As Young Lawyer, Hillary Clinton Defended Child Rapist She Knew Was Guilty

Back when Sen. Ted Cruz was a practicing lawyer, the state of Texas appointed him the defendant for a man by the name of Thomas Alfred Taylor, age 41. Cruz agreed to do it.

Taylor had been accused of luring a 12-year-old girl into his car and raping her. Being accused of something does not mean you are guilty, of course. But according to newly discovered audio recordings, Cruz had no doubt in his mind that his client was guilty as sin.

Taylor raped that 12-year-old, and Cruz admits he knew it fully when he defended him in court. So his strategy to win the case was to attack the character of the raped child.

What you’ve just read is a true story, but I have deliberately changed one of the names in it: Ted Cruz. This really did happen to a lawyer-turned-politician, but it wasn’t the Texas senator.

It was Hillary Clinton.

When Clinton was 27 years old, she was asked to defend this Mr. Taylor. About a decade later, she was interviewed by journalist Roy Reed, the audio of which can be heard here.

Some highlights of the interview, or lowlights, if you’re a good person, are when Clinton said that Taylor “of course” denied raping the kid, but that “he took a lie-detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” at which point she laughs.

So Clinton knew Taylor was lying when he denied raping the girl. But she defended him anyway. What do ethics matter to a Clinton?

One of Clinton’s strategies for winning the case was to attack the character of the rape victim. According to a court affidavit written by Clinton, she had “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,” and that 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.”

Because damning evidence had accidentally been thrown away (which Clinton laughed about in the interview), Clinton was able to get the sentence for Taylor, who pled guilty only to molesting the girl, reduced from 5 years to 1 year.

This is America’s next president.







Comments

comments

Posted in 2016 Election, Crime, Law Tagged with: , , ,
  • woonsocket

    Chris, you know that lawyers have a job and it’s to defend their clients. To do otherwise can get them (lawyers) disbarred. But, heck, this site is about rallying the far right anyway.

    • jessica22

      There you go again, woonsocket…
      confirming every belief I had about you and ethics!
      (Do you understand the word?)

      Defending a child rapist? Geez….

      • CharlieFromMass

        I understand what you’re saying, but all defendants are entitled to a defense.

        Remember, every once in a great while, we see a case where someone is “absolutely, positively, certainly guilty,” only to find that they weren’t, for reasons ranging from mistaken identity to outright lies.

        Now….still don’t want a defense attorney to do their job?

        • jessica22

          There are millions of lawyers in the U.S.
          Find one who believes your fairytale.

          To think an “ethical” person would be forced to defend a child molester makes me sick.

          I agree, all defendants are entitled to a defense. I just don’t believe they are entitled to more than a defense.

        • patriotusa2

          The prisons are suppose to be full of innocent men, so they now tell us. Makes no difference that some of them have rap sheets a few miles long, but if they didn’t commit the crime they’ve been jailed for, it’s now considered injustice.

      • woonsocket

        We’re ALL entitled to legal representation. Look at how many prisoners were released after DNA testing started.

      • patriotusa2

        Unbelievable! I would have had to pass this one up if someone called on me to defend them, especially knowing they were guilty. No way would I ever defend a child rapist.

      • denoferth

        Ethics is the trait people exhibit when no one is looking; something that seems to be totally lacking among members of the left, especially in this administration.

    • buckman21

      The point of the article was when someone will stand up for what is right. If my job was on the line and I was asked to do something against my ethics, religions, morals, whatever you want to define it as, you bet I would rather be fired. Its called having a backbone socket, not always following the rules blindly.

      • CharlieFromMass

        Actually, in the case of an attorney, you can always refer the case to another lawyer.

    • CharlieFromMass

      I have to agree with this. As much as a fair and speedy trial is a guaranty by the Constitution, by extension, that includes competent defense. Nobody- lawyers or courts, want to clean up the mess if that doesn’t happen, and either the wrong guy gets sent to prison or someone goes up on such trumped-up charges that the sentence becomes excessive, both of which could put the prosecution (and thus, taxpayers,) on the hook for a very large amount of money, both in wasted resources and possible fines/compensation to the defendant.

      A few years ago, a man in Massachusetts who was convicted of murder was released from prison after almost thirty years when re-testing of the evidence conclusively proved that not only did he not do it, but the prosecutor got a real bad case of glory-seeking and wanted a conviction at all costs. The courts fined the Commonwealth for a pretty substantial amount, and the man received about $2 million in compensation.

      A few mistakes like that can become real pricey real quick.

      • TimAZ

        Pricey. Yes, but no one engaged in this miscarriage of justice is held accountable. The tax payers must pay for the malpractice.

        • CharlieFromMass

          I don’t know if I’d go quit that far.

          The prosecuting attorney handling the case, depending on how great a miscarriage occurred, can receive anything from being stonewalled for advancement, to termination, to disbarment to possibly even jail if crimes were committed as part of the miscarriage. They pay, trust me, just not in ways we might normally see.

          The judge could also be in hot water if malfeasance is found on his end. And I have heard of judges going to prison over such things. Nothing recent, but it has happened.

          The juries usually aren’t held liable. They can only work with what the court allows them to work with. I was on a jury and it was a very interesting experience to see the manuverings of the court system.

          What I’m saying is accountability comes in many different forms.

      • woonsocket

        The worst nightmare is executing an innocent person. It’s the only reason why I’m against the death penalty. Regrettably, California dropped the death penalty before Charles Manson was found guilty.

        • CharlieFromMass

          I have to agree with this, too. I generally support reserving it for the worst of the worst and when there is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION. Tsarneyov, or however his name is spelled? That little idiot bragged about the Marathon bombing, I say fry his ass.

          But in other cases, yes, I think you’re right in that caution is better exercised than retribution.

          All I can say is is that I was the warden or had some other direct involvement in the death of an innocent man, I don’t think I could live with myself over the guilt.

          And yes, Manson should have died long ago.

        • LABobfromNYC

          Manson never killed anyone. I’m not saying he’s innocent but telling a bunch of drug crazed kooks while high on drugs yourself to “kill” would never get someone the death penalty today.

        • jessica22

          Yes, he did.
          In 1971, Manson was convicted of the Tate-LeBanc murders and is serving life in prison (California dropped the death penalty before he was convicted).

        • LABobfromNYC

          NO, he didn’t. Manson wasn’t even there when the Tate-Labianca murders took place. what we have is a man who was condemned to death for asking free-willed individuals to murder, without any form of compensation, and without the asker actually even taking part in any killing.

        • jessica22

          Were you on the jury?

        • LABobfromNYC

          Manson was convicted of murder because he told the killers to murder. The case against Manson NEVER included Manson actually murdering anyone.

        • jessica22

          He was found guilty of murder due to California’s
          “Joint-Responsibility Rule” which makes each member of the conspiracy guilty of the crimes committed by his fellow conspirators.

          Calling Manson a murderer sounds ethical to me…

    • noweareman

      Well at least the Left can sleep at night knowing this about Mrs. Clinton!

      • woonsocket

        *LOL* It’s a trivial article. Something like soup du jour.

    • Hgncpa

      Actually, it is incumbent upon lawyers to seek the truth, no matter what obstacle stands in the way, not obfuscate and outright lie to obtain the best result for their client. It is true that all persons are innocent until proven guilty, and that other enumerate rights are given to persons to protect them from the injustice and tyranny of the gossips and the mob. However, it is also established principle in jurisprudence that a lawyer can withdraw from defending a person when they can no longer do it for whatever reason they deem fit to withdrawal, including ethical, moral or legal grounds. If I as a lawyer, was told by my client that he or she was guilty, or after discussions with my client and the prosecution, showing the overwhelming weight of evidence, both physical and from testimony that would come from witnesses, I would advise my client to plead guilty or discuss a plea bargain with the prosecution, given all the facts of the case if one was available. But I would never resort to abusing the plaintiff because I had no case, and knew it. And though many people may think of a very famous quote from Cicero at this point, if you read the entire context, he was actually mocking this viewpoint, not supporting it.
      We as Americans, need our leaders to have some moral and ethical compass, and not necessarily one that is based in religion, but rather on conscience and common sense.
      Based on the last paragraph, Hillary Clinton does not qualify in any sense of the words.

      • woonsocket

        It is the job of the defense lawyer to discredit all “hostile” witnesses.

  • jessica22

    Oh, I want a female POTUS!!!!!

    But as much as I want a female, NOT Hillary!
    C’mon Nikki Haley or Susana Martinez… we REALLY need you!

    • http://www.lewrockwell.com/ Tuci78

      Whyever in hell would you particularly want a POTUS from the distaff side if your best option for the job is male? Are you saying that you’d favor a less competent or constitutionally-adherent woman just because she’s got ovaries instead of testicles?

      If you’re not prepared to show gender indifference when it comes to the selection of a job candidate, what are you but another flaming bigot?

      • jessica22

        Who says a male is the best option?

        And why do you assume there’s no female competent to be an excellent POTUS? Certainly that’s not my top priority, but today there are many conservative women who would do a great job.

        I think the time is right – especially if the left puts up Hillary.
        So don’t accuse me of favoring ovaries to testicles!

        Btw, isn’t it amazing to hear a conservative try to keep another conservative in line? Shhhhhh… accept status quo and don’t create any noise. IMO that is not what the tea party stands for – that’s what the establishment GOP is known to do.

        • LABobfromNYC

          Seriously… you can’t expect te@baggers to support a candidate without testicles! :P

        • jessica22

          Yeah I do… :P

        • Daniel from TN

          There are several women who could be as great a president as Margaret Thatcher was a Prime Minister. However, a woman will not get the backing from the GOP UNLESS she is an establishment Republican, which would defeat the purpose of having a woman candidate.
          Also, even though the US is ready for a female president, the rest of the world is not ready for a female US president, which is why I believe Hilary will not get the Democrat nomination.

        • http://www.lewrockwell.com/ Tuci78

          … even though the US is ready for a female president, the rest of the world is not ready for a female US president…

          Just what the hell does “the rest of the world” have to do with Americans choosing a candidate to serve as chief magistrate of our federal government?

          That aside, what prevents a female chief executive from functioning well at the federal level in a system of government like ours? We’ve had female governors in various of the states for decades, and they’ve served effectively in those jobs.

          Admittedly, “Americas Ex-Wife” is a horrible excuse for a human being who’s done nothing but damage in every public office she’s ever held, but we should not judge the whole female side of the American population by that vicious hag.

        • http://www.lewrockwell.com/ Tuci78

          Who says a male is the best option?

          Who says that a female offers the better option simply because she’s female?

          As I’ve said – and as you’re proving – you’re a flaming bigot.

          You’re just bigoted in favor of women. That’s not “status quo” on either part in this exchange. Just arrant stupidity on yours.

          Sound diagnosis on mine.

        • jessica22

          Why are you insulting me?
          Certainly you understand why a female might like to see a female president. Like a black might like to see a black president? You do see the interest?

          How can you call me a gender bigot? Or arrantly stupid?
          A flaming bigot? You know exactly what point I was making.

          Could this possibly be what happened when Obama won?
          You male WASPs on the right forgot who makes up the electorate. Be careful not to disparage conservative women or the tea party may shrink…

        • http://www.lewrockwell.com/ Tuci78

          “Why are you insulting me?”

          What insult? I’m accurately assessing your character. You’re a flaming bigot. You’re merely the kind of flaming bigot in whom a gynecologist takes proper clinical interest.

          You’re also a gaudy idiot. You’re addressing someone with the online ekename of “Tuci78″ and cement-headedly yammering about how I’m supposed to be a friggin’ “WASP,” demonstrating that you’re too stupid to derive from a reading of that nick the fact that I’m an Italian-American and therefore almost certainly Roman Catholic.

          The only “point” you’ve been making is that you’re psychotically fixed on “identity politics,” disposing your advocacy not on the basis of a reasoned regard for social comity and the conduct of government in our republic under the strict rule of law (which last embodies respect for the unalienable individual rights of each human being as a human being, regardless of irrelevancies like race or religion or gender) but because you favor or disfavor what you stupidly conjure to be the group to which each person is supposed to belong.

          You’re a bigot. A stupid one, too. That’s not “insulting.” As I’d said, that’s diagnosis.

          As for “Barry” Soebarkah – a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia who never so much as registered with the I.N.S. when his adoptive father and his gallivanting mumsie mailed him to Honolulu to grow up White in the household of the Dunham grandparents – my objections to his occupancy are predicated on features of his personality other than his cutaneous melanin content.

          Hell, being a Sicilian-American, I’ve probably got more “African” in my genetic make-up than he does. We got lots of Moorish pirates raping their way through the island quite regularly down through the past millenium.

          Soebarkah’s alleged biological father was Luo, an ethnic group in southeast Africa with a helluva lot of Arab admixture.

          By the bye, he’s also by birth and by inculcation through the first decade of his life a Muslim. The tenets of Islam do not admit the lawfulness of any Muslim converting to another faith (like Christianity), and unless “Barry” is a Muslim merely pretending Christianity in order to deceive the infidels, he is by Islamic law an apostate, and therefore automatically condemned to death in each and every country where Sharia rules.

          So how come Michelle’s Metrosexual Meatpuppet hasn’t been seized and killed by some squad of jihadi yet?

          Wrap your tiny little bigot brain around that happy fact, why don’tcha?

        • abinico

          Tuci78 – Jessica22 is not a bigot. I’ve argued with her many times, and she always makes a good argument; though I often do not agree with her, there is no reason to be insulting. I personally think a cat is the best option – does that make me a bigot?

    • LABobfromNYC

      How’s Elizabeth Warren sound?

      • jessica22

        I do like Elizabeth Warren.
        Unfortunately, she’s a democrat now.

  • FrankC

    This is why I would not want to be a defense attorney, defending someone I knew was guilty would be difficult. But, what is the actual responsibility of the defense attorney? Are they supposed to get that person off at all costs, most likely to commit more crimes? OR, are they supposed to protect the rights of that person? There is a difference.

    • CharlieFromMass

      Every defendant is entitled to a defense.

      In a case like this, a defense attorney’s primary duties are to make sure the defendant’s rights are respected and enforced and to get the best possible outcome- either in a shorter or less-harsh sentence, probation/parole/suspended sentence, or for better or worse, sometimes succeed in getting them off, especially if police agency/prosecutorial incompetence can be shown.

      Like it or not, Hillary actually did her job in this case. And did it well.

  • Melinda

    A defendant is entitled to a fair, speedy trial under the Constitution. A lawyer cannot lie to the jury about the defendants guilt or innocence. They must use legal tactics and the weakness of the prosecutors case to win for the client. All lawyers take a vow to defend a person according to the law. Hillary did what was dictated by Constitution. Obtain a fair and speedy trial for the defendant.

    • CharlieFromMass

      Exactly. To provide a less-than-asisduous defense could be grounds for a malpractice suit and possible disbarment.

      • Daniel from TN

        It could also be grounds for overturning a conviction, or even a complete dismissal of the charges.

    • Abiathar

      Melinda, where in the Constitution does it dictate that a lawyer is to work have a court find his client innocent from a crime that the lawyer knows his client is guilty of having committed? “to win for the client” that is guilty as sin?

      • Watchmanonwall

        Amendment 6 – Trial by jury
        In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
        {If he is not going to try to win, why bother? }

        Amendment 7 – Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
        In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

        • Abiathar

          OK, people, the Constitution guarantees a trial by jury. It is a perversion to extrapolate from that the duty of counsel (a lawyer) to help the guilty escape justice. The purpose of the court and its officers is to investigate a matter in order to discover the truth and declare innocence or assign guilt with its appropriate punishment. It is a perversion of the courts to use deceptive arts to defeat the very purpose of the court. It is true that our American courts have been so perverted that lawyers actually believe that it is their responsibility to enable the guilty to go free. That is wickedness, and it will eventually cause the entire justice system to collapse.

        • Watchmanonwall

          “…and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” means that there is someone on the defendant’s side. Defendants have the civil right to have an advocate fight for them. It is implicit that the counsel will do their best within the law and rules of ethics for the client. Unlike many other countries where the defense counsel actually works for the government and basically ushers the defendants through the criminal system as quickly as possible to a guilty plea. ie. China.
          .
          It is naive to think that the government is concerned about “justice” or discovering truth. Many times that is the last thing the government wants.
          .
          There are limitations to what a vigorous advocate can do ethically. But generally, the role is to help the client. If attorneys did not take unpopular cases, you would not have much of the common law you have today.

          If you want to imagine “perversion of justice” just remember how easy it is to be accused and charged with a crime. It can be anonymous or based on a mis-statement by someone or revenge or the gov. going after political enemies. The IRC has over 72k pages of regulations. I bet everyone in this country has violated at least one. That is just ONE agency. The federal government is printing thousands new regulations weekly or monthly.

          Remember how you will be “tried” in the media without any rules of evidence. Speculation and multiple levels of hearsay are not only permitted, but encouraged. Imagine you appear in court, by yourself, without anyone on your side, and not knowing the law. The Prosecutor and Judge are trained and experienced. They can out talk you 7 ways to Sunday. The jury has already heard all the news stories, so why bother with a trial? The judge asks you how you plead and snickers when you say “not guilty”. “Ok, lets get the show on the road. Can you pick a jury? Can you object to improper evidence and questions? Can you make an opening statement? Can you cross exam a witness? Can you subpoena witnesses? Do you know how to question your witnesses without leading? Can you make legal arguments on the fly? Can you make a closing argument?

          There is a reason for the expression that a prosecutor can indict a grapefruit in a grand jury. That is because there is no defense counsel to keep him honest and present the other side.

          Sorry this is long, But this is such a fundamental right and protection from fascism (via jury nullification) that we cannot just take it for granted and not understand what we may lose if we do not actively protect our rights.

        • Abiathar

          Go back and read my comment. It is immoral and wickedness to deceive justice. All of your words are weasel words to justify that which is an abomination. You are defending the Pharisaical system of “justice” which has usurped the Judicial system in the US. Justice must not depend upon the arts and crafts of lawyers to bamboozle judges and juries. Justify your relish for perversion from the Law of God. The Law of God is very clear – “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.” Proverbs 17: 15.

        • Watchmanonwall

          I understood your comment perfectly. My words are not “weasel” words, nor is representation a perversion of the Law. I hold the same viewpoint as the drafters of the constitution. Look it up. I am done arguing with you. Educate yourself on our judicial system.

      • jcherry7

        It is the lawyer’s legal duty to provide the best possible legal defense to the charges. I don’t like Hillary at all; but what she did was legitimate, and indeed required under the law. We might like it better if lawyers simply refused to defend persons they personally deem guilty, but that isn’t the way it’s supposed to work. Lawyers present the best case possible, and let juries and judges adjudicate the case.

    • jwright673

      I’m not one to defend Hillary for anything, but you are exactly right. Paid lawyers can pick and choose which cases they will deal with while appointed lawyers have no choice. In either circumstance, the lawyer is to do the best he/she can for his/her client while adhering to the norms of law. It does sicken me when any lawyer tries to lay blame on crime victims. And appointed lawyers are usually new to the system and feel they have to make a name for themselves in order to get noticed by high-power firms. In rape cases, I prefer giving them a fair trial, not a perfect one, then hanging them in the morning.

    • Chief47

      Since when did you liberals start spouting off about the Constitution? Only when it suits you, right? Any other time, you want to change it or ignore it. Maybe if one of your children is ever raped and some slick shyster gets the rapist found not guilty, you may change your tune considerably.

    • abinico

      Ha, ha, ha, so naïve – lawyers lie ALL the time. Remember the OJ trial – if the glove fits, you must acquit – boldest lie ever told, and what happened to the lawyer – he began famous.

    • EFTROM

      Melinda, she wasn’t ordered to take this case. She took it as a favor. She didn’t have to take the case. A different lawyer would have been given to the guy. Clinton knew he was guilty and continued to defend him regardless. And ten years later she laughed about how cunning she was in getting a child rapist off easy.

      • Melinda

        She is a lawyer. He oath is to defend. Y can turn down people. But nothing wrong w defending people. It’s part of constitution

  • Hgncpa

    Why does every hack who thinks he’s a journalist state that Hillary will be America’s next President? Did Chris forget the question mark at the end of the story, or does he lack proofreading skills?

    • LABobfromNYC

      Because she’s the democratic front runner & the Dem’s have a lock on the electoral college

    • woonsocket

      Anything can happen between now and next year. When Bush I defended Kuwait his popularity soared. Everyone thought that he was invincible. Democratic hopefuls decided it was a waste of time to run against him. Then along came Bill Clinton.

    • EFTROM

      There shouldn’t be a question mark at the end of a declarative sentence. Chris didn’t ask a question. He said, “This is America’s next President.” Did you forget how to read?

  • TimAZ

    Just another testament as to why lawyers are often called the devils advocate. A good reason to ban lawyers from political office as well. We all see exactly what they have done to our country to date.

  • jaydee

    Are these the same psychologists who said that children cannot lie about sexual molestation (rape) that got the Ameraults and many others daycare teachers convicted of rape etc.???? For Clinton to laugh about what happened is typical proggie thinking. Someone had to defend this man, but they did not have to win.

  • kris littlefield

    I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton’s, however as a defense attorney it is her job to defend her client even if she knows he’s guilty. Everyone deserves a fair trial and she would have been derelict in her duty if she hadn’t vigorously defended him. However, talking about it and laughing about it just shows that the woman has never had any class. Bringing this up is just nitpicking and only alienates people. She has done enough without drudging up this kind of incident. The way this country is going though, with the thing about being gay as being normal, it won’t be long before pedaphile’s start asking for their rights. They say they can’t help their feelings either. That they were born that way. Aren’t we preparing our kids for this kind of thing with all the sex they teach in our schools? Say it can’t happen? Well we said that about being gay. Maybe Hillary can be their Champion.

  • conc11111

    What difference does it make

  • wcplace

    We would know if the Hildebeast ever picked up a Bible, she would have scars from the third degree burns on her hands!

  • abinico

    So what – this is what a lawyer is supposed to do.

  • Watchmanonwall

    You may not like it, but the criminal attorney and the jury trial are your LAST line of defense against a tyrannical government. (At least before NDAA, Patriot Act and all of these regulations and recent judicial decisions, it has not helped the videographer of the mohamed film, who is still being held without bond and denied counsel and a trial) Remember that the next time you are called for jury duty.

    The government – not the defendant – has the burden of proof. The government has to prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant does not have to prove anything. The defendant has the right to remain silent. The defendant can cross examine the state’s witnesses. Our system was set up that way on purpose. If you don’t know why, you should.

    If the government threw away evidence, then they screwed up. The defense’s job is to poke holes in the state’s theory and evidence if possible. You would be amazed by the number of false allegations of rape or other crimes made by people of all ages. It is well documented that there are many false allegations of child abuse. They way the government interviews them is a big part of the problem. Sometimes the accuser will confess on the witness stand. You have to push them if you are going to give your client a fair trial.

    Clinton’s client denied his guilt to her. She was speculating on his guilt based on her own assumptions, not on the evidence. Certainly against the polygraph. I have suspected the same with some of my clients. But I could not prove it. Therefore, I can’t roll over and give up. I have to be the best advocate for them. Because there is no other advocate. They also have the presumption of not guilty. That includes the defendant’s attorney.

    Even someone who admits they are guilty does not deserve a welcome mat for an attorney. Virtually all cases get negotiated for less time, less fines, lesser charges. Very few actually get tried. Your client deserves the best deal you can get for him too. Just like all the other innocent defendants.

    Hillary is a liar/scumbag/commie/narcist/entitlement/elitist/progressive/big-gov/un-american and a disciple of saul alinski. She may have gone to far to attack the victim. I don’t know, I was not there. but she did the right thing.

  • 2War Abn Vet

    Every individual is entitled to a defense in court, and every defense attorney is to do their best to represent them. There is something disturbing about an attorney who is gleeful about working to put a person her knows to be guilty of a vile crime back on the street.

    But then, a former boss fired her because, “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

  • Sunshine Kid

    The fact that the courts can appoint attorneys to represent the defendant is not the problem. What is the problem is when the attorney becomes more than a legal rights advocate, ensuring the proper procedures are followed in court, to being a full-fledged advocate that the person so charged is innocent.

    Such lawyers should be held in contempt at the least, disbarred and charged with aiding and abetting a criminal as appropriate. Let THEM get a lawyer to defend their unethical behavior!

  • Shagnasty1

    Maybe she was just gearing up for the inevitable day she would have to defend Bill.

  • woonsocket

    The leader of the terrorists from Benghazi has been caught. That man will be brought back to the USA to be tried. He too has the right to an attorney.

    Republican John McCain is confused about this news.
    One day terrorists should go to Guantanamo Bay.
    The next day terrorists should come to the USA to be tried.
    McCain kept doing multiple flip-flops.

    Republicans are now complaining about the “timing” of the capture. What ever happened to, “We’re pleased that this administration has caught this terrorist?” It would be interesting for a lawyer to question John McCain in court.

  • jime1

    So her claim about the Bible being a major influence in her life is bare-faced lie, now isn’t it! Is not the entire premise of the Bible Truth? Was Truth served if got a guilty prep off?

  • travis41

    I’ve always said I liked and trusted Bill,even when he was Gov. I knew about his sexual affairs,as several state cops told us about them,but what man condemns another for having sex with pretty women, they wish they had,if this is their worst sin,then it’s fine with me.Hill on the other hand,I never trusted,she was caught in 1 lie after another,and it did not stop her,her patent excuse {I mis-spoke}the only defense she has for this case is,once committed to defend even scum,she must use every legal defense possible to free them,or failing that, at least as short a term as possible.Why in hell these “journalists” continue to call this woman our next potus is beyond my comprehension,she would insult every head of state,she met with,thus costing the USA all our allies, ‘course the dems could care less,they want America’s downfall to be complete.