Hillary Clinton MUST Apologize to Trump!

[protectionist]

Hillary Clinton should be THANKING Donald Trump and his supporters, not apologizing to them. LOL

Because of Trump & his supporters, another 17% of the population (Hispanics) are now solidly in her column. This when the GOP nominee, since Reagan has to capture at least 40% of the Hispanic vote to win the White House.
GOP Win Will Need More Than 40 Percent Of Latino 2016 Vote, Says Study

It's not like Trump didn't know this before he declared war on Hispanics. He did.
2012 FLASHBACK: Donald Trump Said GOP Was Too ‘Mean-Spirited’ Towards Illegal Immigrants

Of course the right wing of the party drove women off in 2012. In 2016 it's Hispanics.
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History

So besides themselves, I sure don't know who's going to vote for Republicans anymore. Trump is polling at a NEGATIVE 75% with Hispanics and he's losing women by 2 to 1. In fact, these numbers are soooo bad now, it wouldn't surprise me to see Republicans lose the Senate and a ton of seats in the house.
Poll: 75% of Latinos Have Negative View of Donald Trump

But there is one HAPPY Gal in all of this and she wants to give all you Tea Party/anti-establishment groupies a shout out for your continued support. With these numbers it appears that your "raining men" platform has already collapsed. This year you did it record time-- before the 1st primary vote was even cast--LOL Because of you Hillary Clinton is going to paint this country blue from sea to shining sea.

The fact that you base your whole post on such dopey assumptions like >> "the GOP nominee, since Reagan has to capture at least 40% of the Hispanic vote to win the White House." That is a stupid, tossed around myth, commonly expressed on liberal media, which I have refuted about 100 times in the forums. For your edification, Hispanic voting matters very little (if at all) since as a group Hispanics are the lowest voting ethnic group in America, with only 31% of them voting as opposed to far higher %s of Whites and Blacks.

But you can keep on believing all your pipedream talk, just as they said the Hispanic vote would crush the Republicans in 2014. Ho hum. I should be getting paid for all this education I'm dispensing.

Hispanics punch below their weight in midterm elections

 

[Faun]

And which of those accusations became actual convictions?

Are you saying you don't believe this long list has any truth in it. You don't want to be laughed out of the forum now do you ? And it'snot just a matter of convictions. It's a matter of honesty/integrity vs being the lying scum that she is.

She would be convicted RIGHT NOW, for a whole nother long list of crimes, if only she didn't have the Obamans covering for her.

You said it was what led her to be fired. Nothing in your list pertains to that event.

So what else ya got that led to her being fired (even though Zeifman said he didn't fire her before he said he did).

 

[protectionist]

You said it was what led her to be fired. Nothing in your list pertains to that event.

So what else ya got that led to her being fired (even though Zeifman said he didn't fire her before he said he did).

I don't need anything about her being fired. I'm talking about the TOPIC of this thread which is Hillary Clinton's deceit, which covers MANY deceitful instances. for over 40 years. You are the one who is straying from the topic by isolating on one small sub-issue, because you think you have a leverage (which you don't, and it wouldn;t matter if you did) Talk to the TOPIC.

 

[Faun]

Yeah sure, after all the lies you've told about Hillary, do you really think an honest person will believe that exaggerated bullshit?
Well yes, you probably are that stupid.

The case fell apart because of contradictory statements by the complainant and prosecutorial incompetence in bungling the case by destroying evidence.

There really is no level too low for you to stoop to defend that disgusting hag, is there?
Exclusive: ‘Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,’ Rape Victim Says

There is no lie too low for the lying scum Right to stoop to about Clinton.

The girl was caught lying both in the past and in her statements as well as after the case was ended. Furthermore, nowhere in the interview that the liar claims triggered her lies in your article, does Clinton laugh at the alleged victim. Clinton laughs when she describes her client’s polygraph results and the prosecutors fucking up the case by destroying evidence.

You just keep sinking lower and lower. Let's see the evidence that the 12 year old rape victim was "caught lying" (other than Hillary saying "she was told"). She knew the accused was lying (laughed about it) but still attacked the victim and called HER the liar. I don't know who is more of a scum, Hillary or you for defending her.

What further evidence did she need? Her client, who knew the victim, could have told her that.

Are you fucking serious??? You're saying her client (the rapist who she admitted was guilty) TOLD her the victim was lying, and that's your evidence???

WTF is wrong with you??

I didn't say he DID tell her. I said he COULD have told her.

You pointed out Hillary said she was told the young girl had lied in the past. I'm pointing out one plausible source for who could have told that to Hillary.

 

[protectionist]

WTF is wrong with you??

I didn't say he DID tell her. I said he COULD have told her.

You pointed out Hillary said she was told the young girl had lied in the past. I'm pointing out one plausible source for who could have told that to Hillary.

Yeah ? Well how about talking about THIS >>


UPDATED LINKS to HILLARY CLINTON’S (and Bill’s) LIES!

Let’s Be Friends

White House says Clinton did not heed e-mail policy

Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions

Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audit for other errors

Hillary Clinton fired from Judiciary Committee Investigating Watergate

Many Clinton charity donors also got State Department awards under Hillary

Despite Hillary Clinton promise, charity did not disclose donors

For Clinton’s, speech income shows how their wealth is intertwined with charity

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company

The Disastrous Clinton Post-Presidency

Do Hillary’s Fair-Pay Talking Points Apply to Her Own Family?

Clinton Foundation Quietly Revises Mexican Billionaire’s Donation

The Spy Satellite Secrets in Hillary’s Emails

Senate committee seeks email facts from Clinton’s tech company

Hilliary Servers Kept in Bathroom Closet of Loft Apartment

Hillary Clinton’s Computer Company Wasn’t Cleared for Classified Material

The Time Hillary Clinton Networked from a Funeral

Hillary Clinton’s Million Little Lies

 

[Faun]

You said it was what led her to be fired. Nothing in your list pertains to that event.

So what else ya got that led to her being fired (even though Zeifman said he didn't fire her before he said he did).

I don't need anything about her being fired. I'm talking about the TOPIC of this thread which is Hillary Clinton's deceit, which covers MANY deceitful instances. for over 40 years. You are the one who is straying from the topic by isolating on one small sub-issue, because you think you have a leverage (which you don't, and it wouldn;t matter if you did) Talk to the TOPIC.

Well it's what you said....

Furthermore, there's no evidence her brief was either wrong or unethical. That was merely Zeifman's personal opinion. And keep in mind, he's been caught in multiple lies over the matter. He claims he fired her, when he did not. He now claims she confiscated records he then claimed were taken by John Doar.

This is a LIE. There's a ton of things she did wrong to deserve to be fired. If you want a rap sheet of it, just say the word. Rap sheet on request.

(emphasis added) but if you can't defend your claims, I understand.

 

[Faun]

WTF is wrong with you??

I didn't say he DID tell her. I said he COULD have told her.

You pointed out Hillary said she was told the young girl had lied in the past. I'm pointing out one plausible source for who could have told that to Hillary.

Yeah ? Well how about talking about THIS >>


UPDATED LINKS to HILLARY CLINTON’S (and Bill’s) LIES!

Let’s Be Friends

White House says Clinton did not heed e-mail policy

Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions

Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audit for other errors

Hillary Clinton fired from Judiciary Committee Investigating Watergate

Many Clinton charity donors also got State Department awards under Hillary

Despite Hillary Clinton promise, charity did not disclose donors

For Clinton’s, speech income shows how their wealth is intertwined with charity

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company

The Disastrous Clinton Post-Presidency

Do Hillary’s Fair-Pay Talking Points Apply to Her Own Family?

Clinton Foundation Quietly Revises Mexican Billionaire’s Donation

The Spy Satellite Secrets in Hillary’s Emails

Senate committee seeks email facts from Clinton’s tech company

Hilliary Servers Kept in Bathroom Closet of Loft Apartment

Hillary Clinton’s Computer Company Wasn’t Cleared for Classified Material

The Time Hillary Clinton Networked from a Funeral

Hillary Clinton’s Million Little Lies

Why go there where you flat out refuse to back up this claim of yours....?

There's a ton of things she did wrong to deserve to be fired.

 

[edthecynic]

She knew the accused was lying (laughed about it)

There you go lying again.
He PASSED a lie detector test and Clinton laughed at the reliability of lie detector tests.

It was the prosecutor who destroyed evidence to cover the girl's lie who butchered the case.

 

[edthecynic]

I don't know who is more of a scum, Hillary or you for defending her.

YOU, for parroting a GOP scripted lie spread by GOP hate radio.

 

[S.J.]

There really is no level too low for you to stoop to defend that disgusting hag, is there?
Exclusive: ‘Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,’ Rape Victim Says

There is no lie too low for the lying scum Right to stoop to about Clinton.

The girl was caught lying both in the past and in her statements as well as after the case was ended. Furthermore, nowhere in the interview that the liar claims triggered her lies in your article, does Clinton laugh at the alleged victim. Clinton laughs when she describes her client’s polygraph results and the prosecutors fucking up the case by destroying evidence.

You just keep sinking lower and lower. Let's see the evidence that the 12 year old rape victim was "caught lying" (other than Hillary saying "she was told"). She knew the accused was lying (laughed about it) but still attacked the victim and called HER the liar. I don't know who is more of a scum, Hillary or you for defending her.

What further evidence did she need? Her client, who knew the victim, could have told her that.

Are you fucking serious??? You're saying her client (the rapist who she admitted was guilty) TOLD her the victim was lying, and that's your evidence???

WTF is wrong with you??

I didn't say he DID tell her. I said he COULD have told her.

You pointed out Hillary said she was told the young girl had lied in the past. I'm pointing out one plausible source for who could have told that to Hillary.

Told by who? Why can't she say who? Oh, that's right, "possibly" the rapist? You're a real piece of work, aren't you?

 

[S.J.]

I don't know who is more of a scum, Hillary or you for defending her.

YOU, for parroting a GOP scripted lie spread by GOP hate radio.

Sorry, asshole, but I don't listen to radio, scumbag.

 

[Faun]

There is no lie too low for the lying scum Right to stoop to about Clinton.

The girl was caught lying both in the past and in her statements as well as after the case was ended. Furthermore, nowhere in the interview that the liar claims triggered her lies in your article, does Clinton laugh at the alleged victim. Clinton laughs when she describes her client’s polygraph results and the prosecutors fucking up the case by destroying evidence.

You just keep sinking lower and lower. Let's see the evidence that the 12 year old rape victim was "caught lying" (other than Hillary saying "she was told"). She knew the accused was lying (laughed about it) but still attacked the victim and called HER the liar. I don't know who is more of a scum, Hillary or you for defending her.

What further evidence did she need? Her client, who knew the victim, could have told her that.

Are you fucking serious??? You're saying her client (the rapist who she admitted was guilty) TOLD her the victim was lying, and that's your evidence???

WTF is wrong with you??

I didn't say he DID tell her. I said he COULD have told her.

You pointed out Hillary said she was told the young girl had lied in the past. I'm pointing out one plausible source for who could have told that to Hillary.

Told by who? Why can't she say who? Oh, that's right, "possibly" the rapist? You're a real piece of work, aren't you?

Was she even asked who told her?

 

[S.J.]

You just keep sinking lower and lower. Let's see the evidence that the 12 year old rape victim was "caught lying" (other than Hillary saying "she was told"). She knew the accused was lying (laughed about it) but still attacked the victim and called HER the liar. I don't know who is more of a scum, Hillary or you for defending her.

What further evidence did she need? Her client, who knew the victim, could have told her that.

Are you fucking serious??? You're saying her client (the rapist who she admitted was guilty) TOLD her the victim was lying, and that's your evidence???

WTF is wrong with you??

I didn't say he DID tell her. I said he COULD have told her.

You pointed out Hillary said she was told the young girl had lied in the past. I'm pointing out one plausible source for who could have told that to Hillary.

Told by who? Why can't she say who? Oh, that's right, "possibly" the rapist? You're a real piece of work, aren't you?

Was she even asked who told her?

I don't know, but I'm sure it wouldn't matter to you anyway. The rapist's word is good enough, right?

 

[Faun]

What further evidence did she need? Her client, who knew the victim, could have told her that.

Are you fucking serious??? You're saying her client (the rapist who she admitted was guilty) TOLD her the victim was lying, and that's your evidence???

WTF is wrong with you??

I didn't say he DID tell her. I said he COULD have told her.

You pointed out Hillary said she was told the young girl had lied in the past. I'm pointing out one plausible source for who could have told that to Hillary.

Told by who? Why can't she say who? Oh, that's right, "possibly" the rapist? You're a real piece of work, aren't you?

Was she even asked who told her?

I don't know, but I'm sure it wouldn't matter to you anyway. The rapist's word is good enough, right?

WTF are you talking about? Even if the rapist was the source, who said it was the truth?? You have some serious personal issues to work out.

At any rate, YOU asked, "why can't she say who?" Leading me to ask if she was even asked who told her. You don't know; so who knows why you position it as though she's hiding the source?

 

[S.J.]

Are you fucking serious??? You're saying her client (the rapist who she admitted was guilty) TOLD her the victim was lying, and that's your evidence???

WTF is wrong with you??

I didn't say he DID tell her. I said he COULD have told her.

You pointed out Hillary said she was told the young girl had lied in the past. I'm pointing out one plausible source for who could have told that to Hillary.

Told by who? Why can't she say who? Oh, that's right, "possibly" the rapist? You're a real piece of work, aren't you?

Was she even asked who told her?

I don't know, but I'm sure it wouldn't matter to you anyway. The rapist's word is good enough, right?

WTF are you talking about? Even if the rapist was the source, who said it was the truth?? You have some serious personal issues to work out.

At any rate, YOU asked, "why can't she say who?" Leading me to ask if she was even asked who told her. You don't know; so who knows why you position it as though she's hiding the source?

Tell ya what, fuckwad. When you have something intelligent to say, let me know. Until then, I'm not wasting any more time on your sorry ass.

 

[Faun]

WTF is wrong with you??

I didn't say he DID tell her. I said he COULD have told her.

You pointed out Hillary said she was told the young girl had lied in the past. I'm pointing out one plausible source for who could have told that to Hillary.

Told by who? Why can't she say who? Oh, that's right, "possibly" the rapist? You're a real piece of work, aren't you?

Was she even asked who told her?

I don't know, but I'm sure it wouldn't matter to you anyway. The rapist's word is good enough, right?

WTF are you talking about? Even if the rapist was the source, who said it was the truth?? You have some serious personal issues to work out.

At any rate, YOU asked, "why can't she say who?" Leading me to ask if she was even asked who told her. You don't know; so who knows why you position it as though she's hiding the source?

Tell ya what, fuckwad. When you have something intelligent to say, let me know. Until then, I'm not wasting any more time on your sorry ass.

You had nothing to begin with. You think this deflection will help you? Clinton, a criminal defense lawyer, got her client a plea bargain to a reduced charge because the D.A. fucked up and the crime lab lost the key evidence.

Morons like you act as though Clinton did something wrong. In reality, she did her job.

Then you act like sissies with your panties all twisted when called on it.

See ya!

 

[Vigilante]

 

[320 Years of History]

Take your pick.
Google

Respectfully, I realize I could have Googled and found something about the matter, but I don't want to take a pick. I want to read the one you read to ensure we both have the same information in that regard.

I posted one of them in #128. Here it is again.
Exclusive: ‘Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,’ Rape Victim Says

Having read the article to which you provided the link, I have determined that the central question is one not of what Mrs. Clinton did or said, but rather one of ethics. I don't have a problem with Mrs. Clinton's efforts to effect the best possible outcome she could, ideally a not guilty verdict, for her client.

In the process of examining the ethical dilemma associated with the (not new) matter of how lawyers can bring themselves to defend folks like the accused rapist Mrs. Clinton did, I came across the following information that you may find useful in developing a more comprehensive understanding and view of the matter and considerations involved.

• Examining the Personal–Professional Distinction: Ethics Codes and the Difficulty of Drawing a Boundary
  
• Rethinking Legal Ethics
• When the Lawyer Knows the Client is Guilty: Client Confessions in Legal Ethics, Popular Culture and Literature

I realize the plaintiff claims that Mrs. Clinton lied in order to obtain the results she sought on behalf of her client, but one must realize that the accusation is also that Mrs. Clinton lied to the court. Were that in fact true, or believed by the court, or Arkansas' Attorney General, or the plaintiff's attorney(s), to be plausibly true, and investigation would have ensued, and Mrs. Clinton could have been disbarred for doing so. Indeed, perjury is a possible outcome. None of those things happened; she was not only not disbarred, and not charged with perjury, but also not censured, or anything else, aside from having to endure the accusations that have of late surfaced, in connection with that trial.

I also happen to think the plaintiff in that case is today being used as a pawn in the effort to smear Mrs. Clinton's reputation. I think that in part because of what was presented in the article you referenced.

[T]he victim now claims she was misquoted. She didn’t even know Clinton was the lawyer who defended her attacker until Thrush showed her Clinton’s book and she had no other information about what had happened behind closed doors in that courtroom when Thrush approached her, she said. Thrush declined to comment.

After [the plaintiff in the rape case] was released from prison in 2008, [she] read more about Clinton’s involvement in her case, but she never planned to confront Clinton about it.
​

The article you referenced states that:

[A]fter hearing the newly revealed tapes of Clinton boasting about the case, the victim said she couldn’t hold her tongue any longer and wanted to tell her side of the story to the public.

“When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”
​

Well, I listened to the tape. Mrs. Clinton hardly sounds boastful. In fact it seems pretty clear to me that what she was laughing about was the perfunctory handling the forensics team exercised with a critical piece of evidence in a rape trial. I think the humor expressed in Mrs. Clinton's chuckles is not of the jocular sort, but rather of the bittersweet variety. Mrs. Clinton's other remarks in the interview do not at all suggest she gloated with glee over the outcome. In total, it appears that Mrs. Clinton realized the opportunity before her and, on behalf of her client, availed herself of it.

That's a lengthy post and I won't try to go line by line responding but Clinton provided no evidence that the victim had a history of either fantasizing about older men or accusing men of attacking her body. She stated it was brought to her attention or something like that, yet she didn't provide any witnesses to back it up. If that was a lie, how would you prove it was, especially if you're 12 years old? .

As far as her defending someone she admittedly knew was guilty, it's not illegal for her to do that but there are more ethical attorneys who won't submit a not guilty plea but will instead try to make a deal for leniency.
You can excuse Hillary based on legal technicalities but the fact still remains that she put the victim on trial and accused her of inviting the crime or lying about it when she knew her client was guilty. It may be legal but it is unethical and I think you know that.

Red:
Since the case never got to the point of a jury hearing arguments from both sides -- the defendant pled guilty to "unlawful fondling of a child under the age of 14" -- neither the prosecutor nor Mrs. Clinton, the defense attorney of record, were required to produce any evidence -- physical, anecdotal, witness testimony, etc. -- that the statements in the affidavits were true. There was not a jury trial, so when exactly was either attorney or named party in the case going to provide "whatever" to "back up" the averments in the affidavits?

Mrs. Clinton's remarks as summarized in the article you cited were:

"I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
​

The specific statements Mrs. Clinton made are found on an affidavit included among the court documents pertaining to the case of State of Arkansas v. Thomas Alfred Taylor. If you look at those documents, you'll also find the prosecutor also submitted an affidavit of the same basic nature -- that is, personal attestations of what the affiant believes to be true. The article to which you pointed me contains the link to those documents.


Note:
(In my earlier remarks, I used the term "plaintiff" with reference to the person who was raped. Having not cited the case name, I will from this point forward refer to her as the victim or alleged victim.)

Blue:
Before offering a response to your blue-highlighted remarks, I must ask you a question. Do you agree that all defendants are entitled to the best defence available, and if so, of what should this consist? Should a defense attorney for a rapist work less diligently to obtain an acquittal than should a defence attorney of another alleged criminal who is accused of a non-rape crime?

It is standard defence practice in any criminal trial to try to point up inconsistencies in a witness's evidence. All the barristers would routinely do this. In rape cases such inconsistencies are highlighted to suggest that the complainant may have lied on the issue of consent. Comparisons were routinely made between what the complainant said by way of recent complaint and what she said subsequently to others when describing what had happened to her.

The strategies and tactics used by defense attorneys in rape cases undoubtedly raise ethical issues. The ethics of advocacy has been the subject of academic analysis, some of which I provided in the last post I made in this conversation between you and me. I earlier suggested you read them because I thought doing so would help you obtain a fuller understanding of the ethical dilemma associated with defending people whom an attorney believes/knows to be guilty. Remember, the defendant is the one who claims to be either guilty or not guilty, not the defendant's attorney.

Defence and prosecution counsel do not devise utterly new forensic methods for every trial. They, like professionals, rely on standard tactics and approached for achieving their respective objectives. Rape cases are, I suspect, no exception. Why this boilerplate, as it were, approach to legal representation? I don't specifically know, but I do know that methodologies that have a track record of working to some extent will get used routinely, and I suspect without exception when one isn't well heeled as was, say, O.J. Simpson, or when a "deep pockets, white knight" hasn't seen fit to champion one's cause. It may be that constraints of time and money operate to encourage a system in which events are reconstructed into a limited range of stories (for example, victim as foolish young woman, 'tart', or exponent of 'alternative' lifestyle, who either consented or who has only herself to blame for what happened to her) rather than fresh approaches being taken.

In a criminal trial, the defendant is pitched against the state. He stands to lose his liberty and perhaps his reputation, his family, and his friends. Imprisonment is likely to involve considerable hardship, which might also include subjection to violence and sexual assault. In these circumstances, it is incumbent upon the advocate to do his utmost to see that the client's defence is presented as strongly as possible.

Under the role of law, a person has to be proved guilty of the offence with which he is charged. He must be proved, in exact accordance with the rules of evidence and procedure, to come within the four comers of that offence and proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. By the very nature of the role of law, advocates are daily placed in situations in which they are defending to the hilt persons whom they know are, at the very least, a menace and often a positive danger to the community. In so doing, they are, paradoxically, defending the interests of the community by upholding the role of law.

So, despite what it may seem like, I don't at all accept or ascribe to the idea you've presented that says a defense attorney who, to the fullest of his/her ability, makes every possible effort to obtain an acquittal, no matter the allegation(s), is acting unethically by doing so. Indeed, I see such attorney's failing to "give it their all" as a greater wrong than one victim's reputation being sullied by any of the tactics (tactics that don't rise to the level of deliberate attempts to mislead the court) a defense attorney may employ. It's a matter of the importance of one person's character, be they a minor or not, versus setting a precedent for the diminishment of the role of law in our society, something that goes well beyond affecting just one person.

Other:
Ethical dilemmas similar to the one at hand are not unique to attorneys.

• Imagine that the only emergency room (ER) surgeon at a given point in time witnessed a gunman in the ER shoot one or several of his colleagues in the ER before being shot by one of the security guards. What is the surgeon to do? Mend the shooter's wounds? Let him bleed out or die of something related to having been shot?
• Imagine a priest who hears a penitent's confession to one or more louche and criminal, deeds. Although the confession happens in an "old school" confessional, the priest recognizes the sinner's voice and knows quite well who it is. As the penitent's confessor, the priest cannot violate the sanctity of the confessional. What is the cleric to do? The most he can do is encourage the individual to turn themselves in.

 

[S.J.]

Take your pick.
Google

Respectfully, I realize I could have Googled and found something about the matter, but I don't want to take a pick. I want to read the one you read to ensure we both have the same information in that regard.

I posted one of them in #128. Here it is again.
Exclusive: ‘Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,’ Rape Victim Says

Having read the article to which you provided the link, I have determined that the central question is one not of what Mrs. Clinton did or said, but rather one of ethics. I don't have a problem with Mrs. Clinton's efforts to effect the best possible outcome she could, ideally a not guilty verdict, for her client.

In the process of examining the ethical dilemma associated with the (not new) matter of how lawyers can bring themselves to defend folks like the accused rapist Mrs. Clinton did, I came across the following information that you may find useful in developing a more comprehensive understanding and view of the matter and considerations involved.

• Examining the Personal–Professional Distinction: Ethics Codes and the Difficulty of Drawing a Boundary
  
• Rethinking Legal Ethics
• When the Lawyer Knows the Client is Guilty: Client Confessions in Legal Ethics, Popular Culture and Literature

I realize the plaintiff claims that Mrs. Clinton lied in order to obtain the results she sought on behalf of her client, but one must realize that the accusation is also that Mrs. Clinton lied to the court. Were that in fact true, or believed by the court, or Arkansas' Attorney General, or the plaintiff's attorney(s), to be plausibly true, and investigation would have ensued, and Mrs. Clinton could have been disbarred for doing so. Indeed, perjury is a possible outcome. None of those things happened; she was not only not disbarred, and not charged with perjury, but also not censured, or anything else, aside from having to endure the accusations that have of late surfaced, in connection with that trial.

I also happen to think the plaintiff in that case is today being used as a pawn in the effort to smear Mrs. Clinton's reputation. I think that in part because of what was presented in the article you referenced.

[T]he victim now claims she was misquoted. She didn’t even know Clinton was the lawyer who defended her attacker until Thrush showed her Clinton’s book and she had no other information about what had happened behind closed doors in that courtroom when Thrush approached her, she said. Thrush declined to comment.

After [the plaintiff in the rape case] was released from prison in 2008, [she] read more about Clinton’s involvement in her case, but she never planned to confront Clinton about it.
​

The article you referenced states that:

[A]fter hearing the newly revealed tapes of Clinton boasting about the case, the victim said she couldn’t hold her tongue any longer and wanted to tell her side of the story to the public.

“When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”
​

Well, I listened to the tape. Mrs. Clinton hardly sounds boastful. In fact it seems pretty clear to me that what she was laughing about was the perfunctory handling the forensics team exercised with a critical piece of evidence in a rape trial. I think the humor expressed in Mrs. Clinton's chuckles is not of the jocular sort, but rather of the bittersweet variety. Mrs. Clinton's other remarks in the interview do not at all suggest she gloated with glee over the outcome. In total, it appears that Mrs. Clinton realized the opportunity before her and, on behalf of her client, availed herself of it.

That's a lengthy post and I won't try to go line by line responding but Clinton provided no evidence that the victim had a history of either fantasizing about older men or accusing men of attacking her body. She stated it was brought to her attention or something like that, yet she didn't provide any witnesses to back it up. If that was a lie, how would you prove it was, especially if you're 12 years old? .

As far as her defending someone she admittedly knew was guilty, it's not illegal for her to do that but there are more ethical attorneys who won't submit a not guilty plea but will instead try to make a deal for leniency.
You can excuse Hillary based on legal technicalities but the fact still remains that she put the victim on trial and accused her of inviting the crime or lying about it when she knew her client was guilty. It may be legal but it is unethical and I think you know that.

Red:
Since the case never got to the point of a jury hearing arguments from both sides -- the defendant pled guilty to "unlawful fondling of a child under the age of 14" -- neither the prosecutor nor Mrs. Clinton, the defense attorney of record, were required to produce any evidence -- physical, anecdotal, witness testimony, etc. -- that the statements in the affidavits were true. There was not a jury trial, so when exactly was either attorney or named party in the case going to provide "whatever" to "back up" the averments in the affidavits?

Mrs. Clinton's remarks as summarized in the article you cited were:

"I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
​

The specific statements Mrs. Clinton made are found on an affidavit included among the court documents pertaining to the case of State of Arkansas v. Thomas Alfred Taylor. If you look at those documents, you'll also find the prosecutor also submitted an affidavit of the same basic nature -- that is, personal attestations of what the affiant believes to be true. The article to which you pointed me contains the link to those documents.


Note:
(In my earlier remarks, I used the term "plaintiff" with reference to the person who was raped. Having not cited the case name, I will from this point forward refer to her as the victim or alleged victim.)

Blue:
Before offering a response to your blue-highlighted remarks, I must ask you a question. Do you agree that all defendants are entitled to the best defence available, and if so, of what should this consist? Should a defense attorney for a rapist work less diligently to obtain an acquittal than should a defence attorney of another alleged criminal who is accused of a non-rape crime?

It is standard defence practice in any criminal trial to try to point up inconsistencies in a witness's evidence. All the barristers would routinely do this. In rape cases such inconsistencies are highlighted to suggest that the complainant may have lied on the issue of consent. Comparisons were routinely made between what the complainant said by way of recent complaint and what she said subsequently to others when describing what had happened to her.

The strategies and tactics used by defense attorneys in rape cases undoubtedly raise ethical issues. The ethics of advocacy has been the subject of academic analysis, some of which I provided in the last post I made in this conversation between you and me. I earlier suggested you read them because I thought doing so would help you obtain a fuller understanding of the ethical dilemma associated with defending people whom an attorney believes/knows to be guilty. Remember, the defendant is the one who claims to be either guilty or not guilty, not the defendant's attorney.

Defence and prosecution counsel do not devise utterly new forensic methods for every trial. They, like professionals, rely on standard tactics and approached for achieving their respective objectives. Rape cases are, I suspect, no exception. Why this boilerplate, as it were, approach to legal representation? I don't specifically know, but I do know that methodologies that have a track record of working to some extent will get used routinely, and I suspect without exception when one isn't well heeled as was, say, O.J. Simpson, or when a "deep pockets, white knight" hasn't seen fit to champion one's cause. It may be that constraints of time and money operate to encourage a system in which events are reconstructed into a limited range of stories (for example, victim as foolish young woman, 'tart', or exponent of 'alternative' lifestyle, who either consented or who has only herself to blame for what happened to her) rather than fresh approaches being taken.

In a criminal trial, the defendant is pitched against the state. He stands to lose his liberty and perhaps his reputation, his family, and his friends. Imprisonment is likely to involve considerable hardship, which might also include subjection to violence and sexual assault. In these circumstances, it is incumbent upon the advocate to do his utmost to see that the client's defence is presented as strongly as possible.

Under the role of law, a person has to be proved guilty of the offence with which he is charged. He must be proved, in exact accordance with the rules of evidence and procedure, to come within the four comers of that offence and proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. By the very nature of the role of law, advocates are daily placed in situations in which they are defending to the hilt persons whom they know are, at the very least, a menace and often a positive danger to the community. In so doing, they are, paradoxically, defending the interests of the community by upholding the role of law.

So, despite what it may seem like, I don't at all accept or ascribe to the idea you've presented that says a defense attorney who, to the fullest of his/her ability, makes every possible effort to obtain an acquittal, no matter the allegation(s), is acting unethically by doing so. Indeed, I see such attorney's failing to "give it their all" as a greater wrong than one victim's reputation being sullied by any of the tactics (tactics that don't rise to the level of deliberate attempts to mislead the court) a defense attorney may employ. It's a matter of the importance of one person's character, be they a minor or not, versus setting a precedent for the diminishment of the role of law in our society, something that goes well beyond affecting just one person.

Other:
Ethical dilemmas similar to the one at hand are not unique to attorneys.

• Imagine that the only emergency room (ER) surgeon at a given point in time witnessed a gunman in the ER shoot one or several of his colleagues in the ER before being shot by one of the security guards. What is the surgeon to do? Mend the shooter's wounds? Let him bleed out or die of something related to having been shot?
• Imagine a priest who hears a penitent's confession to one or more louche and criminal, deeds. Although the confession happens in an "old school" confessional, the priest recognizes the sinner's voice and knows quite well who it is. As the penitent's confessor, the priest cannot violate the sanctity of the confessional. What is the cleric to do? The most he can do is encourage the individual to turn themselves in.

For a while there I thought maybe I had found a liberal that didn't put politics above what's right and what's wrong. My mistake. Thanks for setting me straight.

 

[Faun]

Respectfully, I realize I could have Googled and found something about the matter, but I don't want to take a pick. I want to read the one you read to ensure we both have the same information in that regard.

I posted one of them in #128. Here it is again.
Exclusive: ‘Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,’ Rape Victim Says

Having read the article to which you provided the link, I have determined that the central question is one not of what Mrs. Clinton did or said, but rather one of ethics. I don't have a problem with Mrs. Clinton's efforts to effect the best possible outcome she could, ideally a not guilty verdict, for her client.

In the process of examining the ethical dilemma associated with the (not new) matter of how lawyers can bring themselves to defend folks like the accused rapist Mrs. Clinton did, I came across the following information that you may find useful in developing a more comprehensive understanding and view of the matter and considerations involved.

• Examining the Personal–Professional Distinction: Ethics Codes and the Difficulty of Drawing a Boundary
  
• Rethinking Legal Ethics
• When the Lawyer Knows the Client is Guilty: Client Confessions in Legal Ethics, Popular Culture and Literature

I realize the plaintiff claims that Mrs. Clinton lied in order to obtain the results she sought on behalf of her client, but one must realize that the accusation is also that Mrs. Clinton lied to the court. Were that in fact true, or believed by the court, or Arkansas' Attorney General, or the plaintiff's attorney(s), to be plausibly true, and investigation would have ensued, and Mrs. Clinton could have been disbarred for doing so. Indeed, perjury is a possible outcome. None of those things happened; she was not only not disbarred, and not charged with perjury, but also not censured, or anything else, aside from having to endure the accusations that have of late surfaced, in connection with that trial.

I also happen to think the plaintiff in that case is today being used as a pawn in the effort to smear Mrs. Clinton's reputation. I think that in part because of what was presented in the article you referenced.

[T]he victim now claims she was misquoted. She didn’t even know Clinton was the lawyer who defended her attacker until Thrush showed her Clinton’s book and she had no other information about what had happened behind closed doors in that courtroom when Thrush approached her, she said. Thrush declined to comment.

After [the plaintiff in the rape case] was released from prison in 2008, [she] read more about Clinton’s involvement in her case, but she never planned to confront Clinton about it.
​

The article you referenced states that:

[A]fter hearing the newly revealed tapes of Clinton boasting about the case, the victim said she couldn’t hold her tongue any longer and wanted to tell her side of the story to the public.

“When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”
​

Well, I listened to the tape. Mrs. Clinton hardly sounds boastful. In fact it seems pretty clear to me that what she was laughing about was the perfunctory handling the forensics team exercised with a critical piece of evidence in a rape trial. I think the humor expressed in Mrs. Clinton's chuckles is not of the jocular sort, but rather of the bittersweet variety. Mrs. Clinton's other remarks in the interview do not at all suggest she gloated with glee over the outcome. In total, it appears that Mrs. Clinton realized the opportunity before her and, on behalf of her client, availed herself of it.

That's a lengthy post and I won't try to go line by line responding but Clinton provided no evidence that the victim had a history of either fantasizing about older men or accusing men of attacking her body. She stated it was brought to her attention or something like that, yet she didn't provide any witnesses to back it up. If that was a lie, how would you prove it was, especially if you're 12 years old? .

As far as her defending someone she admittedly knew was guilty, it's not illegal for her to do that but there are more ethical attorneys who won't submit a not guilty plea but will instead try to make a deal for leniency.
You can excuse Hillary based on legal technicalities but the fact still remains that she put the victim on trial and accused her of inviting the crime or lying about it when she knew her client was guilty. It may be legal but it is unethical and I think you know that.

Red:
Since the case never got to the point of a jury hearing arguments from both sides -- the defendant pled guilty to "unlawful fondling of a child under the age of 14" -- neither the prosecutor nor Mrs. Clinton, the defense attorney of record, were required to produce any evidence -- physical, anecdotal, witness testimony, etc. -- that the statements in the affidavits were true. There was not a jury trial, so when exactly was either attorney or named party in the case going to provide "whatever" to "back up" the averments in the affidavits?

Mrs. Clinton's remarks as summarized in the article you cited were:

"I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
​

The specific statements Mrs. Clinton made are found on an affidavit included among the court documents pertaining to the case of State of Arkansas v. Thomas Alfred Taylor. If you look at those documents, you'll also find the prosecutor also submitted an affidavit of the same basic nature -- that is, personal attestations of what the affiant believes to be true. The article to which you pointed me contains the link to those documents.


Note:
(In my earlier remarks, I used the term "plaintiff" with reference to the person who was raped. Having not cited the case name, I will from this point forward refer to her as the victim or alleged victim.)

Blue:
Before offering a response to your blue-highlighted remarks, I must ask you a question. Do you agree that all defendants are entitled to the best defence available, and if so, of what should this consist? Should a defense attorney for a rapist work less diligently to obtain an acquittal than should a defence attorney of another alleged criminal who is accused of a non-rape crime?

It is standard defence practice in any criminal trial to try to point up inconsistencies in a witness's evidence. All the barristers would routinely do this. In rape cases such inconsistencies are highlighted to suggest that the complainant may have lied on the issue of consent. Comparisons were routinely made between what the complainant said by way of recent complaint and what she said subsequently to others when describing what had happened to her.

The strategies and tactics used by defense attorneys in rape cases undoubtedly raise ethical issues. The ethics of advocacy has been the subject of academic analysis, some of which I provided in the last post I made in this conversation between you and me. I earlier suggested you read them because I thought doing so would help you obtain a fuller understanding of the ethical dilemma associated with defending people whom an attorney believes/knows to be guilty. Remember, the defendant is the one who claims to be either guilty or not guilty, not the defendant's attorney.

Defence and prosecution counsel do not devise utterly new forensic methods for every trial. They, like professionals, rely on standard tactics and approached for achieving their respective objectives. Rape cases are, I suspect, no exception. Why this boilerplate, as it were, approach to legal representation? I don't specifically know, but I do know that methodologies that have a track record of working to some extent will get used routinely, and I suspect without exception when one isn't well heeled as was, say, O.J. Simpson, or when a "deep pockets, white knight" hasn't seen fit to champion one's cause. It may be that constraints of time and money operate to encourage a system in which events are reconstructed into a limited range of stories (for example, victim as foolish young woman, 'tart', or exponent of 'alternative' lifestyle, who either consented or who has only herself to blame for what happened to her) rather than fresh approaches being taken.

In a criminal trial, the defendant is pitched against the state. He stands to lose his liberty and perhaps his reputation, his family, and his friends. Imprisonment is likely to involve considerable hardship, which might also include subjection to violence and sexual assault. In these circumstances, it is incumbent upon the advocate to do his utmost to see that the client's defence is presented as strongly as possible.

Under the role of law, a person has to be proved guilty of the offence with which he is charged. He must be proved, in exact accordance with the rules of evidence and procedure, to come within the four comers of that offence and proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. By the very nature of the role of law, advocates are daily placed in situations in which they are defending to the hilt persons whom they know are, at the very least, a menace and often a positive danger to the community. In so doing, they are, paradoxically, defending the interests of the community by upholding the role of law.

So, despite what it may seem like, I don't at all accept or ascribe to the idea you've presented that says a defense attorney who, to the fullest of his/her ability, makes every possible effort to obtain an acquittal, no matter the allegation(s), is acting unethically by doing so. Indeed, I see such attorney's failing to "give it their all" as a greater wrong than one victim's reputation being sullied by any of the tactics (tactics that don't rise to the level of deliberate attempts to mislead the court) a defense attorney may employ. It's a matter of the importance of one person's character, be they a minor or not, versus setting a precedent for the diminishment of the role of law in our society, something that goes well beyond affecting just one person.

Other:
Ethical dilemmas similar to the one at hand are not unique to attorneys.

• Imagine that the only emergency room (ER) surgeon at a given point in time witnessed a gunman in the ER shoot one or several of his colleagues in the ER before being shot by one of the security guards. What is the surgeon to do? Mend the shooter's wounds? Let him bleed out or die of something related to having been shot?
• Imagine a priest who hears a penitent's confession to one or more louche and criminal, deeds. Although the confession happens in an "old school" confessional, the priest recognizes the sinner's voice and knows quite well who it is. As the penitent's confessor, the priest cannot violate the sanctity of the confessional. What is the cleric to do? The most he can do is encourage the individual to turn themselves in.

For a while there I thought maybe I had found a liberal that didn't put politics above what's right and what's wrong. My mistake. Thanks for setting me straight.

He smacked you down and that's the best you can muster?

How sad.

<smh>

YOU brought this up. Now you're running away from it. What a pussy you are when confronted with facts. Why don't you at least try to address 320 Years of History's points?