She did nothing wrong there. Our criminal system requires rigorous defenses of clients, otherwise it is the defense lawyer making the judgment instead of a jury. That she was aggressive in a circumstance in which it seemed to conflict with her personal values is a testament to her ethics, not an indictment.
Gross - even more evidence not to vote for her,I wonder if that little 12 year old girl now a 40-something woman will be voting for HRC? Doubt it.
I really wonder why HRC is so visciously attacking BHO now, of all times. When clearly the negatives have not worked and actually injured her campaign. What the hell is she thinking?
There is absolutely nothing inappropriate in that story with respect to her actions as reported.
Your response indicates an appalling lack of understanding of how the criminal justice system works, and an equally appaling willingness to opine on it in spite of your complete lack of understanding.
From that very same cite;
But nothing but the most derogatory interpretation will do, right?
Well the thread title clearly states: Stick a fork in her: Clinton’s done. Not exactly the place to shoot roses up the woman’s butt now is it? Perhaps this thread should get moved to the Pit for more pit worthy commentary. What she did by defending a rapist was not wrong she was doing her job. But as to the ethics of it - non of us know if she could sleep fine at night or not [I wouldn’t be able to, then I’m not a lawyer] - some people are looking for more reasons not to vote for Hillary. To some - clearly you can see - this is an example of one of them.
Here’s a link to the mocking video from earlier today. It’s in this article:
Sheesh. I used to support her, and I’ve been feeling increasingly glad that I’d settled on Obama before the Missouri primary. She thinks this tactic is gonna work for her how? :rolleyes:
Damn… she is the last person I want in charge of anything.
I don’t agree. Surely, if someone came along and said, “Look, I don’t really care about any of that other stuff, there’s just no way a woman can be President - I mean, what would happen at ‘that time of the month?’ We bomb Iran because she’s a little crampy?” I assume that you wouldn’t excuse it with some people are looking for more reasons not to vote for Hillary. To some people, this is an example of one of them.
That would be an example of a poorly reasoned, odiously bigoted reason not to vote for Senator Clinton. And it wouldn’t deserve to be lumped in with legitimate reasons to cast your vote elsewhere.
The idea that she’d be vilified for being an effective lawyer is similarly poorly reasoned and should be rejected with equal vigor.
That’s YHO. I disagree. I find it not just inappropriate, I find it appalling.
Maybe it’s a systemic failure, but to the extent that it was, Hillary was a willing pawn of the system, throwing as much shit as she could at a sixth-grade rape victim, and seeing how much of it would stick. Turning the rape trial into a second attack on the victim.
That’s evil.
It may be perfectly within the rules of our adversarial legal system, but that doesn’t change a thing. It does NOT make it appropriate, and it certainly doesn’t make it right or good.
It remains evil, and Hillary was the willing handmaiden of that evil. And not all the rules of legal procedure in the world can change an iota of that. Law doesn’t overrule right and wrong. It does not make evil ‘appropriate.’
No, she was defending an innocent man accused by a sixth grader that was lying.
There was no rape victim involved here. On what basis do you conclude that there was? Your last name isn’t ‘Nifong’ by chance, is it?
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it evil–it’s the way our system is set up, after all–but there are unpleasant parts of our system whence I wouldn’t necessarily want to see the leader of our country coming. Society sometimes requires a hangman, but I’d wonder whether that experience dropping people through the trap door might not color an individual’s attitude toward people. I understand he’s doing what society deems a necessary job, but I’m not having him over for tea and crumpets any time soon.
xxxxx
If she hadn’t done that, would you same people instead be calling her as a crappy lawyer?
Oooh, How brave of you Rick! Putting me in my place for my lack of legal understanding.
I’m obviously not fit to ever discuss anything on the internet ever again
In other words, well it’s not the pit, so I’ll save it.
Look I understand how this shit works. I understand that she obviously has to defend her clients. I understand that it’s the way the criminal justice system works. Somebody has to defend the bad guys, true. But seriously just read this:
I don’t care how you justify it, that it has to be done or not, it’s not in keeping with the image she tries to project. What it does project is an image of someone who essentially can put aside her scruples very easily, which means that she is not exactly in a position to be chastizing Barack Obama on TV about whatever it is she is pretending to be upset about at the moment. Win at all costs. And really that’s all it is, she’s returning back to the days when she attacks the credibility of a 12 year old rape vicitim to get the job done.
The fact that you come in and start insulting me because I don’t approve of her actions makes me think that you’ve got a sore spot for such accusations. I’m sorry that 90 percent of the population considers such behavior unethical. Maybe because it is? Would it require such a vigorous defense if it were so obviously ethical?
Again, it’s funny how you immediately jump down my throat for suggesting that her behavior is unappealing in a Presidential candidate. I didn’t say that it wasn’t a job that wasn’t essential to the legal system. Of course there are other jobs that essential to the way things work, yet aren’t exactly held in the highest esteem.
The point is that, again, she is chastizing Obama from this supposed high perch of hers when its pretty obvious that she’s done stuff in the past that if it were well known would leave most people a bit disgusted.
Which is how I feel. I think it is important to do your job well in anything you do, but I also think there are personal scruples that one must adhere to as well. If you’re going to tell me that a lawyer should attack the other side without concern to the overall well-being of the prosecution a 12 year old rape vicitm) then yes we’ll have to agree to disagree. But please leave aside the personal insults next time.
Attacking the credibility of the accuser’s testimony is part of a defense attorney’s job.
That said, that context makes it a bit disingenuous for her to complain when her opponent attacks her credibility, which happens to be his job.
Not really - she’s chastising him not *from * her *own * supposed high perch, but to *his * supposed high perch. See the difference?
Then there are some defendants who simply don’t deserve defending, huh? Some who just don’t have rights that need to be respected, as long as they’re accused of something disgusting enough, huh? That conclusion is what follows from your position. Inevitably. And it isn’t something a civilized society can withstand.
The problem is that sexist fascists like **Bricker **see only the cold demands of the law, and have no desire to hear the voice of the victim. In fact, they just tune it out…
Please read the linked article, and then report back to the thread. Specifically these passages (bolding mine):
Those basically say that Hillary didn’t want to take the case, but did so out of ethical obligations, and still managed constructive progress because of it. I don’t want to get too far off topic, but the following passages make it pretty clear that Hillary had reason to need to discredit the poor little 12 year old:
The story goes on to say that the victim was, in fact, a thief and a drug abuser. Your quoted passage specifically says that even the victim realizes Hillary was just doing her job, which she was ethically bound to do. As has been stated, it would have been unacceptable, and perhaps even grounds for disbarment, had she simply half-assed her defense of Taylor.
Yeah, this position is scary. It’s sounds way too reminiscient of Bill O’Reilly talk about denying Guantanamo detainees a legal defense.
Yuck.
Okay, I just read that article again. I simply cannot see how that article can be used to attack Hillary. It actually speaks very highly of her several times, in several different ways, for several different reasons. The author doesn’t say a single bad thing about her, and in fact, goes out of its way to say several good things:
I dislike Hillary as much as the next guy, but I don’t see how this article in any way reinforces that position.