-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell, Rape Victim Says
- Thread starter CrazyDude
- Start date
- Status
Fixed that for ya.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
BRB. Double-checking my post to make sure I didn't say CAF and the Washington Free Beacon are not conservative.
I'm back. I never said that.
I don't see how any of that is relevant to our dispute. People are attacking her because they want to damage her political brand, clearly. That doesn't change how we should label her conduct.
She cited the beliefs as providing authority on which the court could base an order granting her motion. She wanted the court to accept the statement as true, and therefore grant her motion. She perpetuated the belief by putting it forward as true and supported by expert opinion. It doesn't matter whether she privately believed it was true. What matters is that she represented to the court that it was true--or, at least, true-according-to-experts (who know more about the subject than Clinton or the judge, since they're experts).
I'll be happy to review what you find regarding child psychology in the '70s.
If you do that, are you allowed to testify against your prior client?
Nothing wrong with her doing her job defending her client to the best of her ability, but making light of the situation and laughing about it is indeed pretty sick.
I really wish the Democrats would field a viable alternative to Clinton in case she doesn't work out as planned for any number of reasons. Seems like that might be Biden, but the dude is going to be 73 so I can't really see him carrying out two terms without his age becoming a serious issue. I'm also not a big fan of Clinton. I'll easily vote for her over any Republican, but I really want to have someone I actually like to vote for in the primary.
I really wish the Democrats would field a viable alternative to Clinton in case she doesn't work out as planned for any number of reasons. Seems like that might be Biden, but the dude is going to be 73 so I can't really see him carrying out two terms without his age becoming a serious issue. I'm also not a big fan of Clinton. I'll easily vote for her over any Republican, but I really want to have someone I actually like to vote for in the primary.
Her political brand is currently her personal beliefs. People are shifting her decades old attorney actions into the future. She's not an attorney anymore.
Her actions were within the realms of legal conduct. The concept that was used as a legal measure were (in hindsight) obviously flawed.
She cited testimony as an attorney.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
She is quoting someone who apparently has relevant experience for the case. If the prosecution had an expert who stated that it was almost impossible for a 12 year old to lie about a rape with the details the victim gave, should the prosecution lawyer just never mention that if they don't personally believe it is true?
Vermillion
Banned
I agree with Metaphoreus: the problem isn't whether or not she believed it herself.
As I said in my response to Gotchaye, defending your client is fine. But with an issue like that, you really have to consider how you're going to go about it.
Absolutely not. Everything they said to you is still privileged.
Elfforkusu
Member
.
Not exactly Hillary's biggest fan myself, but it sounds like she was doing her job. A good judicial system requires that DAs take the side of some of the most disgusting human beings on earth and give them a fair shake -- because sometimes those disgusting human beings turn out to be innocent of the crime.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The rules for confidentiality and attorney-client privilege wouldn't be affected. So, generally, no.
But we're arguing about what label to give her conduct, not whether it's fair to criticize her conduct today or expect her past conduct to predict her future conduct. So your first two paragraphs just aren't relevant.
As for your last sentence, she didn't cite testimony. She cited what she said someone told her. But in any event, I don't see a difference in citing testimony or citing hearsay in whether the citation constitutes perpetuation. Either way, you're saying, "X is true, and you know X is true because such-and-such expert says so, and that supports my position." So, it's perpetuation either way.
This is why I hate lawyers.
People justify every thing they do as them just doing their job and cite ethics as further justification for their callous actions. If soldiers following orders can be held accountable for war crimes than so can any amoral shitbag in a suit willing to sell their soul to make a buck off the back of victims.
The fact that someone is supposed to do something because its their job is not an excuse for vile behaviour or actions.
If this story is true, Clinton knowingly helped a child rapist get off easy and was even proud of herself for doing it.
There's nothing anyone can say that makes that acceptable or okay. It's not acceptable and it's not okay.
People justify every thing they do as them just doing their job and cite ethics as further justification for their callous actions. If soldiers following orders can be held accountable for war crimes than so can any amoral shitbag in a suit willing to sell their soul to make a buck off the back of victims.
The fact that someone is supposed to do something because its their job is not an excuse for vile behaviour or actions.
If this story is true, Clinton knowingly helped a child rapist get off easy and was even proud of herself for doing it.
There's nothing anyone can say that makes that acceptable or okay. It's not acceptable and it's not okay.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
We have a fundamental right to a fair trial in this country. How do you expect a fair trial if the defendant can't even get a lawyer? Do you see what happens when you go down that road?
That's not what the story alleges and I don't appreciate you telling me to calm down when there is no indication that I'm not.
How is this relevant to my post? I haven't said any of this.
Except she never knew for a fact that he did it. Also, its pretty different from a soldier committing war crimes. Our justice system would cease to function without public defenders, EVERYONE has the right to a defense. Even if we don't like them or the crime they are accused of.
Do you often sit around stewing about how much you hate lawyers?
In your world defense lawyers wouldn't be able to do their jobs. Defendants have constitutional rights and when the justice system doesn't follow the letter of the law in bringing its case against a person, a lawyer should absolutely bring that up.
JzeroT1437
Member
An attorney's job isn't to argue what's right--it's to argue his/her client's case. Rape is horrible and sorry for that woman, but Clinton was just doing her job. Lawyers be lawin.
The victim claims Clinton did know about it. My post is in response to people trying to excuse that. Whether Clinton really knew isn't all that relevant, that people would still defend her is wrong.
My example serves as a point that "doing my job" shouldn't excuse "I'm a shitty person who does shitty things."
The American justice system is fucked and that's not news. I'm not arguing for the abolition of defence attorneys. I don't know how you gleaned that from my post.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
The victim claims it but how do we know?
In my world we'd have a justice system that is as interested in convicting criminals as it is in proving their innocence and defence lawyers that didn't do this kind of shit.
You're the third person to put words in my mouth based off of one post that at no point stated any desire to abolish defence lawyers or the right to a fair trial.
See my previous post. I said "If this story is true" - didn't I?
Even if it isn't true, my point still stands.
This is... not a very compelling criticism of the right to legal counsel. And let's be clear - that's what this purports to be. Your problem with Clinton is that you say she "knowingly helped" a very guilty person escape just punishment, and was proud of that. It badly misses the point to compare this sort of thing to soldiers committing war crimes. Sure, if a lawyer goes around murdering the opposition's witnesses, that's an ethics violation, and I suspect everyone here would agree with that, but the idea is that it's overall a good thing to have lawyers not let their own attitudes towards their clients influence their lawyering. The idea isn't "it's okay because that's their job". It's "it's okay because that's their job and that job, including that part of it, is valuable to society".
You're not just arguing against a fucked up US legal system. This is a huge part of every civilized system of justice. It's in the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, for example. It's not clear that you understand the position you're arguing against.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
But this is exactly what we have. The prosecution is immensely interested in convicting criminals, and defense attorneys are immensely interested in preventing that (or reducing the consequences of a conviction).
Think about what you posted. You said lawyers should be held accountable for their actions when they defend someone that you presume to be guilty (comparing it to soldiers facing war crimes). Okay then how does anyone defend someone who's likely to be guilty? How do they determine guilt without a trial?
You offer no way for any lawyer to defend people you consider vile. Well now guess what? You have a defendant with no lawyer. I think you can figure it out from there.
I might not have made my position as clear as I could or should have, but I wasn't arguing against any fundamental right to a fair trial. If that's how people here want to take my post, that's up to them, but that's not how I feel about it.
A soldier has their mandate to follow orders of their superiors. A lawyer has their mandate to serve their client. My point was that I disagree with the notion that someone's job makes it okay for them to do something shitty. In this case, if this story is true, then Clinton did something shitty and I don't think people should be defending her for doing that shitty thing because it was her job.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not discussing the justice system at large or people's fundamental rights, hence my confusion when people reply with posts inferring I don't understand the justice system or the importance of the right to a fair trial.
Circle Jerk
Member
So what at all was the point of your post then? That you aren't good at jokes? That you think conservative press doesn't equal GOP press?
So much misunderstanding in this thread. I'm no Hillary fan, but the fact that she took on public defense makes me think more highly of her. I echo Gotchaye's comments about directing criticism toward the states regarding rape litigation and not the individual attorneys.
Public defenders have some of the hardest, most misunderstood, and underpaid jobs in the entire legal system.
Public defenders have some of the hardest, most misunderstood, and underpaid jobs in the entire legal system.
So, to be clear, what's the "something shitty" she did?
What you said earlier was:
Where the "something shitty" seems to be the act of knowingly helping a child rapist get off easy.
What people are saying is that this is essentially an attack on the very idea of a right to legal counsel.
If what you're trying to say is just that the particular method Clinton used to (let's assume) knowingly help a child rapist get off easy was a problem, even though it would in general not be an ethical problem for a lawyer to knowingly help child rapists get off easy, then okay. I disagree with that, as I explained in a previous post, but this is basically in line with what a lot of people in the thread are saying.
plasmawave
Banned
I was like, this sounds like a dialogue from the True Detective episodes or something, the whole time watching that thing.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Is it really that unclear? Do you really need me to hold your hand through the discussion?
If you want to win a criminal case, you need to prove with sufficient evidence so that the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. There's nothing wrong with Clinton forcing the prosecution to do so, and they failed.
Just a few months ago, I heard two lawyers give a lecture on a guy they were defending who had been sentenced to death row. He was basically on his last appeal and they believed he was guilty. All of the evidence made him look guilty. But they still pulled every strategy they could find in the book. Guess what they found in the course of doing their job? Someone eventually discovered that the prosecution had concealed a piece of evidence proving his innocence.
You can't always know. If you could, you wouldn't even need the system. You can't have a double standard. You want a lawyer to always advocate for their client to the best of their ability because the alternative is worse.
Circle Jerk
Member
So you're just a dick, perfect, I completely understand now.
Okay so who will defend bad guys then if doing it is shitty? Or are you saying that it's a fundamental law of nature that there has to be inherently shitty people out there that are fated to defend bad guys?
You're saying ANYBODY who is this guy's lawyer is shitty. Who would possibly want to be his lawyer then? Okay now noone wants to be his lawyer, well guess what? He doesn't have a lawyer. No lawyer? No fair trial.
Random Painted HIghway
Member
I had no idea she actually handled appointed cases, I have a lot of respect for attorneys who take those cases. I myself was a public defender for about 4 years in a major city, so I know what goes into that. I also know what its like to win jury trials for folks who you think are probably guilty, including some bad dudes.
Our system is adversarial and requires a competent defense to insure that the police and prosecutors and judges follow the constitution. Gideon v Wainright etc. Prosecutors should welcome a vigorous hard fought defense, as their role is not to convict but to seek justice and sometimes justice is an ng, sometimes it is a hung jury sometimes it is a plea to a lesser included as is what occurred in this case. Besides being a public defender, I was also a prosecutor for over five years and I much preferred defense counsel to actually put my evidence through the paces rather than those who would just plead their clients out without really even taking much of a look at the record. The system to function needs to be continually tested.
Our system is adversarial and requires a competent defense to insure that the police and prosecutors and judges follow the constitution. Gideon v Wainright etc. Prosecutors should welcome a vigorous hard fought defense, as their role is not to convict but to seek justice and sometimes justice is an ng, sometimes it is a hung jury sometimes it is a plea to a lesser included as is what occurred in this case. Besides being a public defender, I was also a prosecutor for over five years and I much preferred defense counsel to actually put my evidence through the paces rather than those who would just plead their clients out without really even taking much of a look at the record. The system to function needs to be continually tested.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I think Gotchaye has explained well why this analogy fails. The confusion here seems to arise from how a person's duty is related to the morality of the thing done. Zealously defending a criminal defendant is not an evil act that is justified by the defense attorney's ethical duty--contrary to how you appear to be interpreting the discussion so far. Instead, zealously defending a criminal defendant is a morally praiseworthy act which defense attorney's have an ethical duty to perform. In other words, nobody's saying that because Clinton was "just following orders," she was justified in doing something wrong; we're saying that she did the right thing in zealously defending a criminal defendant, regardless of her beliefs as to his innocence. And we say that that is "the right thing" with reference to the overall justice system, not just her ethical obligations.
RustyNails
Member
How is this related to #Benghazi?
Mackenzie 92
Member
Sounds more like the prosecutor botched the case, they had no evidence. I think she was laughing more out of disgust, I dunno. Pretty sketchy stuff, but defense lawyers are, well, defense lawyers. It's their job to defend scum so I guess they have to be able to disconnect on some level.
when reached for comment, Hillary said " at this point, what difference does it make?"
Trent Strong
Banned
Gaffers will eviscerate a comedian who makes a rape joke, but vigorously defend someone who helps an actual, real life rapist go free because she's a democrat. smh.
I'm sure there's at least a LITTLE more nuance than your nonsense statement.
i'm assuming this is a joke, because one can't be this dumb to be said seriously
There is an agenda here. I can smell it!!!
RustyNails
Member
Barf. Are you being serious?
More like because she was a court appointed defense attorney.
You know the right to counsel? One of the fundamental parts of the US legal system.
But don't let that stop you with your false equivalence, and your worthless driveby post without reading or watching any of the material.
Trent Strong
Banned
Yeah, I'm sure everyone in here who's defending Clinton would also be defending Mitt Romney if he had done the same thing. Yes, certainly.
What false equivalence?
equippedwithtowel
Member
Yeah I fucking would, if Romney was a public defender instead of a corporate raider I'd have a lot more respect for him.
- Status