Tweety demonstrates abysmal ignorance of

[COLGATE4]

the most basic principle of American Law: An accused is innocent until proven guilty and is entitled to have effective representation by a competent counsel to ensure that the State prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Nowhere in that right is it required that the accused's counsel must first believe in the client's innocence.

Tonight Tweety and his pirennial favorite Michelle Bernard did a tag-team hit piece on Hillary based on a tape of an interview Hillary had with a local reporter years ago when, as a young court-appointed lawyer Hillary represented a man accused of raping a young girl in Arkansas. The audio tape of that conversation was the basis for this 'segment'.

Tweety had already (as usual knowing nothing about the actual facts) clearly decided that the man was guilty, and couldn't for the life of him understand how, as a court-appointed lawyer Hillary could possibly have made the State prove the charges against her client. He announced that he 'didn't like criminal defense attorneys' anyway and that he 'knew how they were supposed to behave - he's seen Tom Cruise films and TV shows". Honestly.

Tag to Michelle Bernard who, as an attorney herself, really knows better. She proceeded to go on a long harangue intended to crucify Hillary for having brought the Police's screw-up of losing the only piece of forensic evidence to the court's attention. Bernard spent all of her time (and most of Joan Walsh's) viciously attacking Hillary for having the audacity to represent a person who was accused of rape! Never mind that Hillary had not chosen to take the case but had been legally required to do so (Bernard falsely implied that Hillary had actively sought the case). Never mind that the accused passed a lie detector test. Never mind that the State royally screwed up the case by losing the only forensic evidence against him. Nope. It was just too shocking for her and Tweety that Hillary could effectively represent a person who Tweety and Bernard had already decided was guilty. And, since the man wasn't convicted, why it's obviously Hillary's fault and we need to roundly condemn her for having done so. The final, most damning evidence against Hillary? The audio tape of the interview with the Arkansas reporter has Hillary chuckling about certain aspects of the case as she was discussing it with him! Bernard seems to believe that this by itself is prima facie evidence that the tape is highly damaging and so is certainly going to 'be a big problem for Hillary' in the future.

Joan Walsh, the other 'panelist' was genuinely hard pressed to even get a word in edgewise. She did her best to attempt to explain to both Tweety and Bernard that Hillary had been required to take the case as a court appointed Public Defender. Walsh eventually got so frustrated by the blatant ganging up and totally one-sided presentation that she finally openly accused Bernard of giving a 'slanted presentation'. This prompted Tweety to talk over Walsh and rapidly end the segment.

The notion that any accused person in the United States has the absolute right to be defended at trial by a competent counsel who forces the State to PROVE its case obviously sticks in Tweety and Bernard's craw. In their eyes Hillary's client was already obviously guilty so Hillary should have ignored her oath as an Attorney and her obligation as an Officer of the Court and should have railroaded her court-appointed client because (according to them) Hillary may personally not have been convinced of her client's innocence. Sounds like something straight out of Hannity.

[joshcryer]

1. I think Clinton's response to this non-story was appropriate.

Being court appointed is obligatory, she asked to be relieved, but once that was shot down, she had no choice.

[COLGATE4]

5. Absolutely correct. Tweety's Faux-style presentation

really pissed me off.

[joshcryer]

8. Oh, she could've quit, lost her license, left Bill.

Moved to another state, got another license (after passing the exam, she failed the D.C. bar), started all over, met someone else.

But her pas history would've led to the same kind of case. She would've had to do such a case in the future.

What's bad is how she handled it in a relatively private conversation. She laughed about it. It's some dark shit. She laughed about Gaddafi, too, that's super dark. I hated both times she thought some maneuver, some success, she laughed about. But by the same token, that means she gets enjoyment out of success, that means, to me, she'd do some political maneuvering that others wouldn't, and she'd enjoy every bit of it. I wouldn't mind that in the White House.

After her early career she became a strong advocate for children, CHIP, Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act.

Of course, that's what the apolitical, naive, left wants, they want a sacrificial lamb, they don't want a pragmatic fighter. They want someone to espouse views that aren't yet mainstream, and make them mainstream. That works, sometimes, but not all the time. HRC is a very calculating politician, and I can't say I dislike that. It's more her public image and character is really iffy, and when she laughs about stuff like that, it makes her look bad. And we all know how looks mean everything in American politics.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

15. Do you think either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders are 'sacrificial lambs'?

Or that their supporters see them as such?

I would call them 'pragmatic fighters'.

I would also say that based on polling, the 'naive left' supports EXTREMELY mainstream views, supported by 65-80% of Americans.

[joshcryer]

23. Warren, absolutely. See the CFPB.

[Rex]

2. I will never be able to understand what people see in Tweety.

Just another M$M idiot with too much money and too little brain cells imo.

[WinkyDink]

16. Spittle-lovers abound.

[JayhawkSD]

3. There are a lot of things I don't like about Hillary

but serving as a court apointed defense attorney is certainly not one of them. Good Lord.

In fact, I would not dislike her for serving as a defense attorney even without the court appointment. The defense counsel is a vital part of our judicial system.

[COLGATE4]

4. Completely agree! Thanks. nt

[joshcryer]

9. She did pro bono work in child advocacy.

And she wrote two influential journal articles, "Children's Policies: Abandonment and Neglect" and "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective" which were radical at the time. Oh, and she founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.

So it could be that this one case spurred her to these areas, or it could be that she had interest in them anyway, but certainly her attitude in a private conversation about a case she won shouldn't condemn her given her absolute regard for child advocacy in the aftermath. Particularly women's rights.

[bullwinkle428]

21. +1000.

[madaboutharry]

6. Michelle Bernard certainly knows better,

she doesn't like Hillary so she decided to jump on Matthews' one man band wagon.

[herding cats]

7. Looks like they're starving for something dirty to dig up.

Hillary isn't flawless, I know that to be the fact it is. But when they go digging for dirt like this all it does is make people roll their eyes at them and groan. It's obviously lame and an attempt to find a smear that will anger women in her base of supporters for no damn good reason. Other than their ratings that is.

They need to stick to the real issues at play and not assume we're all a bunch of stupid, emotion driven fools. It's personally insulting when they stoop to this level.

Having said that, 2016 is two years away and I'm focused on 2014 at the moment. I'm not about to let myself be distracted from this election cycle by some bobble head in the media. We have too much at stake this year!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. That episode in her life is an indictment of our legal setup.

Not her specifically, but the mere fact that we expect and allow defense lawyers to slime victims. It's a barbaric leftover from Roman times, when facts didn't matter, simply who had the best orator working for them.

[dsc]

11. excuse me but tell me where she slimed a victim

the police, who lost the evidence, were neither slimed, they did lose it, nor the victim.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

13. It was outlined in a post yesterday.

And here's the text from the initial article in The Washington Free Beacon

In a July 28, 1975, court affidavit, Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”

“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior,” Clinton said.

Clinton said the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

The old 'she was asking for it' defense is pretty slimy in my books. She blamed the child for the rape. Again, slimy.

[dsc]

17. ah yes the Washington Free Beacon

what no Daily Caller or Weekly Standard was Gobbels busy being dead. In short, I wouldn't believe that paper if its ink came noterized.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

18. I've never heard of them before this, but

they have audio from the Clinton archives as well. I believe it's linked in the article for you to listen to yourself.

But go ahead and 'shoot the messenger', I guess.

[dsc]

19. the tape says nothing of the sort

which is why I asked. You are indeed relying on the Beacon, and only the Beacon, which again is pretty much the Daily Caller, for what those briefs said or didn't say.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

22. Sorry, I don't have speakers on this computer

so I didn't listen to the audio myself, nor do I have access to the Clinton Archives to verify that passage in which they used quotes. I'm surprised though, I'd think if they deliberately misquoted their source, they'd be leaving themselves open to libel lawsuits.

While other folks, like those on MSNBC talked about the case too, they focused simply on the parts about her laughing about the case, and didn't address what is actually a pretty typical defense lawyer sort of thing.

At any rate, they're the only source I've seen yet that has that info. I'd be happy to see you show me any better source that says they're simply making that up.

[JoePhilly]

12. Its the Summer.

They've got to manufacture extra outrage cause nothing is going on.

[WinkyDink]

14. You needed only the first four words. :-)

[COLGATE4]

20. Agreed! nt

[conservaphobe]

24. Fuck anyone who attacks defense lawyers.

They are simply unamerican. The 6th Amendment is a cornerstone of our nation.