and the Clinton WAR ON WOMEN continues...
Posted on 06/15/2014 8:00:29 PM PDT by Nachum
Audio at link
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
She's not a native southerner. She grew up in suburban Chicago and didn't move to Arkansas until she married Billy Jeff. So, when you do hear her with a southern accent, rest assured it's an act.
and the Clinton WAR ON WOMEN continues...
People are expected to protect their spouses...
A lawyer representing a criminally accused who has passed a lie detector test, discovers that the evidence against her client has been destroyed leaving him with no chance to test the quality of the lab results.
She did what a good lawyer would do. To do otherwise would be malpractice.
Is the objection that she took on a rape case at all? If that is the test, I wonder how well the law career of Abraham Lincoln would stand up to scrutiny?
No one despises Bitch Clinton more than I do, I have accused her on these forums over and over of committing felonies but let us at least maintain a standard and not sink to her level by engaging in baseless personal attacks.
There is nothing here.
She has an occasional Black dialect. LOL!
Bump
Daily Caller had a better article.
Turns out the rapist got off with time served even though she knew he was guilty. Her defense strategy was to call the 12 year old girl the aggressor who sought out older men.
The problem is this: she knew her client was guilty, she did her good lawyer thing and got him off - so far so good in your lawyerly way of thinking - but now she is recounting the tale and LAUGHING and CHUCKLING about it.
A twelve year old was raped to the point where there was blood on Hillary’s guilty client’s underwear and she is LAUGHING and CHUCKLING about it.
That goes far beyond being a good lawyer. It shows a callousness and disregard for the victim - a child - that is shocking. Frankly, I was stunned after listening to it.
I don't know why it is clear that she knew the client was guilty. The evidence was destroyed, he passed a lie detector test, how does she know? And knowing, how does she know beyond a reasonable doubt, and knowing beyond a reasonable doubt, how does she know what degree of crime he committed?
The point is it's not the lawyer's job to determine these things but the jury's. If it were we would scarcely expect the find a lawyer to defend the innocent. If Ollie North was twice convicted should he have been bereft of a lawyer to get it reversed on appeal-and then on a technicality?
As to the levity, I did not hear her laughing at the plight of the child but at the old-fashioned and misplaced gentility of the judge who would not want to explore these issues in the presence of a woman even though she was the defendant's counsel.
Hillary quotes:
“It was a terrible case...”
“Of course, he claimed that he didn’t. All this stuff.”
“He took a lie detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed by faith in polygraphs [laughter].”
She know he was guilty. She got him off with a light sentence. She did her job. But there was a victim in this case, a young girl then who is now a grown woman - still alive. To recount this case with a sense of braggadocio and “look how smart I am”, and laughing about it is despicable.
It has nothing to do with a lawyer doing her job and everything to do with her sense of decency and humanity. She has none.
In her 2003 autobiography “Living History,” Clinton writes that she initially balked at the assignment, but eventually secured a lenient plea deal for Taylor after a New York-based forensics expert she hired “cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff’s office.”
However, that account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy – attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to a Newsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.
Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader’s honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out “older men” like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed “Hillary D. Rodham” in compact cursive…
The victim, now 46, told Newsday that she was raped by Taylor, denied that she wanted any relationship with him and blamed him for contributing to three decades of severe depression and other personal problems.
“It’s not true, I never sought out older men – I was raped,” the woman said in an interview in the fall. Newsday is withholding her name as the victim of a sex crime.
With all the anguish she’d felt over the case in the years since, there was one thing she never realized – that the lawyer for the man she reviles was none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-versus-the-allegedly-raped-child#.U56P2ie9KSM
It is the adversarial system which keeps the system honest. If you go to almost any Bar Association meeting and talk to criminal defense lawyers and wait until they have had at least three scotches you will hear the same stories and you will hear them tell you that their clients are always guilty. I exaggerate, of course, but we have a system that does not turn on guilt because that is a lesser value than the integrity of the system itself. Every defendant who gains acquittal by suppressing evidence for a bad (unconstitutional) search is guilty! Yet we turn them loose on society if there is no other evidence to protect the integrity of the system. The integrity of the system as well as the defendant's right of privacy are higher values even than the safety of the public.
Hillary is simply behaving the way a lawyer is supposed to behave in the doing and actually behaves in the telling.
But Hillary has behaved otherwise as a lawyer which brings discredit to her. Her unethical conduct as Assistant Counsel for the Senate Committee in the impeachment of Richard Nixon was so outrageous as to bring her under criticism from the Democrat Chief Counsel. Her seeking out of the Black Panthers as clients for political purposes raises questions not so much of ethics but of her political predilections.
Hillary has brought disgrace to the legal profession but this story is hardly one upon which to indict her.
Had she failed to take the steps impugning the veracity of the complaintant, challenging the provenance of the forensic data (I thought it had been entirely cut away and gone missing?), she would be liable to criticism.
One caveat: there are vague allegations that Hillary presented her own affidavit which contains false or at least unsubstantiated allegations. If so she would be subject to discipline and even disbarment. But we don't know whether there was any factual basis for this affidavit, apparently the underlying records have been lost. We are reduced to speculation.
We are in a very dangerous place when a lawyer is judged by the character of her clients. I refer again Abraham Lincoln. She did not seek this client out. She did seek out the Black Panthers and she did cross the line in the impeachment of Richard Nixon.
If the argument is being made that Hillary has somehow transgressed a feminist taboo in her representation of this client, that is an argument of political hypocrisy but does not go to her professional ethics.
Are you a lawyer?
Recovering
Thanks. I would like to think that I myself personally would be free from bad prosecution by tainted evidence and the price for that is some of the guilty get off. OTOH I believe pretty strongly that we are headed into anarcho-tyranny where the worse criminals stay free and the little people are prosecuted for parking ticket level crimes.
That is certainly one kind of tyranny and there are others. In terms of relative danger presented by prosecutorial misconduct I would rate top down tyranny as far more dangerous. We see this every day in the Obama administration. It can include selective disregard of the whistleblower protection; it can include selective enforcement against guitar companies for the kind of wood they use; it can include the railroading back to jail on alleged parole violations for a purely political propaganda motive about a video; it can include enforcement of campaign contribution laws selectively and arbitrarily against filmmakers critical of the Obama administration; it can include threats of prosecution against bankers for "excessive" emoluments to CEOs.
The list is very long when one reviews the top down prosecutorial malfeasance of this administration.
There is also prosecutorial misfeasance which is not top-down but which is very pernicious to those against whom it might be directed such as Zimmerman. Prosecutions which are incited by the mob are terribly dangerous to liberty but not nearly as frightening as the top down variety.
There is also corruption which we have seen forever especially in times like prohibition. In most parts of the world if traffic cop stops you, you are expected on the spot to pay your bribe. When that becomes institutionalized, as it was for example in the Soviet Union, the whole rule of law breaks down.
Ultimately, it's a question of culture because ultimately the law, just like politics, will reflect the culture. If we institutionalize relativism through our educational system we should not be surprised if it creeps into our legal system. The problem is not to confuse relativism with due process.
I am SICK UP TO FRICKING HERE OF THE CLINTONS!
Begone, Clintons, begone!
And, stay gone!
Every FRicking one of you!
Nathan, I don’t give a whit about her defending an accused rapist. But since she KNEW that he was guilty, her success in getting him off on a lesser charge is flat out immoral and nauseating. It’s what I would expect of her. I don’t believe in hiding behind reverence for “the system” when that system becomes conducive to grave injustice. Bob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.