Unearthed Audio: Hillary Discusses Defending Child Rapist

Town Hall ^ | 6/16/14 | Guy Benson

[OneVike]

A scoop from the Washington Free Beacon's Alana Goodman exploded on Twitter Sunday night, raising new questions about the most significant case of Hillary Clinton's relatively brief legal career. The brewing controversy is, in some respects, ancient history -- involving a mid-80's interview about a case from 1975. In short, young attorney Hillary Rodham elected to take a case defending a man accused of brutally raping a 12-year-old girl. Goodman reports, "the recordings, which...have never before been reported, include Clinton’s suggestion that she knew Taylor was guilty at the time. She says she used a legal technicality to plead her client, who faced 30 years to life in prison, down to a lesser charge." None of this is per se scandalous. Indeed, attorneys are ethically obliged to furnish their clients, no matter how vile, with zealous legal representation. One can argue that lawyers have no such obligation to take on a case in the first place, which is true, but that doesn't strike me as a fair critique here. Hillary explains in the audio recording that she accepted the "tough" client as a favor to the local prosecutor. But her defense of the alleged rapist (whom she clearly believed to be guilty), and the manner in which she secured a very favorable plea bargain, is another story altogether -- as is her demeanor and tone in recounting the case in a previously-undisclosed interview:

[Rusty0604]

Did she guidance to do that from the Bible?

[OneVike]

Yea, I checked to other out and read the comments, but I realized it was different. That’s why it did not come up when i did a search.

[Liz]

Hillary makes it to the top---almost.

[MeganC]

In fairness, no matter what crime someone is accused of they should have access to a competent and effective defense. Othwerwise we’d be some third world nation like Saudi Arabia where political opponents can be accused of sorcery and summarily executed.

[jacknhoo]

Bill Clinton identified in lawsuit against his former friend and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who had ‘regular’ orgies at his Caribbean compound that the former president visited multiple times
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bill-Clinton-identified-lawsuit-against-former-friend-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-regular-orgies-Caribbean-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.html

Billionaire Pedophile Goes Free
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/07/20/jeffrey-epstein-billionaire-pedophile-goes-free.html

[rightly_dividing]

—Liberals don’t think along the same lines as Americans—

I like that line. I may just have to steal that line for my tag.

[RIghtwardHo]

OH no no no no. I can’t stand the Hildabeast, and I was a Prosecutor for 25 years ... but this is what Defense Attys do! They defend the guilty. And if they don’t, they can get disbarred. This is NOT an argument for ANYTHING. What, you want attorney’s deciding who is guilty and innocent? Every single Defense atty does this. maybe doctors should decide who is worthy to live?

This is a ridiculous point and argument.

[odawg]

“...she did exactly as an good attorney would and should do”

That may be true, but it certainly plays into the stereotype
of a conniving, cynical, weasel lawyer. Lawyers can be good without that snarky arrogant attitude.

[Sam Hains]

Are we really surprised?
Mrs. Clinton has a long history of defending and standing by rapists.

[marktwain]

Who was the person she defended, and what happened to him? Rapists seldom stop raping.

[Labyrinthos]

She did not have to take the case. She took it only because a Democrat DA asked her to

Here are the relevant provisions from the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility (1983):

EC 2-27: History is replete with instances of distinguished and sacrificial services by lawyers who have represented unpopular clients and causes. Regardless of his personal feelings, a lawyer should not decline representation because a client or a cause is unpopular or community reaction is adverse.

EC 2-29: When a lawyer is appointed by a court or requested by a bar association to undertake representation of a person unable to obtain counsel, whether for financial or other reasons, he should not seek to be excused from undertaking the representation except for compelling reasons. Compelling reasons do not include such factors as the repugnance of the subject matter of the proceeding, the identity or position of a person involved in the case, the belief of the lawyer that the defendant in a criminal proceeding is guilty, or the belief of the lawyer regarding the merits of the civil case.

EC 2-30 Employment should not be accepted by a lawyer when he is unable to render competent service or when he knows or it is obvious that the person seeking to employ him desires to institute or maintain an action merely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring another. Likewise, a lawyer should decline employment if the intensity of his personal feeling, as distinguished from a community attitude, may impair his effective representation of a prospective client...

[sgtyork]

You are thinking defensively. Read this again and ask yourself did you find humor in the awful aspects of your job?

-—It’s one thing to agree to take on an unsavory client and to fulfill one’s professional and ethical obligations. It’s another matter to have a strange retrospective chuckle about benefiting from a turn of events that let a child rapist off the hook. -—

[Psalm 144]

Lame prosecutor. Had the opportunity to knock some of the shine off this serpent early on and didn’t.

[Psalm 144]

The woman was fired because she didn’t meet the minimum ethical standards to be a lawyer - to be a lawyer?

Who knew they even had standards...

********************

Clients don’t want them.

[soozla]

I just read where her law license in Arkansas was suspended in 2002.......https://attorneyinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/info/Attorney/Attorney_Search_Detail.aspx?ID=6b117de4-d562-4e17-adc8-104aabe831d2

[chessplayer]

...And meet the number one reason why lawyers are despised!

---

Yup. Everyone hates them,,,until they need one.

[ScottinVA]

“I like that line. I may just have to steal that line for my tag.”

You’re welcome to it!”

[rightly_dividing]

Thanks.

[woofie]

Rapist? Rapist? What does Hillary know about rapi....Oh! I forgot...

[a fool in paradise]

One can argue that lawyers have no such obligation to take on a case in the first place, which is true

For now, someday I expect to see a homosexual couple claim "discrimination" because some lawyer won't take their case to challenge existing marriage laws.