Hillary Laughs about defending Rapist

Originally posted by Eladar
The facts don't matter?

Is it a fact that she had to take the case?

It's a fact she was assigned it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Snopes is a joke.
Without equivocation, she is derisive in her reactions to the elements of the case, including the knowledge that polygraph tests are faulty--- since she [b]knew her client was guilty.
So, ass wipe, let's be human for fifteen seconds.
It's your 12 year old daughter/sister/cousin who was clearly raped by a 41 year old man.
Are you w ...[text shortened]... make sure he had a fair shot, an "ethical" shot at things?

You disgusting piece of vile crap.[/b]

There was no claim of consent in this case (consent would be legally irrelevant), so you don't know what you are talking about.

Lawyers don't know that their clients are guilty unless the clients tell them so (and not even necessarily then), so HRC wouldn't have "known". As it is, her client denied sexual contact, so that was the theory of the case she presented in the pre-trial motions. She did so, which was her obligation under the law.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's a fact she was assigned it.

Not from what I read. The site that I read said that she was asked to take the case as a favor.

Originally posted by no1marauder
There was no claim of consent in this case (consent would be legally irrelevant), so you don't know what you are talking about.

Lawyers don't know that their clients are guilty unless the clients tell them so (and not even necessarily then), so HRC wouldn't have "known". As it is, her client denied sexual contact, so that was the theory of the case she presented in the pre-trial motions. She did so, which was her obligation under the law.

I don't know what I'm talking about.
Rich.
So what was the purpose of Clinton introducing the concocted suggestion that the 12 year old had fantasized about being with older men?

Here's the sad thing: you know what you're talking about and yet you persist in attempting to justify Clinton.

Originally posted by Eladar
Not from what I read. The site that I read said that she was asked to take the case as a favor.

Did a bit more research. She claims she felt she could not turn the request down. If you want to get in with a corrupt system then you must play ball when asked.

In other words she could turn it down but she chose not to. Something more than being pro woman was taking place.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't know what I'm talking about.
Rich.
So what was the purpose of Clinton introducing the concocted suggestion that the 12 year old had fantasized about being with older men?

Here's the sad thing: you know what you're talking about and yet you persist in attempting to justify Clinton.

Figure it out; it shouldn't be that difficult.

A 12 year old says there was sexual contact with your client; your client denies it. Assuming you have to present a theory of the defense consistent with what your client claims, what would you say in pre-trial pleadings?

EDIT: From the Snopes article which references the case documents:

Documents from the 1975 case include an affidavit (p. 34) sworn by Clinton, from which the "in court, Hillary told the judge that I made up the rape story" portion of the claims was derived. That affidavit doesn't show, as claimed, that Hillary Clinton asserted the defendant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about men"; rather, it shows that other people, including an expert in child psychology, had said that the complainant was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body," and that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences." Clinton therefore asked the court to have the complainant undergo a psychiatric exam (at the defense's expense) to determine the validity of that information:

Originally posted by Eladar
Did a bit more research. She claims she felt she could not turn the request down. If you want to get in with a corrupt system then you must play ball when asked.

In other words she could turn it down but she chose not to. Something more than being pro woman was taking place.

From a 2014 interview with the prosecutor in the case (Gibson):

Gibson said that it is “ridiculous” for people to question how Clinton became Taylor’s representation.

“She got appointed to represent this guy,” he told CNN when asked about the controversy.

According to Gibson, Maupin Cummings, the judge in the case, kept a list of attorneys who would represent poor clients. Clinton was on that list and helped run a legal aid clinic at the time.

Taylor was assigned a public defender in the case but Gibson said he quickly “started screaming for a woman attorney” to represent him.

Gibson said Clinton called him shortly after the judge assigned her to the case and said, “I don't want to represent this guy. I just can't stand this. I don't want to get involved. Can you get me off?”

“I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don't jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn't remove her and she stayed on the case.”

Originally posted by Eladar
Did a bit more research. She claims she felt she could not turn the request down. If you want to get in with a corrupt system then you must play ball when asked.

In other words she could turn it down but she chose not to. Something more than being pro woman was taking place.

If someone accused you of rape, would you want a lawyer to help defend you against the charges?

Originally posted by no1marauder
From a 2014 interview with the prosecutor in the case (Gibson):

Gibson said that it is “ridiculous” for people to question how Clinton became Taylor’s representation.

“She got appointed to represent this guy,” he told CNN when asked about the controversy.

According to Gibson, Maupin Cummings, the judge in the case, kept a list of attorneys who w ...[text shortened]... bson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn't remove her and she stayed on the case.”

Where did it say she had to take the case?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If someone accused you of rape, would you want a lawyer to help defend you against the charges?

Typical internet debate tactic. Change the topic.

The topic is whether or not Hillary could have refused the case because she is pro woman.

Originally posted by Eladar
Typical internet debate tactic. Change the topic.

The topic is whether or not Hillary could have refused the case because she is pro woman.

People who are "pro woman" don't think accused rapists should get a fair trial?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
People who are "pro woman" don't think accused rapists should get a fair trial?

If that person was a public defender and forced to take the case then sure.

If the person is pro woman and in private practice then it is immoral to defend the male rapist.

Originally posted by Eladar
If that person was a public defender and forced to take the case then sure.

If the person is pro woman and in private practice then it is immoral to defend the male rapist.

So you agree with Donald Trump that the US should abolish due process for people accused of heinous crimes? If not, what's "immoral" about defending someone accused of a crime even when you are not "forced" to do so?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So you agree with Donald Trump that the US should abolish due process for people accused of heinous crimes? If not, what's "immoral" about defending someone accused of a crime even when you are not "forced" to do so?

So if I say the rapist does not have the right to refuse a public defender I am actually saying I do not believe in due process. Great libtard logic there.