Hillary Criticized for Being a Lawyer

Oh boy, the wingnuts have a new attack on Hillary Clinton and it’s an especially stupid one. Someone found an old interview where she talked about defending an accused child molester when she was working as an attorney for a Legal Aid office in Arkansas. And that means she “is the war on women,” according to Joseph Farah.

Newly discovered audio recordings reveal Hillary Clinton in the 1980s gladly defended the suspected rapist of a 12-year-old girl using a legal technicality.

Is this a surprise for a woman who seeks to be president and who has championed the notion that Republican opposition is “at war with women”?

Not really…

But now we see the truth about this phony feminist. Given the choice between being the token woman attorney representing a man she strongly suspected was guilty of raping a 12-year-old girl and doing the right thing, Hillary opted for the money and her legal career.

Now let’s look at the actual article he cites:

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?”

Farah has translated that — read: lied about it — and turned it into her “gladly” defending him and “opting for the money.” In fact, she did it as a favor to the prosecutor in the case and she was working for Legal Aid, which means she didn’t make a dime from that case at all (she would have been paid a salary regardless of the cases she took). But why let little things like facts get in the way of one’s political assumptions?

She also, by the way, would have been legally obligated to provide him the best defense she could as his attorney. Anything less could result in being disbarred. Right wingers love to make these kinds of attacks on lawyers, like denying Neil Katyal’s potential nomination as Solicitor General to replace Elena Kagan because he had once defended an inmate at Gitmo (who turned out to be innocent, incidentally, even according to the Bush administration). It’s just another example of how conservatives actually despise the constitution they claim to revere. The constitution guarantees the right to counsel, but then they savage anyone who acts as counsel for anyone they don’t like. It’s perverse and appalling.

"Days? That's getting a bit ahead of ourselves, isn't it? He hasn't even managed hours ..."

Trump Attacks Basketball, Football Players
"Not to worry - I was just being sarcastic about ordering that, or anything else ..."

Jim Bakker’s Magically Refillable Food Buckets
"Hmm, I sorta expected something like that. Same sort of thing as Trump Steaks I ..."

Jim Bakker’s Magically Refillable Food Buckets

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    No, Farah is right! If Hillary wanted to to be an upstanding attorney, she should have used technicalities to defend corporations that pollute our air and water, making millions of people sick and cutting short their lives. Or maybe used her talents to find loopholes in our tax codes to make sure corporations don’t have to pay taxes so corporate executives can pay themselves huge bonuses while governments cannot fund a minimal social safety net. Or lobby for defense contractors so we can outspend on our military and further deplete our social safety net.

    That’s the kind of “morality” that wingnuts admire.

  • colnago80

    Of course, Farah is a lying piece of filth but this article is all of a piece with the attack on defense lawyers by the lamestream media and the talking heads on cable news, nearly all of whom are former prosecutors, like Nancy Grace and Wendy Murphy, who consider that an indictment is equivalent to a righteous conviction. A perfect example was the trashing of the defense lawyers in the O. J. Simpson case where the “commentators” conveniently ignored the fact that it was meathead Marcia and dimwit Darden who put on witnesses that committed perjury.

  • Chris J

    The guy accused of rape insisted on a female lawyer? And they obliged?

    … eww. (shudder)

  • D. C. Sessions

    Might have been a good tactical move.

  • busterggi

    Of course if an investigation shows that the accused rapist was a good Christian Republican the right-wingers will claim it was a false flag operation.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    …like denying Neil Katyal’s potential nomination as Solicitor General to replace Elena Kagan because he had once defended an inmate at Gitmo (who turned out to be innocent, incidentally, even according to the Bush administration).

    Yes, but at the time we knew he was guilty, so he didn’t deserve a defense.

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    What about the attorney who defended terrorists who shot and killed five innocent Americans? This man did his utmost to mount a defense of these murderers, with only two of nine being found guilty.

    You may heard of this man. We call him the second president of the United States.

  • Pen

    So Hillary has been know to do her job? Damn, that sure looks bad against her.

  • cptdoom

    Let’s also note the “technicality” allowed the Secretary to get a lesser charge in her client’s plea bargain. IOW, he was convicted.

    Farah called for Ollie North’s attorney to be disbarred, right?

  • Mr Ed

    I guess Hillary is pretty good if the best you can do is say forty years ago she defended a less than savory client. Are they saving her pre-school records for the general election.

  • colnago80

    Re Mr. Ed @ #10

    Well, ole Hillary did flunk the DC Bar exam the first time she took it.

  • Trickster Goddess

    There was a situation in Alberta about 15 years ago when provincial cabinet member and future wannabe Prime Minister Stockwell “Doris” Day wrote a letter to the editor accusing a legal aide lawyer of supporting paedophia for defending a client on child porn charges. The lawyer sued and Day fought it, dragging the case out for several years. When he switched to federal politics, he finally settled, paying the asked for award of $50k but only after running up a bill of $1M in lawyers fees – paid for by the taxpayers.

  • dingojack

    Hey – would YOU vote for someone who defended Glenn Bek?

    😉 Dingo

  • matty1

    From alternative earth number 56783:

    Suspected serial killer Jack Ripper walked free from court today after the judge ruled that the trial could not proceed without a defence counsel. Speaking on the court steps Mr Ripper said “Obviously I did it but I want to thank the legal profession for doing the right thing and refusing to defend a scumbag like me”

    This is the 83rd such case since top journalist Joseph Farah started his campaign to stop lawyers defending what he calls the obviously guilty. Mr Farah’s office said he was not available to comment as like all toddlers he needed a nap.

  • scienceavenger

    Newly discovered audio recordings reveal Hillary Clinton in the 1980s gladly defended the suspected rapist of a 12-year-old girl using a legal technicality.

    Is this a surprise for a woman who seeks to be president and who has championed the notion that Republican opposition is “at war with women”?

    OK, real slow so even all you mouthbreathing Teatards can grasp it: There is what one believes should be public policy, and there are the choices one makes in one’s personal life. They are completely seperate and independent things. Repeat until it sinks in. You wouldn’t expect a sports coach supporting a rule change to behave as though the change had already taken place do you? Thanks for playing.

    For the rest of you, think of this every time you hear some moron wondering why Al Gore drives a big car yet supports carbon reductions, or why if Warren Buffet thinks tax rates should be higher he just doesn’t give the government more money now, or any of a whole host of arguments that reveal a complete lack of understanding of the power of collective coercive action over voluntary action. They need to be called on this bullshit.

  • Pen

    @ scienceavenger – too true. I sometimes think even the politicians don’t get it. Well, especially elected tea party politicians.