Magox Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 (edited) The woman at the center of the scandal over Hillary Clinton’s defense of an alleged child rapist speaks out in depth for the first time. 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 in the 1975 sexual abuse case that became Clinton’s first criminal defense case as a 27-year-old lawyer has only spoken to the media once since her attack, a contested, short interaction with a reporter in 2008, during Clinton’s last presidential campaign run. Now 52, she wants to speak out after hearing Clinton talk about her case on newly discovered audio recordings from the 1980s, unearthed by the Washington Free Beacon and made public this week. In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings. “Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said. The Daily Beast agreed to withhold her name out of concern for her privacy as a victim of sexual assault. http://www.thedailyb...ictim-says.html Check out the audio, Hillary certainly appears to be smugly chuckling how she beat the jury with a defendant she knew was guilty, by destroying the character of a 12 year old who was raped by a pedophile. Edited June 20, 2014 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 So, in other words, she did her job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 So, in other words, she did her job? The same press corps that will report on Mitt Romney teasing a former classmate will ignore this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 The same press corps that will report on Mitt Romney teasing a former classmate will ignore this. Ya, as they should. Romney was not employed to physically attack someone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Ya, as they should. Romney was not employed to physically attack someone But it was his job to maximize shareholder profit by purchasing companies and leveraging them in an attempt to make them profitable in the process of possibly laying people off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 So, in other words, she did her job? Making up crap about a 12 year old girl isn't really part of the job description. And: 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.[/size] “He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Clinton says on the recording, failing to hold back some chuckles. Giving away details of your clients case and laughing about it in an interview is at best unprofessional. But whatever. What difference does it make at this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Making up crap about a 12 year old girl isn't really part of the job description. And: Giving away details of your clients case and laughing about it in an interview is at best unprofessional. But whatever. What difference does it make at this point? We only have the complainant's word that the 'crap' was made up. As for knowing he's guilty, that has nothing to do with her doing her job defending him. Defense attorneys (real ones, not ones who merely defend against the "court of public opinion") defend their clients whether they're actually guilty or actually innocent. At the end of the day, her job was to carry out her client's wishes by zealously representing him and seeking to undermine the state's case and/or suppress evidence that was illegally obtained - not to determine whether or not he deserved to go to prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 sadly the pedophile is not the worst person in this case. He can't control himself, Hilary chose to behave that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 HILLARY CLINTON: THE WOMEN AND THE GIRLS: The Clintons have a problem getting tripped up by their own sanctimony. The great feminist, we know from a recording of her talking about her victory in a case representing a child rapist, cackled over pulling a fast one on the prosecution. The Post’s Melinda Henneberger observes, “Even rapists deserve adequate legal representation, of course; that’s how our justice system works, no matter how reprehensible the crime. . . . In an interview in the mid-1980s for an Esquire magazine piece that never ran, Clinton’s glee is audible about the prosecution’s big mistake in the case, when it accidentally discarded key evidence. Some are writing off the remarks, as one fellow journalist put it on social media, as ‘typical gonzo defense lawyer talk.’ It is not, however, typical talk for a lifelong defender of women and children.” Nor is it “typical” (decent? acceptable?) for the feminist icon to make the claim that the 12-year-old was the sexually promiscuous. And that in turn brings back another problem for the feminist heroine: Henneberger reminds us: “The ‘little bit nutty, little bit slutty’ defense has a long, ugly history. It’s jarring to see it trotted out against a kid by a future feminist icon. The argument also bears an uncomfortable similarity to Clinton White House descriptions of Monica Lewinsky, who without that semen stain on her little blue dress would have been dismissed as a stalker who had fantasized that she had a relationship with President Bill Clinton.” To sum up, it’s not the trust or the legal representation of a rapist that matters; it is that her greed and ambition consistently get the better of her, to the detriment of those women and girls she claims to be helping. That’s because she’s helping herself. CNN panel unloads on Hillary for trivializing something as ‘sensitive as rape’ http://hotair.com/ar...sitive-as-rape/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 sadly the pedophile is not the worst person in this case. He can't control himself, Hilary chose to behave that way. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Hilary did the right thing here. You can't have lawyers deciding the guilt or innocence of defendants then adjusting their tactics to match their belief. It doesn't matter if the guy was guilty or innocent. Hilary swore an oath to defend him to the best of her abilities; that includes suggesting wild theories and attacking the credibility of witnesses. As for Hilary's comments regarding the "victims" while in private.... that just shows her character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 We only have the complainant's word that the 'crap' was made up. As for knowing he's guilty, that has nothing to do with her doing her job defending him. Defense attorneys (real ones, not ones who merely defend against the "court of public opinion") defend their clients whether they're actually guilty or actually innocent. At the end of the day, her job was to carry out her client's wishes by zealously representing him and seeking to undermine the state's case and/or suppress evidence that was illegally obtained - not to determine whether or not he deserved to go to prison. Do real defense attorneys give interviews after the case where they disclose inner details of the case like how she knew he was lying but he passed a poly and that she no longer trusts poly's? Is that what a good defense attorney does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Do real defense attorneys give interviews after the case where they disclose inner details of the case like how she knew he was lying but he passed a poly and that she no longer trusts poly's? Is that what a good defense attorney does? Considering one has nothing to do with the other, is there some form of point coming? BTW, there is a reason polygraph tests are inadmissible in court,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Considering one has nothing to do with the other, is there some form of point coming? BTW, there is a reason polygraph tests are inadmissible in court,,, Do a defense attorney's obligations under attorney client privilege end when the trial ends or can they just go off giving self promotional interviews based on inner details of a case? It sure seems questionable whether her interest was in upholding the law for the sake of the law when she later throws her own client under the bus to promote herself but whatever. So to answer your original question she did her job during the trial and then stopped doing it when she had a chance to benefit by doing so. It seems clear to me that she defended this dirt bag well from a technical perspective and that is her job if she voluntarily accepts the case, which she did. I'm sure she scored lots of points with powerful people for winning it too. I don't think she broke any law in letter or spirit at all during the trial. I also think it is shameless of her to call herself a child advocate when she clearly knew this guy raped a 12 year old girl. If she wanted to TRUTHFULLY call herself a child advocate she could have walked from the case. Maybe she has repented and tells the truth all the time now. But what difference at this point does it make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Hilary did the right thing here. You can't have lawyers deciding the guilt or innocence of defendants then adjusting their tactics to match their belief. It doesn't matter if the guy was guilty or innocent. Hilary swore an oath to defend him to the best of her abilities; that includes suggesting wild theories and attacking the credibility of witnesses. As for Hilary's comments regarding the "victims" while in private.... that just shows her character. As a lawyer hired to defend a pedophiliac rapist, she did the right thing. As a feminist, she did the wrong thing taking the case in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 As for Hilary's comments regarding the "victims" while in private.... that just shows her character. And that's all you need to know about this. When you start piling up the Hillary lies, everything becomes clearer. Why it seems like only yesterday that Hillary's helicopter came under enemy fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 And that's all you need to know about this. When you start piling up the Hillary lies, everything becomes clearer. Why it seems like only yesterday that Hillary's helicopter came under enemy fire. Or that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. She's a liar. it's what she does. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 Do a defense attorney's obligations under attorney client privilege end when the trial ends or can they just go off giving self promotional interviews based on inner details of a case? It sure seems questionable whether her interest was in upholding the law for the sake of the law when she later throws her own client under the bus to promote herself but whatever. So to answer your original question she did her job during the trial and then stopped doing it when she had a chance to benefit by doing so. It seems clear to me that she defended this dirt bag well from a technical perspective and that is her job if she voluntarily accepts the case, which she did. I'm sure she scored lots of points with powerful people for winning it too. I don't think she broke any law in letter or spirit at all during the trial. I also think it is shameless of her to call herself a child advocate when she clearly knew this guy raped a 12 year old girl. If she wanted to TRUTHFULLY call herself a child advocate she could have walked from the case. Maybe she has repented and tells the truth all the time now. But what difference at this point does it make? The obligation to protect client confidences exists forever, however it is not clear whether or not she gave any information in that interview that was privileged. She has the right to speak about cases and give her personal opinions years later. Nothing prevents her from trumpeting her successes as an attorney - so long as she does not reveal any privileged secrets that her client did not authorize her to reveal. That specifically means anything confidential that she learned solely from her client (or that may be subject to some other form of privilege: psychological exam results, mental health records, etc.) She's a dirtbag and has been for decades. This is not new. However the "outrage" over her doing her job and crowing about being successful is misplaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21, 2014 Share Posted June 21, 2014 I respectfully disagree with you Koko. Its one thing to do your job defending a client from a rape charge.......................... Its entirely another to laugh and brag about it several years later . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted June 22, 2014 Share Posted June 22, 2014 The obligation to protect client confidences exists forever, however it is not clear whether or not she gave any information in that interview that was privileged. She has the right to speak about cases and give her personal opinions years later. Nothing prevents her from trumpeting her successes as an attorney - so long as she does not reveal any privileged secrets that her client did not authorize her to reveal. That specifically means anything confidential that she learned solely from her client (or that may be subject to some other form of privilege: psychological exam results, mental health records, etc.) She's a dirtbag and has been for decades. This is not new. However the "outrage" over her doing her job and crowing about being successful is misplaced. The "outrage" is about her taking the case in the first place and then continuing to crow about what a marvelous child advocate she has always been. On the separate topic of attorney client privilege: “We’re hired guns,” Ronald D. Rotunda, a professor of legal ethics at Chapman University, told the Washington Free Beacon. “We don’t have to believe the client is innocent…our job is to represent the client in the best way we can within the bounds of the law.” However, Rotunda said, for a lawyer to disclose the results of a client’s polygraph and guilt is a potential violation of attorney-client privilege. “You can’t do that,” he said. “Unless the client says: ‘You’re free to tell people that you really think I’m a scumbag, and the only reason I got a lighter sentence is because you’re a really clever lawyer.’” Like the old song says..... ...There it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts