Clinton released an online video in which she proclaims that all rape and sexual-assault accusers on college campuses should be trusted.
Twitter erupted with comparisons to the 1990s when she defended her husband against accusations from at least three different women.
Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey all pointed fingers at Bill Clinton as a sexual predator who mad unwanted physical advances.
Hillary famously stood guard against what she called ‘bimbo eruptions’ during the 1992 presidential campaign season
She also defended a child rapist during the 1970s when she was a lawyer in private practice, later laughing about the experience.
The 12-year-old victim in the case said last year that Clinton ‘took me through hell’ with false court filings that painted her as a liar .
Above is the lead from today’s ***Daily Mail. ***
There are pictures and videos at the site … including the damning affidavit Hillary filed against the child rape victim that led to her clients release on a minor fondling charge.
Hopefully she will be asked about this by a good journalist that would
like to hear her side of the story. Funny how these things come up from the past.
She shouldn’t touch this sexual stuff given her past record and that of her husband … but she can’t seem to help herself.
Theoretically – :knight2::knight1: Hillary is the world’s foremost defender of women!
In Practice - :tsktsk: *- Bimbo, looney tune, fantasizes about older men and pursues them, lies about having her body touched etc., etc. * :nunchuk: - vast conspiracy!
But isn’t a lawyer suppose to defend whoever comes to them?
In high school I wanted to be a defense attorney but I was told that you had to defend anyone who asked for your services, even the rapist,and killers.
To your question one … Hillary’s new tactic (see headline) rather makes such defense superfluous and contrary to justice. All of the accusers “have the right to be believed!”
Best case scenario: Maybe Hillary is trying to do penance for past sins in this field?
More probable: She is grandstanding for votes among the low information demographic.
Do false accusations have a right to be believed? The law provides that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. In instances such as the false accusations against the Duke University Lacrosse team, everyone jumped on the ‘guilty’ bandwagon when the accusations were entirely false.
Duke La Crosse “rape” case summary
**
District Attorney Mike Nifong, who was running for reelection, pursued the case very enthusiastically, despite the fact that the evidence in this incident was, well, limited. A DNA test of 46 members of the school’s lacrosse team failed to indicate any sexual contact with Mangum.* Several players were arrested anyway, none were found guilty.
Nifong was subsequently disbarred “after being found guilty of a battery of ethics violations for his handling of the Duke” case.
Now, according to an article in the News & Observer …
Duke University has settled out of court a lawsuit filed by 38 former lacrosse players stemming from the 2006 lacrosse scandal. A “stipulation of dismissal” was filed in federal court Wednesday, said the players’ attorney, Bill Thomas.
I remember the “Duke 88” … that group of faculty who (like a slander and expulsion “lynch mob” called not only for the expulsion of the ENTIRE team and program before there was any trial) but took out a full page ad in the school paper to wage their curious brand of justice.
I felt at the time no student should ever take any of their classes again … and protest if such classes were made mandatory.
THEN too there was the Rolling Stone U of Virginia rape hoax:
Rolling Stone Officially Retracts Its Report
On UVA Rape Hoax, Reporter Apologizes
Hillary’s defenders passionately made that case per her defense of the 12 year old’s “fondler” ( he got off with that … though Hillary’s later remarks make it seem that she always knew he was guilty) … that right to a legal defense and presumption of innocence til proven guilty. Even though no one much questioned that the girl had been badly beaten before reporting to the hospital and police “with injuries consistent with rape”.
Now it almost sounds like Hillary would like to have a Star Chamber or something per such accusations on college campuses.
:shrug: It seems whichever side of the issue she’s on she tends to gravitate past the “too far”" barrier of common sense. IMO.
Alex Datig says Hillary Clinton’s message that she stands with sexual assault victims is “offensive.” Datig says “charity begins at home.”
Datig’s video titled, “Hillary’s Re-Traumatization Of Rape Campaign Is An Assault On Survivors,” highlights stories from Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky – all of whom alleged Bill Clinton sexually assaulted them.
The video then cuts to Hillary Clinton saying, “Don’t let anyone silence your voice.”
Datig is using her personal story to counter Clinton’s campaign message. She tells Breitbart News, “I think she’s a hypocrite.”
Datig … told Breitbart News she was molested as a child and also drugged and raped as a teenager, later finding herself under the control of a pimp. After going through 16 years of recovery, she has decided to speak out against human and sex trafficking, giving victims of sexual assault a voice.
[quote]“This is a bipartisan issue and [Hillary Clinton’s]
politicizing this issue. I think it’s disgusting.”
“I am probably a textbook case for what Hillary Clinton is talking about when she says rape survivors – sexual assault survivors – have a right to be heard,” Datig explained. “My troubles in my teen years kept attracting predators into my life.”
Datig said during her time entering recovery and getting treatment,
“There was a Monica Lewinsky scandal a few years later and Paula Jones and all these things – and Hillary Clinton could have done so much for rape survivors back then … where she could have drawn the line where she could have said,
‘I don’t tolerate this type of behavior and no woman should.’”
WED SEP 23, 2015 AT 04:08 PM PDT Rape victim SLAMS Hillary Clinton
As a woman i am absolutely DISGUSTED by this. Hillary Clinton ought to be ashamed of herself NO woman should ever attack a victim EVER i don’t care if your a lawyer or whatever. This girl went through HELL and was brutally raped suffering from vaginal bleeding and instead of being comforted she was SHAMED and ACCUSED by Hillary Clinton these are not actions of a ‘champion of womens rights’ I don’t want anyone who attacks victims of rape to ever be president. SHAME on Hillary Clinton. I stand with ‘Jane Doe’ …
… Hillary Clinton had better hope this woman never comes forward in an ad calling out the despicable act hillary committed against her because no woman would ever vote for hillary after knowing what she did. I don’t give * **** if hillary was a lawyer or not SHE SHOULD HAVE ASKED TO REMOVED FROM THE CASE. and its even more DISGUSTING hillary REFUSES to even apologize even to this day. i am starting a petition demanding hillary apologize to this woman for what she put her through.
When the Daily KOS publishes such stuff … maybe the “vast right wing conspiracy” that is out to get the Clintons … is way bigger than anyone ever imagined. :rolleyes:
I’m trying for a common-sense approach to this issue, and Ms. Clinton’s words and actions related to it.
I have no intention of voting for Ms. Clinton either in the Democratic primary or in the general election, if she is the Democratic candidate.
That said, I believe strongly in the right of those accused of crimes to counsel who will defend them vigorously, and I have no problem with the fact that Ms. Clinton once defended someone accused of a sex crime, or that she defended him as zealously as possible – that was her duty as a lawyer.
I also believe that those who make accusations of sexual assault should be trusted. The presumption of the agency receiving the accusation should be that it is truthful. Further investigation may, in some small number of cases, prove that the accusation was false, but such accusations should not be dismissed out of hand.
I don’t see any contradictions in anything I said above, but I’m open to being shown that I’m wrong.
When it comes to sexual assault charges on college campuses, many colleges have their own tribunals. There is often a notorious lack of due process for the accused, resulting charges which would never hold up in a court of law being used to expel a student for what may have been consensual sex.
I hate to say this, but in the USA, you are innocent until proven guilty. Your lawyer should do everything to get you off. I would want a lawyer who would fight for me no matter what.
I am not saying that Clinton was right, but her job was to get her client off. If you are ever accused of a crime, I sure you would want that kind of lawyer.
Of course, hindsight is 20/20. We can now say she shouldn’t have accepted the case, or should have not made any kind of defense. I hope you get the kind of lawyer who will not fight for you if you are ever used or arrested.
:blushing: Thanks for posting though sallybutler. Your pointed questions did make me have to examine these emotional issues more deeply from a pragmatic point of view.
That is the hardest part of looking at court cases from one side or the other. Lawyers, whether paid for by the state or by an individual, are supposed to to whatever it takes to defend their client.
Being a public defender has to be hard. I have been a juror on cases where you knew the defendant was probably guilty, but the PD presented a better case than the state. I have also sat on cases where you wonder what was the PD thinking.
BTW,I never want to sit on a case involving a child. I don’t think I could be impartial. And that is even knowing personally where the child was lying (divorce case)
I’ve been “fortunate” in that every time I’ve been called in for jury duty … they never call me. I read a book for half a day and they’ve said “go home”. :coolinoff:
We have all sinned … and I have a horror of sitting in judgement on someone … especially if I’m not certain of the guilt of the person accused. I might be too lenient and let a bad person go free!
OTOH … the state sometimes has many more resources for their prosecutions than a poor person can defend against even if innocent (but the circumstantial evidence looks bad). Had I been in court and had heard details LIKE this girl’s beating (unto an eventual coma in THAT some reports say) … I might be too emotional to question the evidence as given … or not … and might have made a mistake with a “guilty” due to the seriousness of the charge (and the knowledge that SOMEBODY raped this girl … something should be DONE). :eek:
Maybe that’s why Hillary pulled every card out to keep this from a jury … and extract a ruling from the judge and prosecutor she knew through a plea bargain.
That they probably went with out of embarrassment about the “lost” evidence I think.
And maybe not so much the Psychological battery of inquiry Hillary had the 12 year old subjected to. :shrug:
Having BEEN a defense attorney though, this ***“woman has a right to be believed” ***proposition of the Hillary of Today … seems to contradict all the excuses being made for her – regarding that rape case. :hmmm:
There have been recent cases of men being lightly and wrongly accused at college campuses and facing a “guilty until proven innocent” sort of situation (the Duke La Crosse case, U. of Virginia “Rolling Stone” rape hoax) I’ll admit.
Hillary is probably just playing to her feminist base with all of this new stuff … but I guess by saying that – I’m implying a level of insincerity or something there. :shrug:
It’s almost impossible to defend her in both instances. That is … what she DID then. And what she SAYS now. They are diametrically opposed.
The book “No Crueler Tyrannies,” by Dorothy Rabinowitz, delineates a number of child abuse cases back in the 1980’s in which overzealous prosecutors secured convictions for persons who were not only innocent of the crimes alleged, but wherein the alleged crimes never even occurred. People went to jail for crimes that never happened. It made me a lot more suspicious of prosecutors in general, even though whenever I’m on jury duty my predisposition is toward a “guilty” verdict.
That is the hardest part about being a juror. Assuming innocence. After all, why would they be in court if they weren’t guilty? Our base nature fights with the higher ideal
DISCLAIMER: Catholic Answers has turned over the archive to Catholic-Questions.org and no longer owns, manages, or moderates the forums. For additional apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.
