Support NeoGAF

[NYCmetsfan]

Josh Rogin is a foreign affairs writer, but with deep neocon connections (the daily beasts entire FA section are just ways for the conservative elements to spread FUD and fear in the Obama age. The fact he got this "exclusive" is prettt much confirmation this is an organized attack on Clinton to force her to respond to it during her book tour.

 

[Dilly]

Not only she just doing her job, this was 40 years ago.

 

[Fusebox]

If Hilary took her through hell, what kind of rhetoric does she use to describe what her rapist did?

 

[Vermillion]

True, you can ask to be removed. What are the other things?

If you can't be removed, you can let your client make their statement and let it be. This is more of a method to avoid perjuring yourself, though, if you have a particularly indefensible client that insists on telling fables.

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

Not surprised.

Hilary probably did a lot more fucked up & twisted things that will be shown the light if she runs for President.

 

[Katsa]

Whether this is true or not, she better be ready for a whole lot more of these stories popping up.

Yup. Hunting season in Washington is around the corner... from both sides.

 

[Balphon]

If you can't be removed, you can let your client make their statement and let it be. This is more of a method to avoid perjuring yourself, though, if you have a particularly indefensible client that insists on telling fables.

Defending the guilty and knowingly allowing or suborning perjury are entirely different things. The former does not require the latter.

 

[foxtrot3d]

If you can't be removed, you can let your client make their statement and let it be. This is more of a method to avoid perjuring yourself, though, if you have a particularly indefensible client that insists on telling fables.

That's a different thing.

Defending the guilty and suborning perjury are entirely different things. The former does not require the latter.

What he said.

 

[echoshifting]

If you can't be removed, you can let your client make their statement and let it be. This is more of a method to avoid perjuring yourself, though, if you have a particularly indefensible client that insists on telling fables.

I don't think you are accurately representing how this generally works. Defense lawyers represent factually guilty clients all the time. Wouldn't what you are suggesting here make her terrible at her job?

 

[TheOrangeKid007]

Topics like these are just proof to me that as long as its someone is "on your team" people will justify anything.

I will wait until a major news outlet decides to run this though. I don't know enough about the sources provided.

 

[CornBurrito]

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.

How many years ago was this?

 

[Couleurs]

Wait, so now Republicans care about rape? (in ways other than blaming the victim)

 

[squidyj]

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.

she mentioned facts that might be relevant to the case? BURN THE WITCH.

 

[equippedwithtowel]

Topics like these are just proof to me that as long as its someone is "on your team" people will justify anything.

Neogaf is just lousy with public defenders isn't it?

 

[SchrodingerC]

They know 2014 isn't the presidential election, right?

Gotta start early for the potential voters!

2016 is going the be a bloodbath on both sides.

 

[K.Sabot]

Not surprised.

Hilary probably did a lot more fucked up & twisted things that will be shown the light if she runs for President.

Well, she did in 2011...

edit: 2011 primaries that is.

 

[StoopKid]

Topics like these are just proof to me that as long as its someone is "on your team" people will justify anything.

I will wait until a major news outlet decides to run this though. I don't know enough about the sources provided.

I'm sure Fox News will ramble about this all day on Monday.

 

[foxuzamaki]

Topics like these are just proof to me that as long as its someone is "on your team" people will justify anything.

I will wait until a major news outlet decides to run this though. I don't know enough about the sources provided.

Topics like these also show who're ignorant

 

[Slayven]

Wait, so now Republicans care about rape?

Obama recently announced a plan to reduce sexual assault at colleges. And some on the right had a problem with it.

 

[robochimp]

Whether this is true or not, she better be ready for a whole lot more of these stories popping up.

She's been fending off political attacks for the last 40 years. She'll be fine.

 

[Karsticles]

I'm not going to critisize a defense lawyer for doing their constitutional job, however if true this is disgusting:

My almost TV-like understanding is that a lawyer still has to be honest. If Hillary Clinton knew her client was guilty, is she allowed to pretend otherwise?

Regardless, the fact is that lawyers are lawyers, politicians are politicians, actors are actors, and when you get all three wrapped in one person you better lock it away before a lot of people get hurt.

If Hilary took her through hell, what kind of rhetoric does she use to describe what her rapist did?

I am not sure if you know any victims of sexual assault, but one comforting thought many of them have is that if the proper people knew what happened to them, they would be loved and cared for. One of the most terrifying things to happen to a sexual assault victim is to either have someone important not believe you, or (maybe) worse, lie about what happened to you. Validation about your experience, which is often very confusing for the victim, is important. Is it worse than the rape? I don't know, but I know that it hurts deep.

 

[echoshifting]

Topics like these are just proof to me that as long as its someone is "on your team" people will justify anything.

My, what a ridiculous and patently absurd generalization you've made here. Congratulations.

 

[sjack]

Dunno about those comments in the tapes but she was a criminal defense attorney, her job was to get the guy off or with the least minimum sentence possible.

She could've refused the case out of moral obligation, and her callous nature in the tapes reveal how little she cared about the victim. It's one thing to do your job as an attorney, but to present yourself as a champion of anti-rape after pulling this bullshit? Fuck Clinton.

 

[Devolution]

Well whatever happened at least she did this:

In that book, Clinton gave vague details about her actions in the case and said that shortly thereafter, she helped set up Arkansas’s first rape hotline.

 

[foxtrot3d]

By the way let me just point out why defense is still important even when it's clear you are guilty. Let's say you have some illegal contraband in your house (drugs, weapons, illegally downloaded music/games) and the police just storm into your house without a warrant, find it, and then arrest you. Now, factually you are guilty beyond any question, but legally they probably had no right to enter your house without a warrant. Should someone defend your rights then even though you are clearly guilty?

EDIT:

She could've refused the case out of moral obligation, and her callous nature in the tapes reveal how little she cared about the victim. It's one thing to do your job as an attorney, but to present yourself as a champion of anti-rape after pulling this bullshit? Fuck Clinton.

As has been said before you cannot simply refuse a case as a defense attorney and it was 40 years ago.

 

[thefit]

They know 2014 isn't the presidential election, right?

They know that Hillary running means Bill having essentially chance at a 3rd term and they are motherfuking scared. They also know that the way they have become less inclusive of a party and the low gene pool of candidates they have been trotting out recently won't fly on a national level and it almost certainly guarantees another democratic president so they have not wasted any chance at destroying her image this isn't shit compared to what you'll see in 2016.

 

[riotous]

Defending the guilty and knowingly allowing or suborning perjury are entirely different things. The former does not require the latter.

The defendant did not admit his guilt to her, she says right on the tape that he claimed he didn't do it.

She basically was just saying she believes the guy was guilty with her comment about the lie detector.

For all we know, he actually didn't do it.

Listen to the audio either way and judge for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4

I'm not a big Hillary fan, but this all just seams really silly.

 

[Vermillion]

Defending the guilty and knowingly allowing or suborning perjury are entirely different things. The former does not require the latter.

I am aware. I did make the distinction myself. If you're forced to defend a rapist (say, the last two attorneys didn't want to defend him), then you do defend them in the ways you can. Which doesn't require shitting on the victim, but whatever.

Wait, was Hillary a public defender or...?

 

[equippedwithtowel]

My almost TV-like understanding is that a lawyer still has to be honest. If Hillary Clinton knew her client was guilty, is she allowed to pretend otherwise?

I'm pretty sure attorney-client privilege is a thing on Law and Order.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

its that time again huh?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Well whatever happened at least she did this:

But she laughed discussing prosicutorial incompetence! She hates women and children now!

In all honesty though I feel for the girl.

 

[Vermillion]

That's a different thing.

What he said.

Again, I made that distinction myself.

I don't think you are accurately representing how this generally works. Defense lawyers represent factually guilty clients all the time. Wouldn't what you are suggesting here make her terrible at her job?

Not in the context I suggested it in, no.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

The problem with the Swift Boat Strategy is you can only use it once.

You wanna make a bet!

 

[echoshifting]

Not in the context I suggested it in, no.

So the context you're suggesting applies to this case?

 

[sjack]

As has been said before you cannot simply refuse a case as a defense attorney and it was 40 years ago.

And yet the psychological effects that the victim suffered from it have still been negatively impacting her life up until this day.

 

[riotous]

My almost TV-like understanding is that a lawyer still has to be honest. If Hillary Clinton knew her client was guilty, is she allowed to pretend otherwise?

She didn't know he was guilty. Or at least, she never said she "knew" he was guilty.. she claimed he said he was innocent in fact.

 

[Aeriscloud]

Is that in the Lawyercratic Oath or something? Defend someone even if you know theyre guilty?

The problem isn't that he was guilty if you listen to the tapes, it's the fact that the prosecutor screws up several times, and the guy passes a lie detector test.

 

[Karsticles]

She didn't know he was guilty. Or at least, she never said she "knew" he was guilty.. she claimed he said he was innocent in fact.

Did you read this part:

“He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Clinton says on the recording, failing to hold back some chuckles.

The context makes it pretty clear that she thought he wasn't innocent.

 

[thefro]

And yet the psychological effects that the victim suffered from it have still been negatively impacting her life up until this day.

That's true and I have all the sympathy in the world for the victim having to go through that, but it's not Hillary's fault that the victim ended up being an unemployed convicted criminal.

 

[Vermillion]

So the context you're suggesting applies to this case?

I'm not aware of the full process. If she didn't commit perjury, then it is unlikely.

At the same time, you don't have to shit on a victim to defend a rapist. Of course, this all still depends on what exactly happened during the case.

 

[echoshifting]

Did you read this part:

The context makes it pretty clear that she thought he wasn't innocent.

That may be, but there is an important distinction between thinking someone is guilty and knowing someone is guilty, especially for defense attorneys. We presume innocence, no matter what.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

I don't personally want Hilary Clinton in office, but a lawyer twisting the facts to defend a guilty client? Whoopty-fucking-doo! If she wasn't shrewd and capable of making morally questionable decisions person she would never have gotten as far as she has in politics. And she was 27 at the time? On one of her first cases? Good luck making that stick, she was practically a baby in political terms. Good to see an early start to the mud slinging for 2016 though. I expect to see a loooooooot more of the "Hilary Clinton is a bitch" narrative moving forward.

 

[antonz]

The conflicting account on why she took the case is a factor. If she took it simply as a favor to the prosecution than her laughing about it etc is that much worse because she had a choice.

If a Judge forces you on the case short of pulling a Denny Crane you are pretty much stuck

 

[MartyStu]

If anyone wants to actually have any constructive conversation about this, LISTEN TO THE TAPE.

 

[royalan]

She could've refused the case out of moral obligation, and her callous nature in the tapes reveal how little she cared about the victim. It's one thing to do your job as an attorney, but to present yourself as a champion of anti-rape after pulling this bullshit? Fuck Clinton.

People are interpreting her statements on the tape as Hillary gleefully acting in cahoots with a known rapist.

The fact that her client passed the lie detector test (which Hilary herself advised him to take) leads me to believe that, at the very least, if the guy WAS guilty he wasn't telling his defense lawyer that.

Hillary's comments on the tapes seem to imply that she personally believed that her client may have been guilty, but not that she knew for sure, and she still had a duty to defend her client. And if you guys don't believe that defending a client you believe may be guilty is an everyday moral dilemma for defense attorneys, you're kidding yourself.

At the end of the day a job has to be done, and a lawyer has to put aside their personal biases and beliefs to effectively represent their clients. That's their job. Besides, this is a Hillary Clinton in her 20s, and it's her first case. She likely wasn't in the position to start turning down cases at that stage and still have a viable career in law.

 

[thefro]

At the same time, you don't have to shit on a victim to defend a rapist. Of course, this all still depends on what exactly happened during the case.

Nobody saw what she wrote except the judge & prosecutor. It's not like she took out an ad in the paper.

 

[foxtrot3d]

And yet the psychological effects that the victim suffered from it have still been negatively impacting her life up until this day.

Okay so...

I'm pretty sure the psychological effects of the rape were more damaging than Hilary's defense of the perpetrator.

 

[Karsticles]

That may be, but there is an important distinction between thinking someone is guilty and knowing someone is guilty, especially for defense attorneys. We presume innocence, no matter what.

To make the statement she did, it would be knowing, not thinking. That is how I read it, at least.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

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.”

This is not entirely correct from a psychology perspective at all, but hasn't it been proven that things like eyewitness accounts and such are really unreliable? A la the Ronald Cotton case? I mean, I'm no Hillary fan by any stretch of the imagination, but this seems to be grasping at straws to say she was doing anything but her job.

 

[riotous]

Did you read this part:

The context makes it pretty clear that she thought he wasn't innocent.

Thinking the guy is guilty isn't the same as knowing.

People are accusing her of allowing perjury in this thread.

Her comments indicate she believed he was guilty.. she outright says the guy claimed he wasn't. Unless she's lying, which is possible, she didn't do anything unethical.