If they want to pass blame, blame the system which setup this situation.

Allowing lawyers to smear victims in order to sway them away from convicting the defendant. Comes pretty much straight down from the Roman system of 'justice' where everything was all about how good your lawyer was at baffling with BS, and nothing to do with the actual evidence of the case.

What Hillary did is no better and no worse than what defense lawyers do day in and day out, because we as a society find it acceptable that they be allowed to revictimize victims in court to protect defendants.

as the link clearly stated. She was appointed.

responsibility to prove a case and the defending attorney to point to possible flaws in the state's case. Not saying it is right but the case could come up again and again if the attorney is negligent in defending their client and perhaps get the easier sentence for their client. Don't like rapists but in the USA they are entitled to a trial with a defending attorney.

I'd be willing to be to money the Beacon left crucial details out, like they do here.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/14/what-the-free-beacon-doesnt-want-you-to-know-ab/198055

The actual interview with the victim was conducted by The Daily Beast and in it the victim says clearly that Clinton lied to her and that the Newsweek article of 2008 misquoted her.

So are Beast and TPM "conservakook" newspapers?

...if it really was a plea bargain, then the victim should have never had to take the stand to testify. Unless she was grilled during the preliminary hearing or something.

How sure is the Daily Beast that this person really is the said victim in that case?

The bottom-line is: criminal defense attorneys defend all sorts of unsavory clients all the time. She was just doing her job.

the article doesn't give enough details, but it said that clinton's client passed a polygraph case and that clinton was able to cast doubt on the victim's testimony (however odious that process invariably may be).

yet clinton apparently still believed her client was guilty. rather than go to trial, which she might well have won, she had her client plea bargain so he would serve some jail time.

sounds to me like clinton was in a tough ethical spot and may have achieved a good outcome, serving her client's interests by avoiding a possibly much longer conviction, yet serving justice by not getting him off entirely.


of course i don't know the details. republicans will of course claim that it was an open and shut case and clinton was only able to get a lesser plea out of it because she behaved monstrously.

Democrats. And where is the GOP operative behind this one, because of course there is.

This doesn't sound like a valid criticism to me, but my heart does go out for this victim. I can only imagine how evil an attorney must seem when she is defending someone who victimized you, but our legal system cannot work properly without them.

her client if she believed he was innocent. This is as stupid an attempt to smear a lawyer as the one that has been used to try to smear Glenn Greenwald when he was acting as a defense attorney.

There isn't a defense attorney alive who couldn't be attacked this way for doing their job.

Jeez, some people will say anything just to bash our next president.

. . . not this crap again.

You know this is recycled, composted bullshit?

and their head tea bagger Josh Marshall.

. . . certainly that's reflected here at Democratic Underground.

"was just doing her job" & that she didn't have a problem with HRC. Now, in 2014, HRC is the Devil Incarnate. I think I would be interested to see what sort of deposits she has in her bank account and from whom. This seems a little too conveniently timed. BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI doesn't seem to have any traction, so why not dredge up a 40 year old legal case?

I really hope HRC doesn't run because I really don't want to vote for her--she's too much of a hawk for m taste, but this is just plain bullshit.

The job of a defense attorney is to vigorously defend the interests of his/her client. As despicable as a defendant is, our system is set up this way.

Even the worst of the worst criminals are entitled to legal representation. Hillary was a good lawyer (she was named twice as one of the best 100 lawyers in the country), and did whatever was in her legal arsenal to get the best deal for her client. In other words, she was doing her job. A job, BTW, that she was appointed to do. It sounds like this was a pro bono case. What she personally thought of her client's actions is besides the point.

A spokesperson for Clinton did not respond to a request for comment to the Daily Beast. But as Rogin pointed out, a spokesman told Newsday in the 2008 article that Clinton was appointed to the case and "had an ethical and legal obligation to defend (her client) to the fullest extent of the law."

Last edited Fri Jun 20, 2014, 02:12 PM - Edit history (2)

"... now that ________________________."

A. Someone is paying me to embellish my story.
B. I've had past life regression therapy.
C. I escaped captivity from the Arkansas Clinton Compound.

Deepest sympathies to the girl, but apparently the alleged perp passed a lie detector test and there was thin evidence against him. Hillary was doing her job.

The way that many attorneys in rape cases do it by attacking the victim and blaming the victim disgusts me.

Obligated to defend, yes. Obligated to do it in a reprehensible manner, no.

I don't know enough about this case to pass judgement, just venting on how I have seen rape victims further victimized by defense attorneys, and I don't buy the "just doing my job" defense when they go out of their way to victimize rape victims a second time as a defense strategy.

and add that Hillary also had the right to refuse the case. She agreed to defend a pedophile rapist and part of her strategy was to viciously attack a twelve year old girl's character. She could have easily backed away from the case by claiming she had a prejudice toward the client and there was a conflict of interest. Instead, she chose to be the female lawyer the pedophile requested as a means to add credibility to his defense. This is the first I've heard of the story and it really comes as no surprise, because my opinion of Hillary's character, or lack thereof, was formed long, long ago.