Crooked Hillary and the Child Rape Case

Snopes claims Hillary got appointed to defend the child rapist she’s been criticized for defending.

Note I’ve double-quoted the material that’s quoted material on the snopes page:

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

As Hillary Clinton wrote in her 2003 biography Living History, she didn’t volunteer to represent the defendant, but rather was appointed to the case by the judge:

[Prosecuting attorney Mahlon Gibson] called me to tell me an indigent prisoner accused of raping a twelve-year-old girl wanted a woman lawyer. [Prosecutor Mahlon] Gibson had recommended that the criminal court judge, Maupin Cummings, appoint me. I told Mahlon I really didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request.

Now being “appointed” for lawyers has a particular meaning in my understanding. As a lawyer you can voluntarily sign up for a court-appointed attorneys list. Lots of places have these. And what happens is, if any cases come in where say an accused criminal needs a lawyer, a judge might pick your name off the list and you will get a set rate for any work you do on the case.

So when i initially read that Hillary says she was appointed, I thought that was what people meant — the court appointed attorneys list. If you sign up for that list, you’re obligated to take cases from it. It’s kinda like you work for the court … it’s not a freelance arrangement where you can decline stuff you don’t want (at least, that’s true of the ones i’ve looked at).

But the way the above is discussed, it sounds like the judge was making a request, not giving an assignment.

It gets weirder:

[Prosecuting Attorney Mahlon] Gibson said the same thing during a 2014 CNN interview about the case, adding that Hillary had attempted unsuccessfully to get the judge to remove her from the case:

Gibson said that it is “ridiculous” for people to question how Clinton became Taylor’s representation.

“She got appointed to represent this guy,” he told CNN when asked about the controversy.

According to Gibson, Maupin Cummings, the judge in the case, kept a list of attorneys who would represent poor clients. Clinton was on that list and helped run a legal aid clinic at the time.

So this sounds like the judge had a personal list he kept of various attorneys. Sounds very different than any sort of formal arrangement which Hillary would have to abide by.

Taylor was assigned a public defender in the case but Gibson said he quickly “started screaming for a woman attorney” to represent him.

So the guy already HAD a lawyer. So how could Hillary have been obligated to take the case?

Gibson said Clinton called him shortly after the judge assigned her to the case and said, “I don’t want to represent this guy. I just can’t stand this. I don’t want to get involved. Can you get me off?”

“I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don’t jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said.

Sounds like she’s worried about the personal relationship with the judge more than possible sanction for not doing her job.

“She contacted the judge and the judge didn’t remove her and she stayed on the case.”

Why would Hillary be worried about the relationship with the judge?

On May 21, 1975, Tom Taylor rose in court to demand that Washington County Judge Maupin Cummings allow him to fire his male court-appointed lawyer in favor of a female attorney. Taylor, who earned a meager wage at a paper bag factory and lived with relatives, had already spent 10 days in the county jail and was grasping for a way to avoid a 30 years-to-life term in the state penitentiary for rape.

Taylor, 41, figured a jury would be less hostile to a rape defendant represented by a woman, according to one of his friends. Cummings agreed to the request, scanned the list of available female attorneys (there were only a half dozen in the county at the time) and assigned Rodham, who had virtually no experience in criminal litigation.

“Hillary told me she didn’t want to take that case, she made that very clear,” recalls prosecutor Gibson, who phoned her with the judge’s order.

Rodham immersed herself in Taylor’s defense as the law school’s spring semester came to an end. “She worked a lot of nights on it,” said Van Gearhart, her teaching assistant at the law clinic in 1975. “I remember her doing that because she wanted to show that she was willing to take court appointments, hoping that the bar would help us in getting established as a clinic.”

Sounds like she wanted to get good references for help getting her clinic established. So she worked super hard on the case and dragged a girl through the mud cuz she’s a careerist.  Sounds like a Clinton!

Note also that in the audio recording where she talks about the case, she describes taking the case as a favor to the prosecutor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4

(around a minute into the video)

Updated: Hat tip to anonymous philosopher ingracke for pointing out some issues with the Snopes article.

Tolerance

Tolerance doesn’t mean approval. I think some people get confused on this.

Libs talk about tolerance being good. But what is tolerance?

Oxford English dictionary says:

The action or practice of tolerating; toleration; the disposition to be patient with or indulgent to the opinions or practices of others; freedom from bigotry or undue severity in judging the conduct of others; forbearance; catholicity of spirit.

The spirit of this is NOT that you think the stuff you are tolerating is great or wonderful. It’s that you will deal with the fact that people do the tolerated stuff, and won’t be too harsh towards people because they do that stuff.

Suppose you say something like “Well I think transgender stuff is kinda weird, but whatever, if people want to do that, that’s their life I guess. I’ll treat them normally when dealing with them.” That is a tolerant attitude. It is clearly expressing some disapproval but isn’t nasty to transgenders.

That kind of sentiment is not nearly enough for libs though. They want acceptance and approval. They are very pushy about this.

And they want acceptance and approval without having any good args about why their pet causes should be accepted and approved.

What do they do instead of offering args? Generally, they assert people who disagree with them are hateful bigots.

This is an irrational act of intimidation. It is immoral and they should stop.

The libs think they are on the side of tolerance/progress/justice. But due to the irrationality of their approach, they risk pushing acceptance for stuff that is actually bad.

And also, because of the revolutionary nature of their approach (which focuses on using cultural pressure and intimidation over reason), they risk triggering an intolerant backlash, which would hurt the people they are supposedly campaigning for the most.

Another thing libs do is demand attention for their lib stuff.

Many libs think people should have an active interest in stuff like the various pronouns for different gender identities etc. Or that libs have a right to harass people at brunch in order to “raise awareness” for their causes.

But why should I have interest in their stuff? Why should I be aware of it? I have better things to do with my life. My awareness and attention are valuable. I don’t care about the stuff they care about. They are being intolerant in asserting a right to my attention and energy and effort.

The spirit of tolerance doesn’t mean I have to learn a bunch about what you are into or try and cater to your idiosyncratic preferences or anything like that.

Here is an analogy: if I’m running a normal American diner, it’s a tolerant attitude if I’m willing to serve anyone who wants to eat my food, regardless of what they look like, sound like, where they are from, etc. That stuff doesn’t matter to the interaction of serving them food.

That doesn’t mean I have to cater to every religious or dietary restriction, though. It’s not wrong or intolerant of me to simply not serve vegan or kosher food. It’s not intolerant of me to have zero interest in learning about halal. Maybe I just want to make pancakes and cheeseburgers and milkshakes! That’s fine. It’s my life, my diner, my choice as to what to spend time. Other people should respect and tolerate that.