Hillary on 12 yr. old rape victim: “I've been informed that complainant is emotionally unstable..."

[Bonobo]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html

Hillary Clinton is known as a champion of women and girls, but one woman who says she was raped as a 12-year-old in Arkansas doesn’t think Hillary deserves that honor. This woman says Hillary smeared her and used dishonest tactics to successfully get her attacker off with a light sentence—even though, she claims, Clinton knew he was guilty.

The victim’s allegation that Clinton smeared her following her rape is based on a May 1975 court affidavit written by Clinton on behalf of Thomas Alfred Taylor, one of the two alleged attackers, whom Clinton agreed to defend after being asked by the prosecutor. Taylor had specifically requested a female attorney.

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Clinton, then named Hillary D. Rodham, wrote in the affidavit. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

Clinton also wrote that a child psychologist told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” especially when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”

[bkkyosemite]

1. I can't say what I feel right now reading her comment.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

5. That comment alone should disqualify Hillary from becoming the Democratic nominee.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[jmg257]

2. Lovely...

"The victim’s second main grievance with Clinton stems from the newly revealed audio recordings, which were taped in a series of interviews of Clinton with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed, who was researching an article on the Clintons that was ultimately never published. The Free Beacon found the tapes archived at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, amidst thousands of pieces of Clinton history that are being periodically released for public consumption.

On the tapes, Clinton, who speaks in a Southern drawl, appears to acknowledge that she was aware of her client’s guilt, brags about successfully getting the only piece of physical evidence thrown out of court, and laughs about it all whimsically."

[CharlotteVale]

6. That laugh again. Shudder.

[840high]

32. So creepy.

[vintx]

60. I read about this before

It literally makes my skin crawl

[jmg257]

61. I didn't...I read it last night and couldn't help but be sad and angry. "A fraud" came to mind. nt

[polly7]

68. She didn't have to use the tactics she did. It ruined a young girl's life.

In a sworn affidavit aiming to coerce a psychiatric evaluation of the sixth-grade victim, Clinton during the case nearly 40 years ago called into question the girl's emotional stability, arguing she had exhibited "a tendency to seek out older men and engage in... fantasizing." She added, citing a child psychology expert that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant, are even more prone to such behavior."

But in the recording, Clinton indicated she believed her client was indeed guilty. Heard laughing, she said the polygraph test he managed to pass "forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/

In her interview with The Daily Beast, she recounted the details of her attack in 1975 at age 12 and the consequences it had for both her childhood and adult life. 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. The doctors told her she would probably never be able to have children.

The victim was put through several forensic procedures, including a lie detector test. At first, she failed the lie detector test; she said that was because she didn’t understand one of the specific sex-related questions. Once that question was explained to her, she passed, she said. The victim positively identified her two attackers through one-way glass and they were arrested. But that wasn’t the end of her ordeal.

She described being afraid of men for years and dealing with anger issues well into her adulthood. At one point, she turned to drugs, a path that ultimately led her to prison. Now 52, she has never married or had children. She said she has been sober for several years and has achieved a level of stability, although she remains unemployed and living on disability assistance.

“I’m living life in Arkansas, I go to Church sometimes, and I’m doing good… Being on disability I don’t get much income but I’m happy where I’m at. I’m doing really well,” she said. “[Clinton] owes me a big apology, [but] I’ll probably never get anything from her.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html

[artislife]

104. *sob

[vintx]

105. But Hillary was just doing her job!

[arikara]

121. Oh my God

that is so appalling. I feel so horrible for that woman, and for the child she was who had the rest of her life ripped away.

How could any person let along a WOMAN defend something so brutal and laugh about it, knowing all along he was guilty. She must have ice water in her veins. To be able to do this she must be as big a sociopath as Bush and Cheney. What a despicable person.

[Ed Suspicious]

202. She was 12! Seeks out older men? Fuck!

[dchill]

3. There's a pattern here...

.

[Kalidurga]

4. But it's okay though she was just doin her job

can't quite remember where I heard that phrase....

[COLGATE4]

8. If, God forbid you some day find yourself on the

unluckily wrong end of the police and criminal justice system, you will be damned lucky if you are fortunate enough to have someone representing you as vigorously as she did for a court appointed (i.e. mandatory) client.

[Kalidurga]

9. I would be ashamed if my attorney smeared the alleged victim like that

[COLGATE4]

10. No you wouldn't. You would be humiliatingly

grateful if your attorney got you off. Don't tell me - I've seen enough of it.

[Bonobo]

12. "Humiliating" = What she did to a 12-year old rape victim.

I'm sure she damaged her for the rest of her life.

[Dragonfli]

16. I find it hard to believe that anybody with a soul could treat a sexually abused child that way.

Last I heard, sociopaths lack the capacity for empathy and lie easily (clinical speak for lacking a human soul),

It is also, a far as I know impossible for a sociopath to grow or develop these abilities, only the ability to fake them with a larger degree of skill with practice.

Screw the transcripts, I want to see the full workup of a psychological evaluation and a release of those medical records.

[Bonobo]

22. I wouldn't do it for a "job" and I don't trust anyone that would nt.

[obamanut2012]

113. So, there should be no defense attorneys

Even public defenders.

Got it.

[Bonobo]

114. I said I wouldn't vote for someone that did such a filthy thing for POTUS. Got it? nt

[WDIM]

174. They should not blame the victim

it is unethical and inexcusable and disgusting.

[WDIM]

173. Sociopath that is the perfect description

of Clinton and her record of death and destruction proves it. She has a body count higher than a serial killer.

[COLGATE4]

76. And that has to do with the comment you were

responding to how?

[hollysmom]

13. it is one thing to defend your client , it is another to enjoy it.

[hollysmom]

23. shudder

[MaeScott]

50. Oh my. Just oh my. nt

[COLGATE4]

75. If you haven't been in that situation, don't criticize it. Many professions

including doctors (particularly surgeons) and lawyers develop a 'gallows humor' to ease the strain that goes with the job. Outsiders may not understand or appreciate it, but it's a legitimate coping mechanism. I can guarantee you that there was nothing about defending a court-appointed client (which means a) you can't refuse to take it and b) you get paid such a pittance that it's not worth your time) that she 'enjoyed'.

[vintx]

77. Don't pull that tactic.

Gallows humor is not what happened there.

Shame on you for insinuating that it is.

[COLGATE4]

98. And you know this how?

[COLGATE4]

99. And, talking about shameful, shameful is what

you and some of your buds have been posting here. Your responses read like something straight off the pages of Free Republic.

[unapatriciated]

133. I'm not anyone's bud

What I am is the mother and a sister of rape victims. It is the interview that most of us find so distasteful, not that she defended him.
My sisters case was a very big one in the 90's (multiple victims) none of the defense attorneys gave interviews like that. Yes they used some of the same tactics to defend their clients but when the case was over they did not feel the need to relish in how well they defended their client.

She gave that interview about five years after the case was over. I would have thought her take away from it would have been how rape victims were victimized again by the system not losing her faith in polygraphs.

There is no defending that interview.

[COLGATE4]

149. You don't think your point of view might be a bit

skewed by your own experiences? And I seriously doubt that you know how those attorneys felt (and spoke) after defending their client.

[unapatriciated]

161. Well you are wrong

Since there is such a thing as appeals, my sister just went through one last year. The prosecutor did keep us informed. To this date the only thing the defense have had to say about their client to the public was in regards to his age.

She did not care about her client in that interview, if she did she would have never said what she did about his guilt. That interview was all about her and how great her abilities were in getting him a lighter sentence.

If you want to defend her on what she did as his attorney, I get that. But when it come to that interview sorry but it was very narcissistic and callous.

[WDIM]

175. So would you think its okay if

Clinton blamed your sister for what happened to her?

Blaming the victim is the lowest most disgusting thing a defense attorney can do and shows Clintons complete lack of empathy and ethics. She will say any lie to win.

[unapatriciated]

184. wtf

it is what defense attorney's do and did in my sisters case. Did we like it no. What they didn't do was give interviews after the trial laughing and joking about it. I was pointing out that difference to the poster I replied to, yet you found it necessary to attack me for it.

Not sure why you think I support Clinton simply because I acknowledged that she did what most defense attorney's do to defend their clients. I agree she has no empathy or ethics because of the interview not because she defended a client. I do agree that those type of defense tactics are sleazy, but expected in the late 70's. They could still use past sexual history against the victims during that time, hell in some states they can still use it today.

btw I voted for Sanders and intend to repeat that vote in November. You are lecturing the wrong person.

[WDIM]

185. sorry

my bad. But i disagree it is what a reasonable defense attorney would do in this case.

[unapatriciated]

187. unfortunately

defense attorney's are paid to defend and some will do things no matter what the cost.

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”

In my sister's case the guilty was convicted in 1992 (lost his appeal last year) and is still in prison. My daughter's rapist did escape criminal justice but not civil (we sued and won).

[Mother Of Four]

95. Let me tell you a little about Gallows Humor -

Hubby is an LEO, been one in varying forms for decades.
Daddy was a fire fighter for over 20 years.
My grandfather on my mothers side? State Trooper.
I am a formerly practicing EMT-I - again did it for years.

Yes we develop Gallows humor, but I guarantee you none of us would have laughed in that situation. NONE. Gallows humor is done to cover the pain or trauma of what we've seen, we make the story humorous if able. She wasn't laughing as gallows humor, there wasn't anything funny in that interview.

My next door neighbor for the last 14 years? Lawyer. Guess what? He wouldn't have laughed either.

Not a single one of hubby and my co workers. Not a single one of my fathers co workers. NONE.

I am seriously sickened that you would try to justify her reaction to laughing off his poly as well as the other parts as gallows humor. Shame on you.

Here's a link to the audio. There isn't one SINGLE DROP of empathy in the whole conversation. Not one.

[COLGATE4]

97. Your opinion. nt

[Mother Of Four]

101. Nice try -

You have said multiple times in this thread that the only people who would understand are people in the professions that have gallows humor as a coping mechanism.

You are now faced with a multi generational family who was born, bred and raised with it. By the way, I forgot to mention that my second son was a field medic in the Army. He wouldn't have laughed either.

Not opinion. Fact.

I really don't care if you respond, after this response I'm typing now you have completely lost my interest. This response is simply to let other posters know not to be hornswoggled by your excuse mongering.

[COLGATE4]

110. Your personal experiences are one thing- I've been around a

whole lot of cops over a 25 year+ career and I've heard much more of gallows humor from them than from anyone else. Ditto for doctors. And it's endemic among attorneys although in most instances it isn't heard (or intended to be heard) by others. So forgive me if I don't accept your family's attitude as being indicative of the larger world out there.

[unapatriciated]

136. They may joke among themselves but

to give an interview and laugh about how smart they were in getting a client off is something different.

[COLGATE4]

147. Perhaps, perhaps not. You really don't know the circumstances

of the intervew, who was involved, what went on before, etc. This is a big 'nothing' that's desperately tried to be pumped up by not only the RW but, unfortunately by others on DU. Doesn't make it newsworthy.

[dr60omg]

165. I am married to a physician I have a circle of friends that are physicians ... I have 2 generations

of family members who are attorneys ...
I have never heard a physician use "gallows" humor like that ... that disparages the nature of the profession. With attorneys public defenders are overworked and underpaid but she was not a public defender she was a court appointed private attorney who had the right to refuse the case Furthermore since she was a private attorney but she did not refuse the case.

This fits in with a pattern of the Clintons behavior ...

It also fits into a Clintonian version of white bourgeois feminism that does not unpack who did he dishes and watch the kids while you were sticking bunny tails on your rear ends to go undercover at playboy

[COLGATE4]

168. You cannot refuse a court assignment except for very good

reason. False narrative.

[polly7]

103. You're right.

I've been with EMS for a long time, have RCMP members and lawyers in my direct family I talk with a lot - we do share black humour on occasion - but the ONE thing that NONE of us would EVER find anything to laugh about is the welfare or trauma of a CHILD. PERIOD.

[dr60omg]

166. Precisely

I am a professor I am not an attorney or someone working in EMS or child protection. I am married to a physician. His parents and my parents and grandparents are all attorneys and judges I have never heard anyone laugh at the trauma experienced by a child or a young person.
There is something wrong with this behavior

[vintx]

106. THANK YOU

My family are almost all medical professionals and that is NOT gallows humor.

[unapatriciated]

127. not buying it

the interview was almost five years later. If she really cared about women's rights she would have used it to enlighten others on how the judicial system treats rape victims. Instead she laughed about her abilities in getting him a lighter sentence. This was a brutal rape the victim was severely beaten....yet the only thing she took away from it was a loss of faith in polygraphs, not a loss of faith in how victims are victimized again by the system.

[COLGATE4]

152. It is not her job to have (or not have) faith in how victims

are, are you put it 'victimized by the system'. You are reacting to a very slanted article written years after the events. Even it couldn't find a way to hide the fact that the victim's statements were substantially different just after the incident and subsequently. That she has now changed her version may be interesting reading but is certainly far away from being anything conclusive. Hillary had only one job that day -to ensure the court-appointed defendant she was representing her most vigorous possible defense. And she did just that. The rest is criticism of the Justice system, which is where any reform must come.

[unapatriciated]

163. What you are ignoring is I don't care or fault her

for how she defended her client. It is the interview she gave some five years later. My criticism was her callous and joking attitude towards rape. But you just keep ignoring those pesky little facts.

[Lazy Daisy]

188. In the interview

she tells it as being a favor. She was asked to do this, NOT appointed to do this. Bit of a difference.

[COLGATE4]

197. That is a euphemism.She was appounted by the court. It's called Rota.

[unapatriciated]

125. defending him is one thing

giving that interview had nothing to do with his defense. It showed a lack of compassion and empathy. She laughed about how she was so much smarter than the Judge and prosecutor. What she learned from that case was not how appalling rape victims are treated by the judicial system, no that wasn't her lesson. What she learned was polygraphs could not be trusted.

I did not have a problem with her doing her job, the interview some five years later showed me a window into her soul that is very dark.

[TheDormouse]

131. Exactly. nt

[COLGATE4]

148. She has such a lack of empathy that she started the Arkansas

Rape Project. Don't try and hold lawyers to a higher standard than anyone else and, above else don't get on your moral high horse. If it 'settles badly' with you (inconsistent with your prior declarations about what the guity and innocent deserve from their attorney) then that's a personal decision. Don't expect others to share it.

[unapatriciated]

124. I heard it several times when I posted this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1645057


Yes she was doing her job when she defended him.....but this interview was not part of his defense, it was just disgusting.

[peace13]

7. It takes a village to raise a victim........

Her comments are heartless!

[Dragonfli]

11. No wonder she Loves David Brock's style, they both enjoy a bit of slut shaming and victim blaming

I am sure they giggle about their past successes and the funny looks on he faces of the victims when they realized the smear was on.

I can hear the cackle now in my head. Two peas in a pod regarding tactics to win as hired liars and slut shamers, reminiscing about their glory days (Winning at all costs, and victims are such easy marks to smear for a win.)

Pretty sick people the both of them, yet they feel no shame whatsoever for such deeds.

[JTFrog]

14. She didn't even want to take the case.

She even tried to get out of it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jul/17/did-hillary-clinton-ask-be-relieved-rapist/

I'm no fan of lawyers, and I don't want to excuse or gloss over the horrible things she felt she needed to do to fulfill her obligation to her client, but it's not like she sought this case out or had a history of such cases.

Her experience on that case is what led her to setting up Arkansas' first rape hotline.

Just wanted to add a few additional facts here.

Flame away.

[vintx]

65. Fair enough she didn't want to take it, but why laugh about getting evidence thrown out?

Why?

If the case bothered her and she wanted nothing to do with it, why the upbeat attitude about it in an interview?

I do not trust her. I don't know how anyone could.

[COLGATE4]

81. Because she had an absolutely unbreakable obligation

to defend her client to the best of her ability. As to the 'upbeat' attitude, please see my post (above) on this point.

[bettyellen]

123. Amazing anyone here pretends to care about mass incarceration with this attitude toward

public defenders. It can be a very shitty job, and many do not fulfill the requirement for a vigorous defense, but god forbid she did.

[unapatriciated]

139. I'm not upset with her defending him

We need defense attorneys. It was the interview almost five years later that disgusted me. It had nothing to do with defending her client and everything to do with telling the interviewer how smart she was. If you can listen to that tape and have no problem with her attitude and laughter than there is nothing more anyone can say to convince you that rape victims have a much different take on it.

[COLGATE4]

146. You're telling me she didn't mount a vigorous defense?

[unapatriciated]

137. The interview had nothing to do with the defense of her client.

The case was done and over with. In fact it was almost five years later and because of that interview she victimized that woman again. What is it that you don't understand about that? She was bragging about how she managed to disqualify the evidence. If she really cared about women's rights she would have used it to educate not brag.

[COLGATE4]

145. Which is why she started the Arkansas Rape Crisis organiztion.

[unapatriciated]

153. That's good to know but

she did that before the interview. Which makes it even harder for me to understand why she joked and laughed about that case. She could have used it to educate, she didn't instead she used it to brag about her abilities as an attorney.

I'm not trying to fling sh*t and know we can not have another repug in the White House. I'm reacting on a very personal level.
I have seen that type of attitude in real life and watch my sister and daughter be victimized again by the very people who should be protecting them.

[WDIM]

176. Blaming the victim is not a defense.

A 12 year old girl cannot be blamed for what a grown man did.

[COLGATE4]

199. Not even worth responding to.

[angrychair]

15. This is disgusting behavior

Unbecoming of a president.
What's the excuse for this? So this is "ok" but going to do an international conference on income inequality and meeting the Pope makes you an horrible human being.

[Beacool]

17. Ahhh, the never ending muck dredged up by Sanders' supporters.

It was a court appointed case and she did her duty. This has been brought before.

[Bonobo]

18. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. nt

[Beacool]

19. B.S.

Give it up, buddy. Your guy is not going to be the party's nominee, no matter how many low brow posts you initiate.

[Bonobo]

20. I think everyone has the right to know what Hillary has done, don't you? nt

[The Old Lie]

67. When did stating true facts become attacks against Clinton?

My god, the Clinton supporters are simply shallow.

[Beacool]

118. More B.S.

She represented her client to the best of her ability. Anyone who attacks her based on this court appointed case is not only "shallow", but ignorant too. Ask any criminal attorney.

[unapatriciated]

141. again it is not that she defended him, it is the interview some five years later

My sister and daughter (both are survivors of rape) have listened to that interview and couldn't believe that she was so callous.
Have you listened to it? She could address it and use it to educate on the problems victims have with the judicial system.

Instead her supporters think that it was somehow ok that she joked and laughed about what a great job she did.

Rape is not something you joke and laugh about five years later. She had plenty of time to reflect on the problems victims encounter, yet she didn't.

[JackInGreen]

102. And if yours is the nominee

We get a Republican president one way or the other, no matter how many bullshit posts you initiate.

[markpkessinger]

45. I'm a Sanders supporter, but this isn't sunlight - it's feces throwing n/t

[COLGATE4]

83. Absolutely. Thank you for bringing some sanity

into this 'discussion' of Hillary's many faults.

[unapatriciated]

143. I'm the mother and sister of rape victims

and that interview was the only poo flinging that I see.
If you can listen to that tape and not be disturbed than I don't know what else to say.

I had no problem with her defending her client and have seen the same tactics used during my sister's trial.
What I find disturbing was the interview she gave almost five years later. It showed a lack of empathy for the victims.
The only thing that shattered her faith in the system was the polygraph, not the victimization of the child by our judicial system.

Her attitude in the interview is what many victims have been fighting against for years.

None of the defense attorneys in my sisters case felt the need to give interviews laughing and joking about what a great job they did.

[COLGATE4]

82. I wouldn't call a long-after the fact article written by

a writer obviously very sympathetic to what the girl has to say about it now, years later (and which conflicts with earlier statements) "sunlight".

[Ms. Yertle]

54. It was still morally wrong

There are dozens of examples I can bring up about things that were once legal, or socially accepted, but were still wrong.

This falls into that category.

[COLGATE4]

84. Fortunately for the rest of us, the justice system in the

US is not based on your particular sense of 'morality'.

[Beacool]

120. The job of an attorney is to represent the client to the best of their ability.

Morality, and even justice, don't come into play. In this country even the worst criminals are entitled to legal representation.

[Ms. Yertle]

126. I thought it was to see that justice was done

Getting a fair sentence for a rapist is justice. Getting a known rapist off the hook, and destroying a young girl's life in the process is not justice.

[Beacool]

138. No, that's a fallacy.

It's about points of law. A criminal attorney's job is not to defend only the innocent or to obtain justice for the victim/s. The attorney's job is to represent the client to the best of his/her ability, even if that client is a serial killer.

[WDIM]

181. Blaming a 12 year old for her rape

is not a defense.

[unapatriciated]

140. No it is the disgust of rape victims and their families

on how little empathy she had some five years later when she gave that interview.

She could have used that case to educate instead she felt the need to brag about how she got evidence disqualified.

[WDIM]

178. Blaming a 12 year old for her rape

was not her job.

She is unethical and will say any lie for status and money.

[Beacool]

180. I take it that you're not an attorney.

Go talk to a criminal attorney and see what they have to say.

[WDIM]

182. Blaming the victim is not a defense.

Blaming a 12 y/o for the actions of a grown man is disgusting.

[markpkessinger]

24. I am no fan of Hillary, but I can't join this line of attack . . .

. . . Like it or not, we have an adversarial criminal justice system in which if a defense attorney fails to mount the most aggressive defense (including, unfortunately, impugning the integrity of the victim of the crime in question), that attorney's client is almost sure to be convicted.. Criminal trials often come down not to the truth about whether or not an accused committed the crime in question, but on which side can array the larger arsenal of resources. The state effectively has no limits on its ability to prosecute a case. A defendant, however, is limited by the extent of his financial resources and/or whether or not an attorney is willing to take his case on a pro bono basis. It is a playing field that is strongly tilted in the state's favor. Given that, it means that defense attorneys must sometimes employ tactics that appear to be, and indeed are, pretty horrible.

I am reminded of a story I heard back around the time the OJ Simpson verdict broke -- a story told to me by the African American rector of the the Episcopal Church I was a member of at the time, The Rev. Canon George Brandt. Father Brandt became an Episcopal priest in midlife, after having spent over two decades as a lawyer -- and more specifically, a prosecutor for the SEC. I was at brunch with him and a group of parishioners one Sunday, and the topic of the OJ verdict came up. Somebody made a statement about OJ being rich enough to "buy" a favorable verdict. Father Brandt cut that person short: "No, no," he said. "Look, anybody who does not expend every available resource in defending himself against a criminal prosecution is a damned fool, because the state effectively has no limit on what it can spend in trying to convict you, no matter how rich you are." (He added that the issue of unequal access to justice by the poor is a separate issue, and while certainly in need of addressing, was separate from this particular criticism of O.J. He continued:

"Most people have no idea the kinds of resources the government has available to it in criminal prosecutions. When I was at the SEC, if we felt a company we were investigating was not being cooperative enough, and we wanted to put pressure on it, we would simply make a few well-placed phone calls to key persons in that particular industry, saying something like, "Good afternoon. I am so-and-so from the SEC, and I need to ask you some questions concerning anything you might know about XYZ company. We would then watch as XYZ's share price plummeted, usually within a matter of hours."

[Bonobo]

25. Maybe true, but it doesn't mean I would vote for such a person to be POTUS.

But I recognize that not everyone would agree with me.

For me, it is just too easy for her to compartmentalize ethics.

[markpkessinger]

43. Then you should probably categorically exclude any lawyer who has ever done criminal defense work .

. . .The thing is, there are a boatload of good reasons not to support Hillary without ever coming anywhere near this issue. And whatever we may think about it, attacking a candidate who was a lawyer over that candidate's aggressive advocacy on behalf of her client (even, and especially, when the client is unpopular with the public, or the crime victim is especially sympathetic) -- something the lawyer was ethically bound to do -- is a tactic straight out of the Republican playbook. I am a staunch Sanders supporter, but we should all eschew these kinds of attacks!

[COLGATE4]

85. Yes!

[dsc]

63. that means no Abe Lincoln and no John Adams

both were rather famously defense lawyers back in the day.

[Bjorn Against]

112. Abraham Lincoln and John Adams did not have to face attack ads and 24 hour news/opinion networks

Hillary has been fortunate that she has not had to face many questions on this yet but if the GOP decides to go after her on this it will get ugly.

Defense attorneys do play a crucial role in our court system but in the days of 24 hour news and attack ads they generally do not make good Presidential candidates.

[TheDormouse]

30. If the client had failed the polygraph, would she have defended him with the same vigor?

[markpkessinger]

37. I have no way of knowing that and neither do you . . .

. . . but a lawyer's primary obligation is to provide the best, most effective defense she can provide for her client. Doing that soemtimes involves doing/saying some pretty unsavory stuff, but it's a fact of the way our legal system is set up.

[COLGATE4]

87. Sure. Polygraphs are so unreliable that they

are not admissible in any court.

[TheDormouse]

130. was that true in Arkansas at the time of the incident being discussed?

Regardless, it is beside the point. Hillary had a reason for having the client take the test. If he had clearly "failed" it, would she have defended him with the same vigor?

[COLGATE4]

151. It's been true in all the US almost since the polygraph

was invented. I have never heard of a case where polygraphic evidence was permitted. Courts have uniformly held that it is 'junk science'. If he failed it it wouldn't have made any difference since either way it's not admissible in court.

[TheDormouse]

183. Are you a law professor?

Several states admit polygraph evidence if the parties have stipulated to its admissibility before a polygraph test is administered.'

(in footnote: Currently, eighteen states admit polygraph evidence on the basis of the parties' stipulation: Alabama ... Arkansas ....)

http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3441&context=mlr

In somewhere between 12-20 jurisdictions, polygraph evidence is admissible only if the prosecution and defense stipulate that polygraph evidence will be admissible before the defendant takes a polygraph test.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2012/11/polygraph-no-appear-nm-state-v-solisnot-reported-in-p3d-2012-wl-4434153nmapp2012.html

[COLGATE4]

198. So what. Anything is admissible if both parties stipulate to it. But

barring both parties' agreement (which never is going to happen with a polygraph) it isn't going to come in. And, since you ask, I've been a practicing attorney for more than 25 years now.

[TheDormouse]

200. Pretty glaring omission, wouldn't you say?

"Not admissible in any court" vs "anything is admissible if both parties stipulate to it."

And if anything is admissible if both parties stipulate to it, why do the review articles specifically state that the evidence is admissible if both parties stipulate to it, but in only 20 or so states? Why don't they say "of course, it's admissible in any state if both parties stipulate to it"?

[COLGATE4]

208. Because in the other states it's not admissible under

any circumstances. It's junk science. I can't think of any circumstances where a Prosecutor and Defense attorney would agree to admit results of a polygraph. You're really beating a dead horse that you don't understand.

[TheDormouse]

211. which means that in some states it is/was admissible, in theory

Which brings us right back to my original questions. Funn how that works, right?

Hillary had a reason for ordering the polygraph. If she ordered a test that is always inadmissible in practice, why did she order it? Did she order it for her own sake? Would she have defended him with the same vigor if he had failed the polygraph?

[COLGATE4]

212. Jesus Christ. You really are somewhat dense. It is admissible in

some states ONLY if both Prosecutor and Defense attorney agree to admit it. It isn't admissible in the other 30 states under any circumstances. Defense attorneys order polys because, if the arrestee passes it often the cops will drop him/her from the case. If he fails, nobody ever gets to hear about it so no harm. She would defend her client with the same vigor, pass or fail. Her defense doesn't use the polygraph in any way once it gets to court.

[TheDormouse]

213. Why, do you think, did she order the polygraph?

[COLGATE4]

214. Since reading comprehension isn't obviously your

strong suit, let me repeat it once again: She ordererd the polygraph because, if he passed it she would have a good shot at getting the cops to drop him as a suspect. He didn't and she didn't. Other incisive questions>?

[TheDormouse]

215. Thanks for finally answering the question

[COLGATE4]

216. No, thank you for finally getting it.

[Ms. Yertle]

53. Wrong is wrong, regardless

Maybe the moral thing to do would have been to urge the client to plead guilty, and work to get him the best plea deal possible.

[obamanut2012]

56. That would have been illegal and unethical for ANY defense attorney to do

People on this thread need to educate themselves about the legal and ethical duties o attorneys, and also need to remember HRC was court-appointed. She was acting as a public defender.

It's distressing when people's dislike and even hatred of Hillary Clinton makes them dredge up this story and attack defense attorneys.

HRC did the ethical, legal, and MORAL thing for her client.

[Ms. Yertle]

62. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know

the extent of an attorney's responsibility.

If an attorney knows that his client is a serial killer, does he/she have an obligation to get said serial killer off on a technicality, knowing that he will kill again?

[COLGATE4]

90. Really depends on whose Ox is being gored

When it's somebody we don't like or are favorable to, then that person 'got off on a technicality' (little technicalities like the 4th or 5th amendments). But if it's their butt on the line it's suddenly 'Katie bar the door, do whatever is necessary to get me off.'

[COLGATE4]

88. And THAT is what eventually happened.

[vintx]

66. She LAUGHED about it, years later.

That has NOTHING to do with her job as an attorney.

It has EVERYTHING to do with her character.

[markpkessinger]

194. Lawyers typically distance themselves emotionally fromthe cases they handle . . .

. . . for the same reason many doctors do so. Neither Hillary nor any other defense attorney typically takes on -- nor should be expected to take on -- any moral burden for the difficulties the lawyer's defense case may have presented for the accuser. That would be an impossible burden for any defense counsel.

[unapatriciated]

144. again it is not that she defend him

it is the interview some five years later. At the very least it shows a lack of empathy for the victim. It is not always necessary nor wise to brag about getting a known child rapist a lighter sentence. She could have used that case to educate instead she used it to brag how she was more intelligent than the prosecutor and the judge.

Rape victims have a different reaction to that interview than some on here at DU.

[WDIM]

155. There is no defense for a grown man raping a 12 year old

girl. And blaming the victim is not a defense. Hillary Clinton is dispicable and has not empathy or care for human life or justice and truth.

[markpkessinger]

191. Every person accused of a crime in the U.S. is entitled to a defense . . .

. . . no matter how horrible the crime. And challenging the credibility of one's accuser most certainly IS a legal defense. And since the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, the starting presumption by the Court is that the accused is innocent until proven otherwise.

Look, our criminal justice system treats victims of rape horrendously, and there is probably a great deal that could be done to improve things. But in the context of a given case, it is not up to a defense counsel to reform the criminal justice system, but to provide the most vigorous defense she can mount on behalf of her client withinj the framework of the existing system. As harsh as it sounds, and indeed is, for a defense lawyer in this case ri fucw oeuieurt to the needs of the victim over the interests of her own client would represent an outrageous violation of profession ethics on the part of a criminal lawyer. If you want to argue that it's a horrible system, fine -- I'll even agree with you. But vilifying a lawyer for doing the job she has sworn to do and is obligated to do as a matter of professional ethics is just wrong.

[longship]

26. Blame the victim.

Apparently Secy Clinton is ignorant of how often that particular argument has been used to deny justice to women.

What a tool!

[Bonobo]

27. Again, just IMAGINE the shitstorm is Bernie Sanders had done this. #DoubleStandard. nt

[TheDormouse]

28. Disgusting. Every time I revisit this info, it saddens & angers me. nt

[Bonobo]

29. I can understand the role of a Defense Attorney, but it doesn't mean I would vote for one for POTUS.

It is way, way too easy for her to do despicable things for her own benefit, such as voting for the Iraqi War in order to look strong.

Even when she knows the client is lying and people will get hurt, that takes 2nd place (or last place).

[markpkessinger]

46. Vilifying lawyers who represent unpopular defendants . . .

. . . is something Republicans do.

[obamanut2012]

57. Exactly -- this shouldn't be used as partisan fodder

HRC did the legal and ethical thing. Defense attorneys are mocked and attacked by the RW. Dislike of a candidate shouldn't make someone on the left do the same.

HRC did the right thing in defending her client so thoroughly. EVERY client with a court-appointed attorney should be so lucky.

[COLGATE4]

91. Amen. Lots of them aren't. nt

[obamanut2012]

111. Yes, lots of them just make a quick deal

Especially if, like HRC, they are actually private attorneys on a rota system within their county.

[COLGATE4]

115. I don't think she made a quick deal here.

She spent her (unreimburseable) time seeking out a Psychiatrist and a Blood expert. But it is unfortunately true that private attorneys who are handed court-appointed cases are probably not going to spend as much time with them as they might. More unfortunately, Public Defenders also are under the pressure of huge case loads to 'move 'em in, move 'em out' and go for a plea rather than to trial. It's a system that's almost overwhelmed and it creaks along as best it can.

[MaeScott]

48. Kicked. nt

[NanceGreggs]

31. She provided her client ...

... with the best available defense, to the best of her skill and ability.

That was her job as a defense attorney, as set out by the law. And she fulfilled the requirements of that job, which are part of the very foundation upon which our legal system stands.

You'd have a more compelling anti-HRC argument if you could say that she threw her client to the wolves, instead of pursuing every avenue by which she could present the best defense possible.

Epic fail here.

[Bonobo]

33. It's not a fail to let people know about this.

Pukeworthy is pukeworthy. People have the right to know.

[NanceGreggs]

36. Have the right to know WHAT?

That a defense lawyer did what they are obliged to do by law, and by virtue of the oath they take to uphold that law?

If you find it "pukeworthy" that lawyers do what their professional ethics and the law dictate they must do, that's some pretty fucked-up thinking right there.

[Bonobo]

38. Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but first they must know the facts.

This OP lists FACTS, Nancy, like it or not.

I personally would not vote for such a person for POTUS.

That is my right and the right of everyone else.

[NanceGreggs]

39. The FACTS are ...

... that Hillary provided her client with the best possible defense, as she was sworn to do.

Whether you like her tactics or not is irrelevant.

[Bonobo]

40. It is relevant.

Relevant to how I see her and whether I want a person of her character to be the President.

[NanceGreggs]

41. Fine.

I think a lawyer doing their job is admirable.


Apparently, your mileage varies.

[Bonobo]

42. It varies by miles and miles. nt

[whathehell]

51. Laughing about getting a child rapist off is not admirable

and shows a disturning callousness.

[arely staircase]

206. Her 'character' in this case amounts to doing what she swore to do.

Defend her client to the best of her ability. So you have proved she is a good lawyer and nothing else.

[COLGATE4]

92. Pretty fucked-up thinking.

The best legal analysis of this whole schtick I've read. Thanks, Nance!

[obamanut2012]

59. I agree -- people have the right to know she did the ;egal and ethical thing

And, every defendant should be so lucky to have a public defender who takes their LEGAL AND ETHICAL duties so seriously.

Such a major fail, attacking public defenders.

[berni_mccoy]

52. And people have a right to know how she does her job.

[COLGATE4]

93. Capably and with great vigor.

Exactly what the law required her to do.

[WDIM]

156. Blame the victim is the best defense?

it is disgusting and unethical just like Clinton

[elleng]

34. NOT fair game to 'judge' hrc on approach she took defending a client

in a criminal prosecution.

[JonLeibowitz]

35. +1. No fan of Hillary, but this is a low blow. I am uneasy with the apparent glee she took, though.

[COLGATE4]

94. Read my post (above) regarding the

'apparent glee'. All of us have been guilty of this at some time, some of us more than others. It's just a coping mechanism that people outside the profession don't understand.

[WDIM]

158. Its unethical to blame a 12 year old for being raped

by a grown man. Disgusting and unethical and shows clintons true colors. She has no respect for children women or human rights and human life.

[Firebrand Gary]

44. Horrible OP.

[Sky Masterson]

49. Normally I would think that maybe this was a low blow

But with the pure garbage they sling at Bernie and the way they acted about PAPALGATE opens them up for a taste of their own medicine.

Fun Fact: If stuff like this is brought up by people who will probably vote for Hillary just imagine the fun tidbits those who will never vote for her will dig up. She has decades of baggage in which she both pandered and shit on her base.

[randome]

55. So...anyone bother to find out about these previous accusations that were allegedly made?

Probably not. The last thing we'd want here is a full examination of the story.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[msanthrope]

58. Again? nt

[dsc]

64. Bonobo's version of To Kill a Mockingbird

Atticus Finch refuses to challenge the credibility of a rape victim the end. Bonobo's version of the world, any random person says you committed a crime, police take you to jail for rest of your life.

[tabasco]

69. H. Clinton would still be some half-bit lawyer working for Walmart

if she hadn't married W.J. Clinton. Her rise to fame was because of marriage, not hard work. That's a major reason why she is a weak and deeply flawed candidate.

[vintx]

70. THIS IS NOT HER "DOING HER JOB" :

"The victim’s second main grievance with Clinton stems from the newly revealed audio recordings, which were taped in a series of interviews of Clinton with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed, who was researching an article on the Clintons that was ultimately never published. The Free Beacon found the tapes archived at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, amidst thousands of pieces of Clinton history that are being periodically released for public consumption.

On the tapes, Clinton, who speaks in a Southern drawl, appears to acknowledge that she was aware of her client’s guilt, brags about successfully getting the only piece of physical evidence thrown out of court, and laughs about it all whimsically."

For me, this isn't about her smearing a rape victim. Hell in that time such actions were SOP for lawyers, the media, etc.

This, for me, is about that interview.

She knew damn well he was guilty. He passed a polygraph and she said that case showed her how unreliable those are.

She knew he was guilty. And she LAUGHED.

What was important to her, years later, was that she won. That's it.

Not the girl.

It shows a practically inhuman level of indifference IMO

[Bonobo]

71. ~~~~~~~THIS~~~~~~~~~ nt

[Zynx]

78. I would actually have to see the interview rather than take someone's word for it.

[icecreamfan]

86. video link of the interview

[Zynx]

89. She described it as a terrible case and laughed at the absurd moments of it

It's not nearly what you are trying to pretend it is.

[anigbrowl]

171. It is

Dewfense lawyers are obliged to do the best they can for their clients even if they know them to be guilty. It is a professional obligation to do so, and a lawyer that doesn't make the strongest case possible can be sued by the client for failing to provide them witht he constitutionally-protected legal assistance every defendant is entitled to.

Lawyers are sworn to represent the interests of their client regardless of how they feel personally, just like doctors are sworn to treat people who are ill regardless of how they may feel about the sick person on a personal level.

[Zynx]

72. How many times have we been over this one?

She was the court-appointed attorney for the accused rapist. She had an ethical responsibility to give them the strongest representation possible. I have friends who are criminal defense attorneys and public defenders and this is the general route they all go. It's part of the profession. It's ugly and nasty, but it doesn't mean anything about the character of the person doing it. It's what the system calls for.

Unless you believe that court-appointed attorneys and public defenders are supposed to try to ascertain the guilt of their clients and try them along with the prosecutors, drop it. I'm sorry for you all that you can't understand the role of criminal defense attorneys.

[vintx]

73. See post 70. Defend that. nt

[Zynx]

79. I would actually have to see the interview rather than take someone's word for it.

[Bonobo]

74. What does post #70 say about her? nt

[Zynx]

80. I would actually have to see the interview rather than take someone's word for it.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

128. Then you can stop your complaining. An answer was provided.

[Esperanza]

193. I understand the role of defense attorneys very well.

I also understand that this deplorable treatment of rape victims is not an "ethical responsibility". In fact, these tactics were very controversial at the time and feminists considered convincing the courts to disallow their use to be one of their most important issues.

I'm not saying an attorney can't question inconsistencies in testimony, or get evidence thrown out on "technicalities", or offer plausible alternative theories; but claiming that 12-year-old girls from "disorganized" families are basically asking for it is unforgivable slut-shaming and class-shaming.

Here's a story for those of you who think these kind of trial tactics don't have a lasting impact: I remember 1975 well. I was in college and an acquaintance of mine was raped. We had lost contact, so I only heard about what happened a few months later from mutual friends. Charges were filed, apparently the trial was rough, but the man was convicted. A week later, she walked out into a field and blew her brains out - not a week after the rape, a week after the trial.

[yourpaljoey]

96. First time I have seen this... yikes

[Marr]

100. This is no big deal, but Sanders meeting the Pope is condemning.

[artislife]

108. I find the h supporters more chilling as the hours go by.

They are lock step in defending anything she does... no matter how vile.

[Bjorn Against]

109. I understand that she was doing her job as the creep's attorney...

While she may have been her job however that is not going to stop people from being repulsed by this. If the Republicans bring this up in the General Election which they likely will it is going to sink her approval numbers even further, I don't think very many people know about this and despite her status as a defense attorney many people are going to be repulsed by it.

Defense attorneys do play a crucially important role in our legal system but they generally do not make good Presidential candidates.

[Bonobo]

116. She bragged that she got a man that she knew raped a 12 year old off with just 2 months of jail time

and I did not detect even a whiff that it bothered her in the least. Not a bit.

Being heartless is not part of the job.

[Bjorn Against]

117. It bothers me too...

The only part about your post that I don't agree with is that for defense attorneys who need to defend horrible people being heartless actually does become part of the job. When a person is legally bound to defend the indefensible the results are often ugly.

That is why defense attorneys make terrible candidates, even if Hillary was doing her job you can't blame people for being repulsed by that job.

[Vinca]

122. I wonder how many kids he's raped since he got out.

[Blue_In_AK]

119. She could have defended her client

without blaming the minor victim.

[bobthedrummer]

129. That "attitude" harvests all those Clinton donors from the private prison business too. A cultist.

Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. and the Aristocracy of Prison Profits: Part 1 (Catherine Austin Fitts 2006)
http://narconews.com/Issue40/article1644.html

[asuhornets]

132. Bernie must be losing badly......n/t

[Beacool]

179. Yep, they are dragging the net along the ocean floor.

[asuhornets]

189. I mean it is constant; all day right wing talking points...n/t

[Beacool]

192. It's been like this for months.

One might as well be on Free Republic, same talking points.

[Romulox]

134. It is a violation of professional ethics for an attorney to defend a client she knows is guilty. nt

[Shrike47]

186. Not in Oregon. She can't knowingly offer false evidence but she can fight and argue for her client.

Furthermore, she doesn't know he committed the crime unless she saw him do it. Yes, the victim is angry about what she said, but that's what defense attorneys do, for heaven's sake.

Think about this: every time an attorney wins a case by winning a motion to exclude evidence that was seized in violation of the defendant's Constitutional rights, the attorney helped a guilty person escape justice. The attorney also defended the basic rights of all citizens. That's the way it works. If you can't see it that way, you can't practice criminal law.

[jwirr]

142. Would anyone be able to use that kind of defense for rape

today? Did she have any proof or did she get him off just by saying that? People (even juries) are very biased regarding mental illness of any kind.

IMO Hillary does not have much concern for persons with mental disabilities - she was certainly not looking out for my daughter when she pushed the welfare reform act.

[Dem2]

150. Oh I've never heard this story before

[WDIM]

154. Clinton does not care about human life.

Her record of death and destruction shows her lack of respect for human life.

Her she is blaming the victim just like she blames the countless other victims she has created with her policies of death.

[farleftlib]

160. It was beastly what she did to that child

I don't blame her for defending a pedophile rapist. I don't blame her for trying to get evidence excluded. I blame her for going after the child and shaming her. And laughing about it five years later. It sounds like he would haven gotten off without her humiliating a child and blaming her for being complicit in her degradation at the hands of a monster. So why did she go there?

She is no advocate for women. Period.

[WDIM]

162. She went there because she has no ethics

and no morals and only cares about the win no matter who she destroys on the way.

[farleftlib]

164. Absolutely

Winning is better for her if she leaves her opponent damaged beyond repair, even if it's a wronged child.

[randome]

157. If anyone really cared about this (and you don't), you'd at least question the prior allegations.

Instead of leaping to the wholly ludicrous notion that Clinton is some sort of a monster.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[WDIM]

159. She is a monster

with no ethics no morals no respect for human life. Her record is nothing but death and destruction. She will do anything for money and status just like this case to blame a 12 year old for being raped by a grown man. it is disgusting and shows you that Clinton will say anything to win.

[randome]

169. You really don't care about the prior allegations, do you?

For all we know, "prior allegations" imply a mental problem or a severe need for attention like with Tawana Brawley. But you simply don't care to see if that's true or not. And this is why Sanders supporters get mocked.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Esperanza]

170. Was she really in a coma

after the attack? If so, it must have been the

mental problems

and a 12-year-old child's

severe need for attention

that put her in a coma.

[WDIM]

172. So you blame the victim too.

There is no excuse for grown man to take advantage of a 12 year old girl no matter what her history is.

Blaming the victim is the lowest most unethical defense of a pedofile and the pedofile appologists.

[randome]

196. I'm not blaming anyone.

I'm saying it's an old story with no context and those who want to see the worst are seeing the worst. Without having the full story, it's a fool's errand to think any of us know what happened.

And basing a judgment on someone as an inhuman monster based on how she laughs is ludicrous.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[vintx]

190. What "prior allegations" make raping a 12-year old defensible?

The forensic evidence proved conclusively that he raped that girl.

That was the evidence that she LAUGHED ABOUT HAVING THROWN OUT

[randome]

195. "I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations..."

If someone wants to get to the truth of the matter, it seems to me that this allegation -and maybe that's all it is- would be part of the evaluation as to whether Clinton is an inhuman monster or not.

It's just ridiculous how some will automatically believe whatever fits their preconceptions.

Maybe Clinton is an inhuman monster. But why discount everything without finding out more?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[cherokeeprogressive]

207. So hook us up with some prior allegations there, 'dome. Or is "some people have said..."

in a defense lawyer's brief all you need to know?

Hook us up. Show us some prior allegations that aren't a single paragraph in a defense lawyer's brief.

[randome]

209. All I'm pointing out is that some apparently don't care to know details.

They'd rather condemn someone based on how her laugh sounds. Now that's objectivity!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[cherokeeprogressive]

210. So what are the details? I mean other than a line or two in a brief of course.

[Esperanza]

167. I am astonished by people supporting her

actions on this thread.Yes, I believe very strongly in the importance of a defense attorney's job and their absolute obligation to defend their client, but this is wrong; the fight against the demonizing and slut-shaming of women and girls who bring charges of rape has been one of the major feminist battles of the last 50 years. Yes, I'm old enough to remember. Some of those battles have been won, but, apparently, some people are more than ready to cast those small victories aside.

Clinton also wrote that a child psychologist told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” especially when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”

This is simply appalling! Was the victim really in a coma after the attack? An attorney has a right to question the veracity and credibility of a witness, but not by using deeply offensive cultural stereotypes. Would any true Democrat really defend an attorney who used negative stereotypes of African-Americans and Gay people to defend people accused of assaulting them? Yes, I know some attorneys still make those arguments. That's one of the many reasons Black Lives Matter has struck such a chord. I guess 12-year-old rape victims were the original super-predators. I can't believe any feminist who is in it for any other reason than to pursue her own personal ambitions could support Hillary after this.

[oldandhappy]

177. such amazing empathy ... not.

[Ed Suspicious]

201. God, this woman has SO much baggage.

[VulgarPoet]

203. A champion for children. A champion for women.

How the fuck does a motherfucking victim blamer exemplify EITHER OF THESE TRAITS?

[Philly-Union-Man]

204. This is why people hate lawyers. But that's the job.

You can find it unsavory as you like but her job there is to get her client exonerated. I'm a Sanders guy all the way but this is just petty shit. There are real, serious reasons to be against her, doing her goddamn job forty friggin years ago isn't one.

[arely staircase]

205. If your ever accused of a crime, do you want your attorney to represent you

to the best of her ability?

[LanternWaste]

217. her statement seem almost as bad as pretending a new-found concern for women's safety

Lacking context, her statement seem almost as bad as pretending a new-found and righteous concern for women's safety and health issues simply as a cover to better mask a partisan agenda.