Daily Beast: Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,' Rape Victim Says

[Larry]

I would, however, say that the question or morality is different for every person.

So, your point is that you've chosen to attack Hillary for choosing to defend this person, (dozens of times, now), isn't because it was a choice, it's because she's Hillary?

(He asked, without any hint of sarcasm at all that shows on his face.) 

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It's not a question of morality; it's a question of ethics. We never once discussed morality in my Professional Responsibility class. (And I went to a Catholic University).

 

Helping child rapists avoid prison is certainly morally questionable. It's also an ethical necessity.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You ever hear about the Boston Massacre? Where a garrison of British soldiers fired on a group of unarmed Americans adding to the tensions leading up to the American Revolution, March 5, 1770. You know who defended the British Soldiers in this highly political confrontation between the crown and the colonies? John Adams, one of the authors of the declaration of independence, the strongest voice in the continental congress for independence. The first vice president of the United States and the second President of the United States.

So strongly did Adams believe in the judicial process than when the British could not find anybody else defend their soldiers in a colonial court, Adams agreed to accept the job. He got them off too.

There is no shame for a defense attorney to represent someone accused of a crime. The mere suggestion such a taint exist is frankly un-American.

 

What's your point?  Are you trying to suggest that Hillary is John Adams incarnate?  

 

I would imagine that Adams had to deal with negative support for his previous actions, just as any other President has had to do.  Defending British Troops when nobody else would is not, in my mind, the same at all.  If you choose to view it as if it is, that is your affair but you can't expect everybody to view it in that light.   That's just unreasonable.  

 

One of the very clear differences here is that the British Soldiers had no representation.   Clearly the Lawyers of the time elected not to represent them, I suspect because of personal beliefs.   Hillary elected to represent this man, not because there were no other Defense Attorneys.   There were, she chose to represent him.   There is a difference there.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

There were, she chose to represent him.   There is a difference there.

 

1. Nothing in these articles actually suggests that.

 

2. Whether a client can obtain other representation is not really a consideration, particularly when asked to defend a criminal defendant.

[ABQCOWBOY]

 

 

 

 

Oh, well, you've proven to be such an expert on the legal system so far.......I can see why you would doubt me.

 

As for why they called Hillary? I dunno. It was 1975. This is about a decade beyond Gideon. I imagine most jurisdictions were still getting up to speed on how to provide attorneys for indigent clients. Hillary was a hot-**** 27 year old from Yale who was working for the university. Someone probably thought to call her.

 

 

 

She said why.   They called her because they wanted a Woman to defend him.   I may not be an expert on the Legal System but I can at least listen to a recording and understand what is being said.  

1. Nothing in these articles actually suggests that.

 

2. Whether a client can obtain other representation is not really a consideration, particularly when asked to defend a criminal defendant.

 

If you say so. 

[Larry]

Helping child rapists avoid prison is certainly morally questionable. It's also an ethical necessity.

That's kinda my (admittedly awkward) position.

I want to have confidence in our justice system. (I strongly suspect that my opinion of it is considerably better than what it actually deserves.)

And one of the pillars of the belief I have in that system, is the belief that every person convicted had an attorney who was supposedly fully the equal of the one prosecuting him, who did everything in his power to get his client off. (And the bum got convicted, anyway, so he must be guilty.)

Take away that vigorous defense, and I can't trust the verdict, any more.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

 

 

 

She said why.   They called her because they wanted a Woman to defend him.   I may not be an expert on the Legal System but I can at least listen to a recording and understand what is being said.  

 

 

That actually raises a fascinating ethical question.

 

How many female defense attorneys were there in Little Rock in 1975?

 

If Hillary was the only one (which is completely plausible at that point), she probably has very little choice but to take the gig.

[JMS]

It's not a question of morality; it's a question of ethics.

 

Helping child rapists avoid prison is certainly morally questionable. It's also an ethical necessity.

So they become guilty of the crime then prior to both conviction and the appeals process?

There is nothing morally questionable with assisting an accused in putting forward the best possible defense. That's how we avoid cases like Kern County where the public outrage worked to railroad the McCuans and Kniffens who received 1000 years in prison sentence for an abuse trial later proven to be entirely fabricated.

There is nothing questionable immoral about defending the accused, regardless of the crime.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

That's kinda my (admittedly awkward) position.

I want to have confidence in our justice system. (I strongly suspect that my opinion of it is considerably better than what it actually deserves.)

And one of the pillars of the belief I have in that system, is the belief that every person convicted had an attorney who was supposedly fully the equal of the one prosecuting him, who did everything in his power to get his client off. (And the bum got convicted, anyway, so he must be guilty.)

Take away that vigorous defense, and I can't trust the verdict, any more.

 

Read Gideon's Trumpet by Anthony Lewis.

 

If you say so. 

 

 

Have you taken a Professional Responsibility class?

[EvilMonkeyBoy]

Only the baby boomers could imagine a rape trial from 1975 would have a major impact on a 2016 presidential race.

[ABQCOWBOY]

That actually raises a fascinating ethical question.

 

How many female defense attorneys were there in Little Rock in 1975?

 

If Hillary was the only one (which is completely plausible at that point), she probably has very little choice but to take the gig.

 

I don't have any idea but what does that matter?   The case was botched by the Prosecution.   It was essentially dismissed with time served.   I don't really think that it would have mattered if it were a Woman or a Man but again, that's here nor there.  

 

Do you agree that she made a choice to represent this person and if so, do you also agree that she will have to live with how this decision will be viewed by the voters, good or bad?

Read Gideon's Trumpet by Anthony Lewis.

 

Have you taken a Professional Responsibility class?

 

 

No, I have never taken a Proffessional Responsibility Class, much like Millions of other voters I suspect.

[Larry]

Only the baby boomers could imagine a rape trial from 1975 would have a major impact on a 2016 presidential race.

"I didn't inhale".

"He didn't deserve those medals".

"He didn't show up for National Guard".

"Where's the Birth Certificate?"

There's a long history of things that happened a long, long, time ago, resonating with some voters.  (Or, at least, people trying to get them to do so.) 

 

Is this really any dumber than those others? 

Do you agree that she made a choice to represent this person and if so, do you also agree that she will have to live with how this decision will be viewed by the voters, good or bad?

Yes.

Just like every single defense attorney in the history of the profession.

[Hersh]

The Newsday article from 2008 which is referenced in the OP link answers a lot of these questions.

 

 

On May 21, 1975, Tom Taylor rose in court to demand that Washington County Judge Maupin Cummings allow him to fire his male court-appointed lawyer in favor of a female attorney. Taylor, who earned a meager wage at a paper bag factory and lived with relatives, had already spent 10 days in the county jail and was grasping for a way to avoid a 30 years-to-life term in the state penitentiary for rape.

Taylor, 41, figured a jury would be less hostile to a rape defendant represented by a woman, according to one of his friends. Cummings agreed to the request, scanned the list of available female attorneys (there were only a half dozen in the county at the time) and assigned Rodham, who had virtually no experience in criminal litigation.

"Hillary told me she didn't want to take that case, she made that very clear," recalls prosecutor Gibson, who phoned her with the judge's order.

"I didn't feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn't very well refuse the judge's request," the eventual first lady writes in "Living History."

The case, she quickly learned, was hopelessly convoluted, hinging on the accounts of three people - Taylor, the girl and a 15-year-old boy - who all had reasons to withhold details.

 

A lot more at link and the article itself is highlighted in different parts. Apparently there were 6 female attorneys in the county.

[EvilMonkeyBoy]

"I didn't inhale".

"He didn't deserve those medals".

"He didn't show up for National Guard".

"Where's the Birth Certificate?"

There's a long history of things that happened a long, long, time ago, resonating with some voters. (Or, at least, people trying to get them to do so.)

Is this really any dumber than those others?

I would say no it's not. However, 3 of those 4 accusations didn't sink those campaigns.

I just personally feel '08 was the last election where events from seventies would have a chance to make a REAL impact on the election. Especially with the demographics of Presidential elections(with or without Obama's candidacy).

We're just too far out at this point IMO.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm not convinced she had much of a choice to be honest.

The Newsday article from 2008 which is referenced in the OP link answers a lot of these questions.

 

 

A lot more at link and the article itself is highlighted in different parts. Apparently there were 6 female attorneys in the county.

 

If there were only 6 and she was on a panel, she really had no choice.

 

God, it's hard being right all the time.

[The Evil Genius]

I'm not convinced she had much of a choice to be honest.

 

If there were only 6 and she was on a panel, she really had no choice.

 

God, it's hard being right all the time.

 

If the snippet from the Newsday article is accurate, there is a log of egg foo young to be thrown now.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If the snippet from the Newsday article is accurate, there is a log of egg foo young to be thrown now.

 

Panel attorneys? What on earth are those?!?!?!

 

Few female attorneys in Little Rock?!?! Surely you jest!!!

 

Ethical responsibility? No such thing!!!!

 

Seriously, when are you jags going to start listening to me?

[JMS]

What's your point?  Are you trying to suggest that Hillary is John Adams incarnate?

Well since Ii don't worship John Adams as a deity I wouldn't use the incarnate term. But yes John Adams continued a long tradition in our country of rights for the accused. Chiefly among them the right to a vigorous and competent defense. There is nothing immoral or even questionable immoral in this country in defending the accused, especially as a court appointed attorney or as a public defender... but also as a well compensated accomplished advocate who has focused their entire career to doing such; as Adams had prior to going into politics.

 

I would imagine that Adams had to deal with negative support for his previous actions, just as any other President has had to do.  Defending British Troops when nobody else would is not, in my mind, the same at all.  If you choose to view it as if it is, that is your affair but you can't expect everybody to view it in that light.   That's just unreasonable.

I think frankly Adams was beyond any retaliation, beyond caring, beyond condemnation, beyond retaliation. Addams cousin Samuel was one of the chief reactionaries who Adams confronted and intellectually spanked for even suggesting the British officers did not deserve a skilled defense. After that Samuel worked as a blocking back to Adams power I formation.

Adams didn't really intimidate... He later would sign the declaration of Independence even while noting if the colonies failed to defeat the strongest power on earth, He would hang.... He was a bulldog who was the moral conscious of the revolution.

 

I have accepted a seat in the House of Representatives, and thereby have consented to my own ruin, to your ruin, and to the ruin of our children. I give you this warning that you may prepare your mind for your fate.

One of the very clear differences here is that the British Soldiers had no representation.   Clearly the Lawyers of the time elected not to represent them, I suspect because of personal beliefs.   Hillary elected to represent this man, not because there were no other Defense Attorneys.   There were, she chose to represent him.   There is a difference there.

There is no difference.... You think it's more moral to stand aside and let someone else do hard thankless, and distasteful work? That's not a defend able position. Adams took a risk in defending the soldiers and did so becasue he believed in the judicial system and the premise of innocence until proven guilty. He believed the accused were entitled regardless of the crime to a vigorous defense. Public defenders and court appointed lawyers act in that same spirit in this country every day. Hillary did exactly the same here.

What's your thought honestly? Hillary enjoyed cross examining this rape victim? Hillary made political contacts by defending this accused rapist? Or somehow hillary got her jollies on by cross examing this woman. All crazy premises..

Hillary was acting as a lawyer and in the finest tradition of the American judicial system, and yes as exemplified by John Adams in March of 1770.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes.

Just like every single defense attorney in the history of the profession.

 

 

 

Exactly.   However, I will say that in the interview, Hillary says that she was not a criminal lawyer.  She says that she had never tried a criminal case before.   She says she taught law and criminal procedure at the University and makes no mention of any Law Clinic what so ever.   I don't think she was a Public Defender or even a Defense Lawyer at the time but I don't know that last for sure.  

 

She did make a choice to take the case, right or wrong, and that will be viewed as it will be viewed if she runs.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Exactly.   However, I will say that in the interview, Hillary says that she was not a criminal lawyer.  She says that she had never tried a criminal case before.   She says she taught law and criminal procedure at the University and makes no mention of any Law Clinic what so ever.   I don't think she was a Public Defender or even a Defense Lawyer at the time but I don't know that last for sure.  

 

She did make a choice to take the case, right or wrong, and that will be viewed as it will be viewed if she runs.

 

If Newsday is correct, she was a panel attorney. If the right wing idiot who found the tape is correct, she was running the law clinic.

 

If the judge pulled her name off the panel, she had no choice.

[JMS]

Only the baby boomers could imagine a rape trial from 1975 would have a major impact on a 2016 presidential race.

It's just part of a strategy to splatter the wall with as much mud as you can and prey something sticks.  It's frankly background noise.    This kind of splatter strategy frankly taints the GOP worse than it will ever taint the Clinton's.   The real issue here,  the thing that matters in the next election is whether the GOP can put a choke chain around the necks of their fringe tea party folks which both weakens them in the general and eats their own in the preliminaries.. If the GOP can control their fringe and actually come out with some policies which make sense; then the election is theirs.

If they can't no amount of mud will help them stop the Hillary Juggernaut.. At least not mud of this viscosity.

I mean come on who does the GOP think they are dealing with here... Remember Gary Heart?

Looks like a nice fellow right...  Problem was that wasn't his wife.  Gary was a presidential favorite and career politician, heavy hitter. Had one affair.. stick a fork in him and he was done...

2-3 years latter, Bill and Hillary sit down at half time of the super bowl and admit to Bill's first bimbo eruption (first one we knew about then) with the local weather lady in Littlerock (Jennifer Flowers?);  Bill not only got the nomination anyway, he got elected.    By the time he was out of office every American could name a half dozen women he had been with and had discussed in detail what was and what was not infidelity...  likely more than one conversation too.

 

The Clinton take scandals which have ended careers of other prominent politicians and tucked them under their arms and keep on walking. Those are REAL scandals. Not this made up junk. The Clinton's are the king and queen of the counter punch. If you want to do battle with them you don't swing at these pitches in the dirt... you keep your powder dry for the big fat watermelon you know is coming down the center of the plate.   The GOP's systemic weakness has been they just aren't smart enough to get out of their own way on this kind of stuff.

[Larry]

What's your thought honestly? Hillary enjoyed cross examining this rape victim? Hillary made political contacts by defending this accused rapist? Or somehow hillary got her jollies on by cross examing this woman. All crazy premises..

Just a theory, but I think his thought is "there has to be some way I can use this for political advantage, here. And I think the word 'choice' is the tool I can use, to make it work. So I'm going to fixate on that, and ignore everything else."

But, like I said, that's just a theory.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

From what I can tell, there as no cross examination of anyone.

 

I am really puzzled on the specific charges brought however. Did Arkansas just not pursue statutory rape in 1975? Was it not a strict liability crime then?

By the way, we are three pages removed from talking about whether she acted ethically within the case. But we have learned a lot about Pulaski County's legal community in 1975. Which is nice.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well since Ii don't worship John Adams as a deity I wouldn't use the incarnate term. But yes John Adams continued a long tradition in our country of rights for the accused. Chiefly among them the right to a vigorous and competent defense. There is nothing immoral or even questionable immoral in this country in defending the accused, especially as a court appointed attorney or as a public defender... but also as a well compensated accomplished advocate who has focused their entire career to doing such; as Adams had prior to going into politics.

 

Are you suggesting that this man could not have received a vigorous and competent defense had Hillary not defended him?   I don't believe you are but I do want to make it clear that there is no proof that he would not have received that had Hillary not defended him.  

 

The question of morality is not yours to answer.   That is incumbent upon each individual as they see fit.   For you, it was not immoral, for others it might be. 

 

I think frankly Adams was beyond any retaliation, beyond caring, beyond condemnation, beyond retaliation. Addams cousin Samuel was one of the chief reactionaries who Adams confronted and intellectually spanked for even suggesting the British officers did not deserve a skilled defense. After that Samuel worked as a blocking back to Adams power I formation.

 

I don't believe this to be the case.   His nickname, even at the time of his election, was "His Rotundity" so clearly there was some level of discord among his peers.   Having said that, I don't really think it matters.   The situations are completely different.   

 

There is no difference.... You think it's more moral to stand aside and let someone else do hard thankless, and distasteful work? That's not a defend able position. Adams took a risk in defending the soldiers and did so becasue he believed in the judicial system and the premise of innocence until proven guilty. He believed the accused were entitled regardless of the crime to a vigorous defense. Public defenders and court appointed lawyers act in that same spirit in this country every day. Hillary did exactly the same here.

 

 

Yeah, there is.   Adams defended Soldiers who fired on civilians under order.   Was that right or was that wrong?   Had the British won, the that question would be very different.   As it is, they did not and so they faced trial.  That being said, this situation is very different.   Chief among the differences is that they had NO other representation.    That is not the case for the man Hillary represented.   He had access to representation, they simply wanted a Woman as opposed to a man according to Hillary.  

 

What's your thought honestly? Hillary enjoyed cross examining this rape victim? Hillary made political contacts by defending this accused rapist? Or somehow hillary got her jollies on by cross examing this woman. All crazy premises..

Hillary was acting as a lawyer and in the finest tradition of the American judicial system, and yes as exemplified by John Adams in May of 1770.

 

 

 

Honestly, my thoughts are as I stated them originally. 

 

 

 

  If I understand the circumstances, she was not appointed to this case but instead, asked to do this as a favor.   That would seem to bring into question the idea of actually accepting a case where she new the defendant to be guilty.   I've heard this interview and I have to be honest, I don't believe that the interview is as damning as some on the right are making it out to be but, where I do believe it could hurt her is where Women's rights are concerned.   That could come back to haunt her.

 

 

That's what I honestly think about this issue.

[Larry]

From what I can tell, there as no cross examination of anyone.

 

I am really puzzled on the specific charges brought however. Did Arkansas just not pursue statutory rape in 1975? Was it not a strict liability crime then?

I would assume that such was the major charge that he was trying to avoid.

And I assume it was a case that, back then, they had to prove that there was sex. (And, if they don't have physical evidence, then the only way to do that would be to have the victim take the stand, testify, be cross examined by defense, in open court. And, while I'm quite certain that raping a 12 year old was illegal, way back then in the untamed wilds of Arkansas, I also think it's a safe bet that in those days, they didn't have all the fancy laws we have, today, to protect juveniles who are accusing adults of rape.)

But, granted, that's a lot of "I assume"s.