Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Exactly. She did not have to accept the case. Council would have been appointed either way. She probably could not have known that she would consider running for the highest office in the land at that point but every candidate has to defend their past when you run for President and they all have the same burden of past choices. She will have to do the same on this. Eh....it's Arkansas in 1975. The appointed counsel probably would have been an alcoholic with a an office in the front part of his trailer. I think the vast majority of attorneys would have done this favor if their skills were suited for the task. She was a criminal law professor at the time. Agreeing to the case was the ethical choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Eh....it's Arkansas in 1975. The appointed counsel probably would have been an alcoholic with a an office in the front part of his trailer. I think the vast majority of attorneys would have done this favor if their skills were suited for the task. She was a criminal law professor at the time. Agreeing to the case was the ethical choice. Eh.... I get that, as does everybody else I imagine but still, it doesn't change the fact that she made a decision that will likely come back to haunt her in any Presidential Election. I would disagree that the ethical choice dictates that you accept a case where you know the defendant is guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Allegedly. Just like Clinton "allegedly" made misrepresentations in a false affidavit and sort of admitted that she falsely threatened that the Nobel Prize winner would testify for her. Christie has admitted this happened and fired the people involved. There is no question it happened. There is question as to whether Christie knew about it, which I don't think is terribly relevant to be honest. I really don't get this whole equivalency. I would disagree that the ethical choice dictates that you accept a case where you know the defendant is guilty. 99 percent of defendants are guilty. The first thing you learn is never to ask a defendant if they did it. Because they did, and you are somewhat ethically restricted at that point. It doesn't look like she did that, and it doesn't matter if she did because there was no trial. Are you arguing that defending a guilty client is unethical? Is every defense attorney unethical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Christie has admitted this happened and fired the people involved. There is no question it happened. There is question as to whether Christie knew about it, which I don't think is terribly relevant to be honest. I really don't get this whole equivalency. 99 percent of defendants are guilty. The first thing you learn is never to ask a defendant if they did it. Because they did, and you are somewhat ethically restricted at that point. It doesn't look like she did that, and it doesn't matter if she did because there was no trial. Are you arguing that defending a guilty client is unethical? Is every defense attorney unethical? I don't think I'm arguing at all. I'm saying that this will be a problem for her in a Presidential run if: A - the GOP doesn't overplay their hand and B - if she actually decides to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 LKB - the defendant was 41 at the time. Here is some more "info" (I guess Newsday did an article about Hillary's legal strategy on the case in 2008 & its about time to roll it out again since Hillary is a prospective candidate). http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/ I quoted " " info because the link reads like an op ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I don't think I'm arguing at all. I'm saying that this will be a problem for her in a Presidential run if: A - the GOP doesn't overplay their hand and B - if she actually decides to run. You said this: I would disagree that the ethical choice dictates that you accept a case where you know the defendant is guilty. Explain that. This is pretty important: Twenty-seven-year-old Hillary Rodham had just moved to Fayetteville, and was running the University of Arkansas’ newly-formed legal aid clinic, when she received a call from prosecutor Mahlon Gibson. This is pretty much what Legal Aid clinics are designed to do. Hold on..... Taylor drove the group around in his truck, pouring the girl whisky and coke on the way. The group later drove to a “weedy ravine” near the highway where Taylor raped the 12-year-old. Around 4 a.m., the girl and her mother went to the hospital, where she was given medical tests and reported that she had been assaulted. How does this line up with: A virgin before the assault, she spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape, and over 10 years in therapy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 You said this: I would disagree that the ethical choice dictates that you accept a case where you know the defendant is guilty. Explain that. This is pretty important: This is pretty much what Legal Aid clinics are designed to do. Hold on..... I would. I think that the ethics of this will be determined by the voters. She was not a Defense Attorney, she did not have to accept this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I would. I think that the ethics of this will be determined by the voters. She was not a Defense Attorney, she did not have to accept this case. That's not what you said. You said: I would disagree that the ethical choice dictates that you accept a case where you know the defendant is guilty Do you think guilty defendants deserve a defense attorney? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 That's not what you said. You said: I would disagree that the ethical choice dictates that you accept a case where you know the defendant is guilty Do you think guilty defendants deserve a defense attorney? It's exactly what I said. I also said that he would have been appointed legal council either way, which is correct. The decision to defend this person was a choice Hillary Clinton made at the time. She did not have to do that. She was under no obligation to do so, that I am aware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 man did i read the headline wrong. hillary committing rape is a scary thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I don't think I'm arguing at all. I'm saying that this will be a problem for her in a Presidential run if: A - the GOP doesn't overplay their hand and B - if she actually decides to run. It is June 2014. In some ways, the best thing for HRC is for everyone to talk about it now. Its 30 months until the election. No one will care. This might be a story for a few weeks, but will die far before the election. I am sure there are GOP strategiest who wished this didn't come out already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 It is June 2014. In some ways, the best thing for HRC is for everyone to talk about it now. Its 30 months until the election. No one will care. This might be a story for a while, but will die far before the election. I agree, it is better to do this now but I don't agree that it won't be a story if she decides to run in 30 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Also, I have to say that, if I'm reading the OP correctly, then what really shafted the victim, here, was when the cops lost the evidence. Granted, I'm just assuming, here. but my assumption is that, if the prosecution has physical evidence, the defendant doesn't even get offered anywhere near such a sweetheart deal. This is the entire story. What defense attorney wouldn't get their client a reduced charge if the main physical evidence was lost by the investigators? The ire should be with the incompetent investigators, not with the attorney. Furthermore, this story was run in 2008 and since that time, the victim has changed her story. It's not that I don't feel bad for the victim, but this won't hurt Clinton at all. Especially after listening to the tapes, it's clear that she isn't laughing at the victim or at what possibly happened to the victim. That seems like a real stretch by the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 It's exactly what I said. I also said that he would have been been appointed legal council either way, which is correct. The decision to defend this person was a choice Hillary Clinton made at the time. She did not have to do that. She was under no obligation to do so, that I am aware of. I don't completely agree that she could have turned the case down to be honest. Attorneys see that as a grey area. http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/repugnantclients.html Yet the Sixth Amendment dictates that all criminal defendants—even those charged with the most heinous crimes—are entitled to the right to assistance of counsel. Attorneys are the guardians of the legal system. When admitted to practice, lawyers take an oath to uphold the Constitution and to discharge their duties faithfully. That oath is not qualified by “only if I really want to” or “unless the client or case is unpopular” or “only if it won’t impact my ability to make my law school loan payments.” Attorneys are morally and ethically obligated to take on difficult cases and clients exactly because the willingness to do so is fundamental to the integrity of our judicial system. Our democratic society depends upon the rule of law, which is itself based upon an effective and fair judicial system. Lawyers play a vital role in ensuring that the rule of law is followed and the system of justice, fair. If lawyers refuse to participate actively in that judicial system, or to participate only with those cases or clients they personally support, the entire system falls at risk. The assumption that somebody else will take the case is no excuse for a lawyer’s unwillingness to get involved. Each attorney has an individual responsibility to live up to the expectations and duties of the profession. Now this does not mean that an attorney who does mergers and acquisitions all day can be forced to defend a rapist. But Hillary Rodham was running a legal aid clinic in 1975. I honestly don't think she could have turned down this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I don't completely agree that she could have turned the case down to be honest. Attorneys see that as a grey area. http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/repugnantclients.html If she were a Defense Attorney at the time, I would agree with you. Because she was not and was doing this as a favor, I think that changes the discussion. Now this does not mean that an attorney who does mergers and acquisitions all day can be forced to defend a rapist. But Hillary Rodham was running a legal aid clinic in 1975. I honestly don't think she could have turned down this case. As I understand it, she was teaching. Not practicing as a Defense Attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 As I understand it, she was teaching. Not practicing as a Defense Attorney. She said she hadn't done a criminal trial but was doing jury trials, probably cause hears, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I don't completely agree that she could have turned the case down to be honest. Attorneys see that as a grey area. http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/repugnantclients.html If she were a Defense Attorney at the time, I would agree with you. Because she was not and was doing this as a favor, I think that changes the discussion. Now this does not mean that an attorney who does mergers and acquisitions all day can be forced to defend a rapist. But Hillary Rodham was running a legal aid clinic in 1975. I honestly don't think she could have turned down this case. As I understand it, she was teaching. Not practicing as a Defense Attorney. She was running a legal aid clinic. That's essentially being a defense attorney for the poorest of the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 She was running a legal aid clinic. That's essentially being a defense attorney for the poorest of the poor. So that dictates that she accepts every case? I don't believe that's true. The reason she was asked is because she was a woman, according to the interview. That suggest that other representation was available. The fact that she was asked suggests that she could have declined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 So that dictates that she accepts every case? Again, that's a grey area. Generally speaking, if you are running a legal aid clinic, you take the cases you have time to take. Not liking a client is not a good reason to refuse the client, unless the dislike is so great that you cannot do a reasonable job defending him or her. Explain to me why she should not have taken this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Again, that's a grey area. Generally speaking, if you are running a legal aid clinic, you take the cases you have time to take. Expalin to me why she should not have taken this case. That goes back to the morality question. If she new the Man was guilty, that brings into question defending a man who was guilty of raping a 12 year old girl or not. This is a question of what the American People will think of this decision, not what a Lawyer or the Legal community might think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 That goes back to the morality question. If she new the Man was guilty, that brings into question defending a man who was guilty of raping a 12 year old girl or not. This is a question of what the American People will think of this decision, not what a Lawyer or the Legal community might think. Is there a claim that she knew the man was guilty before she took the case or even knew anything about the case? The prosecutor asked her to do a favor but we don't know anything about that conversation, do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 As for her "tone" on the tape, which I have not heard....Attorneys always discuss their cases in a weirdly detached tone. I once clerked for a defense attorney and still see him every few years. We always talk about the big case we worked on that summer - for which the client is still in prison. We discuss it like most people would a high school football game from their youth, which perhaps is callous but is the only way to do really be in the profession and remain sane. This changed my view, makes sense. I can see how you'd have to become detached quickly in the profession. Another example where I need to avoid snap judgments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 That goes back to the morality question. If she new the Man was guilty, that brings into question defending a man who was guilty of raping a 12 year old girl or not. This is a question of what the American People will think of this decision, not what a Lawyer or the Legal community might think. It seems like she suspected he was guilty. But nearly every criminal defendant is guilty. Do people not know this? This changed my view, makes sense. I can see how you'd have to become detached quickly in the profession. Another example where I need to avoid snap judgments. Not that what attorneys do is the same, but a lot of professions do this - soldiers....doctors....police officers. Attorneys that internalize this stuff end up as alcoholics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Oh great! Something new and nasty for me to not care about when it comes to politics! I assume there will be lots of skeletons dug up if/when Hillary gets the nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Behngazi, birther gate, Bergdahl, and now they have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton persecuting rape victems.... :doh: Would it really be that hard for the GOP to engage in politics on substantive issues.... Hey adjusted unemployment is hovering about 6%, but unadjusted we are still above 10%! It took Obama's leadership five years to recover the jobs lost in the 2008 downturn... Here is how the GOP would do it better!!!.. Those kinds of arguments I would find persuasive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.