General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumshoo boy. this is the kind of thing we'll be seeing a lot of when Hillary actually announces
Yes, a right wing source dug this up; the right wing will be spending a lot of time and money on opresearch and no, I don't think everything is out there as regards Clinton. This is an illustration of that. It's not made up. That's Hillary on the tape so defending it is tricky. btw, I don't see this as something terrible that she did. I get that people employ black humor over awful stuff, but the optics? they're bad. The tape is at link.
06.16.14
Why Was Hillary Clinton Laughing About Helping Suspected Child Rapist?
As a lawyer in the 1970s, Hillary Clinton defended a child rapist. Is it disturbing that in a taped interview recorded years later she is heard laughing over how she succeeded in securing a more lenient sentence for him?
Its hardly unusual for a criminal trial lawyer to gossip about a courtroom triumph on behalf of a less than admirable client, often with gallows humor and over drinks after a hard days work.
But its highly unusual for a lawyer to boast and laugh about such a circumstance in an on-the-record interview with a journalistand pretty much jaw-dropping when the lawyer is Hillary Rodham Clinton.
<snip>
This is beyond disturbing, wrote veteran GQ magazine political correspondent Lisa DePaulo.
Former Washington Post reporter Ruben Castaneda commented: Strikes me as the kind of dark humor you hear between cops, defense attorneys, and journalists. And yes, chuckling about this to a reporter looks bad. Appears like she was laughing about how clever she was as a defense attorney.
<snip>
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/16/why-was-hillary-clinton-laughing-about-helping-suspected-child-rapist.html
Response to cali (Original post)
Post removed
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Shows JUST how desperate
randys1
(16,286 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,487 posts)Poster took one for Democrats.
FSogol
(45,529 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
leftstreet
(36,116 posts)The article and/or author
Maybe you misunderstood
Response to leftstreet (Reply #9)
NCTraveler This message was self-deleted by its author.
leftstreet
(36,116 posts)I'm not familiar with it
The OP makes a reasonable point though. Hillary can expect a lot of flack from the media. She's been around a long time, whereas Obama was virtually unknown
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Keep barking
Response to Boom Sound 416 (Reply #13)
NCTraveler This message was self-deleted by its author.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)Keep on truckin cali, you are on a roll. Be careful you don't roll over a cliff.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)(I am not and was not from MA, but I thought some of the issues were of controversial cases from the long past.)
I do think that Clinton will be less vulnerable because many people have known her as well as a public figure is known. One point that could easily be made is that this does not fit with most of the things we know.
It does help Democrats to know that is out there, because being able to speak of the bulk of the work she did being for children and women. Here, it says this was someone who needed a public attorney. The law guarantees him that. Can a young, inexperienced, not particularly connected to power lawyer turn down a case because the client was repugnant without consequence?
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)and threatened to use them on Coakley.
At least they just did war whoops and tomahawk chops during the race against Warren.
senseandsensibility
(17,146 posts)What was that about?
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)A guy raped a baby girl with a curling iron.
And Coakley declined to prosecute or something.
But yeah, all of these men showed up with curling irons and would shriek to do the same to Coakley.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)World English Dictionary
obsession (əbˈsɛʃən)
n
1. psychiatry a persistent idea or impulse that continually forces its way into consciousness, often associated with anxiety and mental illness
2. a persistent preoccupation, idea, or feeling
3. the act of obsessing or the state of being obsessed
cali
(114,904 posts)Me? I've worked in the garden for a couple of hours, written an essay about being called a girly-girl and posted it in the writing forum, made a curried rice salad for a potluck and exercised. I have a full afternoon too. Hardly devoting all my time to this. (one of the good things about only sleeping 3-4 hours a night is you get a lot done).
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Demit
(11,238 posts)I can't always spot that, but yup, this is that. Why?
cali
(114,904 posts)and anyone who thinks that the repubs won't pull out all the stops with her or that it's all old news, is fooling themselves.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)but then again, I have a pretty low opinion of all of them.
However, as you say in your OP, this is what we will see in the general election campaign if she secures the nomination. Playing ostrich seems to indicate a lack of ability to adequately defend against the image portrayed. If Hillary's defenders cannot contend with this issue on a partisan political forum we're left to wonder how well they'll fare against an adversarial press and opposition campaign.
The lack of strategic foresight is breathtaking to behold.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)Why aren't you working to get a frontrunner Democratic candidate for POTUS instead of concentrating on Clinton? We are quite aware you are determined to undermine Clinton's candidacy. Your time could be better spent on telling us your reasons for supporting a possible candidate of your choice.
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)and pay attention at the same time.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)input for the Democratic party by supporting your choice for president, if you have one.
Demit
(11,238 posts)I don't think so.
Look, I'm not deliriously happy about her myself. I'd like an honest-to-goodness liberal myself. Na ga happen. Probably na ga happen in the rest of my lifetime.
One thing I do know, she can stand up to it. They've put her through the ringer before. And she doesn't back down. She can take a lot of shit and she won't just be cowed. IfIFshe's the candidate, I'll enjoy watching the apoplexy on the right at the fact that she won't just curl up & die like most Democrats seem to do in the face of criticism. The woman is tough. It's a pleasure to see.
Kingofalldems
(38,487 posts)NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)WovenGems
(776 posts)Given the Republicans can't run a true human she will win regardless. Count on the Republicans to run someone that makes even those Democrats who oppose her flock the voting booths.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)If that's all they got, bring it.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)And I'm I'm still waiting for that Michelle Obama "Whitey" tape.
bigtree
(86,005 posts). . .grouped with all of the rest of your attacks on Clinton.
You really think it's some sort of virtue to gloat over republican attacks on our former Democratic candidate? That's what this really is, ya know; another effort to knock Clinton down a peg - it's painfully transparent. Despicable that you'd leverage and promote this republican attack and act as if you're apart from it all. Your game is lame.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I think creative and imaginative implications regarding Vince Foster would appear much less peevish and sullen when we're flinging irrelevancies at the wall to see which one will stick most effectively whilst alleging it's simply concern for what happens to every candidate in every election...
lumpy
(13,704 posts)Shame on her. That is as bad as McCain laughing about bombing Iran. Boom boom boom.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)After all, the right wing will bring that up again, too. It will appear in print again, and someone will no doubt post whatever appears here on DU. What other things will opposition research bring back up from the past? Are you looking for them, so you can post them here?
It has all been made public again and again, and will be once more, if Hillary Clinton chooses to run. We'll all hear all the old stuff that can be dug up. We'll hear it from every right wing media source that exists. And you know what?
It won't make a damn bit of difference, if she is the candidate selected at the Democratic National Convention. It wouldn't have made any difference in 2008, and it won't make any difference in 2016.
But people will post whatever they can find here on DU if she runs. Some DUers will DU Rec those posts, too. It will become tiresome, as it did in 2008. If Hillary is the nominee, I predict she will win, and handily. Others may run in the primaries, and if they do, we'll see if they can do the unexpected and become the nominee.
But, in November of 2016, more than two years away, still, Democrats will go to the polls and vote for the Democratic nominee. Before that, they'll go to the polls at various times and vote in their states' primary elections. Who the Democratic candidate will be will be decided by the voters, not by people who post on DU or anywhere else.
If you have a candidate you'd prefer, then focusing on presenting that candidate in the most favorable possible light and encouraging others to do the same would be a far better idea than recycling old right wing opposition research more than two years before the 2016 election.
You will do as you please, I'm sure, and others will comment on whatever you post. I'll be among them, I promise.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)You better believe it!
FSogol
(45,529 posts)Historic NY
(37,453 posts)and if at all possible get them off or the best deal ?????
lumpy
(13,704 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts).... or EMTs...
... or firemen....
... who see horrible things every day and have to laugh or cry.
I'd say defending criminals creates similar moments.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)No problem with me.
Historic NY
(37,453 posts)laugh you betcha....Heck even undertakers & coroners are known for gallows humor.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)We already know there's a movement to divide the Democratic vote. It's hard to miss.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)especially from someone who has already stated her intent not to vote for Hillary even if she is the Dem nominee.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)We don't need the rw anymore.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Completely agree, cali. You post is absolutely 100% spot on. We need more posts like it two years out. Two years of old stories being brought up will cause them to played out completely when the time comes.
moriah
(8,311 posts)One good thing about Hillary?
I doubt that anyone's going to be able to drag up anything that hasn't already been discussed in RW circles for years and debunked or yawned over. Her skeletons are all out on the couch having tea, not shoved up in the closet.
Rex
(65,616 posts)that she is almost a shoe in, in 2016. The hysteria by the rightwing is not so much telling...as it is screaming out in desperation.
The GOP is desperate, so fucking desperate...and it shows!
Shoe in 2016...don't need tea leaves, just look at the way the rightwingers are acting out so early in the political process.
Oh and another thing...it would KIIIILLLLLL some of these older established white conservatives is Hillary wins in 2016...jus sayin.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But this is starting to get a little disturbing.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)conspiracy theory junk and stories speculating that Hillary is actually a secret lesbian posted by DUers, we'll know their real intent. I fully expect to see such things posted here, once the right-wing media trots all that garbage out again. As desperation grows, postings will get more and more outrageous, until enough is finally enough and the people who post such stuff are shown the door.
Once the November election is over, and candidates start declaring their candidacies, it's bound to get ugly. Fortunately, DU's jury system and community standards may lead to exposed transparency pages and keep that RW stuff down to a dull roar. I hope so, anyhow.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)MineralMan
(146,333 posts)And I think we ain't seen nuthin' yet. Desperation leads to strange things, and the more desperate, the more bizarre.
FSogol
(45,529 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)I mean after all, the RWers might....they might....they might..... be mean to her!
For fucks sake this thread is a new level of dumb.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Hillary Rodham Clinton often invoked her 35 years of experience making change on the 2008 campaign trail, recounting her work in the 1970s on behalf of battered and neglected children and impoverished legal-aid clients.
But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesnt mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas using her child development background to help the defendant
(from Newsday, via http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-versus-the-allegedly-raped-child#.U6C1YUB5uSq
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/02/24/463280/-Wow-Clinton-Attacked-12-Year-Old-Rape-Victim-s-Credibility-UPDATED
Hillary believed her 41 year old client to be guilty of luring a 12 year old girl into his automobile, plying her with alcohol and sexually assaulting her.
I had him take a polygraph, which he passedwhich forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs, she is heard telling Reed, punctuating her comment with a laugh.
In a July 28, 1975 affidavit, "Clinton attacked the credibility of the young alleged victim, claiming that she was 'emotionally unstable' and had a 'tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.'
Isn't that pretty much how she dismissed Monica Lewinsky's allegations? We all know what happened to Monica. I wonder what happened to that poor 12 year old girl in Arkansas. She sure as hell never got justice, did she?
HRC gets a child rapist a reduced sentence (2 months for time served), laughs about it, and there are people here who, even with the ready excuse of it being a long time ago, cannot bring themselves to criticize Clinton. Amazing. Incredibly disturbing, but amazing.
The defense prevailed, Clinton told Reed, when she realized that the crime lab had woefully mishandled the girls bloody underweara key piece of evidence.
The crime lab took the pair of underpants, neatly cut out the part that they were gonna test, tested it, came back with the result of what kind of blood it was what was mixed in with itthen sent the pants back with the hole in it to evidence Of course the crime lab had thrown away the piece they had cut out.
Clinton said she traveled to New York City and found a renowned forensic expert who would testify that the remaining material lacked a sufficient amount of blood to test. Clinton said she catalogued the experts intimidating resume and handed it to the prosecutor. I said, Well, this guys ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.
At which point, on the recording, shes heard bursting into laughter.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/
and from another source:
Clinton recounts how she took what remained of the (bloodied) underwear to a renowned forensics expert in New York to have him confirm that the remnants were unsuitable for confirmation testing. She tells the interviewer how she returned to Arkansas with a letter from the expert and a clip of his biography from Whos Who.
I handed it to [the prosecutor], and I said, Well this guys ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice, Clinton says with sarcastic laughter. So we were gonna plea bargain.
Facing an evidentiary disaster, and the prospect of defense testimony by a celebrity witness, the prosecutor caved. Instead of a hefty prison sentence, the accused rapist got off with time served which Clinton recalled was about two months in the county jail.
see also, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658801/I-never-trusted-polygraph-Hillary-Clinton-LAUGHS-recalls-helped-suspected-child-rapist-walk-free-prosecution-lost-crucial-evidence.html
Clintons job at the time was defending those accused of crimes who couldnt afford to pay for their own defense; her client was a factory worker whom she believed to be guilty. I had classmates who worked for our county's public defender's office. Believe me, it was pulling teeth to get the budget to pay for a local expert witness. So how many other clients of the Arkansas public defender's office got short shrift for funding to develop evidence for their cases so HRC could fly into NY and hire an expert (we in the biz call them hired guns). Air fare, hotel, expert witness fee - that cost a pretty penny. If he was a "celebrity" expert witness, his fees would have been quite high, even back then.
When you hear her voice describing it, and the laughter, it's not hard to picture the air quotes around miscarriage of justice. It was never about justice if she believed her client was guilty, it was about going to extreme lengths to win.
You can still vote for her if youd like. But don't justify her actions, either at the time she went to extraordinary lengths to get a guilty man a greatly reduced sentence, or years later in this interview when she violated the attorney's code of professional responsibility by making these comments about her client. Its an insult to those who have been victims and it's an insult to lawyers who actually follow the rule of attorney-client confidentiality, and would never disclose to ANYONE the results of a clients polygraph and guilt (since that is a violation of attorney-client privilege) let alone bragging to a reporter about getting rape charges dropped from a client they believed to be guilty.