Hillary who brags about her 35 years of experience.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Unsane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. ohhh fuuck
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ekwhite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
162. Break out the popcorn
This is going to be a good one :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #162
177. you mind if I join you,
I've got the beers


:beer:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fortyfeetunder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #162
190. got any popcorn left?
And if you have a fan, I could use that too...it's getting hot in heerrre....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. it's a standard defense
I'm not going to attack Hillary over this. She was fresh out of law school and I've worked with plenty of legal aid attorneys who I've seen do the same thing. They don't like it any more than you do. Most of them would prefer to just take a plea deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Ohh no you don't....
Please don't defend this. There are ways to represent an accused rapist without implying that the alleged rape victim "fantasized about older men." That is NOT a fair tactic. That does not prove anyones innocence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
48. are you a lawyer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #48
68. I'm not so maybe that gives me a little more objectivity.
From where I stand, this stinks, really really bad. It goes to character and that character is ROTTEN TO THE CORE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #48
79. Of course the poster isn't
and let's hope that if they need ever need a lawyer, that they'll be ever vigilent to see that counsel maintains the highest standards while defending their case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DearAbby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #48
155. No I am a Mother, and Grandmother
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 06:32 PM by DearAbby
that would sit on a jury...If a lawyer tried that tactic, I would be sickened to the core. It would not sit well with me, do lawyers think of that?

Are you a Parent? Do Parents sit on jurys?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronopio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #48
257. You don't need to be a part of the Borg to know that the Borg is evil.
In fact, the Borg is more clearly seen from the outside. You're talking about lawyers who are too distracted by their payoffs and their rationalizations to see their job objectively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
158. Rape Shield Laws
This incident took place in the early 1970s. Most states didn't institute rape shield laws until the 1970s, and given the track record of the Arkansas legislature, I suspect that they weren't on the cutting edge, either.

Currently, this sort of an approach is strongly discourages, and often prohibited. Courts do not take kindly to the victim's reputation and proclivities becoming the big issue.

In Hillary's defense, there isn't a lawyer alive who hasn't had to deal with the problem of unsavory clients. Attorneys who work as public defenders, who accept bottom-rung court appointed cases, or who simply are forced by economics to take the dregs confront this sort of thing on a regular basis.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MediaBabe Donating Member (610 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
160. HORSE CRAP! I doubt you were alive in the sixties and seventies
If you were you would recall that was a time when 90% of rapes did not get reported precisely because that was a standard defense - that ALL WOMEN LIED ABOUT BEING RAPED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ORDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Read the article. She was especially vigorous (working the night shift)
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 05:08 PM by ORDem
to make sure the pedophile client got off the hook. A little jail time and some probation for raping a 12 year-old! We all have choices. She was clearly just thinking of her own damn career and how to impress the Public Defender.

:dem:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
29. you're either kidding or you don't believe in our system of justice
people who are ACCUSED of even the vilest of crimes deserve a "vigorous" defense, and shame on you for advocating that public defenders should refuse to argue vigorously or refuse to work nights just because their client might actually be guilty.

it's the prosecutor's job to argue for the state, and the defense counsel's job to defend.

duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #29
46. It isn't that Hillary was defending the rapist...
I agree all deserve a defense in court. It is that she was trying to make the case that it wasn't really rape because the 12 year old liked older men. It is still rape if one is forced to have sex, even with someone they are attracted to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fenriswolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #29
58. you disgust me
a little girl was raped, yes its hillaries job to defend, but she started accusing the victim. Thats low.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #58
196. neiner, neiner, you disgust me, too
complain that the judge or the legislature shouldn't allow that kind of argument. i'd probably support you in that fight.
but don't complain about an advocate for the defense using a permitted line of argument. that's not the way the system was meant to work.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #58
203. So you wouldn't be entitled to a defense if you were accused of this?
Just checking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
45. If she was thinking
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 05:17 PM by Marie26
about her own damn career, she wouldn't be working for an indigent pedophile. I don't think that's where the big money is. She was a legal aid attorney, and she was appointed by the court to this case. Attorneys have to accept a court-appointed case unless there's a conflict of interest, etc. And once she's appointed, she has to represent the client's best interests. It would be unethical for her to neglect the case,or accept a bad outcome for the client simply because she doesn't like him. A defense attorney has to provide the best rep. possible for their client, the prosecutor represents the state's & victim's interests, and the judge decides the case. That's how our judicial system works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
184. So people shouldn't get aggressive criminal defense when accused of crimes?
Say what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #184
235. Not if it requires abusing and lying about a 12-year old rape victim, no.
What's so difficult to comprehend here? Hillary crossed the line like she does every opportunity she gets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #235
238. Grats on rejecting a core tenant of our judicial system and Constitution.
What is wrong with you people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #238
240. Abusing 12-year old rape victims is not a core tenet of our judicial system,
Edited on Mon Feb-25-08 09:28 AM by dailykoff
thankfully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #240
242. It's called the right to confrontation. Take some ConLaw before opening your mouth.
Edited on Mon Feb-25-08 09:07 AM by BadgerLaw2010
Sixth Amendment > state evidence rules and Internet morons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #242
244. Please show me the "Con Law" that makes lying about 12-year old rape victims
a requirement of any attorney's job, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #244
246. If you don't know anything about the Sixth Amendment, why are you posting?
The right to present a defense and confront opposing witnesses is damn near absolute, regardless of offense. It trumps state statutes, let alone what uneducated laypeople think is fair based on what crime a person is charged with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #246
247. Thank you, there is no such law.
No further questions. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #247
248. The United States Constituion isn't law? WTF. How did you pass high school?
Edited on Mon Feb-25-08 09:18 AM by BadgerLaw2010
Moron. Then again, you're the one who thinks the US nuked Manhattan on 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #248
249. The Constitution contains no such law, correct. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #249
252. Why exactly can't you read the Sixth Amendment?
Stop being a moron troll and educate yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #252
254. The 6th amendment does not require attorneys to abuse child rape victims.
Now this is getting absurd so I bid you good day. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #254
256. What the hell do you think right to confrontation means?
Moron.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #256
266. It means several things, but license to lie about children is not
one them, in case you weren't aware of that. Anyway here's the 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 wherein 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #240
258. "Tenet," not tenant.
A tenant is someone who rents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #258
260. I don't think this particular poster knows that, let alone anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #258
261. Right, thanks.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstate_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
77. Hey
Which administration passed the rape shield laws? I thought you couldn't attack the victim of a rape like that. Isn't that why they protect sexual assault victims in court proceedings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #77
87. those laws were passed in the late 70s and early 80s
and they only pertain to asking about past sexual history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redstate_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #87
92. oh
ok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #77
245. That's not what rape shield laws do.
Rape shield laws generally prohibit prior sexual history. They do *not* prohibit sexual conduct with the defendant or prior false accusations and credibility inquiries. Here, the inquiry seems to be that the person is prone to lying, which is very material.

Rape shield laws also don't do anything if the evidence in question is required for the defendant to put on his defense. The Sixth Amendment is a pretty big hammer here.

And this isn't a "she wanted it" defense, since that would do the defendant no good with a 12 Y.O. That's a statutory rape, which by definition does not have consent as a defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
101. I actually was in the jury pool of a student of mine who was raped.
she was in fifth grade. this is indefensible. period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
113. She could have said the child was so upset she mistook
this man for the real rapist- that way she doesn't insult the integrity of the child and she still defends the rapist. But I guess the little girl was "asking for it".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #113
178. Oh for crying out loud. You don't know what she would have
said in court, had this case ever gone to trial.
You also don't know details of the case. Apparently most of the documents got lost in the flood.
I wish people stopped immediately jumping to conclusions and making claims they can not support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MediaBabe Donating Member (610 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #113
191. Didn't bother reading the article, did ya? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
206. Another quote from the victim:
"I have to understand that she was representing Taylor," she said when interviewed in prison last fall. "I'm sure Hillary was just doing her job."

SHE gets it as well. Thanks for your post Magic Rat. I have a hard time with this, but I understand that even scum is entitled to a vigorous defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
218. it's a standard defense when the perp has no other defense . . .
attacking the accuser is often the last refuge of a scoundrel, er, rapist . . .

and what makes this particular case so -- well -- unseemly -- is that the defense attorney doing the attacking just happens to be 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 is also running for president . . .

yeah, that's the word . . . unseemly . . . (to say the least) . . .

and quite possibly campaign-ending . . .

stay tuned . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alter Ego Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #2
251. Right.
As horrible as this sounds, I think she was just doing her (albeit reprehensible) job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. Dupe to this GD:P thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Sorry, I didn't see it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bright Eyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. I hate to defend Senator Clinton, but she was Professionally obligated
to provide the best defense for her client...who she was appointed to by the court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
38. Umm... tell me....
Hillary was trying to convince the court that it isn't rape because the 12 year old might be attracted to the rapist. How is that a defense case? That does nothing to prove innocence. People can be attracted to their rapist before they are raped. Are you saying that it isn't rape if the person is forcing someone who is attracted to them to have sex?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bright Eyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #38
61. Thats a nice strawman ya got there
"Are you saying that it isn't rape if the person is forcing someone who is attracted to them to have sex?"
---
This is what defense lawyers do; defend their client. It's also possible that they defendant in question wanted to put on that defense; in which case she'd be obligated to present said defense, no matter how disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronopio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
262. Lawyers can *always* recuse themselves from a case on moral grounds.
Edited on Mon Feb-25-08 09:30 AM by OmelasExpat
No one points a gun to a lawyer's head and tells them to lie, and they won't go to jail or get fined for recusing themselves. Another lawyer is appointed.

But I'll bet you'll find a lot of lawyers willing to lie in telling you that they *are* required to lie and take the paycheck for it. As for the "why", well, puzzle it out for yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #262
268. Thanks, that's helpful and very well put!
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mculator Donating Member (658 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
5. BS post debunked by the article itself...
Makes you wonder why Obamanauts need this BS unless...wait...the glory ride is over. Obama is yesterday's fad. Hill's the hot topic now, quit boring me with more of 10000 love pitches for a weak candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
31. they miss the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
6. Like the Obama story about gay sex and coke
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Umm... there are court records here buddy. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:16 PM
Original message
and there is a witness to the Obama allegations n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
49. there was no witness to the Obama allegations...
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 05:19 PM by mckeown1128
there is no proof that Obama did that. There are F$CKING COURT RECORDS AND WITNESSES AND A JUDGE AND A JURY AND MEDIA REPORTS for the Hillary thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #49
147. Sure there is
The guy who had sex with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #147
183. And you believe that shit, don't ya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #147
259. LOL
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ingac70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:11 PM
Original message
No..
Hillary mentions this case in her book "Living Histroy". But in the book she touts it as a case that inspired her to start a rape hot line...

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-versus-the-a...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mculator Donating Member (658 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
51. As is already included in the article above
Jeez you Obamanauts don't even have to read anymore, you just assume what you put up will be an anti Hillary article. It clearly vindicates everything she did, if not applauds her for adhering to her duties as an attorney. How do I know you didn't read it? You posted a link that simply reiterates something already contained in the article.

waiting for 'edited to remove' .... lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lautremont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. Well, an attorney does have a duty to do all they can for their client.
Seems like there must be more recent, more relevant things to pin on Clinton. We know there are, in fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ORDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
121. You've missed the point. She implied in her defense that she (the victim)
was asking to have sex with this adult man. She didn't have to do that. She chose to attack the victim, a 12 year old girl!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
10. The Obama camp is planting stories in the MSM again.
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 05:08 PM by MethuenProgressive
Rev up that Swiftboat again, Barry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
26. So, you aren't even going to try to spin this...
You are just going to cover your ears and scream "la la la la la"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #26
55. You've spun it enough by twisting the story into your fucked up headline.
You disgust me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #10
212. ........and Hillary & Bill are saints!! NOT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. Then she was acting like a defense attorney, now she is acting
like a loon who can't stand the thought of losing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
13. So if she was in 1930s Germany... um... nevermind
I've heard and read enough to detect a clear pattern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
33. Yes, there is a clear pattern here
and I am reminded of Hillary and the Rat:

Published on Wednesday, November 7, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Hillary and the Rat

by Joyce Marcel


Clintons past has been thoroughly vetted - theres hardly an inch of her that hasnt been under the microscope. But a few weeks ago the The New York Times, Adam Liptak wrote a piece called, Attorneys at Politics: Would You Hire One to Represent You? In it, he told a remarkable story that, I believe, illustrates the dangers of Hillary Clinton more than anything Ive ever read.

The first jury trial Mrs. Clinton handled on her own, for instance, concerned the rear end of a rat in a can of pork and beans, Liptak wrote - and if here youre thinking, Go get em, Hillary! Evil corporations are trying to poison us! you are sadly misled. She represented the corporation, and she argued that there had been no real harm, as the plaintiff did not actually eat the rat. Besides, she wrote in her autobiography, describing her clients position, the rodent parts which had been sterilized might be considered edible in certain parts of the world.

So theres your warm, caring, nurturing female political leader for you. Hungry? Eat a rat!

As the professor sings, Cant a woman learn to use her head?/ Why do they do everything their mothers do?/Why dont they grow up, well, like their father instead?

Sadly, Professor Higgins, it seems that they do.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/07/5071/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #33
142. Euaaghh!!!
:barf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
14. How stupid - this was 32 years ago
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. So her "35 years of experience"
includes tearing apart 12-year old rape victims? Not so good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #18
50. I think we can find enough to criticize if we focus on her CURRENT history
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. It says a lot about her judgement and character....nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:22 PM
Original message
I got married 32 years ago and my parents were convinced I was making a mistake
We were too young, we were still in college, we had no money. My parents had a million reasons it was wrong for me to get married.

Yet 32 years later, we are still married. And my parents were wrong.

Should I now be claiming they had bad judgment? That their character was flawed because they criticized me, their eldest child?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #20
153. yes, it does
she had a job to do and she did it diligently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #14
27. I agree, drop this sad peice of history. It is petty to bring it up now.
Does not matter how wrong or right she was at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
37. This wasn't:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4330128&page=1

snip//

The Hillary Clinton campaign pushed to reporters today stories about Barack Obama and his ties to former members of a radical domestic terrorist group -- but did not note that as president, Clinton's husband pardoned more than a dozen convicted violent radicals, including a member of the same group mentioned in the Obama stories.

"Wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue," mused Clinton spokesman Phil Singer in one e-mail to the media, containing a New York Sun article reporting a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the Weather Underground, to Obama in 2001. (Obama's ties to the radical group first surfaced last week in a Bloomberg News article.)

Also, see post#21 ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #37
72. You know you don't have to convince me she is not our best candidate
I just think it is silly to dredge up this ancient history. About as silly as Hillary attacking Obabma's kindergarten record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ekwhite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #37
165. So lets see...
Obama got a $200 contribution from a former Weatherman, and served on the board of an antipoverty group with him. Big fat hairy deal. This is a non-story and a smear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
93. Yet the OP calls it "Breaking". nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Penndems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
171. I'm sorry this lady went through such a horrible ordeal, but why is she just now going to
Newsday?

Ken Starr and the GOP Congress spent millions of dollars investigating Hillary Clinton when she was First Lady: Whitewater, Filegate, the Vince Foster suicide, cattle futures - and she was vindicated in every instance. If this woman felt she had been wronged by Senator Clinton, why didn't she voice her anger to the press during the Clinton Administration? She certainly would've have the rapt attention of the Far Right, who were looking for anything they could get their hands on to smear former President and Mrs. Clinton.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #171
174. I don't think the woman went anywhere.
Apparently she didn't even know that Hillary was the lawyer until reporters told her.
It's the reporters digging this up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Penndems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #174
179. Thanks - appreciate the heads-up
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 09:27 PM by Penndems
Somehow, reporters digging around for dirt on Senator Clinton doesn't really seem to surprise me too much anymore - except that they didn't print this story and attempt to smear her when she was First Lady. :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
15. This will really help her go out in a blaze of glory.
Why oh why didn't she quit while she still had a shred of dignity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unsane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
17. So much for wanting to help kids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
90. Read the linked story. The OP is full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
19. She didn't "viciously attack", she did what she thought would win the case.
Don't overstate it. Now, the tactics ARE distasteful to me, but let's keep it in perspective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
21. Delete.
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 05:28 PM by babylonsister


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #21
36. This needs to be an OP. Mark Karlin never does this unless he is really really..
feeling strongly about something. Kudos to Mark, K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #36
82. I deleted it; will
post in its own thread when I can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
22. "She wanted it" is not a defense to sex with a 12 year old.
If it's true, it's heinous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:30 PM
Original message
Read the linked story. The OP is full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
23. I really hope this isn't true. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #23
86. Read the linked story. The OP is full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
24. She did her job.
"In May 1975, Washington County prosecutor Mahlon Gibson called Rodham, who had taken over the law clinic months earlier, to tell her she'd been appointed to represent a hard-drinking factory worker named Thomas Alfred Taylor, who had requested a female attorney.

In her 2003 autobiography "Living History," Clinton writes that she initially balked at the assignment, but eventually secured a lenient plea deal for Taylor after a New York-based forensics expert she hired "cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff's office."

An attorney has a responsibility to be a forceful advocate for their client. This is incredibly unfair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
25. She had legal obligations
She most certainly had to make sure his civil rights weren't violated. She had to track down any defense witnesses, etc. Whether she had to denigrate a 12 year old, well, not so sure she had a legal obligation to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
28. "I'm sure Hillary was just doing her job (The victim, now 46, told Newsday)."
"As she wrote in her book, 'Living History,' Senator Clinton was appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas to represent Mr. Taylor in this matter," he said. "As an attorney and an officer of the court, she had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law. To act otherwise would have constituted a breach of her professional responsibilities."

Seen as an aggressive defense

Rodham, legal and child welfare experts say, did nothing unethical by attacking the child's credibility - although they consider her defense of Taylor to be aggressive.

"She was vigorously advocating for her client. What she did was appropriate," said Andrew Schepard, director of Hofstra Law School's Center for Children, Families and the Law. "He was lucky to have her as a lawyer ... In terms of what's good for the little girl? It would have been hell on the victim. But that wasn't Hillary's problem."

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.

With all the anguish she'd felt over the case in the years since, there was one thing she never realized - that the lawyer for the man she reviles was none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"I have to understand that she was representing Taylor," she said when interviewed in prison last fall. "I'm sure Hillary was just doing her job."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
30. This is classic Swiftboating. Obama would be proud of the OP.
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 05:14 PM by MethuenProgressive
Read the story linked and you'll see what the OP has done. Shame on you, mckeown1128.
I hate what the DUbamas have done to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. What goes around comes around.
But you knew that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #34
44. Obama's Swiftboating of the Clintons on Race on SC is coming back around.
It's disgusting what Obama and his supporters have done to our Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. I don't want to call you delusional
so I'll just observe that your view of reality is distorted. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #30
56. Yeah
The actual headline is: "An early look at how Clinton deals with crisis". But even put in context, I can't believe Newsday ran an article about a 1975 case.

"Echoing legal experts, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson says the senator would have been committing professional misconduct if she hadn't given Taylor the best defense possible."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave123williams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
32. You clearly don't understand what being a lawyer means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamaman2008 Donating Member (233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #32
53. BS. Most lawyers don't sink to this. She did this for her legal career
You can defend your client ethically without destroying children that are already victims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #53
67. Actually no.
I don't get the "she did it for her career" thing at ALL. If she had any political aspirations, she had to know that this wasn't a case she'd want to brag about. Ethically, she had to put up the best defense for her client. The defense att. has to be an advocate for the def., and present the defendant's reasons why he is not guilty of the crime. She was appointed for this case; she didn't want it. But she did her job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamaman2008 Donating Member (233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #67
204. This wasn't defense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #204
255. Um, yes it is. It is attacking the credibility of the complaining witness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #204
269. Uh, yes it is.
How can I respond to a comeback like that? She was the defense attorney, who presented the client's defense. Thus, it was defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #53
250. Actually, no, in a rape case, you can't. Credibility is *the* material issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave123williams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #53
273. That's a matter of strategy. If destroying the kid gets you the win, destroy the child on the stand

It's about serving the interests of YOUR client.

The child's interests, in this case, wouldn't be your obligation as the PD.

People in this country, still, have the right to have their accusers confronted, and to be defended by council. And thank God for that.

Now, this is someone who also otherwise wouldn't have had any kind of defense, right?

So, you're saying we should respect the delicate responsibilities of somebody claiming to be a victim, who's definitely an accuser, rather than seek justice for the ACTUAL criminal defendant in the case?

I call bullshit on YOU. The kid's totally fair game.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave123williams Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #53
274. And one other thing.

Your problem should be with the fuckwit prosecutor that decided to put the kid on the stand in the first place.

If you can't make the case with the rape kit, witness testimony, and so forth YOU HAD NO CASE.

And, until there's a conviction, the kid isn't a victim. Just an accuser.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamaman2008 Donating Member (233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
35. Hillary wins by destroying the lives of those against her, that is what she does. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. But she was only following orders
like that ethical obligation to vote up cluster bombs and war because her financial backers profit from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #35
210. another newbiebama idiot
are you all sockpuppets or what?

it seems that your only job on here is to trash HRC 24/7.

I'm beginning to doubt that you're even Obama supporters - you're just a pack of 'puke trolls over here to cause trouble.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErnestoG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
39. What a piece of shit.
And some of you want THIS for president?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
40. Bad move, mckeown..... we don't need to do this....
...this is the kind of thing the Hillary campaign does.


Don't stoop to their level....


All the crap she's done this weekend has worked in OUR favor... don't blow it.


Take the high road.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #40
75. I am just reporting the story...
I didn't make this up. Excuse me if I have a problem with her claiming a rape victim secretely wanted to get raped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #75
111. Drudging up 33-year-old stories is beneath us......
...let it go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #75
214. Your going to have to use something else
If you want to discredit Mrs Clinton, in my opinion you'd have to do better than using a 32 year old defense case. You make our side look bad by posting such crap!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #40
157. Thanks for standing up.
I really think it is time for the Obama camp to clean their own house. You're infested and and it is not helping you at all.

Signed,
Continued supporter of both candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unbowed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
42. This isn't breaking. It's from 1975 for Pete's sake!
If there was or is anything to it, then why didn't it come out before this?

I'd like to see more than one OP ED before I start condemning her for something she did while doing her job as an attorney for the defense. Let's see the documentation and we can decide on the merits of the case, not on an opinion piece using selective passages.

This really doesn't have the ring of authenticity to it. It seems like a hit piece without much beef.

And I'm an Obama supporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
43. Yup, she'll do ANYTHING to win

She's a scary person. Basically saying the 12 year old wanted to be raped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #43
52. Er, so would Edwards. Your "point" is asinine.
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 05:19 PM by Tarc
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #52
85. That's correct
One thing that always bugged me about Edwards was that he didn't do pro bono work as an attorney. Poor people need attorneys too, and lawyers should volunteer their time for it. Clinton wasn't paid for this case, didn't volunteer for it, but she accepted the court's appointment. This was pro bono work, w/no monetary benefit for Clinton at all. And I'm sure it's not a case she'd want to take. But she had to represent her client's rights. People who criticize her for this don't understand our legal system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
54. why are you posting this shit?
come on now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSlayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
57. This is one of the reasons people hate lawyers.
It's not personal what Hillary did there, it was her job. A distasteful job yes but still her job. If she didn't do all she could to win for her client she would be worthless as an attorney.

"Seeking no truth, winning is all." - Metallica "And Justice for All"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #57
76. Exactly - same point I made in the other thread
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 05:29 PM by RamboLiberal
Fortunately or unfortunately depending if you're the defendent or the victim this is what a defense attorney does. Hillary actually gave this guy a defense usually only money can buy.

As a woman this sickens me, but I can't blame her for this as the guy's attorney.

And sometimes you do have to question a young person's allegations of sexual assault. Remember the witch hunts of the daycare abuse cases? Some innocent people went to jail on overzealous DA's, investigators and child therapists.

And btw, I'm an Obama supporter. I'm really pissed at Clinton for a lot of what has gone on in this campaign, but I'm not going after her on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
59. I really don't know how old you are but I would wager there are an awful lot of people out there..
who don't hold the same convictions they did 32 years ago, this is getting petty and desperate to say the least.
She was doing the job she was hired to do the best she could I would say that says a lot FOR her.You may not like the method or the message but sometimes people have to do ugly things because that's their job, her's was to defend the client do her best ability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yossariant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
60. Obama supporters need a serious reality check.
SOP in rape defense is to attack the credibility of the victim.

What's the alternative?

Seriously. THINK.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
62. Shameless Flame Bait from the Hillary Hate Club & hardly breaking. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #62
69. I posted a media report... I didn't make this up. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #69
126. flamebait pure and simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #69
127. People on your own team are calling you out on this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

It's disgraceful and your credibility suffers for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
63. Who the FUCK was ignorant enough to rec this piece of shit OP?
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 05:24 PM by MethuenProgressive
Anyone reading the link knows the OP is a false fucking peice of shit smear.
The OP should be Tombstoned, not rec'd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. People who have a problem with a defense attorney that
tries to make the case that a rape victim secretly wants to be raped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #66
78. Anyone reading the link knows you're full of shit. The recs are from kneejerking HillHaters.
Who don't read past the subject line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #78
98. I posted 4 full paragraphs from the story...
I also clearly gave my own opinion. How does that make me full of shit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #98
114. You claim Hillary "viciously attacked a 12 year old victim in court."
Maybe you can explain something to me. How would that be possible, considering the case did not go to trial?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #114
138. It woudl be possible with the July 28, 1975, affidavit
also cited in the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #138
175. Which I don't think the girl even saw until now, when the reporters
showed it to her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #63
118. I'm not defending the story but the OP posted a Newsday
story. That doesn't deserve tombstoning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #118
134. No that by itself doesn't
But somebody needs to do some fucking housecleaning around her. It is despicable and getting more outrageous all the time.

Somehow people feel they have the license to say anything, including openly attacking other members.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #63
205. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #205
221. Please. go right ahead and puke all over your self.
I hate what you people have done to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloud75 Donating Member (737 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
64. is this around the same time Obama was admittedly snorting coke
and smoking pot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #64
73. here we go... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloud75 Donating Member (737 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #73
80. that's my point such a long time ago who cares for both candidates.
people who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronopio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #80
265. To moral people, the truth doesn't have a statute of limitations.
And, if there is any kind of real evidence, I'd like to know whether Obama snorted coke in the 80s. You want to know as many facts as possible about a Presidential candidate.

But on the evil-o-meter, Hillary attacking the credibility of a rape victim in court (if true) is *much* worse than Obama snorting coke in private.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
65. She was 27. Not that age excuses her. It is that this story is over 30 years old.
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 05:25 PM by WinkyDink
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
70. This is disgusting and it makes me ill!
Someone who purports to care so much about children, unleashed an over-the-top
defense for this pedophile.

I'm sorry, but defending a man--may include many things. It doesn't HAVE TO
include suggesting that a "12-year old girl often fantasized about older men."

Hillary Clinton did NOT have to get in that little girl's face and accuse her
of having fantasies about older men. That's just downright vile!

By the way, isn't that heresy AND conjecture to assume that you know the innermost thoughts
of a 12-year old girl?

This is absolutely revolting!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #70
83. Read the linked story. The OP is full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #83
89. I read the story..
The story backs up what the OP said.

What are YOU talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #83
96. How exactly is the OP full of shit?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr.Fitzgibbons Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #83
148. Can someone please explain what the actual outcome was of this case?
Thanks -I am also skimming through the article that was linked to the original post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #148
150. The guy accepted a plea deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #70
88. Oh please.
First of all, read the story. Hillary did not get into the girl's face and accuse her of this. The case actually never went to trial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #88
159. Hillary signed an affidavit impugning this rape victim!!!
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 07:15 PM by TwoSparkles
What difference does it make to that sixth grader--if Hillary Clinton said these
things to her face or wrote them out in an affidavit, as part of this man's defense?

To this little girl---and to the adult she grew into--Hillary Clinton blamed this
sixth grader for her own rape.

Clinton secured this child molester "a lenient plea deal" based on her overly aggressive
attacks on this little girl.

You're splitting hairs here.

Did Hillary ever look up this grown woman, and tell her, "I was just doing my job. You
didn't deserve that."?

No. Hillary just went about her life. I couldn't live with myself if I had done
something like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #159
168. Well, if you couldn't live with yourself, it's a good thing you are
not a defense lawyer, I guess.
Even the victim, who is now the grown woman, understands Hillary was just doing her job, if you actually bothered to read the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #159
180. To answer your question about whether Clinton looked up this woman and
told her "I was just doing my job. You didn't deserve that."?

Well.. the victim said it herself.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark2455899...
"I have to understand that she was representing Taylor," she said when interviewed in prison last fall. "I'm sure Hillary was just doing her job."

This leads me to believe that unlike many here, she saw the bad person in this as the rapist, not the defense attorney. The fucking OUTRAGE here is silly. If the victim can see this and Hillary's job for what it is, why is everyone here so fucking OUTRAGED?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MediaBabe Donating Member (610 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #70
197. Isn't that cute - you read the title and nothing else
Of COURSE you have now discovered a previously unsuspected personal hatred for Hillary that knows no bounds. "Vile" "Revolting" "Hillary Clinton did NOT have to get in that little girl's face and accuse her" Oh such anger!

Of course, had you bothered to read the article, you'd know that the thread title was a big fat lie and there was no court, no 'in your face' nothing to support your brand new hatred for something that didn't occur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #197
207. Hillary Clinton wrote in the affidavit..
...that this six-grader "fantasized about having sex with older men" and used that as a defense to
get this alleged child rapist a lenient sentence.

That speaks volumes.

A defense attorney isn't legally required to accuse a little girl of wanting sex with a 41-year old
male. Hillary Clinton didn't have to make that ham-handed, outrageous claim, as part of her client's
defense.

It's disgusting.

You can call me out all day long--for my dislike of Hillary Clinton. What reeks here is that
Hillary Clinton chose to create a defense for a child rapist--that included blaming the victim
and purporting to know that this child had "fantasies", when she never spoke of such "fantasies'.

Yes, there was no court. The was only an affidavit written and signed by Hillary Clinton, that ripped
apart this six-grader, and led to a lenient sentence for this rapist.

I was starting to feel sorry for her earlier, but I think I'll enjoy watching her campaign go down in
flames now.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #207
219. You're twisting the words.
Edited on Mon Feb-25-08 06:22 AM by PeaceNikki
The "fantasizes" was in reference to the claim of "false accusations in the past". I wonder why the article itself put "older men" in quotes. (perhaps because the 12 year-old had "consensual sex" with a 15 year-old "older man" the same day?).

"...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."

I know it's really hard to imagine anyone defending an accused rapist, but our system requires it. She did what is done in rape cases - questioned the credibility of the victim. It's standard. Hillary did her job in this case, the prosecutor did NOT do his.

The victim, as the article states, did not even see this affidavit until the reporters showed it to her last fall when interviewing her:

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."

"I have to understand that she was representing Taylor," she said when interviewed in prison last fall. "I'm sure Hillary was just doing her job."


The victim in this case gets that, but you continue with your feigned outrage and keep calling it a "vicious attack" and keep twisting it into something it's not.

Reading the article (which many seemed to have not), it appears as though the victim's mother helped damage the case:

"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."

More intersting facts from the article:

"Hillary Clinton says the case spurred her to create the first rape hotline in Arkansas.

In 2005, while working in a laundry, the victim stole several hundred dollars worth of checks from her boss to buy drugs. She is now living in a halfway house and looking for work.

Despite these problems, she bears Hillary Rodham Clinton no ill will and was eager to read "Living History" - at least pages 72 and 73, which contain her case."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
71. Watch "Judgment at Nuremburg": this is the defense that DIDN'T fly:
"We were only doing our jobs."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #71
84. In fact this very situation rises in the film:
A German Jew is accused of having seduced a girl played by Judy Garland who is subsequently subpoenaed and then torn apart by A Nazi lawyer to show that the relationship was sexual despite her tearful denials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
74. DISGUSTING
Obama needs to make an ad about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #74
81. Read the linked story, Butterfly. The OP is full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MediaBabe Donating Member (610 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #81
201. The state of DU is pitiful
The OP actually posted a link that debunked his very own thread. That takes balls and I'll bet he's still laughing. It's clear that ANYTHING anti Hillary will be defended to the hilt and nothing is too outrageous for Obama supporters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
91. What's the reason for this post?
To slam Hillary, of course, I know that. But is this such big deal?

Here's another "breaking news flash" for you - lawyers are sometimes unethical scum!

Unfortunately, our society ENCOURAGES such behavior by paying the REALLY unethical ones huge bucks. Why? Because they get the job done. At any cost.

So tell me - do you personally know a lawyer who NEVER ONCE did something they were ashamed of?

ESPECIALLY when they were young and trying to climb that law firm ladder to the stars?

Why, I'll bet that even John Edwards and Barack Obama did a few things that they now regret.

Let this go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #91
94. No I won't...
you can't just pass this off as "well that is what lawyers do". I don't care if everyone does this... I don't think the next president should have done this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #94
156. I agree - neither do I
And at this point, it may be a moot question, considering how far Obama is ahead.

But you're right, maybe we SHOULD be damanding more of our candidates, now that the Internet is letting us know ALL the details of a person's past life.

12 years ago, no one would have either done the research or been able to find out stuff like this.
We would have happily accepted the candidate - and the past would have remained... unknown.

But would it have a bearing on their future performance as the Chief Executive?

I heard that FDR did some questionable things on his way to the top. Should he have been stopped cold if similar news came out?

All I'm saying is that (like almost all of us) we've done things WE REGRET. And we've learned not to ever use them again.

The question these days is - did Hillary learn?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #91
95. A certain "unethical scum" is in a race to by our next president
and we've had enough of such types, but thanks for your concern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #95
149. I'm no "concern troll"
I'm just saying that lawyers do things that they regret later.

I'm sure it happened to EVERY former lawyer who became President.

The difference is that today everything is put under an extremely powerful media microsope, dissemeninated far and wide in milliseconds.

Could you stand up to the scrutiny of every person you ever dealt with and be able to face it daily in the national press?

Because that's what a modern candidate must be able to do.

And in my mind, Hillary (even though I don't like her) will stand up just fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #91
97. But this was actually ethical
That's the crazy way the legal system works. She didn't get huge bucks for this case; she was performing pro bono work. And as his attorney, she had to advocate his defense, however repugnant or unbelievable people might find it. Everyone has a right to have their day in court - even the scumbags. That's one of the fundamental principles of our Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #97
100. Just because it was legal doesn't mean it was ethical
by any standard of human decency. Attorneys might have their own standards of professional conduct but that's an entirely different and frankly unseemly subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #100
102. The victim understands Clinton was doing her job. Why can't you and others?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark2455899...
"I have to understand that she was representing Taylor," she said when interviewed in prison last fall. "I'm sure Hillary was just doing her job."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #102
107. Because I want a president with a higher standard of conduct
than whatever she can legally get away with frankly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. The standards she should be held to for that case are defending her client.
The DA couldn't prove his/her case. That's who didn't meet standards. The DA in that case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #107
202. You want a president who would be disbarred for sandbagging pro bono work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #97
145. Ethical by lawyer's standards
Question everything. Even when it seems beyond questioning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #145
151. Correct
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 06:27 PM by Marie26
Legal ethics are not the same as moral ethics. Sometimes they're in complete opposition. For example, if a criminal tells his attorney that he committed a murder & buried the body, that attorney can't reveal that info to anyone - not the authorities or the victim's family. If he did tell the police, he would be violating his ethical obligation to his client & could be disbarred. Clinton did the legally ethical thing here - that was her responsibility as an attorney. Under the Sixth Amendment, defendants have a right to confront & cross-examine witnesses against them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #91
222. She was a Legal Aid attorney doing pro bono work
And this was a court-appointed case. She had a legal and ethical responsibility to represent this person and to put on the best defense possible. SHE LEGALLY AND ETHICAL HAD TO.

I tip my hat to her for doing Legal Aid work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
99. Read the WHOLE article, as you suggest.
The victim understands Clinton was doing her job. Why can't you and others?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark2455899...
"I have to understand that she was representing Taylor," she said when interviewed in prison last fall. "I'm sure Hillary was just doing her job."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #99
103. Does it say she wasn't raped? No. She was raped
and Hillary abused her on the witness stand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. Then blame the DA for not doing HIS(or HER) job. Not Clinton for doing hers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #104
109. It wasn't that she was defending the rapist...
it was the tactics being used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #109
115. Again, the victim was not so traumatized that she holds ill-will against Clinton.
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 05:45 PM by PeaceNikki
Why do you?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark2455899...
"I have to understand that she was representing Taylor," she said when interviewed in prison last fall. "I'm sure Hillary was just doing her job."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #115
119. wasn't so traumatized... she was raped! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #119
120. By Clinton? Noooooo
The DA should have done his job.

How about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #120
124. What does the DA have to do with Hillary...
accusing a 12 year old of secretly wanting to be raped?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #124
130. She didn't. Read the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #115
189. you cannot speak to what this victim has gone through over these
years, and what trauma has done to her life. Even she cannot measure how much this incident has altered her life.

You can state her refusal to blame Hillary- which is a very gracious one, but you have NO RIGHT to claim that she was "not so traumatized"-

:shrug:

You have no right making the statement you just did, assuming that you know what this woman has worked through to come to where she is today.



peace~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #189
220. No, but I can read.

The victim, as the article states, did not even see this affidavit until the reporters showed it to her last fall when interviewing her:

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."

"I have to understand that she was representing Taylor," she said when interviewed in prison last fall. "I'm sure Hillary was just doing her job."


The victim in this case gets that, but you continue with your feigned outrage and keep calling it a "vicious attack" and keep twisting it into something it's not.


More intersting facts from the article:

"Hillary Clinton says the case spurred her to create the first rape hotline in Arkansas.

In 2005, while working in a laundry, the victim stole several hundred dollars worth of checks from her boss to buy drugs. She is now living in a halfway house and looking for work.

Despite these problems, she bears Hillary Rodham Clinton no ill will and was eager to read "Living History" - at least pages 72 and 73, which contain her case."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #220
272. you may be able to read but your comprehension leaves
much to be desired.

You claim that I "keep calling it a "vicious attack" and keep twisting it into something it's not"-

I challenge you to post my saying that anywhere- You have your facts messed up. I never have called Hillary's actions "a vicious attack"-

And the interesting 'facts' you cite are not new to me- or all that interesting.

I'd like to have proof that "Hillary" created the first rape hotline in Arkansas- as a result of her defense of this man- And why, if she felt this girl had NOT been a rape victim, it would matter much to her to begin with- :shrug:

I also want to educate you as to how common it is for people who have experienced rape/abuse in childhood end up with substance abuse problems. It is impossible to prove that the victims life was destroyed by the rape, but I have no trouble claiming that it did have some bearing on her struggles.

The fact that the victim bears Hillary no ill will says more about HER- than it does about Hillary- I hope Hillary has or does make her feelings known to the victim.- Hillary didn't have Chelsea when she defended this man- I believe her handling of this case might have been vastly different if it had come about later in Hillary's career.

I don't think the victim 'needs' to bear Hillary any "ill will" to still believe that discrediting a childs innocence by saying 'she wanted it' is not a tactic that can or should be used by the courts.

peace~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #103
108. What witness stand?
It appears reading comprehension is sadly lacking.
The article says the case never went to trial.
So, WTF are you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #108
122. Deposition stand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #122
129. Read the article.
"But the record shows that Rodham was also intent on questioning the girls credibility. That line of defense crystallized in a July 28, 1975, affidavit requesting the girl undergo a psychiatric examination at the universitys clinic. "

"Intent on questioning". See that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #129
139. The July 28, 1975, affidavit is exactly the problem.
Whether the child was actually put through the agony or just frightened is frankly beside the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #139
141. The point is that the DA didn't do HIS job to throw the book at this prick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:50 PM
Original message
It never went to trial. Did you even read the flippin article?

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

"Intent on questioning" is not the same as abusing her on the witness stand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #103
187. Lie.
The victim never was on the witness stand. The case was plea-bargained.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #99
105. Everyone agrees that Hillary was doing her job.
She was the court appointed attorney. That doesn't mean she was being ethical. Accusing a 12 year old girl of secretly wanting to be raped, does not qualify as being "part of the job."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #105
125. Yes, it does.
If that was her client's defense, that's what she's got to advocate. Of course it's sickening, but the fact is that everyone is entitled to present a defense to criminal charges. It seems like people sometimes think that the real scumbags shouldn't get a trial, cross-exam witnesses, challenge evidence, etc. But those rights are guaranteed in the Constitution for everyone. And sometimes the scumbags need the best advocate, because they are facing the most serious consequences. After DNA testing became possible, states learned that many, many innocent people were on Death Row. Accusation of a crime does not mean the defendant is guilty. Clinton had to take this job - she was appointed by the court. She probably felt sickened by it, because she always has been an advocate for children. But she had to represent her client's interest & enforce his rights. It's one of the unpleasant aspects of being an attorney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ErnestoG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
106. Can you imagine what the Hillars would be screaming if Obama were the attorney?
oh my god, bloody murder about trivializing rape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #106
112. Unbelievable double standard.
Obama is gangbanger because he wins political races, and Hillary, who actively assists in the legal abuse of a rape victim, is only doing her job.

Surreal! :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Umbram Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #106
131. You are right - but that doesn't make the thread any less rediculous
The thread is garbage, regardless of which side happens to want to roll in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #106
223. Seeing how I actually understand what Legal Aid is and how the legal syste, I would be defending him
The only people freaking out about this are either kneejerk HRC haters or people ignorant of the legal system, Legal Aid, and the legal and ethical standards attorneys must adhere to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Umbram Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
116. This is a very unusual thread.
Very, very rarely on DU when it comes to alleged rape do you see ANY inclination that defense attorneys are anything but chumps.

I'm glad to see that, at least situationally, some DU'ers don't hold our justice system in such contempt.

That said - this thread wins the "Hella' Lame Thread of the Day Award", specifically under the category "Pretending to be relevant."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #116
133. Depends
I think that private criminal defense attorneys are chumps, but they perform a necessary service. But I have total respect for public defenders & legal aid attorneys - IMO they're really true idealists who believe in the judicial system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #116
217. If she were getting paid millions of dollars to represent this guy it would be a different story
But I have enormous respect for anybody who is a public defender. I can't imagine what it would be like to have to do what she did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
117. Let's "get real": Hillary actively assisted in the legal abuse of a 12 y/o rape victim.
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 05:47 PM by dailykoff
Yes, she was only doing her job. No, she should not be president or hold any other public position of trust. PERIOD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmik debris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
123. Public defenders serve their clients NOT the public
You can't retroactively change the rules just because she decided to run for office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
128. I'm an Obama supporter, but that was her job
Her job was to defend her client, period. I hate seeing lawyers savaged for defending their clients with the zeal required by the canons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #128
132. Frankly there are higher standards than lawyer's codes
and this does not mean any I would hold a future US President to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #132
135. Fair enough
The simple fact is a defense lawyer is required to impeach the complaining witness, if possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #132
263. So I can put you in jail on secret evidence? Thought DU had a problem with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
136. I'm no fan of Clinton but this is unfair.
She was a defense attorney doing her utmost to represent her client's interests. This was pre-Rape Shield laws and is an unfortunate reflection of the mentality surrounding the crime of rape, which hasn't gotten much better IMHO.

This is the kind of crap that gets dug up to slime a primary opponent that can kill us in the general. The race is not over and HRC may well be our nominee before all is said and done. I sincerely hope the Obama campaign is not behind this because it is handing the GOP ammunition against us. I've said the same thing about the Clinton camp bringing up those "present votes", which McCain has already mentioned in speeches BTW.

Let the GOP spend their own money and do their own work to smear our candidates, don't let's do it to ourselves please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamaman2008 Donating Member (233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #136
143. But it was to the 12 year old girl?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #143
144. Blame the prosecutor for doing a shitty job, not the defense attorney for doing hers. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamaman2008 Donating Member (233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #144
215. I Thank the prosecutor for putting the child rapist behind bars not
Hillary for attacking a 12 year old girl for getting raped
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nuncvendetta Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
137. For all those saying that "this is just what lawyers do"...
As someone going into that field, I can tell you that the true mark of character comes from showing discretion. I only have to look so far as to be reminded of something Erwin Chemerinsky (one of the foremost constitutional law scholars in the country) once told me about legal professionalism. He said that in his early career, as all lawyers will face in their careers, he had the option of going too far in advocating for causes he didn't believe in or using tactics that were beneath what he considered to be "ethical." He said that in those circumstances, you have to look deep into yourself and decide where to draw the line, and then draw it, no matter what the consequences for your potential career. Some things just aren't worth sacrificing. Carrying that honor of character with him, look how far he has gotten.

Hillary Clinton could learn a lot from one of the champions of liberal constitutional rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #137
140. That wasn't an acceptable defense in the Nuremburg trials.
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 06:04 PM by dailykoff
It's not an acceptable defense now.

EDIT: and thank you for a very thoughtful analysis!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #140
152. I really don't know how you could have gone any lower?
Are you seriously comparing a lawyer defending her client to the best of her ability to a nazi?
Boggles my mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #152
163. "Carrying out orders" didn't even wash at the Abu Ghraib courts martial.
The handful of enlisted soldiers who were actually prosecuted and sentenced were reminded that they have an obligation to uphold the standards of ethical behavior laid out for example in the Geneva Code.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #137
224. If you are indeed becoming an attorney, then you need to learn about Legal Aid
Public Defender work, and pro bono defense. Because, if you ACTUALLY understood that, then you wouldn't have written what you do, because it shows no understanding of how this part of the legal system works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #137
253. This would not be beneath "ethical." You need to retake Professional Responsibilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thereismore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
146. This stinks stinks stinks Hillary. You should not have done this. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #146
154. Read the linked story. The OP is full of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
161. Hideous. Kicked and Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cooolandrew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
164. When hillary distorted barack's record on sex abuse cases I was against it, lawyers do tend to have
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 08:16 PM by cooolandrew
to defend shmucks. I think it's wiser for us to leave this one alone like a hot potato. Obama was voting present as hsi sponsored bill was watered won by republicans in the illinois senate. I imagine she didn't want to defend these people but just carried out her job,I won't attack her for similar things she attacked barack for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
166. Who wrote the subject line?
The Newsday story is very well written, in my opinion, but the du subject line is deliberately inflammatory. Her defense does not appear to have been 'vicious.'

We all need more truthiness, and less conflagration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #166
170. I think the Hillary...
accusing a 12 year old rape victim of secretly liking her rapist... is a vicious and unnecessary attack that is not necessary to defend her client.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #170
173. You keep saying that she "accused a 12 year old rape victim of secretly wanting to be raped"
Where? Where did she even come close to that?

The defense implied the victim may not have been raped by her client because she had been caught in lies in the past.

The article says she attacked the credibility of the victim. That she "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"

How is that accusing her of "wanting to be raped"?

She brought up credibility which is paramount in defending rape. Credibility and claming the victim for the crime occuring are very different.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckeown1128 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #173
188. What exactly do you think the purpose of pushing the
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 09:41 PM by mckeown1128
"she fantasizes and sought out older men" defense was getting at?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #188
192. First, it stated "Implied that", not "pushing" just preceding your quote.
Secondly, the "fantasizes" was in reference to the claim of "false accusations in the past". I wonder why the article itself put "older men" in quotes.

You're stretching a lot and really being dishonest in your claim that she "accused the girl of secretly liking her rapist". Or that she wanted to be raped. She brought the girl's credibility into question. Again, I'd bet that comes into every rape case ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #188
195. Talking to you is like clapping with one hand.
Just can't be done without great difficulty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #170
199. self-delete
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 10:23 PM by elleng
dupe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #170
200. Did you read the Newsday article?
Are you an attorney?

I think the continued overstatement that is going on will doom us all. Did we catch it from the media?

I support neither hillary nor obama, and am very disturbed by the failure of many to examine facts in making their determinations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #200
229. Yes, and Hillary's behavior was dishonest and abusive and the victims says so:
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-usark2455899...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Medusa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
167. If this is part of her 35 years of experience
then I want no part of it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
169. somebody give this person a bottle of water please....make room let'em lie down..just feeling faint
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 08:33 PM by ElsewheresDaughter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
172. Hiding thread....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
176. Noce job of spreading Republican sewage. I'm sure they'll thank you.
Redstone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okasha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
181. Lie.
The case never got to court. HRC plea-bargained her client.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Milo_Bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
182. I would NEVER vote for Clinton!!!
BUT... this is not one of the reasons or something even worth bringing up.

She was practicing law and was a court appointed attorney, which meant she HAD TO defend the person, or be disciplined.

If she didn't exert every possible defense, she could be later sued for malpractice.

IF there was evidence, she HAD TO pursue it or she could have been sued later on.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
185. Caring about children for 35 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:34 PM
Response to Original message
186. This is a tragic story, but as others have indicated, Hillary was just doing her job.
And very well, it seems.

Who deserves blame is the prosecutor for not mounting a more vigorous offense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
workinclasszero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:51 PM
Original message
OMG! That is sickening! SHAME ON YOU HILLARY!!!
Edited on Sun Feb-24-08 10:09 PM by workinclasszero
This is more experience Hillary wants to sweep under the rug along with her union busting activities for Walmart and her support of the job killing NAFTA treaty.

SHAME ON YOU HILLARY CLINTON!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
225. Legal Aid/public defender experience
The ignorance about this on this thread is appalling. People should understand how the legal system works. Doing Legal Aid defense work is (and was) a GOOD thing. Everyone has a right to an attorney and the best possible defense, even if they're scum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
193. Hillary has shown that she will do anything to win, even lie or cheat, as we've seen.
Contrary to what some here seem to believe, NO, many lawyers would not engage in the tactics Hillary engaged in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #193
194. You are full of it.
Nothing indicates that she either lied or cheated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #193
211. kind of like you've shown that you'll post anything
3,200 posts in less than a month.

Do they pay you by the post or by the word?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
198. SOP for lawyers who defend rapists, unfortunately
Thank heavens for the shield laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-24-08 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
208. Just for the record, Hillary lied about a 12-year old to get a 41-year old rapist off the hook.
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 pulled them out of her ear:

"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 by ANY standard.

link: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark2455899...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dicknbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #208
230. WOW Hillary restates in an avidavit what she has been told and she becomes a LIAR
Man you are so up on this case I am astonished and thirty years on you YOU know tha Hillary was lying because she had received information in the course of defending a case....WOWW man you are hot almost as hot as ........AMERICAN IDOL PRESIDENT CONTESTANT OBAMANABLE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #230
234. Hillary's claims were false and the victim herself, who bears no grudge, says so:
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-usark2455899...

Now if you want to say the rape victim lied, like Hillary said, and sought out her own rape, like Hillary also said, then you'd be contradicting the rape victim's own story.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Khaotic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
209. Sounds like ...
Part of her 35 years of change!

Well then, since she has insisted that she has sooooo much experience dating back to your birth and the days working as a fry cook at McD's, I'm guessing her days as a lawyer count, right?

Cards on the table ... if those are your cards in your royal flush Mrs. Clinton, you can't take them back now.

I hate to break it to her, but gambling isn't her strong suit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebaby3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
213. Well 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
216. I'm an Obama supporter and I'm calling bullshit as I did on the other thread
And frankly I do question people who claim they support the right to an attorney and a fair trial but are attacking Hillary for this.

1) Juries are made up of ordinary people, not lawyers. They are very easily manipulated in many cases.

2) Prosecutors and defense attorneys aren't supposed to do what they feel is right in every individual situation. They are supposed to represent their clients without fail. That means prosecutors are supposed to do everything they can to get the defendant convicted and the defense is supposed to do everything that they can to make sure the defendant gets off.

Hillary was obligated to provide her client with the best defense possible and in this case the best defense, in her judgment, was manipulating the jury. Had the tables been turned the prosecution would have done the same thing. That's the way the justice system works.

This is the ugly side of the right to an attorney and a right to a fair trial. Even the most vile scum of society can get the best defense there is. What you seem to want is the right to an attorney as long as there is no cost involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
226. Reading through this read has shown me several things:
Many people on here only read only the header and MAYBE a sentence or two, and not the article.

Many people don't understand how our legal system works, and have no idea what Legal Aid, public defense, or pro bono work is, nor what laws and regs an attorney doing said work must legally and ethically adhere to.

Many people just want to slam particular candidates, regardless of facts.


Doing Legal Aid work is a GOOD thing. Even scum legally and ethically deserve an attorney who puts on the most vigorous defense possible. Anything less is legal malpractice.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 08:06 AM
Response to Original message
227. This is relevant to the campaign? I don't like political smears. Don't make me Police Action you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dicknbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
228. Well just read the entire piece and man you could get a job writting for Faux News or O'Reilly
Man the way you wrote that heading I could see a maniacal crazy woman standing in front of this poor little girl screaming...and isn't it interesting the girl has gone on to a life of crime meth addict (probably prostitution) check forgery...and the accused has never had trouble with the law again....very interesting. usually men who have this penchant for raping especially young girls commit the crime again and this guy has never had any trouble with the law since this incident thirty years ago.. You have become a right winged shill and don't even know it. This is how Rove and company work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #228
231. I read it. Hillary's behavior was dishonest and abusive and the victims says so:
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-usark2455899...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
232. Wow, Thanks - you've just up my ignore list by a factor of 10 -
INCLUDING YOU!

You really don't know how the law works do you? If a rape shield law was in place THEN HR's conduct was indefensible and she should have been reprimanded if not disbarred. And yes, her conduct of the case was ethically reprehensible.

But you are dragging this primary down with attacks like this - same as the folks who are bringing up Whitewater.

I support Obama, but not these sorts of attacks by the more wild eyed amongst us. Back to your hidey hole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #232
236. There would be noting to reprimand Hillary for even if rape shield
law was place, which it probably wasn't, over 30 years ago.
Rape shield law applies to what the lawyer can or can not bring up in court, in front of the jury, regarding the woman's sexual history.
This case has never gone in front of the jury.
There were no laws broken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #236
237. Thank you
It's morning and my reading comp skills aren't completely awake yet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #236
241. Rape Shield Laws are not absolute. And they wouldn't apply here.
Lot of ignorant people in this thread.

"Rape Shield" laws that don't have statutory or judicial exceptions for evidence required to present a defense are unconstituional, period. Same for all evidence rules. They also don't cover sexual conduct with the defendant or prior false accusations, which seems to be the two angles of attack that are being claimed that Hillary engaged in here.

US Constitution> state evidence rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eurobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
233. Oh good lord, let it go.
:eyes: As an Obama supporter, I find this stuff ridiculous. Unless it is a Republican we are going after, like Bush and his AWOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
239. You don't believe in the system of laws, do you?
Again, now that I've worked through the hysterical postings on this thread I can at last ignore you

I don't think you're an Obama supporter at all.

Probably some sort of
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
243. Oh God Are You Reaching To The Bottom Of The Barrel Now. How Fuckin Stupid.
Seriously. This is beyond fuckin stupid. To anyone trying to make this like it actually has any meaning on anything whatsoever, I laugh at you for your closed minded silliness.

All I have to say, really. How ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
264. Hillary is the friend & ally of vicims of injustice, so you know what you can do with your "dirt"
You can shove it right back up Limbaugh's bumm where you found it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #264
267. Except when it's her "job" not to be.
Do you realize how weak your defense is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elixir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
270. It's unfortunate that you know so little about the legal process, but, I'm proud of..
your ability to spin language. She was fulfilling her role as the defendant's attorney and sought all information necessary to prove his innocence. You have taken what is a standard deposition and turned it into a "grilling". Research the outcome of this case that never went to trial, I think you'll see that HRC was correct and successful in her efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #270
275. Why let the facts about the court system get in the way of hyperbole?
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-25-08 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
271. The girl's family should have sued her for libel

but I'm glad Clinton's true colors are bleeding through her
phony facade. The girl gets a bit of revenge decades later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 27th 2014, 04:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC