Letters to the Editor
-
Wow.
This almost makes me want to switch from supporting Obama to Clinton.
Attacking an attorney for doing her job? What, was she not supposed to zealously defend her client because the accusation was heinous, or because he couldn't afford to hire his own lawyer?
Should we just let the government throw poor people in jail for heinous crimes because they can get some little kid to mouth some words, and then expect the government-appointed attorney not to test the case?
Guess what, you accuse someone of a crime, you have to expect to go to court and be cross-examined. That's too bad for crime victims, but you would want the same if you were accused of a crime. Otherwise we might as well declare martial law and burn the Constitution.
-
Just curious
Did she win?
This seems primarily to feed on supposed distaste for lawyers. Apparently everyone hates lawyers until they need one. We need people willing to vigorously defend every accused person to ensure our system works. This is a major reason the military tribunals of the guantanamo detainees is so horribly flawed.
-
This Is A Cheap Shot
The important issue is did she wear a flag pin during the trial.
-
This story will probably have legs
People who do not really understand how our court system works will probably have the wrong (negative) reaction to this story. People who hate Hillary Clinton already will also react negatively. Together, these two groups probably make a large majority of Americans.
But let's look at this story filtered through the reality of our court system:
Hillary Clinton did her job exactly the way she was supposed to do it.
Well done Hillary.
------------------------
Full disclosure: I do NOT want Hillary Clinton to be the presidential nominee from the Democratic Party. Most emphatically not.
-
35 years ago
I am much more interested in Hillary Clinton's behavior in the present than I am in what she did as a lawyer defending her client (quite appropriately) 35 or so years ago. I can't see where stories like this have ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Hillary Clinton's ability to serve as president next year. I've seen and done a lot and learned a lot since I was 27 years old, and I would like to think I did the work I was doing then with passion and sincerity and to the best of my ability, but if I were applying for a job NOW, I would expct my employer to be more interested in what I had learned from my life experiences and what I think NOW, than in parsing things I did years ago out of context.
What disturbed me this weekend was Hillary's temper tantrum over some campign flyers. She was so made I couldn't really figure out the substance of what she was talking about, but I had a visceral reaction to her anger: not leader-like.
-
Not black and white
Morality and legal/professional duty do not always go hand-in-hand. While a less-aggressive defense would have breached her professional responsibilities, the substantive question is, what was her moral responsibility?
-
Pretty standard, really...
I don't know that this is useless or bad journalism. While it's true that the client deserved the best defense he could get, and Clinton probably acted ethically as his lawyer, it is up to the public to decide whether her choices impact their decision to vote for her.
For me this wouldn't sway my vote, but I can't judge the way others do their internal electoral math. For some this may be information that matters. It would be a shame if illegality was the only legitimate negative story a paper could write about a candidate.
(It is clear that this is advocacy journalism, but I don't have a problem with that either. I think it is impossible to be "objective" given all the decisions that have to be made about what stories to cover, what to ignore, and who to interview.)
-
A pragmatist
Yes, this is a lawyer's job, but every lawyer does not have to take every case. Refusing cases, however, could put a black mark on a young lawyer's career. So, here is the essence of my problem will Hillary Clinton (and her husband too). She's a pragmatist, not an idealist. She'll compromise her values to get things done. Sometimes America needs a president like that, but not today.
-
yep
That's certainly a dirty hit-job of an article from a po-dunk little paper...it shouldn't (but probably will) have legs, and that's a shame.
Speaking of shame, what's up Alex? No comment on Hillary's...interesting weekend? From the "shame on you!" to the open mockery of Obama in Providence...it's certainly been eventful no? No mention of those incidents? Curious.
-
i saw Hillary Clinton walking on water!
But the headline is: Hillary can't swim.
-
If she hadn't
If she had not questioned the credibility of the witness against her client she could have gotten into all sorts of trouble for not giving him an adequate defense.
-
"it's something she should be praised for."
I have to wonder if Hillary Clinton would be praising someone she was facing in an election if this information applied to them? My guess is she would be making use of it anyway she could.
She did her job as a lawyer. She can't be faulted for that, but she is running on her "35 years experience", and this is part of her experience. Its entirely fair to question her on it, especially because her "35 years experience" are always framed in large part as being a tireless advocate for women's and children's issues.
Its not a big deal, its not an election make-or-break issue, but it does speak to the convoluted nature of the Clinton's character. She owns her past and her "35 years experience." she can't complain or cry foul when all that experience comes into play.
-
What justice sounds like
I recently saw the movie "Gideons Trumpet', which tracks the court case that ensured that all defendants are provided with a lawyer. Fonda plays Gideon, who basically gets railroaded, and who clearly was not capable of defending himself - He is a little simple, maybe, but the way he plays the part makes me think the guy was a little autistic. He was clearly articulate enough to get the Supreme Courts attention, but not savvy enough to negotiate the complexities of our justice system.
Now, I don't know whether or not this guy could afford a lawyer, or if Clinton was assigned to him - Doesn't matter. I can't buy into the idea that under the principal of innocent until proven guilty, that someone can be defended "too well"
Even if the defendant is OJ - I would call that the exception that proves the rule, because it illustrates whay we cannot have a two-tiered justice system - Competant lawyers must be provided to defendants.