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.

Misinterpreting Trump

Lots of people attacking Trump are willfully misinterpreting stuff he says because they are political hacks.

However, I think there is some amount misinterpretation that is genuine, and can be explained by a similar sort of phenomenon I’ve seen on Fallible Ideas List. Essentially, the mistake involves applying one’s conventional ideas about the non-literal meaning of statements in a context and to a person where those conventional ideas are inappropriate.

Let’s consider a recent example of something Trump said regarding NATO:

SANGER: But I guess the question is, If we can’t, do you think that your presidency, let’s assume for a moment that they contribute what they are contributing today, or what they have contributed historically, your presidency would be one of pulling back and saying, “You know, we’re not going to invest in these alliances with NATO, we are not going to invest as much as we have in Asia since the end of the Korean War because we can’t afford it and it’s really not in our interest to do so.”

TRUMP: If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I’m talking about are extremely rich. Then if we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able to, but if we cannot make a deal, I would like you to say, I would prefer being able to, some people, the one thing they took out of your last story, you know, some people, the fools and the haters, they said, “Oh, Trump doesn’t want to protect you.” I would prefer that we be able to continue, but if we are not going to be reasonably reimbursed for the tremendous cost of protecting these massive nations with tremendous wealth — you have the tape going on?

SANGER: We do.

HABERMAN: We both do.

TRUMP: With massive wealth. Massive wealth. We’re talking about countries that are doing very well. Then yes, I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, “Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.”

SANGER: That suggests that our forward deployments around the world are based on their interests — they’re not really based on our interests. And yet I think many in your party would say that the reason that we have troops in Europe, the reason that we keep 60,000 troops in Asia, is that it’s in our interest to keep open trading lines, it’s in our interest to keep the North Koreans in check, you do that much better out away from the United States.

TRUMP: I think it’s a mutual interest, but we’re being reimbursed like it’s only in our interest. I think it’s a mutual interest. …

Some people are reading this to mean something like, Trump will immediately stop defending countries that aren’t pulling their weight in NATO, or something similar.

I think that’s a really unfair reading of what he actually says. Now, I could go into why, and also go into background context about Trump’s PUBLISHED strategy of being willing to walk away from the table in order to get a better deal, but that’s not the point of this post.

The point of this post is to talk about why various people might mishear/misinterpret/misunderstand Trump’s statement. Trump’s statement is it is not what a normal POTUS candidate would say. Any candidate from like the past 60 years or so would never say of a member of NATO (even with a bunch of qualifiers and talk about hoping we make a deal) that they might hear “Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.” This is very blunt, and direct, and concretely describes a consequence in a specific circumstance. These are things many people find frightening!

The conventional political world is filled with excessive politeness, lies, doublespeak, evasion, understatement, etc. In the conventional political context as defined by conventional politicians and diplomats and those kinda people, Trump’s statement almost amounts to an announced intention to start cutting people out of the NATO right away if he thinks they aren’t pulling their weight. Since if a conventional politician said that kinda thing, that’s what it would mean. And political reporters are part of this world too (since these are the people they cover) and so that’s how they interpret the Trump stuff as well.

I think if a lot of regularly people heard this exchange though, they’d think “Well, it sounds like he really wants to make a deal and just wants other people to pull their own weight. What’s wrong with that? Shouldn’t they be pulling their weight?”

The lying/evasion/doublespeak culture of the political ELITES actually prevents them from hearing the simple meaning of Trump’s stuff. They interpret it according to what it would mean if one of *them* said it. But that leads to big mistakes.

The thing I was reminded of on Fallible Ideas List was the phenomenon of various people (in particular Elliot) just making blunt, honest statements with no intent of malice and no anger, and people interpreting those statements as malicious and angry. Because in conventional social interaction world, if someone made a similar kinda statement, that’s what it would mean.

People bring their conventional social stuff to Fallible Ideas List and get all confused. And people bring their conventional politician stuff to Trump and likewise get confused.