Posted on 02/24/2008 10:04:10 AM PST by markomalley
In a presidential campaign focused on the future, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama spend a lot of time talking about their pasts.
Both lean heavily on tales of early, formative experiences - she running a law clinic inArkansas, he as a community organizer in Chicago - to show they understand the problems of average people.
(snip)
But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.
(snip)
In May 1975, Washington County prosecutor Mahlon Gibson called Rodham, who had taken over the law clinic months earlier, to tell her she'd been appointed to represent a hard-drinking factory worker named Thomas Alfred Taylor, who had requested a female attorney.
In her 2003 autobiography "Living History," Clinton writes that she initially balked at the assignment, but eventually secured a lenient plea deal for Taylor after a New York-based forensics expert she hired "cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff's office."
However, that account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to aNewsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.
Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
That "it is my duty to win at all costs" is one of the comfortable little lies Lawyer tell themselves. That mindset is one of the reason the country's legal system is in such a mess.
No it is not. Lawyer are rational, moral human beings. They do have a moral, and intellectual, responsibility to accept the consequences of their actions not try to cop out with a Nuremberg style defense of "We were only following orders".
Can he tell the judge this information? I realize that there is attorney/client priveledge to protect you from self-incrimination,but if the perp CONFESSES that he did it why couldn't you reveal that? In fact wouldn't your friend be in trouble if he had the knowledge of guilt, but went into court and knowingly lied for his client?
I’m not a lawyer but I believe this was privileged information.
There are certain rules that I don’t understand but there was a case the in San Diego area a few years ago where the lawyers got in trouble - and I’m trying to remember this - offering false evidence when they already knew their client was guilty. So there are limits on what the attorneys are supposed to do in defending their client but divulging confessions doesn’t seem to be permitted. AFAIK.
I think Hillary is the worst kind of lawyer and the worst kind of person - the win at all costs - I’m right and I’m going to shove it down your throat. I have zero respect for Hillary. She seems to have a huge blind spot where her own failings and misjudgments are concerned.
I agree that lawyers have an obligation for decency...unfortunately too many, including prosecutors, believe that winning matters more than justice.
Still, it’s nice to know about some of that “experience” she so fondly refers to... that said, lawyers usually defend scumbags... those are the types on that side of the legal system.
The article says Hillary tries to win legal cases, no matter how controversial. “Bloom where your planted,” the article says is Hillary’s often stated ‘motto.’
I’m sure she would “bloom” in North Korea if she were born there.
It’s all about power; not principles.
If only technology had solved this problem in all cases. Instead, the problem has shifted to one in which it is agreed intercourse occurred. The female says she was raped, the male says it was consensual.
The only way to defend these cases is to challenge the credibility of the victim. A good example is the Kobe Bryant case.
Is she finally being thrown overboard?
GOOD GRIEF!!! She was DESTROYING the VICTIM evne THEN!! She is VILE and EVIL! a 12 year old GIRL she RUINED!
Yet another reason that the Hildebeast’s political career must go down in a flaming spiral NOW. Then we have to deal with the depravity of the leftist fraud that is Obama Hussein, but it is most fitting that Shrillary’s aspirations to higher office end NOW. She is ruthless, dishonest, and viciously depraved to the core.
What else is new?
Nixon won in 1968 and 1972 so he would not be able to run in 1976. Am I reading this wrong....or was it incorrectly written?
You are right. That sentence doesn’t seem to make sense. I didn’t even notice that.
“While working on the Whitewater scam, she authored a clause in the contract of the worthless land parcels that were sold that stated that if the buyers were so much as 1 day late on their payments the previous payments reverted to rent and title reverted back to the seller who, of course lost any down payment and equity.”
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
I think I know what you are trying to say but the sentence as written makes no sense.
Of course there is the little problem of knowing whether a person accused of rape really is a rapist. According to radical feminist arguments, no woman ever lies when accusing a man of rape, so any man accused of rape should just be sentenced without the bother of a trial.
I’ve read about this before. This one item alone would be enough to prove that the Clintons are evil people who should never have been entrusted with public office.
Isn't it the sick truth, Johnnie. She is VILE. A TWELVE year-old. As a mother, I feel like vomiting.
Go back and read it carefully. The idea was to drag out the proceedings so that Nixon would not be removed from office, and Ford would not be a sitting President when the election rolled around in 1976.
BTTT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.