If anyone feels like debating...

[John F Kennedy III]

Leftists I'd like some help. They are actually saying what Trump said in that tape is worse than Hillary getting a child rapist off. Even defending Hillary saying she was just doing her job.

You'd need to make an account. Political discussion is in the "Flea Bottom" area in the 2016 Election thread. Current discussion is on page 38.


http://thelasthearth.freeforums.net

[luctor-et-emergo]

Leftists I'd like some help. They are actually saying what Trump said in that tape is worse than Hillary getting a child rapist off. Even defending Hillary saying she was just doing her job.

You'd need to make an account. Political discussion is in the "Flea Bottom" area in the 2016 Election thread. Current discussion is on page 38.


http://thelasthearth.freeforums.net

I do feel that anyone accused of such a crime deserves a good lawyer. So yes, they are just doing their job when they get a child-rapist off. Should they be proud of it ? That's a different question. But no matter how repugnant the person, you either believe in due process or you don't.

Now in regards to what Trump said, I don't really care. They are the kinds of comments a drunk college student would make. Not very presidential but who says that matters anymore these days.

So I don't know what is worse. I think both of these things are distracting from the real issues. Are these people actually capable of being president ? Why are we talking about such irrelevances when there are major issues, such as 20 trillion dollar debt, wars, a failed medical system and so on.

[John F Kennedy III]

I do feel that anyone accused of such a crime deserves a good lawyer. So yes, they are just doing their job when they get a child-rapist off. Should they be proud of it ? That's a different question. But no matter how repugnant the person, you either believe in due process or you don't.

Now in regards to what Trump said, I don't really care. They are the kinds of comments a drunk college student would make. Not very presidential but who says that matters anymore these days.

So I don't know what is worse. I think both of these things are distracting from the real issues. Are these people actually capable of being president ? Why are we talking about such irrelevances when there are major issues, such as 20 trillion dollar debt, wars, a failed medical system and so on.

Hillary knew he was guilty and was laughing about it when telling the story a few years afterward. That to me is far worse than what Trump said and yet another great reason not to want her as president.

[Jesse James]

it's not like Hillary didn't have a choice in defending him. she could easily say no, she's not going to defend him.

[tod evans]

What's wrong with people when some 65+ y/o sex lives are making Teh Newz?

Good grief man there's more to life than cellulite and Viagra...

[AZJoe]

I do feel that anyone accused of such a crime deserves a good lawyer. So yes, they are just doing their job when they get a child-rapist off. Should they be proud of it ? That's a different question. But no matter how repugnant the person, you either believe in due process or you don't.

Yes, it is one thing to say I represented my client to the best of my ability. By doing so I am ensuring every innocent person's right to due process. But that is not what she did. To afterwards go and give an interview admitting that your client was guilty, and guilty of a heinous crime, and then laugh about getting him off violates all professional ethics.

[Valli6]

Setting aside the guy she protected from a child-rape conviciton - Bill Clinton did actually rape and sexually assault some women and Hillary had no problem with him being the president of our country or her husband.
Are words worse than actions?

[erowe1]

Leftists I'd like some help. They are actually saying what Trump said in that tape is worse than Hillary getting a child rapist off. Even defending Hillary saying she was just doing her job.

Do you disagree?

[juleswin]

Leftists I'd like some help. They are actually saying what Trump said in that tape is worse than Hillary getting a child rapist off. Even defending Hillary saying she was just doing her job.

You'd need to make an account. Political discussion is in the "Flea Bottom" area in the 2016 Election thread. Current discussion is on page 38
http://thelasthearth.freeforums.net

You tell em that she did her job the same way a gas chamber killer did their job in executing prisoners. Or how a drone pilot did their job raising brown people attending a wedding. And make sure you emphasize the brown people cos they like to fancy themselves as people opposed to racism. Talking about grabbing a woman by her pussy is deplorable but getting a child molester off going to prison by lying and badgering a child victim on the stand when you know she was assaulted is devilish.

[erowe1]

You tell em that she did her job the same way a gas chamber killer did their job in executing prisoners. Or how a drone pilot did their job raising brown people attending a wedding.

But none of that's true.

Due process is important.

[juleswin]

But none of that's true.

Due process is important.

Due process in war time? you assume that the people brought to ypu to the chambers have been deemed guilty of some crime to the state and the punishment is death. Same with the drone targets

[John F Kennedy III]

Thanks ya'll

[John F Kennedy III]

I was honestly hoping someone else would sign up over there so I wouldn't be the lone voice of sanity. Lol.

[Suzanimal]

I was honestly hoping someone else would sign up over there so I wouldn't be the lone voice of sanity. Lol.

I joined. I'm Suzanimal but that looks like a GOT board.O_o

[John F Kennedy III]

I joined. I'm Suzanimal but that looks like a GOT board.O_o

Thanks for joining. It is a GOT board. I was super tired and a little upset when I made the thread last night and forgot to mention that.

What makes it so bad is that the forum is made up of people who are anti-mainstream views on the theories of the GOT books because they have spent hundreds or thousands of hours scouring forums and the books to work out more logical theories. Yet they are exactly the opposite when it comes to real life politics, where we libertarians have arrived at our viewpoints from hundreds or thousands of hours of work instead of accepting and vehemently defending the mainstream BS.

[John F Kennedy III]

It's pretty easy to tell which account over there is mine. Lol.

[jmdrake]

Leftists I'd like some help. They are actually saying what Trump said in that tape is worse than Hillary getting a child rapist off. Even defending Hillary saying she was just doing her job.

You'd need to make an account. Political discussion is in the "Flea Bottom" area in the 2016 Election thread. Current discussion is on page 38.


http://thelasthearth.freeforums.net

Stupid argument.


it's not like Hillary didn't have a choice in defending him. she could easily say no, she's not going to defend him.

And if all lawyers took that position people wouldn't get a proper defense. Stupid argument.


Yes, it is one thing to say I represented my client to the best of my ability. By doing so I am ensuring every innocent person's right to due process. But that is not what she did. To afterwards go and give an interview admitting that your client was guilty, and guilty of a heinous crime, and then laugh about getting him off violates all professional ethics.

^That may be repugnant but it doesn't final legal ethics. Weak argument.


Setting aside the guy she protected from a child-rape conviciton - Bill Clinton did actually rape and sexually assault some women and Hillary had no problem with him being the president of our country or her husband.
Are words worse than actions?

^Only real comeback that makes any sense. According to the Washington Post Hillary made a habit of destroying women who accused Bill no matter how solid their accusations were. So ^that is the only argument that makes any freaking sense and will get you any traction. Don't come here asking for people to back you up on a stupid argument. That will just make the rest of us look stupid too.

Of course Trump could and should have brought this up in the first debate. But he didn't. Why? Because he and the Clintons are friends and he's been throwing this election from the beginning. His only job from the start was to destroy any republican who had a chance to beat Hillary. That's the truth and it's time for the rest of you to figure this out. If Trump throws this upcoming debate like he threw the last debate it's over. Get ready for your first child molester buddy first man. And that's what makes your "Hillary got a child molester off and laughed about it" argument ever more laughable. Bill Clinton and Donald Trump were friends with the now convicted child sex trafficker Jeffry Epbstein.

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/10/08/flashback.-remember-lawsuit-accusing-donald-trump-child-rape/

Seriously Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are two peas in a pod. I was wondering why Donald didn't go after Hillary on Epbstein but the truth is he CAN'T because he's just as implicated as Bill is for being a child rapist. We are literally f*cked and you are trying to somehow keep us from being quite so f*cked but it just doesn't matter. Alex Jones betrayed the liberty movement by backing Donald Trump and now Alex Jones is covering for Trump. Alex Jones got it right at first when he said that Trump was likely in the race to throw it for Hillary Clinton. But AJ must have been bought out. The old Alex Jones would not have talked about Bill and Epbstein will ignoring Donald and Epbstein.

[John F Kennedy III]

I wasn't asking for backup on a stupid argument. I was hoping for people who are more patient and well spoken than I am to go over there and educate those leftist morons. It doesn't have to be on that subject.

[osan]

Leftists I'd like some help. They are actually saying what Trump said in that tape is worse than Hillary getting a child rapist off. Even defending Hillary saying she was just doing her job.

You'd need to make an account. Political discussion is in the "Flea Bottom" area in the 2016 Election thread. Current discussion is on page 38.


http://thelasthearth.freeforums.net

Lawyers always have choices in such matters to take a case or not. Public defenders may be an exception to this.

Clinton could have said "no thanks", after getting the details, but she didn't. She later bragged about it and laughed! She publicly exposed a CLIENT'S GUILT! I am in no way certain that one can do such a thing even in the wake of acquittal and in no danger of other prosecutions related to the event. I would also point out that it could become a prejudicial factor if the person were ever to find himself on the wrong end of other charges. "Oh yeah, that's the guy who got off on child rape charges. His lawyer even admitted he was guilty in an interview." Much as I hate seeing scum like that get away, they must enjoy the full protections or none of us do.

[AZJoe]

^That may be repugnant but it doesn't final legal ethics. Weak argument.

"Doesn't final legal ethics" - that is gibberish. It is not even a coherent clause.

[jmdrake]

"Doesn't final legal ethics" - that is gibberish. It is not even a coherent clause.

Legal ethics do not require that you throw your own client under the bus nor do they require that you shed crocidile tears for the other side.

[AZJoe]

Legal ethics do not require that you throw your own client under the bus nor do they require that you shed crocidile tears for the other side.

Exactly, which is why she violated professional ethics on multiple levels. (Of course your prior message was simply a nonsensical sentence fragment: "doesn't final legal ethics")
A sampling of the Ethical Rules Hillary violated:
1. Ethical Rule 1.9 mandates that “A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter .. shall not thereafter (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client” - Hillary violated this by effectively admitting in the interview her client was guilty
2. Hillary violated Ethical Rule 1.6, the duty of confidentiality, by acknowledging her client’s guilt, and that he had beaten the polygraph.
3. By impugning the integrity of the judicial process by laughing about how she beat the system, Hillary violated the ethical ”duty to uphold the integrity and honor of the profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts; to act as a member of a learned profession; to conduct affairs so as to reflect credit on the legal profession; and to inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and the public.”

Lastly, as to your private message, “You wouldn't know an argument if it slapped you in the face dufus.” – This is neither an argument, nor a rational thought. It is ad hominem name-calling of the most immature adolescent level - an emotional tantrum devoid of any reasoning skill.

[misterx]

I do feel that anyone accused of such a crime deserves a good lawyer. So yes, they are just doing their job when they get a child-rapist off. Should they be proud of it ? That's a different question. But no matter how repugnant the person, you either believe in due process or you don't.

Now in regards to what Trump said, I don't really care. They are the kinds of comments a drunk college student would make. Not very presidential but who says that matters anymore these days.



So I don't know what is worse. I think both of these things are distracting from the real issues. Are these people actually capable of being president ? Why are we talking about such irrelevances when there are major issues, such as 20 trillion dollar debt, wars, a failed medical system and so on.

If you know the person is guilty then an ethical lawyer would tell them to find another lawyer to represent them if they insist on pleading innocent.

[Danke]

If you know the person is guilty then an ethical lawyer would tell them to find another lawyer to represent them if they insist on pleading innocent.

Dutch have never been known for their morality. Quite the opposite actually.

[John F Kennedy III]

Exactly, which is why she violated professional ethics on multiple levels. (Of course your prior message was simply a nonsensical sentence fragment: "doesn't final legal ethics")
A sampling of the Ethical Rules Hillary violated:
1. Ethical Rule 1.9 mandates that “A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter .. shall not thereafter (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client” - Hillary violated this by effectively admitting in the interview her client was guilty
2. Hillary violated Ethical Rule 1.6, the duty of confidentiality, by acknowledging her client’s guilt, and that he had beaten the polygraph.
3. By impugning the integrity of the judicial process by laughing about how she beat the system, Hillary violated the ethical ”duty to uphold the integrity and honor of the profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts; to act as a member of a learned profession; to conduct affairs so as to reflect credit on the legal profession; and to inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and the public.”

Lastly, as to your private message, “You wouldn't know an argument if it slapped you in the face dufus.” – This is neither an argument, nor a rational thought. It is ad hominem name-calling of the most immature adolescent level - an emotional tantrum devoid of any reasoning skill.

I used to actually have some respect for jmdrake. It's odd witnessing just how different some members are after returning from my essentially 3 year absence.

[Danke]

I used to actually have some respect for jmdrake. It's odd witnessing just how different some members are after returning from my essentially 3 year absence.

What? Drake is a good dude, you too. We might have differences...but you guys r good dudes. Oyarde or HB on the other hand...

[luctor-et-emergo]

If you know the person is guilty then an ethical lawyer would tell them to find another lawyer to represent them if they insist on pleading innocent.

Lawyers aren't supposed to be ethical. They are supposed to help their clients. Don't like that ? Then don't become a lawyer.

Even if you know someone is guilty, they still deserve representation.

Lawyers should not become de-facto prosecutors because they want to be ethical.

[misterx]

Lawyers aren't supposed to be ethical. They are supposed to help their clients. Don't like that ? Then don't become a lawyer.

Even if you know someone is guilty, they still deserve representation.

Lawyers should not become de-facto prosecutors because they want to be ethical.

Tell it to the bar association: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_conte nts.html

Everyone has a right to representation, the point being to ensure a just outcome. When a lawyer knows you are guilty he still has a duty to represent you to the best of his ability, but that does not include pleading innocent and lying to the court. I'm sorry you can't understand that. If you are guilty, and you want to plead innocent then you really don't deserve anything.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Tell it to the bar association: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_conte nts.html

Everyone has a right to representation, the point being to ensure a just outcome. When a lawyer knows you are guilty he still has a duty to represent you to the best of his ability, but that does not include pleading innocent and lying to the court. I'm sorry you can't understand that. If you are guilty, and you want to plead innocent then you really don't deserve anything.

Lawyers should not lie for their clients.

[jmdrake]

Exactly, which is why she violated professional ethics on multiple levels. (Of course your prior message was simply a nonsensical sentence fragment: "doesn't final legal ethics")
A sampling of the Ethical Rules Hillary violated:
1. Ethical Rule 1.9 mandates that “A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter .. shall not thereafter (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client” - Hillary violated this by effectively admitting in the interview her client was guilty
2. Hillary violated Ethical Rule 1.6, the duty of confidentiality, by acknowledging her client’s guilt, and that he had beaten the polygraph.
3. By impugning the integrity of the judicial process by laughing about how she beat the system, Hillary violated the ethical ”duty to uphold the integrity and honor of the profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts; to act as a member of a learned profession; to conduct affairs so as to reflect credit on the legal profession; and to inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and the public.”

Lastly, as to your private message, “You wouldn't know an argument if it slapped you in the face dufus.” – This is neither an argument, nor a rational thought. It is ad hominem name-calling of the most immature adolescent level - an emotional tantrum devoid of any reasoning skill.

:rolleyes:

1) Her client is not at all disadvantaged because of double jeopardy. He cannot be tried for the same crime twice.
2) You just lied. I didn't send you a "private message." I responded to your silly neg rep and silly neg rep comment which had not argument in it with one of my own. Neg reps require you to leave a comment. I will give you another neg rep once I have enough ammo.
3) She did laugh at the justice system. She laughed at polygraphs which are indeed laughable.
4) Nothing that she said in her interview was something that was not on the record. So you just lied again. There was nothing confidential disclosed.
5) She didn't "get him off." She plea bargained it down because the prosecution and/or crime lab screwed up in handling the evidence.

Hell, watch the video itself.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tor00iWUhDQ

This isn't a tempest in a teapot. It's a tempest in a thimble.

Edit: She also laughed at the idea that the prosecutor tried to get her to leave the room so that he could talk to her client alone. That is indeed worthy of laughter. Any lawyer in this entire country would laugh at that. And if he or she didn't then that person should never be a criminal defense attorney. Really, you just earned all of the contempt that you gave me a second neg rep for.

[jmdrake]

Lawyers should not lie for their clients.

Except she didn't lie for her client. She pointed out to the prosecution that they didn't have the evidence to prove their case, which they didn't, and then she pushed for a plea bargain deal which they accepted. Her client didn't "get off." He admitted guilt to a lesser charge.

[jmdrake]

I used to actually have some respect for jmdrake. It's odd witnessing just how different some members are after returning from my essentially 3 year absence.

I haven't changed one iota. I did and still do believe in due process of law. You should too if you actually respect the U.S. constitution which calls says that anyone convicted of a crime has a right to an attorney. You are attacking Hillary for actually doing her job right (for once). Don't get side tracked by AZJoe's legal babble that he apparently knows nothing about. If he tried to bring a lawyer up on ethics violation charges for laughing a couple of times in an interview about how incompetent the prosecution was in a case he would be laughed out of court.

[juleswin]

Except she didn't lie for her client. She pointed out to the prosecution that they didn't have the evidence to prove their case, which they didn't, and then she pushed for a plea bargain deal which they accepted. Her client didn't "get off." He admitted guilt to a lesser charge.

I think most people would consider 2 months in jail (which was the time he spent in country jail) tantamount to getting off especially for raping a child. I know the job of lawyers can be dirty and she had an obligation to get the best deal for her client but she helped her client get away with child rape.

[jmdrake]

I think most people would consider 2 months in jail and time spend tantamount to getting off especially for raping a child. I know the job of lawyers can be dirty and she had an obligation to get the best deal for her client but she helped her client get away with child rape.

And I know of cases of people in prison for child rape who clearly didn't do it. In at least one case the child rapist had to admit on the stand that she was lying. Justice is supposed to be based on the evidence, not the level of emotion surrounding the case. If you happen to be one of those who didn't do it but you cop a plea because it looks like you're going to go down anyway and so know your on the sex abuse registry for the rest of your life did you get away with child rape? For better or for worse we have an adversarial system. Yes sometimes people do things that are unethical, but in the video presented there was nothing unethical. I've heard people claim she laughed about putting the girl on the stand and brow beating her and calling her a liar and all sorts of other nonsense that isn't actually on the tape. Instead we hear how a prosecutor and a crime lab botched collecting evidence from her clients underwear. Further more AZJoe tried to dishonestly turn this around from Hillary was unethical to the rape victim to somehow Hillary was unethical to her client that you say got off? How so? Seriously? He client copping a plea was an admission of guilt to something. So Hillary hasn't now divulged anything people who knew about the case didn't already know. Her client admitted to guilt about something in regards to inappropriate sexual behavior to a child and he will have to deal with the consequences of that for the rest of his life. Everytime he applies for a job or tries to get an apartment or even volunteer for something this will come up. Get off? There is no way in hell I'd want to live the rest of my life like that. Hell, I'd probably end it.

[jmdrake]

You tell em that she did her job the same way a gas chamber killer did their job in executing prisoners. Or how a drone pilot did their job raising brown people attending a wedding. And make sure you emphasize the brown people cos they like to fancy themselves as people opposed to racism. Talking about grabbing a woman by her pussy is deplorable but getting a child molester off going to prison by lying and badgering a child victim on the stand when you know she was assaulted is devilish.

Except so far I haven't seen the evidence that she got "a child molester off going to prison by lying and badgering a child victim on the stand." The evidence from the video that I posted is she got the prosecution to cop a plea because the prosecution and/or crime lab botched the physical evidence. It sounds like there wasn't even a trial.

[otherone]

I think most people would consider 2 months in jail (which was the time he spent in country jail) tantamount to getting off especially for raping a child. I know the job of lawyers can be dirty and she had an obligation to get the best deal for her client but she helped her client get away with child rape.

Like in OJ's case...BLAME THE PROSECUTION. The state's case must be bullet proof. If it ain't, it's not the defense attorney's fault.

[jmdrake]

Like in OJ's case...BLAME THE PROSECUTION. The state's case must be bullet proof. If it ain't, it's not the defense attorney's fault.

Exactly! Good grief some people are ready to throw away the constitution and magna carta just because they hate Hillary Clinton! Seriously if you don't go along with their bat guano crazy idea that this particular accused person shouldn't have had a vigorous defense then you are a "leftist" or "Hillary defender." Seriously it's this kind of lunacy that Ron Paul stands against!

[juleswin]

And I know of cases of people in prison for child rape who clearly didn't do it. In at least one case the child rapist had to admit on the stand that she was lying. Justice is supposed to be based on the evidence, not the level of emotion surrounding the case. If you happen to be one of those who didn't do it but you cop a plea because it looks like you're going to go down anyway and so know your on the sex abuse registry for the rest of your life did you get away with child rape? For better or for worse we have an adversarial system. Yes sometimes people do things that are unethical, but in the video presented there was nothing unethical. I've heard people claim she laughed about putting the girl on the stand and brow beating her and calling her a liar and all sorts of other nonsense that isn't actually on the tape. Instead we hear how a prosecutor and a crime lab botched collecting evidence from her clients underwear. Further more AZJoe tried to dishonestly turn this around from Hillary was unethical to the rape victim to somehow Hillary was unethical to her client that you say got off? How so? Seriously? He client copping a plea was an admission of guilt to something. So Hillary hasn't now divulged anything people who knew about the case didn't already know. Her client admitted to guilt about something in regards to inappropriate sexual behavior to a child and he will have to deal with the consequences of that for the rest of his life. Everytime he applies for a job or tries to get an apartment or even volunteer for something this will come up. Get off? There is no way in hell I'd want to live the rest of my life like that. Hell, I'd probably end it.

The point I am trying to make is that if he was indeed guilty of raping the 12 yr old girl, then 2 months in country jail plus sex offender registry(if it was the law att that point) is getting off. That is all I am trying to say and from the tapes, it seems like she knew that he raped her.


Good read up on the case


Newly discovered audio recordings of Hillary Clinton from the early 1980s include the former first lady’s frank and detailed assessment of the most significant criminal case of her legal career: defending a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl.

In 1975, the same year she married Bill, Hillary Clinton agreed to serve as the court-appointed attorney for Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old accused of raping the child after luring her into a car.

The recordings, which date from 1983-1987 and have never before been reported, include Clinton’s suggestion that she knew Taylor was guilty at the time. She says she used a legal technicality to plead her client, who faced 30 years to life in prison, down to a lesser charge. The recording and transcript, along with court documents pertaining to the case, are embedded below.

The full story of the Taylor defense calls into question Clinton’s narrative of her early years as a devoted women and children’s advocate in Arkansas—a narrative the 2016 presidential frontrunner continues to promote on her current book tour.

Her comments on the rape trial are part of more than five hours of unpublished interviews conducted by Arkansas reporter Roy Reed with then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and his wife in the mid-1980s.

The interviews, archived at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, were intended for an Esquire magazine profile that was never published, and offer a rare personal glimpse of the couple during a pivotal moment in their political careers.

But Hillary Clinton’s most revealing comments—and those most likely to inflame critics—concern the decades-old rape case.

‘The Prosecutor Had Evidence’
Hillary Rodham ClintonThe LIFE Picture Collection via Getty Images
Twenty-seven-year-old Hillary Rodham had just moved to Fayetteville, and was running the University of Arkansas’ newly-formed legal aid clinic, when she received a call from prosecutor Mahlon Gibson.

“The prosecutor called me a few years ago, he said he had a guy who had been accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer,” said Clinton in the interview. “Would I do it as a favor for him?”

The case was not easy. In the early hours of May 10, 1975, the Springdale, Arkansas police department received a call from a nearby hospital. It was treating a 12-year-old girl who said she had been raped.

The suspect was identified as Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old factory worker and friend of the girl’s family.

And though the former first lady mentioned the ethical difficulties of the case in Living History, her written account some three decades later is short on details and has a far different tone than the tapes.

“It was a fascinating case, it was a very interesting case,” Clinton says in the recording. “This guy was accused of raping a 12-year-old. Course he claimed that he didn’t, and all this stuff” (LISTEN HERE).

Describing the events almost a decade after they had occurred, Clinton’s struck a casual and complacent attitude toward her client and the trial for rape of a minor.

“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she added with a laugh.

Clinton can also be heard laughing at several points when discussing the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime.

From a legal ethics perspective, once she agreed to take the case, Clinton was required to defend her client to the fullest even if she did believe he was guilty.

“We’re hired guns,” Ronald D. Rotunda, a professor of legal ethics at Chapman University, told the Washington Free Beacon. “We don’t have to believe the client is innocent…our job is to represent the client in the best way we can within the bounds of the law.”

However, Rotunda said, for a lawyer to disclose the results of a client’s polygraph and guilt is a potential violation of attorney-client privilege.

“You can’t do that,” he said. “Unless the client says: ‘You’re free to tell people that you really think I’m a scumbag, and the only reason I got a lighter sentence is because you’re a really clever lawyer.’”

Clinton was suspended from the Arkansas bar in March of 2002 for failing to keep up with continuing legal education requirements, according to Arkansas judicial records.

Public records provide few details of what happened on the night in question. The Washington County Sherriff’s Office, which investigated the case after the Springdale Police Department handled the initial arrest, said it was unable to provide an incident report since many records from that time were not maintained and others were destroyed in a flood.

A lengthy yet largely overlooked 2008 Newsday story focused on Clinton’s legal strategy of attacking the credibility of the 12-year-old victim.

The girl had joined Taylor and two male acquaintances, including one 15-year-old boy she had a crush on, on a late-night trip to the bowling alley, according to Newsday.

Taylor drove the group around in his truck, pouring the girl whisky and coke on the way.

The group later drove to a “weedy ravine” near the highway where Taylor raped the 12-year-old.

Around 4 a.m., the girl and her mother went to the hospital, where she was given medical tests and reported that she had been assaulted.

Taylor was arrested on May 13, 1975. The court initially appointed public defender John Barry Baker to serve as his attorney. But Taylor insisted he wanted a female lawyer.

The lawyer he would end up with: Hillary Rodham.

According to court documents, the prosecution’s case was based on testimony from the 12-year-old girl and the two male witnesses as well as on a “pair of men’s undershorts taken from the defendant herein.”

In a July 28, 1975, court affidavit, Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”

“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior,” Clinton said.

Clinton said the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

But the interview reveals that an error by the prosecution would render unnecessary these attacks on the credibility of a 12-year-old rape victim.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/

Was going to bold the good parts but I think its best if you read the whole thing. Don't look very good for her

[otherone]

The point I am trying to make is that if he was indeed guilty of raping the 12 yr old girl, then 2 months in country jail plus sex offender registry(if it was the law att that point) is getting off. That is all I am trying to say and from the tapes, it seems like she knew that he raped her.




Yeah. Another crappy DA not having his ducks in a row .

[jmdrake]

The point I am trying to make is that if he was indeed guilty of raping the 12 yr old girl, then 2 months in country jail plus sex offender registry(if it was the law att that point) is getting off. That is all I am trying to say and from the tapes, it seems like she knew that he raped her.


Good read up on the case


http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/

Was going to bold the good parts but I think its best if you read the whole thing. Don't look very good for her

The video speaks for itself. And even your "write up" says nothing about Hillary badgering the girl on the stand. There was no reason for the girl to ever see that affidavit unless the prosecution decided to show it to her and in that case it's on them. The prosecution botched the evidence so the case never went to trial. And I know of cases where there have been girls who have serially falsely accused people of rape. Did that happen in this case? Dunno. You've got a write up of a bunch of hearsay. Did Taylor indeed do what Newsday said he did? Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. But the prosecution botched the case. If they had hard eyewitness testimony they could have gotten a conviction even without any physical evidence. I've seen it happen even when the only witness was a victim who had to admit she perjured herself. There have been a lot of thread on this forum about men getting a raw deal in the justice system especially when it comes to rape. The last thing anybody should want is defense attorneys not doing their job because that might be used against them later in politics. You might think you want that but if you think about it long enough you will probably realize you don't. There are plenty of good reasons to go after Hillary. I, the person AZJoe dishonestly calls in his neg reps a "Hillary Defender", laid out real attacks against Hillary in my first post in this thread. There is no excuse for her publicly going after the woman that have accused Bill and then never apologizing when those women were proved right. None whatsoever. She was not hired as Bill's defense attorney. And how should a wife act when her husband has been accused of something like this? As the wife of the other Bill C accused of sexual assault and rape, the wife of Bill Cosby. She hasn't said jack about the allegations against her Bill. She's quietly stood beside him in support. She hasn't attacked him. But she hasn't attacked any of his accusers, even in the cases where they have been proven wrong. (One of Bill Cosby's accusers said he assaulter her at the Playboy mansion on a night when he wasn't even on the guest list.)

[oyarde]

What? Drake is a good dude, you too. We might have differences...but you guys r good dudes. Oyarde or HB on the other hand...

Oyarde is a great cultural leader here to provide wisdom for you .

[John F Kennedy III]

What? Drake is a good dude, you too. We might have differences...but you guys r good dudes. Oyarde or HB on the other hand...

He may still be a good dude, but he has grown childish and that causes him to come off as a cranky old man.

HB survived a crucifixion. He's fine in my book.....he dies in his book though...

Oyarde's a good squaw. I'd smoke peyote in a teepee with him any day.

[AZJoe]

:rolleyes:

1) Her client is not at all disadvantaged because of double jeopardy. He cannot be tried for the same crime twice.
2) You just lied. I didn't send you a "private message." I responded to your silly neg rep and silly neg rep comment which had not argument in it with one of my own. Neg reps require you to leave a comment. I will give you another neg rep once I have enough ammo.
3) She did laugh at the justice system. She laughed at polygraphs which are indeed laughable.
4) Nothing that she said in her interview was something that was not on the record. So you just lied again. There was nothing confidential disclosed.
5) She didn't "get him off." She plea bargained it down because the prosecution and/or crime lab screwed up in handling the evidence.

Hell, watch the video itself.

1. "Disadvantage" is not limited solely to double jeopardy. What jmdrake has committed is a logical fallacy known as a scope shift. It also shows a lack of understanding of the ethical rules for lawyers. A lawyer is not permitted to use information gained from the representation to disadvantage a former client. The ethical duty not to disadvantage a former client is not limited to risking jeopardy. It is not even limited to criminal matters, or even just to legal matters. It applies to any matters including business opportunities, contracts, marketing, social reputation, personal reputation, business relationships and even personal and family relationships. Except for extremely unlikely scenarios, a lawyer shall not use information gained from representation to disadvantage a former client. That does include revealing confidences, or indicating to third party's that your client was guilty of the greater charge that as dropped, or that your client lied through a polygraph and passed.
2. A private message in rep comment is not a a private message? If jmdrake says so. A silly distraction.
3. Impugning the integrity of the judicial process by laughing about how she got him off with time served, Hillary violated the ethical ”duty to uphold the integrity and honor of the profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts; to act as a member of a learned profession; to conduct affairs so as to reflect credit on the legal profession; and to inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and the public.” Its not like she argued that the justice system worked and the prosecutor could not prove its case. Rather she laughed that how she was able to beat the system and acknowledge her client lied and was guilty of the charge - 1st degree rape.
4. HRC blatantly indicated her client lied through the lie detector test and nevertheless passed. By doing so she unequivocally indicated her client was guilty of the charges - first degree rape. That is not something that was "on the record." To the contrary that is exactly what was disputed in the case.
5. I never said she "got him off" even though HRC in the very interview states "she got him off with time served." That is a made up straw man trying to refute an argument not made. Nor would simply "getting someone off" in itself be an ethical violation. In fact it is the duty of the criminal defense lawyer to get the best possible result for their client - i.e "get them off."

[Danke]

He may still be a good dude, but he has grown childish and that causes him to come off as a cranky old man.

HB survived a crucifixion. He's fine in my book.....he dies in his book though...

Oyarde's a good squaw. I'd smoke peyote in a teepee with him any day.

Oyarde is a chick that identifies as a man?

[oyarde]

Oyarde is a chick that identifies as a man?

Negative , only the more " civilized " become gender confused . We do not have those problems here .

[euphemia]

But none of that's true.

Due process is important.

Indeed it is, but that doesn't mean crucifying a little girl on the stand. Children's Defense Fund, indeed.

[HVACTech]

Exactly! Good grief some people are ready to throw away the constitution and magna carta just because they hate Hillary Clinton! Seriously if you don't go along with their bat guano crazy idea that this particular accused person shouldn't have had a vigorous defense then you are a "leftist" or "Hillary defender." Seriously it's this kind of lunacy that Ron Paul stands against!

I have found... that MOST folks do not even know what the "Constitution" is.
(that includes RPF's)

if you ask this simple question... they think that it is a "trick" question. and that you are trying to fool them.

can you confirm this observation? how can one work on something, or even discuss it... if one does not know what it is?

when I arrive on a jobsite. what I do. is to turn the machine on. I observe what it is doing. and what it is not doing.
and work on the difference.

and now you know everything that I do! :p

[jmdrake]

1. "Disadvantage" is not limited solely to double jeopardy. What jmdrake has committed is a logical fallacy known as a scope shift. It also shows a lack of understanding of the ethical rules for lawyers. A lawyer is not permitted to use information gained from the representation to disadvantage a former client.

Except by the video I posted Hillary didn't do a damn thing you are claiming she did. You are the one committing the logical fallacy here. You are arguing, without a shred of evidence, that Hillary put forward information that was not in the public domain. The facts prove you wrong. Here are the facts.

1) The prosecution had in its possession evidence that would have hung Hillary's client if they and the crime lab had processed it right.
2) The prosecution flubbed screwed up the evidence worse than the prosecution in the OJ trial.
3) Due to the lack of evidence the prosecution was willing to take a plea deal where Hillary's client made and admission of guilt!

Seriously, what part of number 3 are you unable or unwilling to understand? If Hillary's client made a public admission of guilt than Hillary revealed nothing at all by saying this case ruined her belief in the polygraph. Her client said in open court "I'm guilty of X" where X is whatever lesser offense the prosecution allowed him to plead down to.




The ethical duty not to disadvantage a former client is not limited to risking jeopardy. It is not even limited to criminal matters, or even just to legal matters. It applies to any matters including business opportunities, contracts, marketing, social reputation, personal reputation, business relationships and even personal and family relationships.


:rolleyes: Right. Because being on a sex offender registry for the rest of your life leaves you open to all sorts of opportunities. :rollyeyes: Seriously you did not think through your reply and you are making yourself look stupid. Do you realize that there are people who are homeless because of being on a sex abuse registry?



Except for extremely unlikely scenarios, a lawyer shall not use information gained from representation to disadvantage a former client. That does include revealing confidences, or indicating to third party's that your client was guilty of the greater charge that as dropped, or that your client lied through a polygraph and passed.




2. A private message in rep comment is not a a private message? If jmdrake says so. A silly distraction.


They are two different things toots. And more importantly YOU STARTED THIS WITH YOUR ATTACK IN YOUR NEG REP TO ME! So quit trying to play like you are some sort of saint jerk. Here is the simple fact. I'm not "defending Hillary" despite your disgusting lying claim that I am. I'm defending the constitution and the rule of law. Those are two things that you don't understand. This whole thread is a "silly distraction."




3. I[COLOR=#3E3E3E]mpugning the integrity of the judicial process by laughing about how she got him off with time served,


You're just lying. She laughed at how stupid the prosecution was for expecting her to violate legal ethics by leaving the room for them to talk to her client alone.



Hillary violated the ethical ”duty to uphold the integrity and honor of the profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts;


Another lie. She did not disrespect the courts. She laughed at a stupid and unethical prosecutor that actually was trying to get her to disadvantage her client by leaving the room so the prosecutor could talk to her client in private.


4. HRC blatantly indicated her client lied through the lie detector test and nevertheless passed. By doing so she unequivocally indicated her client was guilty of the charges - first degree rape. That is not something that was "on the record." To the contrary that is exactly what was disputed in the case.

Another lie, Her client already indicated that he had lied on the polygraph by saying in open court that he was guilty of the lesser charge.

[jmdrake]

He may still be a good dude, but he has grown childish and that causes him to come off as a cranky old man.

HB survived a crucifixion. He's fine in my book.....he dies in his book though...

Oyarde's a good squaw. I'd smoke peyote in a teepee with him any day.

I'm the same jmdrake that I've always been. Hell I've turned it down a notch. I always call out BS when I see it. And sorry to hurt your feelings, but the entire premise of this thread is BS. Seriously, your "ally" AZJoe can't make up his mind if Hillary violated ethical duties by helping her client or hurting him. Good grief. If you and he tried to actually bring ethics charges in any court against any lawyer based on this fact pattern you'd be laughed out of the courthouse and if you persisted you'd be put in jail for contempt. Hillary defendant someone accused of a heinous crime and ultimately got him a reduced sentence because the prosecution screwed up and she later laughed at the screw up and the apparent lack of ethics on behalf of the prosecutor (trying to get her to leave the room so the prosecutor could talk to her client alone) and that somehow makes her "evil"? No. Not hardly. Now Hillary Clinton attacking the women that accused Bill when she wasn't Bill's attorney? That was evil. Hillary joining forces will Al Qaeda to kill Qaddafi? That's evil. Hillary starting a war in Syria which has caused tens (hundreds?) of thousands of deaths? That's evil. Hillary pushing for war with Russia because Russia is battling ISIS? That is so freaking evil that it's beyond words. You want to win your fight with the libs? Ask them why Hillary supporting wars against countries that haven't attacked us is okay because Qaddafi and Assad are "bad guys" but somehow Bush was wrong for taking out Saddam who was certainly no better than those two and watch their heads explode. Or.....you can continue trying to explain why Hillary was the bad guy for doing exactly what the just - us system expects a criminal defense attorney to do in those circumstances. Your choice.

[John F Kennedy III]

I'm the same jmdrake that I've always been. Hell I've turned it down a notch. I always call out BS when I see it. And sorry to hurt your feelings, but the entire premise of this thread is BS. Seriously, your "ally" AZJoe can't make up his mind if Hillary violated ethical duties by helping her client or hurting him. Good grief. If you and he tried to actually bring ethics charges in any court against any lawyer based on this fact pattern you'd be laughed out of the courthouse and if you persisted you'd be put in jail for contempt. Hillary defendant someone accused of a heinous crime and ultimately got him a reduced sentence because the prosecution screwed up and she later laughed at the screw up and the apparent lack of ethics on behalf of the prosecutor (trying to get her to leave the room so the prosecutor could talk to her client alone) and that somehow makes her "evil"? No. Not hardly. Now Hillary Clinton attacking the women that accused Bill when she wasn't Bill's attorney? That was evil. Hillary joining forces will Al Qaeda to kill Qaddafi? That's evil. Hillary starting a war in Syria which has caused tens (hundreds?) of thousands of deaths? That's evil. Hillary pushing for war with Russia because Russia is battling ISIS? That is so freaking evil that it's beyond words. You want to win your fight with the libs? Ask them why Hillary supporting wars against countries that haven't attacked us is okay because Qaddafi and Assad are "bad guys" but somehow Bush was wrong for taking out Saddam who was certainly no better than those two and watch their heads explode. Or.....you can continue trying to explain why Hillary was the bad guy for doing exactly what the just - us system expects a criminal defense attorney to do in those circumstances. Your choice.

That's cute.

[jmdrake]

That's cute.

Whatever. Ask yourself this. With everything that's at stake why hasn't Ron Paul lined up behind Donald Trump? It's because there are some things more important than short term victory. Sacrificing the constitution is not worth short term victory. And one of the bedrock principals of the constitution is the right to an attorney in a criminal matter. According to the video that you want to hang Hillary over, she actually, for once, stood up for the constitution by telling a prosecutor in essence to go to hell when he asked for a private audience with her client. And that prosecutor deserved to be laughed at. There are plenty of other ways to attack Hillary for things she actually did wrong but instead you decided to attack her for something that she actually did right. Not smart. Again sorry it hurt your feelings for me to point that out.

[jmdrake]

1. "Disadvantage" is not limited solely to double jeopardy. What jmdrake has committed is a logical fallacy known as a scope shift. It also shows a lack of understanding of the ethical rules for lawyers. A lawyer is not permitted to use information gained from the representation to disadvantage a former client. The ethical duty not to disadvantage a former client is not limited to risking jeopardy. It is not even limited to criminal matters, or even just to legal matters. It applies to any matters including business opportunities, contracts, marketing, social reputation, personal reputation, business relationships and even personal and family relationships. Except for extremely unlikely scenarios, a lawyer shall not use information gained from representation to disadvantage a former client. That does include revealing confidences, or indicating to third party's that your client was guilty of the greater charge that as dropped, or that your client lied through a polygraph and passed.
2. A private message in rep comment is not a a private message? If jmdrake says so. A silly distraction.
3. Impugning the integrity of the judicial process by laughing about how she got him off with time served, Hillary violated the ethical ”duty to uphold the integrity and honor of the profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts; to act as a member of a learned profession; to conduct affairs so as to reflect credit on the legal profession; and to inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and the public.” Its not like she argued that the justice system worked and the prosecutor could not prove its case. Rather she laughed that how she was able to beat the system and acknowledge her client lied and was guilty of the charge - 1st degree rape.
4. HRC blatantly indicated her client lied through the lie detector test and nevertheless passed. By doing so she unequivocally indicated her client was guilty of the charges - first degree rape. That is not something that was "on the record." To the contrary that is exactly what was disputed in the case.
5. I never said she "got him off" even though HRC in the very interview states "she got him off with time served." That is a made up straw man trying to refute an argument not made. Nor would simply "getting someone off" in itself be an ethical violation. In fact it is the duty of the criminal defense lawyer to get the best possible result for their client - i.e "get them off."

One more thing AZJoe. I see that you are now to cowardly to respond with anything but a neg rep. It's not a tantrum to call what you are saying lies when I went point by point and showed where you were lying. That said, the only think your hero Donald Trump has left is to call all of his accusers liars. And unlike me he doesn't have proof of the lies. So if that's not being rational and throwing an tantrum then why do you support Trump? You don't have an answer for that do you? Pathetic.

[jmdrake]

Indeed it is, but that doesn't mean crucifying a little girl on the stand. Children's Defense Fund, indeed.

Except there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton crucified a little girl on the stand. There's no evidence that the girl ever testified. Watch the video. The prosecution flubbed the evidence and thus they were willing to go with a plea deal. There was no trial.

[Champ]

Trying to convince a liberal about the dangers of a large, always growing, always control seeking government, would be akin to trying to convince a North Korean citizen that their own government is an oppressive totalitarian force. You won't get anywhere due to the hundreds of lairs of propaganda crammed into their statist head.

The only thing that I have found to be effective is to teach them some history and hope that can be a kernel of knowledge that they can build from later on. You won't crack the lairs of propaganda in one sitting. Talking about the foundation of "liberalism", how classic liberalism was actually about small government and more power to individuals, and also how it actually has nothing to do with modern day American liberalism will at least get their attention.

[John F Kennedy III]

Trying to convince a liberal about the dangers of a large, always growing, always control seeking government, would be akin to trying to convince a North Korean citizen that their own government is an oppressive totalitarian force. You won't get anywhere due to the hundreds of lairs of propaganda crammed into their statist head.

The only thing that I have found to be effective is to teach them some history and hope that can be a kernel of knowledge that they can build from later on. You won't crack the lairs of propaganda in one sitting. Talking about the foundation of "liberalism", how classic liberalism was actually about small government and more power to individuals, and also how it actually has nothing to do with modern day American liberalism will at least get their attention.

Yeah they actually unironically link to WaPo, Snopes, RationalWiki, MSM and government articles and stats all the time.

[Ender]

Trying to convince a liberal about the dangers of a large, always growing, always control seeking government, would be akin to trying to convince a North Korean citizen that their own government is an oppressive totalitarian force. You won't get anywhere due to the hundreds of lairs of propaganda crammed into their statist head.

The only thing that I have found to be effective is to teach them some history and hope that can be a kernel of knowledge that they can build from later on. You won't crack the lairs of propaganda in one sitting. Talking about the foundation of "liberalism", how classic liberalism was actually about small government and more power to individuals, and also how it actually has nothing to do with modern day American liberalism will at least get their attention.

Absolutely- Liberal used to be a beautiful word that has been stolen and destroyed.

Also, for everyone else:

jmdrake is correct on this:


Hillary defendant someone accused of a heinous crime and ultimately got him a reduced sentence because the prosecution screwed up and she later laughed at the screw up and the apparent lack of ethics on behalf of the prosecutor (trying to get her to leave the room so the prosecutor could talk to her client alone) and that somehow makes her "evil"?

This was obvious to me a while ago, but after being called all sorts of names for pointing out Trump flaws, I had decided to keep my mouth shut. And let me repeat for the millionth time: I cannot stand Clinton.

[jmdrake]

Absolutely- Liberal used to be a beautiful word that has been stolen and destroyed.

Also, for everyone else:

jmdrake is correct on this:



This was obvious to me a while ago, but after being called all sorts of names for pointing out Trump flaws, I had decided to keep my mouth shut. And let me repeat for the millionth time: I cannot stand Clinton.

True. Some people [mod edit] can't think straight because they are barking at whatever gnat that flies by. Let's say if Hillary Clinton defended OJ Simpson and then laughed at how stupid the prosecution was to try to get OJ to try on the gloves. So? Only a moron would think that was an ethics violation.

[AZJoe]

Hillary talking about her own client:

"Of course he claimed he didn't. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed. Which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs [Hillary laughing]."

"I mean sure we knew he did it [Hillary laughing] but it didn't matter."

A sampling of the Ethical Rules Hillary violated:

1. Ethical Rule 1.9 mandates that “A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter .. shall not thereafter (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client” - Hillary violated this by effectively admitting in the interview her client was guilty
2. Hillary violated Ethical Rule 1.6, the duty of confidentiality, by acknowledging her client’s guilt, and that he had beaten the polygraph.
3. By impugning the integrity of the judicial process by laughing about how she beat the system, Hillary violated the ethical ”duty to uphold the integrity and honor of the profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts; to act as a member of a learned profession; to conduct affairs so as to reflect credit on the legal profession; and to inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and the public.”


The client plead to a lesser offense, not to the rape charges. Hillary publicly admitted her client's guilt on tape.

Here is the view from Professor of Legal Ethics at Chapman University Ronald D. Rotunda, "We don’t have to believe the client is innocent…our job is to represent the client in the best way we can within the bounds of the law. However, for a lawyer to disclose the results of a client’s polygraph and guilt is a potential violation of attorney-client privilege. You can’t do that,” he said. “Unless the client says: ‘You’re free to tell people that you really think I’m a scumbag, and the only reason I got a lighter sentence is because you’re a really clever lawyer.’” http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/

And here is the view from legal analyst and veteran criminal homicide attorney Paul Callan, "she appears to have outed Taylor as a liar and a rapist. By framing the story in this way, Clinton violated not only the attorney-client privilege but also her obligation to fully represent the interests of her client as required by the attorney's Code of Professional Responsibility. It is utterly improper for a defense attorney to reveal a client confidence in this way. " http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/01/opinion/callan-hillary-clinton/