I think we can all agree that Mob Justice is the only true way to deal with criminals, who came up with all this trial and due process crap? If the shoe fits I say hang em.
Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell, Rape Victim Says
- Thread starter CrazyDude
- Start date
- Status
I think we can all agree that Mob Justice is the only true way to deal with criminals, who came up with all this trial and due process crap? If the shoe fits I say hang em.
Devolution
Member
I think oversimplifying the decisions people make to "just doing their job" doesn't really help the discussion of a moral quandary.
entremet
Member
I wonder what you thought of her husband. He was just as corporatist, but are you going to give him a pass because of the good economy?
Shamrock7r
Member
That's how I look it. Understanding the requirements, the pressure, and so forth, of being an attorney, it's just not something I can hold against her, especially since she's done a lot of good since. At the same time, it's another thing that's just very demoralizing and unfortunate about our judicial process. If Hilary truly knew her client was guilty, and wanted to do the proper, moral thing, she would not have continued with the case.
Are you being obtuse or naive? Or is this going to be another round of GAF lawyerball semantics?
In this case, it is, since she didn't do anything unethical with the facts presented so far. Unless you are conceptually against the adversarial legal system as an institution and all who participate in it.
Listen to anyone in a somewhat morally messy profession (health care, law, politics, etc.) casually talk about it, and chances are it will sometimes sound jarring to a person distant from that profession. This could be an example of that, I suppose, but seriously...talk about small potatoes. It wasn't a high profile case, Hillary was requested to do this particular job, every step she described was ridiculously basic. Is it really surprising she spoke of it in a lighthearted enough manner as to seem distant from the deeper, more human aspect of it all?
What I find more amazing is that she was 27 during the case. I'm sure it isn't that rare to find a 27 year-old lawyer, but it's always impressive to hear of someone so young operating at that level.
What I find more amazing is that she was 27 during the case. I'm sure it isn't that rare to find a 27 year-old lawyer, but it's always impressive to hear of someone so young operating at that level.
True that. What a ridiculous quip. As if her job wasn't one she was totally empowered to choose anyway, as if she couldn't have walked away?
That said, the evidence that she went above and beyond the call or engaged in malfeasance here is pretty weak. Past that, all we're doing is reading motivations into something that happened a long time ago on fractious evidence in the face of the most damning conclusion possible being "well she was shitty about rape once but isn't any more".
The affidavit was on behalf of the defendant. Who the victim says is lying.
Hillary seams to believe he was lying as well, but there's no evidence she had knowledge he was lying.
If he was lying, then of course every time Hillary repeated his words for him she was repeating his lies. But that is the job of a defense attorney, to represent their clients argument.
Her "choice" to do her job only matters if she were choosing to do something immoral, which she wasn't. Only innocent alleged criminals are allowed to have lawyers? Wait, that doesn't even make sense.
She wasn't even being paid big bucks; she was asked by the prosecution to represent this guy.
echoshifting
Banned
Is there any doubt?
I'm gonna have to devour a murder of crows if she doesn't get it. As will a lot of people who are smarter and more knowledgeable than me.
meanspartan
Member
As an almost lawyer (taking the CA bar next month!) sounds like she was doing her job as she was professionally required to do.
As for the off-color remarks, get off your high horses. Dont tell me nearly all of you havent said things you wish you hadnt. This reeks of desperate smearing from backers of the party who's potential candidates are all losing to Clinton by 9 points or more in head to head polls.
As for the off-color remarks, get off your high horses. Dont tell me nearly all of you havent said things you wish you hadnt. This reeks of desperate smearing from backers of the party who's potential candidates are all losing to Clinton by 9 points or more in head to head polls.
It's not about that, it's about sensitivity towards rape victims.
Link
The Autumn Wind
It is a swerve from attacking the victims.
I am not, and have never been, a big fan of Hillary's. I won't be voting for her in the primaries if there's anyone even remotely interesting running against her.
That said, she was a public defender, whose job it was to defend the guilty and innocent alike. More to the point, it sounds an awful lot like the prosecutors were playing fast and loose with the evidence. Regardless, her job was to give rapists, murderers, and pedophiles the best defense possible. That's the way our court system works. And if you're a public defender, you don't get to say, "Nah, he's guilty, I won't defend him." Otherwise you stop being a public defender pretty quickly, and you lose the ability to help people being railroaded by over-eager prosecutors.
We'll see many more hatchet pieces, with people from the past who've inexplicably changed their minds about Hillary, and mysteriously appearing tapes that purport to shed light on ancient evil. I'd be surprised if we don't hear some more about Vince Foster, and how Hilldawg helped cover up Bill's rape.
The right has always hated her every bit as much, or more, than they did Bill. She's going to be a lightning rod for all the old stories, plus anything new (Benghaaaaaaazi!) they've managed to come up with.
That said, she was a public defender, whose job it was to defend the guilty and innocent alike. More to the point, it sounds an awful lot like the prosecutors were playing fast and loose with the evidence. Regardless, her job was to give rapists, murderers, and pedophiles the best defense possible. That's the way our court system works. And if you're a public defender, you don't get to say, "Nah, he's guilty, I won't defend him." Otherwise you stop being a public defender pretty quickly, and you lose the ability to help people being railroaded by over-eager prosecutors.
We'll see many more hatchet pieces, with people from the past who've inexplicably changed their minds about Hillary, and mysteriously appearing tapes that purport to shed light on ancient evil. I'd be surprised if we don't hear some more about Vince Foster, and how Hilldawg helped cover up Bill's rape.
The right has always hated her every bit as much, or more, than they did Bill. She's going to be a lightning rod for all the old stories, plus anything new (Benghaaaaaaazi!) they've managed to come up with.
meanspartan
Member
Whichever. If you're a lawyer who works for the public defenders, you're obliged in the same way they are. My mistake, though.
She was court appointed.
meanspartan
Member
Yes, we know republicans are impeccable on that front too.
Ah I see. So she basically WAS a public defender in this role; but she didn't work permanently as a public defender.
videogamer
Banned
just because this is how "the game is played" does not mean that Hilary Clinton is a good person.
Not saying she is, but there is nothing HERE that indicts her.
She did not. She laughed about no longer trusting Polygraphs.
And more importantly, this tape is of two people casually talking shop. She sounded more fascinated with the entire thing than braggy.
Have you listened to the audio?
She's not laughing about getting the guy off. She's laughing at the incompetent techs throwing away evidence, and how how ridiculous the polygraph is, considering what she knew.
Link
The Autumn Wind
You can really tell who hasn't actually listened to the audio in this thread.
How else do you get to post one liners in threads like these?
John Kowalski
Banned
Not at all surprising to seem so many people interpreting Hillary's behavior as the mere performance of her job, as if such were the apogee of acting in an apolitical and emotionally inert manner. More than the criticism towards Hillary's supposed hypocrisy (which by itself has little or no worth, given that something that was done forty years ago is little indication of what she believes today), this highlights the problematic nature of advocacy as a medium for culturally and socially impactful though still remaining such free of the responsibilities of such strength. One hopes that someone in a position to argument against someone's supposed rape is doing so from a strong position of ethical concern, and simply dismissing those who engage in judicial matters from such requirements is, regardless of the contemporary state of things, quite a bad thing to defend.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
So let me get this straight.
People are going to make a fuss over a lawyer doing their job by granting a person who was charged with a crime a proper defense as by granted by our Constitution?
Ya'll mother fuckers need a brain.
And it was 40 fucking years ago. Jesus, if you need to dig nearly half a century into someones garbage to make mud you're already fucked.
People are going to make a fuss over a lawyer doing their job by granting a person who was charged with a crime a proper defense as by granted by our Constitution?
Ya'll mother fuckers need a brain.
And it was 40 fucking years ago. Jesus, if you need to dig nearly half a century into someones garbage to make mud you're already fucked.
Busy getting evidence thrown out of court.
Karsticles
Member
Name recognition outweighs everything. In Michigan, a man whose name was known because he went on trial for murder almost won an election just because people recognized the name at the polls.
I'm all about that Elizabeth Warren ticket. I don't even care who the other name on the ticket is.
Exactly. I actually took it as a sort of "This is when my faith in humanity died" sort of dark humor.
The important thing here is that at no point did Hillary know for a fact that her client raped that girl.
But, based on her exposure to the guy during the case, her gut told her that he likely could have.
So imagine her surprise when when the guy, whom she's pretty sure is guilty, then goes and aces his polygraph.
I imagine her laugh was similar in spirit to this one:
Why do I have the strange feeling that had she actually withdrawn back then, these same people would be ignoring the rape component and trying to now scandalize her for not doing her job and protecting a poor, defenseless defendant's constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel?
- Status