It sounds like a fairly common interview for a lawyer proudly discussing a case she had won. I’ve always heard that Hillary could have been one heck of a good trial lawyer. But she and Bill went into politics. Hillary gave up trial work, but still worked at the Rose Law firm throughout the 1980’s.
I hope this doesn’t hurt her politically. Hillary has claimed in this past that this case bothered her. But, her casual, joking tone in this interview makes it clear she felt much differently as a 27 year old lawyer.
The interview is quite interesting. I’d forgotten how thick her accent used to be. I remember her looking and sounding like this during Bill’s first term as governor. She was still in her Gloria Steinem, I’m Hillary Rodham! phase. No make up, thick glasses, very plain clothes. All traces of femininity gone. She looked like a typical college girl when she first started college. photo1… photo2 Her liberal Ivy league college studies changed her,
I’ve been a Clinton watcher most of my adult life. Fascinating couple.
She did a good job defending a criminal case 40 years ago. She did not such a good job in the interview. Implying her specific client was guilty was…less discreet…than I’d expect.
Implying that a client you defended was probably guilty, particularly after he was exonerated strikes me as being ethically very questionably and I suspect had this been reported to the ethics committee at the time she might have had some explaining to do.
The concern being shown here for her reputation is touching.
“I just wanted to post a link to this forty year old interview in hopes that it won’t become an issue people talk about. I’d really hate for voters in 2016 to judge Hillary for the horrible, sexist, racist, and arguably illegal things she did in her misguided youth.”
If she claims now that it was one of the hardest decisions of her life, and the record shows then that she regarded the whole affair with some amusement, I think it does kind of speak to the current status of her character.
Shocker - a criminal defense attorney represented someone that was probably guilty and reflected upon her feelings about a polygraph result.
The client did plead guilty to something - he took a plea bargain - which in most cases requires the defendant to state under oath “yes I did the crime I am pleading guilty too.”
At no point did she disclose any of her communications with the defendant that were in anyway harmful to him.
It is often possible to find humor in difficult situations. She was reminiscing about her experiences - not laughing at rape or something.
Very touching to see not only the stuff Little Nemo points out, but also for the rights of child rapists.
Of course - she should never be allowed to smile/laugh again - well cause Benghazi and all.
I’m not the first to raise the issue. Its being discussed on Facebook and other Social media.
I’ve supported Bill and voted for him in every election. Including the governors race he lost in 80. He’d made mistakes in his first term. Pushing too ambitious of an agenda. Hillary’s instance on being called Hillary Rodham irritated a lot of older voters in 1980 and it was used against Bill in the campaign. She had a image make over before he ran again and won.
I haven’t decided yet if I’ll support her this time. I did in 2008. A lot depends on who else runs.
She won’t get away with claiming youthful mistakes. She was a 27 year old Ivy League grad and a practicing Attorney when this interview tape was made. She made a serious error and needs to address it. I think there’s plenty of time for this issue to be forgotten before the election.
She mentions this case in her autobiography as well, it clearly effected her. But, that is not the point. The issue in this interview is that she (by stating that she distrusted polygraphs after that result) has given a very big hint as to what her client told her in his instructions, which is not proper.
“40 years ago, with a flippant remark, Hillary may have violated the confidentiality of her child-molesting client” is not something that makes me see her any differently, nor is it something that I think has any political significance.
I don’t think people will care too much. Hillary-haters will add this to their list of grievances, but I don’t think that matters.
I said that Hillary Clinton represents a real problem for conservatives. Because they used up all their good material against her back when she was first lady. They can’t just re-use it because nobody cares about old rumors.
On one hand, I don’t want Clinton to be the nominee because she’ll probably win.
On the other, another Democrat might win and be worse than Clinton. I can live with Hillary Clinton. Not sure about O’Malley or Warren. Cuomo and Schweitzer I can probably live with too.
If you mean in the picture in that article, she was dressed as a woman professional at the time would dress. I don’t see that as “all traces of femininity gone”. I see that as a woman dressing for business and not a cocktail party. There is no way to tell from that picture if she is wearing make-up or not, but who the fuck cares about that? The men look all frumpy. Just how “masculine” is the guy to her right?
Missed the edit window… I don’t know if the OP was an adult back in the late 60s and early 70s, but women were just then breaking into the world of law, business and medicine-- pretty much all the professions. They didn’t want to be seen as sex objects in the workplace, and if the fashions back then were laughable by today’s standards, we can hardly blame Hillary for that.
I’m not a huge fan of HRC, although I could easily see voting for her for prez since the GOP can’t get its act together enough to nominate a reasonable candidate. But this story is old, old news, and the bit about her accent and dress and lack of “femininity” are just way off base. This isn’t go play any part in the campaign process except for people who would never vote for here anyway.
The only reason I don’t want Clinton to run is that we’ll have x many more years of this level of idiocy and lunacy. Every singe day. Think about that. If Clinton serves until 2025 that’s 3120 more threads started by aceplace on 40-year-old scandals. Does anybody want to go through that?
