I Have A Million Problems With Hillary Clinton, But This is Not One of Them

Apparently, Republicans are trying to make an issue of Hillary Clinton, 40 years ago, successfully defending an accused rapist as his court-appointed attorney.  I feel bad for any victim denied justice, but everyone deserves representation in the legal system.  Republicans talk about her defending a guilty man, but everyone is innocent before the law until convicted, so she was defending an innocent man.  Heck, she should be praised for actually doing a good job in a position a lot of attorneys would just mail it in -- get a quick plea bargain and get back to real paying clients.  Do I blame OJ's attorneys for his not guilty verdict?  Not in the least (I blame the prosecutor and a judge who could not control his courtroom).


  1. mlouis:

    But to take joy in the fact that evidence was lost? Seems to me that the goal of a lawyer should be to present a case in the best light when all the relevant facts are on the table. To take joy in an incomplete set of evidence simply means you prioritize your own outcomes over a well functioning legal system.

  2. TruthisaPeskyThing:

    Coyote, I think that Republicans have noticed that if they fight with logic, they will lose. Democrats fight with emotion, and they win. There are too many voters with very shallow interest in the issues and with very little analytical desire or capability. These voters must be reached. One can take pride in that one kept the discussion at a higher level, but that pride does not do the country much good.

  3. kidmugsy:

    My understanding is that the objection to her behaviour wasn't that she represented the fellow, but about some of the things she said afterwards when she was boasting about her success.

  4. Max Lybbert:

    I agree that Hillary did her job. I believe part of the complaint is that people don't like how the penalty portion of a trial is handled. Nearly anything is allowed in the penalty phase, from claims that the defendant had a bad childhood, to claims that their family is so supportive that they don't need a prison sentence to be reformed, or claims that the defendant is unlikely to survive prison. This is the stage where Jodi Arias said she wanted to dedicate her life to positive things, such as donating her hair to Locks of Love, as a way of avoiding the death penalty. Or the stage where Brock Turner's father mentioned that his crime -- sexual assault on an unconscious victim -- involved only "15 minutes of action." When you hear about these stories, people incorrectly say the claim is "I'm not guilty because I had a bad childhood" (or whatever the claim is), when it really is "please be lenient on me because I had a bad childhood."

    Hillary got the charge reduced. Then, during the penalty phase, she said that the underage victim was a willing participant and possibly seduced Hillary's client. It sounds bad today, and I think would have sounded bad in the '70s as well. But it is a legitimate thing to say in trying to get leniency for the client.

  5. MJM:

    The defense attorney's allegiance is to the client, the "system" is by nature adversary. Loss of evidence is not really a "technicality" and the failure to get a conviction is due to poor lab performance more than it is to spectacular legal representation.

    And note that the case under discussion was c.1975 and that DNA profiling has a birthday c.1985. In 1975 the lab could give you ABO typing which is far from conclusive evidence. It cannot say that "this and only this" person is the source of the material, which DNA can (save with identical twins). If the labs serology was the key to the case, it might not have been that strong.

    Regardless, HRC has many other traits that make her one of the most detestable people to ever walk the Earth.

  6. johnson85:

    A defense lawyer's duty to his/her client in no way requires smearing a 12 year old rape victim as inviting her own rape. Even if a lawyer wrongly believed that they were ethically obligated to smear a 12 year old rape victim, laughing about it after the fact shows an extreme callousness. Criticizing what a monster Hillary is on these two issues in no way implies that it is wrong to act as defense lawyers for an accused rapist.

    You need to correct this post to write about what is actually being complained about or find a link that provides an example of that your are accusing republicans of (and those examples do exist, but I'm not sure whether they exist from anybody prominent).

  7. GoneWithTheWind:

    Yes and no! Everyone deserves a good legal defense. Everyone does not deserve a dishonest and criminal lawyer who uses dishonest dirty tricks to get his client off. I recently read about a lawyer whose client was a violent thief attacking defenseless women and leaving them battered and injured. The lawyer was losing the case and was about to have it given to the jury and he used the ploy to have his client attack him in court punching him and yelling. The judge called a mistrial and the DA would most probably choose to make a deal letting the dangerous criminal off easy rather than go through the cost of another trial. Justice?, right?, A good defense? Or criminal? Perhaps then we would be better off with the old fashioned system where the man or men of the family hunt down the miscreant and lynch him or worse. Oh wait! That's why we are supposed to have a "justice" system so that people don't take the "justice" into their own hands. Which do you want???

  8. GoneWithTheWind:

    The Brock Turner case was not what is claimed. There was no "rape" two drunk people were making out and Brock was diddling her pussy and witnesses said that she was clearly show appreciation for his skill. At some point she passed out or claims to have passed out and Brock was maybe too drunk himself to even know it (sounds like my own sex life). Since they had sought a 'private' place to dally behind a dumpster and someone spotted them. Brock was scared off but too drunk to escape what he thought were attackers. Still no rape simply a finger and some diddling. But a strange twist of the law is that if two drunk people diddle then the man (no matter how drunk himself) is guilty of sex with someone who cannot legally give consent. AND if the finger strays into the dark abyss it is "penetration" and thus "rape". It doesn't matter that the woman wanted it, enjoyed it or even did some diddling herself. So why would any sane person/DA prosecute such a thing??? Well, the DA's of today are often a bunch of harpies who are their to "take down" men and "get even" (or something) for past egregious male behavior and in fact the DA's are often men hating dykes (I'm sure that offends someone but goes to context). So in fact there is an intent to find these "bastards" who innocently participated in mutual petting but at some point fell into the trap set by the legislatures to allow the Harpies to punish the shit out of otherwise innocent men. Did Brock "rape" the "victim"? NO! Not as any normal sane person would define rape. Did Brock "get her drunk" to have his way with her. No! In fact she got herself drunk and being older than Brock probably bears more responsibility for the mutual diddling than Brock did. Did the judge understand what was going on??? You bet your ass he did and it must be terribly frustrating to see this high tech lynching and misandry that has coopted the legal system.

  9. Max Lybbert:

    It looks like I had the details wrong: the father's statement was made to the media, not the court. Regardless of whether you believe Turner should have been charged (traditionally, if both parties were too drunk to consent it wasn't rape; apparently that's changed), it was a bad example for me to use.