Support NeoGAF

[Keri]

I'll be honest, this only makes me respect Hillary Clinton more: Being a public defender is a hard, thankless and misunderstood job that is absolutely crucial to a just society. Anyone who chooses to go into that profession, earns a little respect from me and it doesn't seem like she did anything unethical in this case.

 

[Vermillion]

Why do I have the strange feeling that had she actually withdrawn back then, these same people would be ignoring the rape component and trying to now scandalize her for not doing her job and protecting a poor, defenseless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?

Nah, that's doubtful. It wouldn't carry as much weight, being that her client was a rapist. They would have certainly looked for something else (or just shifted more focus onto the usual stuff and Benghazi).

 

[CornBurrito]

Not directly contributing to the expected end result of these things is a start.

So I feel like the only solution here would be that nobody ever defends someone accused of rape. Which could be a problem for people falsely accused of rape.

 

[googleplex]

Desperate GOP is Desperate.

 

[hidys]

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.

It wouldn't even be that hard to find something on Clinton that would hurt her chances. The fact that the best they have is this and Benghazi is absolutely pathetic on their part.

I've never understood the hate the right has for Clinton nor have I understood the left's love for him.

 

[poppabk]

Disgusting. So what if she's doing her job, that doesn't mean she's not a slimeball for the way she went about it.

Keep in mind this is about a 12 year old girl.

The text you bolded was a second hand quote from a child psychologist.

 

[TheOMan]

It was her job.

It was almost 40 years ago.

Can't wait for presidential elections 40 years from now when old twitter and facebook posts from now are used to forever crucify candidates

It will happen, of that I'm sure.

Also, I laughed when I looked at your username.

 

[Vermillion]

So I feel like the only solution here would be that nobody ever defends someone accused of rape. Which could be a problem for people falsely accused of rape.

...

There was a news story a while back posted on GAF about a guy who was mocked for being a virgin by other guys at his school(?). He went along with two of them and they raped a girl. After the fact, he felt horrible about it, but he was never arrested or anything. He then grew up to try to stop sexual violence in his country, and apologized to his victim.

Here's the thread:
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=472987

Now, before someone tries to accuse me of accusing Hillary Clinton of being party to the rape, I am not. I'm using this to illustrate (one way) how you go about changing the end result. A hotline to the same system that gets rapists off doesn't really help.

In addition, perpetuating the same old story about rape victims doesn't help either:

children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,”

It doesn't even matter that she didn't say it to the victim - who's to say how many people it affected because the judge read it?

It's not even about bashing Clinton - it *was* 40 years ago. But it is interesting seeing people usually disturbed by that line of thinking defending it as "just doing her job" here.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'm not clear on whether Clinton was court-appointed or took on the case voluntarily, but I think people are focusing on the wrong facts in considering her conduct. First, it's absolutely true that, regardless of whether she was court-appointed or not, she had a duty to defend her client zealously. That she did so, despite believing (as she apparently did) that her client was guilty, should reflect well on her, not poorly. Criminal defense attorneys play a crucial role in making sure that the government's power to strip individuals of their liberty is only exercised after the government carries its heavy burden of justifying that exercise. So I think it's illegitimate to criticize Clinton for being a zealous advocate for her client, regardless of his guilt or her belief about his guilt.

But, the victim isn't merely complaining that Clinton was a zealous advocate. She's complaining that Clinton lied in her affidavit. (And, though the story in the OP is unclear on this point, the affidavit was a sworn statement by Clinton, not her client.) The trouble with this is that it would be more or less impossible to disprove what Clinton said--she didn't swear that the victim did make false accusations in the past, e.g., but that Clinton had been informed to that effect. And that statement could have been completely true, even if she led the defendant to tell her the desired information. Of course, it should go without saying that an attorney should not lie to or mislead a court, especially when under oath (as an affidavit is).

Here's the body of the text of the Motion for Psychiatric Evaluation that Clinton's affidavit was submitted to support:

Comes now the defendant, Thomas Alfred Taylor, and on affidavit of his attorney, Hillary Rodham, moves the Court for an Order requiring that the complaining witness in this action,

Spoiler

REDACTED NAME

, be required to present herself, and her mother be required to present her on Thursday, July 31, 1975 at the University of Arkansas Psychology Clinic for a psychiatric examination at the defendant's expense by a psychiatrist to be selected by the defendant to examine into her mental attitudes prior to trial and for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper.

Here's the body of the text of the affidavit itself:

Comes Hillary Rodham of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and being duly sworn states upon oath the following:

1. I am the attorney for Thomas Alfred Taylor and am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this case.

2. The defendant is charged with the crime of first degree rape of

Spoiler

REDACTED NAME

, age 12, of 724 E. Johnson, Springdale, Arkansas.

3. I have made an investigation of the facts and circumstances in this case and verily believe that a psychiatric examination of the complainant,

Spoiler

REDACTED NAME

, is necessary and vital in this case.

4. I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.

5. I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tent to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant, are even more prone to such behavior.

6. For these reasons and others that may be presented to the Court at the hearing on this motion, I believe a psychiatric examination would be in the best interests of justice.

 

[Acorn]

Everyone should get a robust defense. The alleged comments about the case are troubling though.

 

[kehs]

...

In addition, perpetuating the same old story about rape victims doesn't help either:

children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,”

It doesn't even matter that she didn't say it to the victim - who's to say how many people it affected because the judge read it?

It's not even about bashing Clinton - it *was* 40 years ago. But it is interesting seeing people usually disturbed by that line of thinking defending it as "just doing her job" here.

Hey, those weren't her words. Nice try though:

Clinton also wrote that a child psychologist told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” especially when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dg...-victim-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell/

 

[poppabk]

It doesn't even matter that she didn't say it to the victim - who's to say how many people it affected because the judge read it?

It's not even about bashing Clinton - it *was* 40 years ago. But it is interesting seeing people usually disturbed by that line of thinking defending it as "just doing her job" here.

She didn't say it though. She said that someone else said it.

 

[Vermillion]

Hey, those weren't her words. Nice try though:

She didn't say it though. She said that someone else said it.

Don't be obtuse. She's quoting someone as part of the defense.

 

[kehs]

Don't be obtuse. She's quoting someone as part of the defense.

Yes, that's not perpetuating.

Do you think people who request evidence be thrown out because it's tampered with are perpetuating tampering of evidence?

Keepi being a cute one with half quotes though.

 

[Dryk]

just because this is how "the game is played" does not mean that Hilary Clinton is a good person.

I'd say it says more about the game than her. In this case it sounds like she maintained plausible deniability so I can't fault her too much for doing her job, but anyone contractually obliged to hear someone admit to rape or murder and then say they didn't do it with a straight face rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Vermillion]

Yes, that's not perpetuating.

Do you think people who request evidence be thrown out because it's tampered with are perpetuating tampering of evidence?

Perpetuate:

make (something, typically an undesirable situation or an unfounded belief) continue indefinitely.

EDIT: I was going to ignore the next part of your post but odds are that's your next point, so let me cut that off at the pass:

That is the opposite of perpetuating tampering of evidence. Requesting that tampered evidence be thrown out is an attempt to curb evidence tampering, not continue it.

 

[gutter_trash]

Republicans desperate, they know Hillary to be a shoe in to landslide to victory.

The GOP should concentrate on choosing a worthy opponent who is not a nut job first.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Republicans desperate, they know Hillary to be a shoe in to landslide to victory.

The GOP should concentrate on choosing a worthy opponent who is not a nut job first.

Impossible, they will never get through the primary without being forced to go off the deep-end.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Yes, that's not perpetuating.

Do you think people who request evidence be thrown out because it's tampered with are perpetuating tampering of evidence?

Keepi being a cute one with half quotes though.

Repeating and relying on the authority of a statement by an "expert in child psychology" is indisputably perpetuating whatever that statement contains. How could it not be? "This child psychologist says this, but I hope none of you believe it. He's wrong, so let's stop this belief right here. But, actually, let's stop it after you grant my motion. He's right until then."

 

[Keri]

The affidavit makes sense in context: She was articulating to the Judge why she was requesting a psychiatric evaluation of the victim. Essentially, she's saying: I've heard some things, so please give me permission to check them out. It's not the same thing as saying "these things that I've heard are absolutely true in this case."

 

[Aylinato]

Perpetuate:

make (something, typically an undesirable situation or an unfounded belief) continue indefinitely.

Tbh you don't make any sense using that word

 

[HiredN00bs]

Nothing but disgusting. An apology, and a show of empathy would serve her well politically.

But I believe at this time, America is too sexist to elect a woman to POTUS.

 

[Gotchaye]

Don't be obtuse. She's quoting someone as part of the defense.

So, I understand the problem here. With my feminist hat on, I'll argue that the way in which defendants in rape cases are defended is often disturbing. There's a tendency to play on a jury's unreliable attitudes about rape. Probably this was all much more true 40 years ago than it is today.

But it seems to me that the right way to deal with this is to change the rules governing trials. If the law allows this sort of thing as admissible evidence, and it is often successful in swaying the opinions of jurors, then of course a defense lawyer ought to bring it up. Representing their clients' interests within the law is the whole job, and the state had decided that the sort of thing Clinton said in the affidavit was relevant to the case. If you've got a problem with that (and I do), we should take it up with the state.

Like, we know that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable. But nobody thinks that prosecutors have an extra-legal obligation to caveat the testimony of their own witnesses because of that. This is the sort of thing that either the opposing side needs to deal with or which we should preclude by changing the rules of evidence.

 

[sgjackson]

Really enjoying how the thing that gets the right to care about rape culture is politically smearing the left.

 

[Vermillion]

Tbh you don't make any sense using that word

Causing the story/idea that rape victims are being less than truthful to continue indefinitely.

Synonyms of the word perpetuate include:

keep alive, keep going, preserve, conserve, sustain, maintain, continue, extend, carry on, keep up, prolong; immortalize, commemorate, memorialize, eternalize

"must you perpetuate these stupid myths?"

Source(s): Google, Merriam-Webster, etc.

 

[kehs]

Repeating and relying on the authority of a statement by an "expert in child psychology" is indisputably perpetuating whatever that statement contains. How could it not be? "This child psychologist says this, but I hope none of you believe it. He's wrong, so let's stop this belief right here. But, actually, let's stop it after you grant my motion. He's right until then."

You do know this case is from the 70's correct?

That was the expert opinions on this. Trials are a duality, and the prosecutors have to provide a semblance of evidence to counter everything the defense is putting up.

The criticism of a defense attorney doing every within their legal responsibility to do, is pretty nasty, especially when it's being used to smear the individual person decades after the fact.

That defense would fall flat on it's face today, because we know better.

Perpetuate:

make (something, typically an undesirable situation or an unfounded belief) continue indefinitely.

EDIT: I was going to ignore the next part of your post but odds are that's your next point, so let me cut that off at the pass:

That is the opposite of perpetuating tampering of evidence. Requesting that tampered evidence be thrown out is an attempt to curb evidence tampering, not continue it.

That was accepted psychology back then.

 

[devilhawk]

Republicans desperate, they know Hillary to be a shoe in to landslide to victory.

The GOP should concentrate on choosing a worthy opponent who is not a nut job first.

Sounds like it is a rape victim coming forward and not Republicans unearthing things.

 

[Vermillion]

So, I understand the problem here. With my feminist hat on, I'll argue that the way in which defendants in rape cases are defended is often disturbing. There's a tendency to play on a jury's unreliable attitudes about rape. Probably this was all much more true 40 years ago than it is today.

But it seems to me that the right way to deal with this is to change the rules governing trials. If the law allows this sort of thing as admissible evidence, and it is often successful in swaying the opinions of jurors, then of course a defense lawyer ought to bring it up. Representing their clients' interests within the law is the whole job, and the state had decided that the sort of thing Clinton said in the affidavit was relevant to the case. If you've got a problem with that (and I do), we should take it up with the state.

Like, we know that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable. But nobody thinks that prosecutors have an extra-legal obligation to caveat the testimony of their own witnesses because of that. This is the sort of thing that either the opposing side needs to deal with or which we should preclude by changing the rules of evidence.

Thank you. I don't necessarily think that we need to change the rules of evidence, though. I think that Hillary did a great job of defending her client. My issue is that it was also ruthless, and it fed on the same beliefs that have made it difficult for rape victims to come forwards in the first place. There are many ways to defend/prosecute people by going to very dark places (family illness history, mental illness history, etc.). I don't think that those methods shouldn't be allowed... But for an issue as big as rape, you also need to consider how your actions fit in the grand scheme of things. Particularly if you know your client is guilty.

 

[Metaphoreus]

You do know this case is from the 70's correct?

That was the expert opinions on this. Trials are a duality, and the prosecutors have to provide a semblance of evidence to counter everything the defense is putting up.

The criticism of a defense attorney doing every within their legal responsibility to do, is pretty nasty, especially when it's being used to smear the individual person decades after the fact.

That defense would fall flat on it's face today, because we know better.

That was accepted psychology back then.

None of that changes the fact that she was perpetuating what she said the expert said.

And I don't need a lecture in proper conduct of a criminal defense attorney, having just given one myself.

 

[kehs]

None of that changes the fact that she was perpetuating what she said the expert said.

And I don't need in a lecture in proper conduct of a criminal defense attorney, having just given one myself.

No, and it also change the fact she's being held up to it 2014 when it happened in the 1970's.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Sounds like it is a rape victim coming forward and not Republicans unearthing things.

The GOP press publicized the tape and the victims 'exclusive' went to a right leaning reporter.

 

[HiredN00bs]

No, and it also change the fact she's being held up to it 2014 when it happened in the 1970's.

If she expressed sincere sorrow and regret for her actions then, I'm sure people could forgive her.

If I believe Clinton to be the best candidate for POTUS, I'll vote for her, but this story pisses me off.

 

[Metaphoreus]

No, and it also change the fact she's being held up to it 2014 when it happened in the 1970's.

Obviously.

 

[jackdoe]

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.

It's personal opinion about how she sounds, but I thought she sounded like she was bragging. And I took that laugh as something that made light of the entire situation. Of course, one's own personal opinion on the Clinton's would affect their interpretation of the audio (since there was a ton of static that could have made intonations sound one way or the other).

 

[JetBlackPanda]

The good news is the GOP still has no fucking clue. I can't believe this.. 1974!!!!! Rape!!!! Never talked to media!!!

Throw it on the Swift boat, joe the plumber, Benghazi pile.

 

[kehs]

Obviously.

So what's the issue then? She was using something that, at the time, was known as legitimate to defend the client.

If tomorrow we find out that dna tests can mix up sample groupss. Are we then supposed to say that anyone who has used dna samples to exclude individuals are then perpetuating their acts?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Sounds like it is a rape victim coming forward and not Republicans unearthing things.

The GOP press publicized the tape and the victims 'exclusive' went to a right leaning reporter.

Yeah, the GOP press!

After all, the Washington Free Beacon was established by the Republican National Committee John Boehner Ronald Reagan Karl Rove Center for American Freedom, which, as we all know, is a front for Ron Paul Rand Paul Paul Ryan Mitt Romney Rick Santorum the Koch brothers some dude named Goldfarb(?). BUT, when formed, Politico reported that its employees included "two former chiefs of the Republican National Committee’s vaunted research operation"--which is proof positive that the Republican Party is behind this!!!1

So what's the issue then? She was using something that, at the time, was known as legitimate to defend the client.

If tomorrow we find out that dna tests can mix up sample groupss. Are we then supposed to say that anyone who has used dna samples to exclude individuals are then perpetuating their acts?

A person who endorses a belief or cites a statement of that belief as authoritative "perpetuates" that belief. Whether a person "perpetuates" an action by taking it is irrelevant to the point we're discussing. But we're arguing over semantics here, and I'm not really sure it's worth it.

 

[Zen]

Nothing wrong with doing her job, but making light of the situation and boasting is wrong, no?

She is not boasting if you listen to the audio.

 

[kehs]

A person who endorses a belief or cites a statement of that belief as authoritative "perpetuates" that belief. Whether a person "perpetuates" an action by taking it is irrelevant to the point we're discussing. But we're arguing over semantics here, and I'm not really sure it's worth it.

Using a then-thought-of-fact for a legal maneuver is not perpetuation.

That's not arguing semantics, that arguing against a misunderstanding of how reality works.

The implication of saying Clinton was perpetuating this defense point(as vermillion said), is that she believed it. As a court appointed attorney, personal beliefs can sometimes differ front legal actions.

 

[Ultrabum]

I don't really have an opinion on whether what she did was right or wrong or anything like that.

I just think its really weird she uses the phrase, "Miscarriage of justice" while laughing.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Using a then-thought-of-fact for a legal maneuver is not perpetuation.

That's not arguing semantics, that arguing against a misunderstanding of how reality works.

The implication of saying Clinton was perpetuating this defense point(as vermillion said), is that she believed it. As a court appointed attorney, personal beliefs can sometimes differ front legal actions.

We really are arguing over semantics. We're arguing over whether the implicit endorsement of a belief by citing it as authoritative constitutes "perpetuation," or not. Reality is not in dispute. We know what happened in reality--she cited the belief as authoritative--and we're arguing over what we should call that.

Clinton's private belief is irrelevant to our semantic dispute. What matters is that she publicly endorsed the belief by citing it as authoritative support for her motion.

But I wasn't around in the '70s, so I feel like I'm missing some context. Could you provide me with support that shows that the belief perpetuated by Clinton's affidavit was widely held by child psychologists at the time?

 

[N4Us]

Can't wait for presidential elections 40 years from now when old twitter and facebook posts from now are used to forever crucify candidates

I forgot the name but there was this running state politician a few years back who took a blow when they uncovered old racist Usenet posts he wrote 20+ years ago.So I wouldn't be surprised if it gets to that point.

 

[Jagernaut]

So the victim blames Clinton for one of her attackers getting a light sentence but there was a second attacker (who Clinton did not represent) that was never even charged with a crime?

 

[User 100115]

So, I understand the problem here. With my feminist hat on, I'll argue that the way in which defendants in rape cases are defended is often disturbing. There's a tendency to play on a jury's unreliable attitudes about rape. Probably this was all much more true 40 years ago than it is today.

But it seems to me that the right way to deal with this is to change the rules governing trials. If the law allows this sort of thing as admissible evidence, and it is often successful in swaying the opinions of jurors, then of course a defense lawyer ought to bring it up. Representing their clients' interests within the law is the whole job, and the state had decided that the sort of thing Clinton said in the affidavit was relevant to the case. If you've got a problem with that (and I do), we should take it up with the state.

Like, we know that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable. But nobody thinks that prosecutors have an extra-legal obligation to caveat the testimony of their own witnesses because of that. This is the sort of thing that either the opposing side needs to deal with or which we should preclude by changing the rules of evidence.

This is pretty much my take on it and why I could never be a defense attorney.

 

[speculawyer]

.
In addition, perpetuating the same old story about rape victims doesn't help either:

It doesn't even matter that she didn't say it to the victim - who's to say how many people it affected because the judge read it?

It's not even about bashing Clinton - it *was* 40 years ago. But it is interesting seeing people usually disturbed by that line of thinking defending it as "just doing her job" here.

But it is an adversarial system. The prosecutor just simply needed to do what you just did . . . counter the things the defense brings up. And the let the jury decide.

It is the job of an attorney to zealously represent their client. If defenders just feel their client might be guilty and doesn't put up a defense, then the system falls apart and people will get railroaded based on the subjective feeling of some defender.

 

[Cat Party]

Lawyers have an unfortunate tendency to sound callous when talking shop, especially younger lawyers who are eager to discuss their victories. Nothing in the article seems out of place to me. Bad taste, but nothing more.

 

[Circle Jerk]

Yeah, the GOP press!

After all, the Washington Free Beacon was established by the Republican National Committee John Boehner Ronald Reagan Karl Rove Center for American Freedom, which, as we all know, is a front for Ron Paul Rand Paul Paul Ryan Mitt Romney Rick Santorum the Koch brothers some dude named Goldfarb(?). BUT, when formed, Politico reported that its employees included "two former chiefs of the Republican National Committee’s vaunted research operation"--which is proof positive that the Republican Party is behind this!!!1

So uh you didn't do any research into either of these companies before you wrote out this dribble huh? centre for american freedom is openly conservative (based on their very own about me section! https://americanfreedom.com/about/), has Bill Kristol and Michael goldfarb as a board members (despite your ignorance on who goldfarb is, he is influential in conservative circles), and the Washington free presses about me section(in the very first paragraph!) talks about how their goal is to "uncovering the stories that the professional left hopes will never see the light of day". But I guess looking up actual information wouldn't have allowed you to write that hilarious paragraph!

 

[kehs]

We really are arguing over semantics. We're arguing over whether the implicit endorsement of a belief by citing it as authoritative constitutes "perpetuation," or not. Reality has nothing to do with it. We know what happened in reality--she cited the belief as authoritative--and we're arguing over what we should call that.

Clinton's private belief is irrelevant to our semantic dispute. What matters is that she publicly endorsed the belief by citing it as authoritative support for her motion.

But I wasn't around in the '70s, so I feel like I'm missing some context. Could you provide me with support that shows that the belief perpetuated by Clinton's affidavit was widely held by child psychologists at the time?

Clinton's privates beliefs is the crux of the attack for her court appointed actions. You don't believe that? Is she not being held accountable for them directly, She's not an acting attorney anymore, I don't think at least. No one is asking her to be disbarred as an attorney or anything of the sort.

1)She did not, individually, endorse those beliefs.

2)Using a defense as an attorney, does not mean you perpetuate or condone something as an individual.

Considering she was court appointed, and the prosecutors couldn't find a different opinion to counter the claim, I'm gonna say at that point, that was the convening opinion on that topic.

I'll gladly look up psychology status quo on 70's rapes and sexuality.

 

[Loakum]

Desperate GOP is Desperate.

This. (and they should be desperate, because they know they have no one to defeat her, if she decides to run in 2016)

 

[genjiZERO]

But it is an adversarial system. The prosecutor just simply needed to do what you just did . . . counter the things the defense brings up. And the let the jury decide.

It is the job of an attorney to zealously represent their client. If defenders just feel their client might be guilty and doesn't put up a defense, then the system falls apart and people will get railroaded based on the subjective feeling of some defender.

The irony of Americans is that what they really want is a French style inquisitorial legal system.