CNN Cuts Off Segment After Mention of Hillary's Accused Child Rapist Defense...

[Glen Contrarian]

Agreed.

Quite simply it would seem that Hillary Clinton is of the "lowest pond scum in the sewage treatment plant of humanity" variety.

Here's her "blame the victim" defense of a child who had been raped:



Whether she had a professional obligation to defend the guy, or whether the prosecution was ultimately unable to prove his guilt as the result of a technicality, notwithstanding, the fact that Clinton, even back then, would blame the 12-year-old victim of a violent rape for the fact that she was raped is unethical, immoral, and utterly reprehensible.

I might hire that kind of snake to defend me at trial, but I wouldn't share a meal with such a person or elect such a person to represent me in any capacity.

This is a testament to what kind of person Hillary Clinton is, and while she might have, however briefly, been an effective lawyer she is also a piece of human garbage, "the lowest pond scum in the sewage treatment plant of humanity" to use your words.

You really don't understand the role of a defense attorney, do you? A defense attorney's LEGAL DUTY - not intention, but DUTY - is to use every legal resource at his or her command to get his or her client declared not guilty...and that includes the use of technicalities. If Hillary had failed to do so, then she could have been held responsible for NOT performing her ethical duty to her client.

That's why it's so doggone hard to be a defense attorney, and it's so easy to ASSUME that they're the scum-of-the-earth. She did her JOB. It was a dirty job that someone had to do...and if you're a young attorney as she was at the time, you're often ASSIGNED a case. Now, try finding out if she volunteered to defend this client...or if she was ASSIGNED this client...and THEN decide. But do learn to stop assuming - it doesn't reflect well on you.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Didn't see anything about believing women unconditionally. Help me out.

Troll someone else

 

[Deuce]

Troll someone else

Ok, he's not willing to defend his own statement. Case closed.

 

[soot]

A defense attorney's LEGAL DUTY - not intention, but DUTY - is to use every legal resource at his or her command to get his or her client declared not guilty...and that includes the use of technicalities.

Blaming a rape victim for the rape is not a technicality.

A technicality is a legal requirement, like the requirements governing proper handling of evidence, proper questioning of a suspect, or properly submitting legal documentation to the court and/or to opposing council.

If the chain of custody is broken on a piece of evidence, that's a technicality.

If the police don't read a suspect his rights prior to questioning him, that's a technicality.

If the prosecution doesn't disclose certain pieces of evidence to the defense, that's a technicality.

There is no, I repeat, absolutely no legal requirement for a defense attorney to blame or otherwise defame the victim of a crime.

Doing so isn't "a technicality".

It's pure, unadulterated, scumbaggery.

And even more so when the victim is a little 12-year-old girl.

And even MORE so when the person who did it is parading around pretending that she was some champion of women's and children's rights at the time she blamed a 12-year-old girl for her own rape.

Now, try finding out if she volunteered to defend this client...or if she was ASSIGNED this client...and THEN decide.

I'd already looked in to that before I commented.

She volunteered, as a favor to a prosecutor:

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 Hillary Tapes - Washington Free Beacon

But do learn to stop assuming - it doesn't reflect well on you.

You were saying...

 

[Deuce]

There is no, I repeat, absolutely no legal requirement for a defense attorney to blame or otherwise defame the victim of a crime.

Questioning the credibility of a witness isn't necessarily an attack or defamation.

 

[Casper]

Questioning the credibility of a witness isn't necessarily an attack or defamation.

Correct. Heck I have seen attorneys attacking the dead victim in cases to get their client off, it is their JOB to do everything in their power to defend their client. Good thing some here are not defense attorneys they would starve to death because of their inability to defend those that hire them. Personally I find it a sign of desperation that people would even go back to cases she worked early in her career in an attempt to smear her to the voters, such tactics almost never work and usually reflect more badly on the attackers than those they attacked. Given the Freak Show that is going on in the GOP it is going to be a long 4 to 8 years listening to the same old stuff while she sits in the Oval Office. Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Hillary but the GOP has made their bed and once again they have shot themselves in the foot as they got into that bed, especially when they allowed anyone, even a lifelong Democrat, to join them in that bed.

 

[Fenton]

It was her JOB, some are cut out to be attorneys and some are not, I see there are several here that are not. All lawyers celebrate their wins, even DA's that punt an innocent person behind bars di it, it is called winning. She will do it again in November, just ignore it.

Getting off a child rapist.

Just makes you giggle doesn't it ? I can see why she thought it was so funny.

She has no scruples

 

[CanadaJohn]

There is no, I repeat, absolutely no legal requirement for a defense attorney to blame or otherwise defame the victim of a crime.

Technically, before guilt is determined after the trial, one could argue that the defendant has been defamed by the victim, particularly in cases of sexual assault and rape. Regardless of the outcome of such a trial, the defendant is damaged in the public's mind just by the accusation.

 

[Casper]

Getting off a child rapist.

Just makes you giggle doesn't it ? I can see why she thought it was so funny.

She has no scruples

I doubt the defendant or victim had anything to do with her giggling, maybe she was thinking about the 20 plus years of Con attacks on her and how effective they have been. Heck the next thing ya know she will be sitting in the Oval Office giggling even more.

 

[Fenton]

I doubt the defendant or victim had anything to do with her giggling, maybe she was thinking about the 20 plus years of Con attacks on her and how effective they have been. Heck the next thing ya know she will be sitting in the Oval Office giggling even more.

Cons were attacking her 20 years before she got a child rapist off ?

Lol !! How old do you think Hillary is ????

 

[Casper]

Cons were attacking her 20 years before she got a child rapist off ?

Lol !! How old do you think Hillary is ????

Are you playing stupid or is that what you got from what I actually said? So, Which is it?

 

[Frank Apisa]

She was doing her job. That is what defense lawyers do.

The far right crap being thrown at her on this account is absurd.

CNN producers were doing their jobs also...when they cut the segment off.

In any cases, the far right geniuses who claim that Hillary Clinton will be easy to beat...

...ought really to explain why they are so anxious to stop her from getting the nomination.

Hummm...wonder why that is.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Blaming a rape victim for the rape is not a technicality.

A technicality is a legal requirement, like the requirements governing proper handling of evidence, proper questioning of a suspect, or properly submitting legal documentation to the court and/or to opposing council.

If the chain of custody is broken on a piece of evidence, that's a technicality.

If the police don't read a suspect his rights prior to questioning him, that's a technicality.

If the prosecution doesn't disclose certain pieces of evidence to the defense, that's a technicality.

There is no, I repeat, absolutely no legal requirement for a defense attorney to blame or otherwise defame the victim of a crime.

Doing so isn't "a technicality".

It's pure, unadulterated, scumbaggery.

And even more so when the victim is a little 12-year-old girl.

And even MORE so when the person who did it is parading around pretending that she was some champion of women's and children's rights at the time she blamed a 12-year-old girl for her own rape.



I'd already looked in to that before I commented.

She volunteered, as a favor to a prosecutor:





You were saying...

Looking for technicalities is one tactic. Blaming the victim is another tactic...and it's something that ANY defense attorney would do...because they are legally bound - legally bound! - to do everything they legally can to represent their client and get him or her declared innocent.

You really should familiarize yourself with the duties of a defense attorney.

 

[DiAnna]

Let's not let reality intrude on embellishing another juicy partisan slam on Hillary, shall we?

Hillary Clinton asked to be removed from a 1975 rape case in which her client was accused of sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl, the onetime Arkansas lawyer said recently, addressing for the first time fresh retrospective reproach for her defense of a man she's suggested was guilty.

"When I was a 27-year-old attorney doing legal aid work at the [University of Arkansas] where I taught in Fayetteville, Arkansas, I was appointed by the local judge to represent a criminal defendant accused of rape," she said when broached with the topic in an interview with British online network Mumsnet. "I asked to be relieved of that responsibility, but I was not. And I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did." ...

Clinton stood by her defense during her interview with Mumsnet: "When you're a lawyer you often don't have the choice as to who you will represent," she said. "And by the very nature of criminal law there will be those you represent you don't approve of. But, at least in our system, you have an obligation. And once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation."

Nobody likes defense attorneys... until they need one. They are not only allowed, but required, to use every legal means to cast reasonable doubt on their client's guilt, and to secure for their client the best possible deal in negotiation with prosecutors. This is exactly what she did.

You people are really something else. There is absolutely nothing you will not say to destroy this woman completely. Here's a thought: Why don't you just campaign for her opponents and vote for someone other than Hillary in the election? There is no reason to ever verbally assassinate a candidate for office with this kind of embellished and/or fabricated filth.

 

[Top Cat]

That could surely leave a mark on the ol' girl.

She has plenty of marks. But this is stupid.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

How about laughing at this? Think this will help her campaign? Think Trump won't use this?

 

[Casper]

How about laughing at this? Think this will help her campaign? Think Trump won't use this?

We shall see. Trump? Assuming he gets it Hillary will have a mountain of material to use against him.

 

[LowDown]

CNN host Carol Costello abruptly ended a segment Tuesday after a guest brought up Hillary Clinton’s 1975 legal defense of an accused child rapist.

Appearing on “CNN Newsroom With Carol Costello” on Tuesday, Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg, who supports Donald Trump said, “When you get one-on-one, especially if it’s Hillary, Donald Trump will go places nobody is willing to go — where the media at this point isn’t willing to go: Bringing up Clinton’s women who say they were intimidated by Hillary. Having them come forward and speak. A litany of issues that you can’t even imagine.” (RELATED: Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Admires Trump)

Costello then interrupted, “I’m thinking that might not be a winning argument for Donald Trump right at this moment.”

CNN Host Ends Interview Over Hillary's Defense Of Rapist | The Daily Caller

I saw the segment and it didn't seem to me that the anti-Hillary speaker was cut off. Costello clearly was skeptical of what he was saying, but he got his licks in. I'm no Hillary fan, but to criticize her over who she represented when she was a lawyer is bogus in the extreme. She got the guy off on a technicality, but technicalities are what makes the difference between a kangaroo court and proper due process.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

We shall see. Trump? Assuming he gets it Hillary will have a mountain of material to use against him.

If mountains is how you use a metaphor to compare the negative attributes of the candidates then Hillary stands at the top of Mount Everest.

If she is elected president the US will become the leeward side or rain shadow of the mountain.

 

[Casper]

If mountains is how you use a metaphor to compare the negative attributes of the candidates then Hillary stands at the top of Mount Everest.

If she is elected president the US will become the leeward side or rain shadow of the mountain.

She is a mole hill compared to the baggage trump brings with him, she would tear him a new one. But then again it will probably end up Cruz and with that who knows other than the GOP is deeply divided.

 

[NoLeftNoRight]

She is a mole hill compared to the baggage trump brings with him, she would tear him a new one. But then again it will probably end up Cruz and with that who knows other than the GOP is deeply divided.

What "baggage" does Trump bring? (other than the crap BS that the left throws out there in their desperation to discredit him)
Is Trump being investigated by the FBI for crimes against the state as a Federal employee? I guess I missed all that.

GOP? The "GOP" is nothing more than "The Establishment", exact same as the other party. And they both are indeed "partying"....as always at the working classes expense.
Support of EITHER mainstream party shows a clear lack of political understanding...or worse.

Support of a candidate in one of those "parties" who clearly is anti-establishment shows a clear understanding of politics and the Constitution.

 

[Casper]

What "baggage" does Trump bring? (other than the crap BS that the left throws out there in their desperation to discredit him)
Is Trump being investigated by the FBI for crimes against the state as a Federal employee? I guess I missed all that.

GOP? The "GOP" is nothing more than "The Establishment", exact same as the other party. And they both are indeed "partying"....as always at the working classes expense.
Support of EITHER mainstream party shows a clear lack of political understanding...or worse.

Support of a candidate in one of those "parties" who clearly is anti-establishment shows a clear understanding of politics and the Constitution.

If I have to explain what Baggage Trump has then I know I am talking to one of his Fan Club and not one of them has the ability to see or hear anything that disparages The Donald.
Let me know when Hillary has been brought up on charges, been put on trial and convicted. Oh, you must have your selective outrage thing going when it comes to charges, you seem to have missed that Trumps little fraudulent school scam is under a major investigation and Trump will be facing an if'y future himself .
I do not support either Party, I do support those I feel would be the lesser evil, and being the south end of a northbound mule does not make Trump a quality candidate for the highest office in the Nation if not the world. As for a clear understanding of politics, you have ZERO, anyone that actually buys into the BS promises of a Democrat running under the GOP umbrella has less understand of who they are supporting and politics than my cat.

 

[NoLeftNoRight]

If I have to explain what Baggage Trump has then I know I am talking to one of his Fan Club and not one of them has the ability to see or hear anything that disparages The Donald.
Let me know when Hillary has been brought up on charges, been put on trial and convicted. Oh, you must have your selective outrage thing going when it comes to charges, you seem to have missed that Trumps little fraudulent school scam is under a major investigation and Trump will be facing an if'y future himself .
I do not support either Party, I do support those I feel would be the lesser evil, and being the south end of a northbound mule does not make Trump a quality candidate for the highest office in the Nation if not the world. As for a clear understanding of politics, you have ZERO, anyone that actually buys into the BS promises of a Democrat running under the GOP umbrella has less understand of who they are supporting and politics than my cat.

So in other words, you don't really know of any significant "baggage" but it "feels good" to say that? I get it.
I am not a "Fan" of Trump btw and I would venture a bet (due to associations) that I am FAR more aware of who Trump really is than you are.
But if you call Trump University a "major scandal", but Benghazi a mere political venture....you should have to confront the families of the deceased. I'm sure they would straighten things out for you quickly.

And by your won metrics....call me when Mr.Trump is brought up on charges and convicted. Although in all fairness, Hillary's corruption is being protected by a corrupt administration and the full backing of the JD. Trump will have to prevail on pure proof of innocence.

IMO, there are no viable candidates currently representing the best interest of the nation over special interest. The Democrat offerings are as corrupt or anti-America as have ever been.
The "GOP" (BS) candidates are anything BUT real GOP.
I'm most certainly NOT a Hillary supporter however.

Many people are putting their sexual agendas and gender preferences ahead of common sense and what's best for the nation. Sadly.

I do support those I feel would be the lesser evil, and being the south end of a northbound mule does not make HILLARY a quality candidate for the highest office in the Nation if not the world.

See how easy this pointless game can be?
Please enhance and speak with your cat

 

[Casper]

So in other words, you don't really know of any significant "baggage" but it "feels good" to say that? I get it.
I am not a "Fan" of Trump btw and I would venture a bet (due to associations) that I am FAR more aware of who Trump really is that you are.
But if you call Trump University a "major scandal", but Benghazi a mere political venture....you should have to confront the families of the deceased. I'm sure they would straighten things out for you quickly.

IMO, there are no viable candidates currently representing the best interest of the nation over special interest. The Democrat offerings are as corrupt or anti-America as have ever been.
The "GOP" (BS) candidates are anything BUT real GOP.
I'm most certainly NOT a Hillary supporter however.

Many people are putting their sexual agendas and gender preferences ahead of common sense and what's best for the nation. Sadly.

I have zero idea what you are rambling on about gender agendas or preferences, when did that become part of the discussion, oh yeah when you brought it up, Must be important to you.

Yes, I see how pointless it is attempting discussion with you, will keep that in mind next time I have some time to waste.

I am sure my cat would be far more qualified and interesting to talk to but she is talking her nap right now, maybe later.

See how easy this pointless game can be?
Please enhance and speak with your cat

Nope, wrong again Buckaroo. It means I do not believe you to be smart enough to open your eyes to any critic of The Donald, in that I know I am 100% correct.
Yes you are, you are just not honest enough to admit it, a Perfect Trump Fan.

Correct you got it right, even if it was an accident, there is nothing to find in Benghazi, but then some are slow learners.

In that I agree, there are no "Quality" candidates in the race, we already grasped the fact you are a Hillary hater, I am no supporter either, I just prefer to stick with Facts, not propaganda.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

She is a mole hill compared to the baggage trump brings with him, she would tear him a new one. But then again it will probably end up Cruz and with that who knows other than the GOP is deeply divided.

Hardly; Hillary's scumbag antics go all the way back to Watergate. But you keep believing... :notlook: