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

[Hersh]

Not a great deal.   As I said before, I've heard the interview before.   It's not really a shock to me that it would not be received well on this board but again, that's not surprising.    This is a left leaning board and that's OK.  

 

You mean the interview lacking specifics of why she took the case so you just conveniently fill in the narrative that works for you?

It's not a question of this or that being well received, it's a question on certain right leaning people on this board creating a story with cherry picked facts. You guys latch on to anything to attempt to tarnish pretty much any Democrat without regard to exploring all the facts or what investigations have uncovered.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Anyone who becomes a defense attorney is of questionable character?

 

That's what you are saying, because every defense attorney in this country defends scumbags and makes crime victims uncomfortable pretty much every day of their lives.

 

 

I don't think that's what's being said LKB.   I mean, is every successful business man of questionable character as well, based on the Romney example?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/17/why-being-a-public-defender-is-increasingly-bad-for-your-political-future/

 

Just to prove a point...over 200 members of Congress are attorneys. 32 are former prosecutors. 4 are former defense attorneys. Defense attorneys are not popular with voters for all the narrow-minded reasons cited on this board so far.

 

Apparently, it is a lack of character to fulfill a key Constitutional requirement.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You mean the interview lacking specifics of why she took the case so you just conveniently fill in the narrative that works for you?

It's not a question of this or that being well received, it's a question on certain right leaning people on this board creating a story with cherry picked facts. You guys latch on to anything to attempt to tarnish pretty much any Democrat without regard to exploring all the facts or what investigations have uncovered.

 

What narrative do you believe I'm filling in?   I have not said anything that was not stated in her own words.

[EvilMonkeyBoy]

I don't think that's what's being said LKB.   I mean, is every successful business man of questionable character as well, based on the Romney example?

You can be a successful businessman without being a vulture.

You can't be a defense attorney without defending the legitimately guilty every once in awhile.

[PokerPacker]

Anyone who becomes a defense attorney is of questionable character?

 

That's what you are saying, because every defense attorney in this country defends scumbags and makes crime victims uncomfortable pretty much every day of their lives.

I don't believe I said anything to that effect. As a matter of fact, I didn't make any judgments of character about any person or group. I merely stated that "I was doing my job" does not excuse you from the actions you take in your job. Just as we do not accept "I was just following orders".

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't believe I said anything to that effect. As a matter of fact, I didn't make any judgments of character about any person or group. I merely stated that "I was doing my job" does not excuse you from the actions you take in your job. Just as we do not accept "I was just following orders".

 

For a defense attorney, "doing his or her job" means helping criminals either go free or get reduced sentences.

 

Is that a stain on their character?

 

This thread stopped being about the tactics she used in defending this guy on page one. Everyone is now questioning whether this guy deserved a defense in the first place, it seems.

 

She is being challenged on actually taking the job (which I don't think she had a choice in doing).

I don't think that's what's being said LKB.   I mean, is every successful business man of questionable character as well, based on the Romney example?

 

You said it explicity.

 

"I would disagree that the ethical choice dictates that you accept a case where you know the defendant is guilty."

 

As for successful businessmen, I tend to disagree with how we now define the word "successful."

[Larry]

I don't think that's what's being said LKB. I mean, is every successful business man of questionable character as well, based on the Romney example?

Buying companies, shutting them down, moving them to China, and selling the scraps is not a requirement, to be an investment banker.

Defending guilty people IS a requirement to be a defense attorney.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Buying companies, shutting them down, moving them to China, and selling the scraps is not a requirement, to be an investment banker.

Defending guilty people IS a requirement to be a defense attorney.

 

But is there proof of the fact that this is what she was at the time and that she was obligated to defend this man?   Again, it is not as if he did not have access to legal defense.  

 

If there is proof that she was obligated to defend him, as I have said multiple times in this thread, then that's a different discussion.

 

I acknowledge freely that if there is proof of that, then there really is not much here but I have seen no proof of that to this point.

 

You said it explicity.

 

"I would disagree that the ethical choice dictates that you accept a case where you know the defendant is guilty."

 

 

Well, that's not entirely accurate I think.  I said that she had a choice, which I believe is accurate.   Do you have any proof that she was selected from a panel to represent this man?  

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

But is there proof of the fact that this is what she was at the time and that she was obligated to defend this man?   Again, it is not as if he did not have access to legal defense.  

 

If there is proof that she was obligated to defend him, as I have said multiple times in this thread, then that's a different discussion.

 

I acknowledge freely that if there is proof of that, then there really is not much here but I have seen no proof of that to this point.

 

I've explained numerous times how this likely happened. You don't like the answer.

 

It either happened in one of two ways.

 

Most likely is what Newsday said happened:

 

1. The guy fired his counsel and demanded a female attorney. They looked at the panel and found six defense attorneys. Hillary stood out and they called her. She basically had zero choice.

 

2. The guy either never had counsel or fired his. Under Gideon, he is entitled to counsel. He also wants a female attorney (this part seems consistent). The prosecutor reaches out to Hillary (which, by the way, would absolutely not happen in 2014) because she was running the Legal Aid Clinic at University of Arkansas. She probably could have maybe possibly said no. But not really. It wouldn't be an explicit violation, but it would certainly be frowned upon.

 

#1 seems far more likely by the way.

 

Well, that's not entirely accurate I think.  I said that she had a choice, which I believe is accurate.   Do you have any proof that she was selected from a panel to represent this man?  

 

On what grounds should she have refused to represent this man?

[Hersh]

But is there proof of the fact that this is what she was at the time and that she was obligated to defend this man?   Again, it is not as if he did not have access to legal defense.  

 

If there is proof that she was obligated to defend him, as I have said multiple times in this thread, then that's a different discussion.

 

I acknowledge freely that if there is proof of that, then there really is not much here but I have seen no proof of that to this point.

 

 

Well, that's not entirely accurate I think.  I said that she had a choice, which I believe is accurate.   Do you have any proof that she was selected from a panel to represent this man?  

 

You are choosing to ignore the Newsday article on the circumstances on how she was selected and what was in Hillary's own book. You are being presented with evidence and choosing to ignore it.

What facts are there that Hillary knew about the case before she accepted it? (hint, she doesn't say she knew the facts of the case on the audio prior to her accepting the case)

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

What facts are there that Hillary knew about the case before she accepted it? (hint, she doesn't say she knew the facts of the case on the audio)

 

I truly do not understand why this is even relevant.

 

I also legimately thought we were going to be discussing her tactics in the case. I still haven't been able to read the affidavit because I can't access that site at work. I can see someone criticizing her on that - depending on what it actually says.

 

By the way....want to know who I think has the biggest gripe with Hillary?

 

The defendant.

 

Why is his attorney talking about how he was probably guilty in an interview? They still have an attorney-client relationship and she still has duties.

[PokerPacker]

For a defense attorney, "doing his or her job" means helping criminals either go free or get reduced sentences.

 

Is that a stain on their character?

There was a time when I was growing up that I wanted to become a defense lawyer. I have no qualms with the idea of providing a legal defense to people who most likely have committed the crime. I would not have it in me, however, to tear apart the character of an innocent victim so that my client could get off.

So I have no problem with the idea of providing a defense to guilty parties, but what you are willing to do to ensure victory is not something that is fully partitioned off from your character.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

There was a time when I was growing up that I wanted to become a defense lawyer. I have no qualms with the idea of providing a legal defense to people who most likely have committed the crime. I would not have it in me, however, to tear apart the character of an innocent victim so that my client could get off.

 

Well, we have the victim's side of that story - which has changed since 2008, I might mention.

 

There is no way to provide an adequate defense without making a victim somewhat uncomfortable. I do agree that there are lines that should not be crossed. That line is very bright now in rape cases - thanks in part to people like Hillary Clinton and their activities in the 70s and 80s.

[PokerPacker]

Well, we have the victim's side of that story - which has changed since 2008, I might mention.

 

There is no way to provide an adequate defense without making a victim somewhat uncomfortable. I do agree that there are lines that should not be crossed. That line is very bright now in rape cases - thanks in part to people like Hillary Clinton and their activities in the 70s and 80s.

Don't mistake any of my commentary to be direct condemnation of Hillary, or defense lawyers. In fact, I have not really delved much into the topic that started this thread, however, I was interested in the discussion that had taken place about whether or not what she has done as a lawyer should affect how people look at her (or the more general case of whether what one does in their work should affect people's opinions on them).

[Larry]

I also legimately thought we were going to be discussing her tactics in the case.

Why do that when you can simply pronounce that ever working on the defense side of a courtroom (well, we're willing to excuse it, IF it can be PROVEN that terrorists had kidnapped the attorney's children, and were threatening to kill them if he didn't defend this client) proves that a person is unfit to hold any position of trust, ever?

 

By the way....want to know who I think has the biggest gripe with Hillary?

 

The defendant.

 

Why is his attorney talking about how he was probably guilty in an interview? They still have an attorney-client relationship and she still has duties.

 

 

Aw, there you go, trying to tell all of us about basic attorney ethics and things. 

[Hersh]

I truly do not understand why this is even relevant.

 

I also legimately thought we were going to be discussing her tactics in the case. I still haven't been able to read the affidavit because I can't access that site at work. I can see someone criticizing her on that - depending on what it actually says.

 

By the way....want to know who I think has the biggest gripe with Hillary?

 

The defendant.

 

Why is his attorney talking about how he was probably guilty in an interview? They still have an attorney-client relationship and she still has duties.

 

I don't think it's relevant except that ABQCOWBOY is boiling this down to her having a choice and that he is only believing what he heard on the audio tape. I'm making the point about what the audio says and what he is choosing to ignore to attempt to tie something to Hillary.

 

How did she violate the attorney-client privilege?

[Larry]

Well, we have the victim's side of that story - which has changed since 2008, I might mention.

I meant to ask, earlier, if you had any support for this claim. (Although part of me is reluctant to "go there", too.)

[ABQCOWBOY]

I've explained numerous times how this likely happened. You don't like the answer.

 

It either happened in one of two ways.

 

Most likely is what Newsday said happened:

 

1. The guy fired his counsel and demanded a female attorney. They looked at the panel and found six defense attorneys. Hillary stood out and they called her. She basically had zero choice.

 

2. The guy either never had counsel or fired his. Under Gideon, he is entitled to counsel. He also wants a female attorney (this part seems consistent). The prosecutor reaches out to Hillary (which, by the way, would absolutely not happen in 2014) because she was running the Legal Aid Clinic at University of Arkansas. She probably could have maybe possibly said no. But not really. It wouldn't be an explicit violation, but it would certainly be frowned upon.

 

#1 seems far more likely by the way.

 

 

 

Under Gideon or any other applicable law, does a defendant have the right to ask for gender of his defense lawyer in 1975?   I honestly don't know the answer to this but if the answer is no, then how does that obligate Clinton to this mans defense?

 

I understand that a Judge appointed her but wouldn't that have to happen regardless of who defended this man eventually?   Had she said no, would the Judge have appointed her anyway?   Why would she say that a Prosecutor asked her to do this favor if it was really only ever a Judge appointed deal all along?

 

On what grounds should she have refused to represent this man?

 

 

Well, in the interview with Clinton, she specifically states that she had never tried a Criminal Trial Case.   If she had no experience, could that not be grounds for refusal? 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You are choosing to ignore the Newsday article on the circumstances on how she was selected and what was in Hillary's own book. You are being presented with evidence and choosing to ignore it.

What facts are there that Hillary knew about the case before she accepted it? (hint, she doesn't say she knew the facts of the case on the audio prior to her accepting the case)

 

 

I'm not ignoring it.  I'm simply saying that I have not seen any evidence that supports it's statements on if she was appointed via "Panel", I guess is the correct term?  

 

Again, the Voters who are in play would likely wonder about the same kinds of points.   Eventually, this is going to have to be addressed if you want clear resolution on this and I have not seen that there is any proof of those statements.   

 

I have heard it said that Clinton ran a Legal Aid deal but I don't see where that is mentioned, other then in that article.  

• I see where she was worked on the impeachment staff to impeach Nixon in 71.  I see where she worked on McGovern's campaign in 1972. 
• I see where she worked with Yale Children Study Center in 1973. 
• I see she went to work for the Childrens Defense Fund in Cambridge Mass. (could this be the Legal Aid? It doesn't look like that, per say.  Here is a link to that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Defense_Fund

 

http://www.childrensdefense.org/

• I see she moved to Arkansas in 1974 and started teaching, not practicing.  She was picked to be on the committee to prepare impeachment proceedings for Nixon prior to teaching.
• In 1975, she was married to Bill in October. 
• In 1976, she worked on Carters Campaign and Bill's of course.

 

There seems to be some inconsistency in experience and where this Legal Aid thing was happening.  

[Kilmer17]

I asked my father (a lawyer) how he could defend people he knew were guilty.

His response? You shouldn't go to law school.

[Larry]

I asked my father (a lawyer) how he could defend people he knew were guilty.

His response? You shouldn't go to law school.

But that's a choice.

[Duckus]

So the GOP strategy here is to go after Hillary Clinton - who will most likely be the first female presidential candidate for a major party - on the issue of rape.

The modern GOP - who has been massively hemorrhaging the women vote - really sees this as their way to connect with women? 

[Larry]

Well, one, they'll go after her on anything they think will stick.  (Even things that they've been pushing for four years, and they haven't stuck, yet.)  (Benghazi Fever is going to last longer than The Birthers.) 

 

And two, a winning strategy for the GOP has been to attack their opponent's strength. 

 

When Clinton was running, the worst thing in the world that a President could be, was a draft dodger.  (Until they nominated W, and suddenly being a slightly different kind of draft dodger made the man a hero, and anybody who questioned it was insulting our troops.) 

 

Until Kerry won, and we were about to have an election between a decorated hero, and a draft dodger.  Suddenly, up pop people attacking Kerry's medals. 

 

Then it's 2008, and we have John McCain, the first man in US history to run for President, who wasn't born in the US.  So what do we do?  We attack the birth certificate of the candidate who WAS born in the US. 

 

Hillary's big appeal is going to be her gender.  (Well, that, and the fact that, gee, Bill Clinton sure looks like a candidate for sainthood, compared to our last 16 years worth of Presidents.)  Of course they're going to try to attack her on it.  To try to drive a wedge between her, and that voting block. 

[Hersh]

I'm not ignoring it.  I'm simply saying that I have not seen any evidence that supports it's statements on if she was appointed via "Panel", I guess is the correct term?  

 

Again, the Voters who are in play would likely wonder about the same kinds of points.   Eventually, this is going to have to be addressed if you want clear resolution on this and I have not seen that there is any proof of those statements.   

 

I have heard it said that Clinton ran a Legal Aid deal but I don't see where that is mentioned, other then in that article.  

• I see where she was worked on the impeachment staff to impeach Nixon in 71.  I see where she worked on McGovern's campaign in 1972. 
• I see where she worked with Yale Children Study Center in 1973. 
• I see she went to work for the Childrens Defense Fund in Cambridge Mass. (could this be the Legal Aid? It doesn't look like that, per say.  Here is a link to that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Defense_Fund

 

http://www.childrensdefense.org/

• I see she moved to Arkansas in 1974 and started teaching, not practicing.  She was picked to be on the committee to prepare impeachment proceedings for Nixon prior to teaching.
• In 1975, she was married to Bill in October. 
• In 1976, she worked on Carters Campaign and Bill's of course.

 

There seems to be some inconsistency in experience and where this Legal Aid thing was happening.  

 

There is absolutely no fact that you will accept that goes agaisnt your theory.  If Hillary says it verbally vs in her book, you will just make a claim that her version is political and should be dismissed.

 

As far as her jobs go:

 

Hillary Clinton Fast Facts on CNN

 

 

Timeline:

1964 - Works on the presidential campaign of Republican candidate Barry Goldwater.

1968 - Switches to the Democratic Party and campaigns for Eugene McCarthy.

1970 - Works as a summer intern for civil rights lawyer Marian Wright Edelman.

1973-1974 - Works as an attorney for the Children's Defense Fund.

January 1974 - Begins working for John Doar, the special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, who is in charge of the inquiry in to the possible impeachment of President Nixon.

August 1974 - Moves to Arkansas to teach at the University of Arkansas School of Law.

1974-1977 - Director of Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Arkansas School of Law.

1974-1977 and 1979-1980 - Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Arkansas School of Law.

 

 more at link but I suppose you will tell me that it's CNN so this timeline can't be trusted.