An attack on Hillary Clinton for zealously defending her client in a criminal case:
[T]here 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.
(…)
Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader’s honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out “older men” like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed “Hillary D. Rodham” in compact cursive.
Here’s the truth. If she hadn’t done this, she wouldn’t have been doing her job. That’s what lawyers, especially criminal defense lawyers, do.
I’ll give Hillary grief for a lot of things, but this one is just stupid.
First off, I agree with you. That may sound strange coming from a police officer but everyone has the right to a defense, and if they are fortunate, they get a good one appointed, or they pay for one. However…
Maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t read that article as an “attack” on HRC.
The article stated:
There are other statements in the article that I believe support my position. I think the article did a decent job of balancing the defense posture with the ethical responsibilities.
Just my 3 cents worth…
Agreed. It’s a dirty job, and thank God we have people who will do it. In fact, I would say that Hitlary missed her true calling.