[John H K]

Setting aside ones' opinion of Hillary Clinton (and mine is as low of her as everyone else here) people need to get over the idea (which has inspired some REALLY long threads on FR) that being a criminal defense attorney in the structure of the American legal system is inherently evil or immoral. There seems to be a fairly large proportion of people that just don't get it.

Without a really extensive investigation and article on the specific case in question it's not clear what the facts are or whether a rape really occured, hence whether the person Hillary defended was a "rapist." Not every allegation of rape is true. (And I speak as someone who has been on a jury in a sexual molestation case and was basically the sole person that persuaded the rest of the jury to convict the defendant.)

[Mia T]

The pesky fact of the defendant's semen and blood on the twelve-year-old girl renders it statutory rape, by definition.

That said, the issue isn't THAT rapist. The issue isn't LAWYERS. The issue is the RAPIST CLINTONS.

The evidence in the Ford Bldg was sufficient to change enough votes in the House to impeach the basta*d. And SHE is just as guilty as he, perhaps even more so.

[jla]

Your comments would be valid if we weren't speaking of the reprobate Clinton's.
reread the excerpt from the book and tell me how many of H's thoughts 'n recollections appear a tad skewed, as well as deceptive.

H using the term "woman lawyer" just bugs the heck out of me for some reason.

[WorkingClassFilth]

"...people need to get over the idea (which has inspired some REALLY long threads on FR) that being a criminal defense attorney in the structure of the American legal system is inherently evil or immoral."

John, the point is not whether a rape actually occurred or, for that matter, the merits of being an attorney. The idea here is about the Clinton machinations surrounding this chicken catcher's sexual crime in particular, and documenting the larger, more continuous Krinton pattern of legal subversion and sexual predation.

The Krinton crimes continue and the need for documentation continues. Thank you, Mia.

[OldFriend]

Here is my interpretation of the 'rape case'.

HRC states that she consulted with a NY attorney and he cast doubt on the semen evidence. How this could be done from afar without a scientific exam by the attorney is a mystery.

Further, it would seem that HRC used this 'expert' opinion to convince the judge to allow the rapist to plead guilty to sexual assault.

If the evidence was not reliable then why not simply go to trial.

Poor folks just don't get justice, or the attorney for the rapist was simply more interested in impressing the Judge than seeing that the victim got justice.

You decide!