Posted on 10/10/2016 4:08:04 PM PDT by Mean Daddy
When Donald Trump invited several women who had accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault to Sunday night’s debate, he also highlighted a case that may have been unfamiliar to many voters -- that of Kathy Shelton.
Unlike the claims of Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey -- the other women hosted by Trump -- Shelton’s accusations are not aimed at Bill Clinton. Rather, she alleges Hillary Clinton verbally attacked her while defending the man Shelton had accused of rape in 1975.
And while Clinton pushed back during the debate as Trump cited their stories, there is a paper trail to back up some of Shelton's account.
Shelton was 12 years old when she accused 41-year-old Thomas Alfred Taylor of rape. Taylor was defended by a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, who took up the case despite saying she didn’t want it -- and called into question Shelton's reliability.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The Devil laughs again
She was appointed by the court to defend an indigent defendant. She didn't have a choice.
-- and called into question Shelton's reliability.
That's what defense lawyers do.
I'm a lawyer. I have defended people who "did it." That's what the Constitution requires. The other criticism of Hillary is amply justified, but I don't agree about this instance.
Clinton accused a 12 year old victim of “Fantasizing about having sex with adult men” that goes BEYOND just defending your client
Was she the public defender at the time?
This issue is about to fade, as rapidly as it arose. It’s done the damage it could to Trump and his riposte is already killing Her Heinous. Trump might just have decided to keep the issue open for a little longer because she really can’t deal with it.
You did see the part in the post that he is a lawyer, right? That means get your client off by any means necessary. And in rape trials these wonderful lawyers always attack the victim. I don’t understand how they sleep at night.
No, she was (according to what I've read), specially appointed by the judge (which typically happens if the regular Public Defender has a conflict of interest).
I can sure understand how people can and do feel indignant when someone who truly is guilty is defended by an attorney. Once upon a time, I felt that way too until after sitting in on a capitol murder trial at the federal level. That was one of the most educational experiences I’ve ever had despite the circumstances.
The judge took every precaution on behalf of the defendant...which at the time I resented and was outraged by. However, in doing so, he prevented that case from being lost on appeal. Every possible constitutional protection was strictly adhered to so when the case eventually wound up at the United States Supreme Court, even they said...nope. No appeal.
These men were indigent and in fact were prison escapees, yet they received a world class multimillion dollar defense. And I’m VERY glad they did!
It would have been horrid and traumatic to go through all of that only to loose at any stage of the appeals process. So, when someone receives that kind of red carpet treatment and they are found guilty, they are guilty indeed! No more questions on that case.
And, I agree with the rest..the other criticism is amply justified.
I’m a lawyer too. She laughed. She enjoyed that win. I agree that when one is appointed one has to aggressively represent the defendant but afterwards she gloated. That’s what I think is evil.
I don't agree. Sometime ago I was required to appear for jury duty. The case involved an individual accused of 1st degree assault, assault and something else. He was held for 24 monrhs before this trial.
We had to fill out a questionnaire. I added to it that the individual should fess up to his crime and take his punishment and then get his life straightened out.
Needless to say, I was called before the judge. I was told that we assume innocent until proven guilty. I didn't back off. Ultimately, I was excused.
Then I began to research the maxim of innocent until proven guilty. It came from an 1894 Supreme Court decision, Coffin vs U.S. Justice White wrote the majority opinion quoting liberally from the writing of an Irish lawyer who defended Irish rebels. But, only after turning them into the Crown and then getting to defend them.
The question I have is: Are any of the tactics Hillary used to defend that scum now disallowed under rape shield laws? If so, he should attack with that... if not, just lawyer stuff. Heck, maybe even try to pivot on the taxes to this... when hit again on taxes at the next debate... “I take advantage of every means allowed under the law to minimize my taxes paid so I can employ as many people as necessary and you attack me for it... say I should pay more than the law demands... yet when attacking the credibility of a child rape victim in trial was allowed prior to rape shield laws, you chose to take advantage of the what was allowed to shatter the life of a 12 yr old rape victim... to get your client off the hook... since you oppose taking deductions allowed under the law, should we take your actions in court to mean you are opposed to rape shield laws? I am calling for you to release all correspondence, emails, letters, and phone records related to your defense of that client and any accused rapist, including your husband. You have made it clear that you have a public stance and a private stance on issues... The American people deserve to know your private positions on the rights of rape victims.”
Apparently the defendant requested a woman and the public defender was a man.
Sandusky is in prison, until age 98 at least, and I'm certain that Corbett was never recorded laughing about it.
Clinto has demonstrated that she's a total and complete sleaze over the years, so I have little doubt that she could have squirmed out of it if she wanted to. (Or have done as poor a job as she did following the Espionage Act of 1917 and gotten Thomas Alfred Taylor hanged.)
I am also a lawyer. Defending her client WAS her job, whether she wanted it or not. Laughing about lying to the court, when a little girl was destroyed - THAT is the evil.
How many times did you laugh and brag about it?
There’s a difference between defending the guilty, vs demeaning the victim.
So you would look to destroy the reputation of a 12 year old girl and in essence put her on trial? That is how you defend as a public defender? In most of the country public defenders cut a deal to reduce jail time not get a scum completely off the hook.
There are certainly boundaries as to what kind of conduct towards a child victim is acceptable. Some, or much of what Hillary Clinton did to Kathy Shelton would not be successful, or even allowed in many courts today.
While criminal defense lawyers are by definition opposed to the interests of the victim, most defense lawyers don't try to build a political narrative about themselves which is inconsistent with their work. Hillary portrays herself in the early years of her career as an advocate for children, working at the Children's Defense Fund. But is it really plausible to claim you are an advocate for children while you are defending a child rapist?
And finally, like it or not, in the political arena actions and motivations matter. There are many things people may do as a part of their work, or because of the situation life puts them in. Some of those things aren't very popular with the public, even if they may have been part of the job description. Aggressively and successfully getting a brutal child rapist off the hook isn't something most people think is a good thing. Particularly, as in this case, when you look at the damage done to the victim by Hillary Clinton.
Reminds me of what radical lawyer William Kunstler said years ago.
“*** the law! You get him off any way you can!”
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.