I am really glad that Hillary is not the likely nominee. So much for being fully vetted...
But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't 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.
I would like to given HRC the benefit of the doubt of this one, but it makes me a little ill.
1 comment:
Look, no matter what you think of the crime a defendant is accused of, please realize that ALL accused have the right to defend themselves against any accusations.
HRC did what she needed to do to defend her client. It may seem reprehensible, but it was what is legally required of her as the court-appointed attorney. To do any less than vigorously defend her client would be a crime and possible grounds for disbarment. (I bet that the man professed his innocence to her, otherwise she would have worked to plead him out)
Imagine if that was not a 12 year old girl, but a 40 year old man. Questioning the validity of a witness is standard procedure.
If the man was found guilty, I hope big Bubba made this scum his prison B*TCH. Child rapists are the scum of the earth and deserve what they get in prison and then some.
Post a Comment