>On a more general note, only people who don't understand our justice system attack lawyers for defending criminals. Our system requires that the accused have counsel.
>
>Tamar
Oh puh-leeze - I'll be more than happy to go back and find the "as I understand it" posts that were corrected.
I'm not attacking lawyers in general for defending criminals. As has often been the case, you've missed the original point. HRC made bold statements about backing rape victims, including campaign statements on her website. When specifics came out about her defending a rapist (whom she was pretty sure was guilty) came out (plus new information about women who were raped/assaulted by Bill Clinton), HRC pulled those statements from her website, because she knows her own record is shaky in this area. (Yes, those statements remained in videos on her site, but they have comparatively less "on display". I stand by that accusation of hypocrisy.
Additionally, I noticed something this morning I hadn't noticed before. In HRC's audio tape, she said (direct quote), "got him off with time served in the county jail, he'd been in the county jail about two months"
He was bonded out - bond was reduced from $50,000 to $2,500. So he only had to spend about $250 in cash.
http://imgur.com/a/EhKhAAnd since everyone seems to be fond of what people say on NPR interviews - the Washington County Sherrif (Herbert Marshall) has said that he was furious when he got the court order to release the rapist, and that he has no recollection that the rapist even had to serve on a work release program.
So again, this is a face-validity issue. HRC made bold statements about believing and supporting those who claim they were raped/assaulted - and her own record falls very short of that.
