Carlson asserted Clinton's court-appointed representation of rape suspect was "immoral" -- but legal experts say she was doing her job
SUMMARY: Referring to a Newsday article about Hillary Clinton's representation of a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, Tucker Carlson said on his MSNBC program: "Now their defense is, 'Well, that's what lawyers are supposed to do.' In other words, it's legal, therefore it's allowed. I guess my response would be, it's still repulsive and immoral." In fact, the Newsday article made clear that legal experts agreed that Clinton was simply fulfilling her legal and ethical obligation as the defendant's lawyer, a job she was reportedly assigned by the court.
Referring to a February 24 Newsday article about then-private attorney Hillary Clinton's representation of an indigent man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson said on his program the next evening: "Now their defense is, 'Well, that's what lawyers are supposed to do.' In other words, it's legal, therefore it's allowed. I guess my response would be, it's still repulsive and immoral." In fact, contrary to Carlson's suggestion, the Newsday article made clear that it is not just the Clinton campaign that is saying that Clinton was simply fulfilling her legal and ethical obligation as the defendant's lawyer, a job she was reportedly assigned by the court. Reporter Glenn Thrush wrote: "Echoing legal experts, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson says the senator would have been committing professional misconduct if she hadn't given [Thomas Alfred] Taylor the best defense possible." Thrush quoted one such expert:
"She was vigorously advocating for her client. What she did was appropriate," said Andrew Schepard, director of Hofstra Law School's Center for Children, Families and the Law. "He was lucky to have her as a lawyer ... In terms of what's good for the little girl? It would have been hell on the victim. But that wasn't Hillary's problem."
From the February 25 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Well, [New York Times columnist] Frank Rich makes the point that if we were that biased against Hillary Clinton, we'd be asking to see her tax returns, and we'd be asking about who donates to her husband's foundation. And I personally believe we'd be asking a lot more questions about a Newsday piece today, about her behavior as a young lawyer representing someone accused of rape. The man was accused by a 12-year-old girl, and Hillary Clinton gave -- from my reading -- this child an awfully hard time in the courtroom, suggesting she was making it up and she had a history of doing things like that. Now their defense is, "Well, that's what lawyers are supposed to do." In other words, it's legal, therefore it's allowed. I guess my response would be, it's still repulsive and immoral. And yet, I bet you not one person will ask Hillary Clinton about that.
"if we were that biased..."
We aren't so I'm just going to mention these ideas and that way I don't even have to pretend to have any evidence. Today's post just demonstrates that what Carlson doesn't know about journalism he makes up for in lack of legal knowledge.
Ahhh the media. And how many years ago was this? Oh, you mean back when Hillary was in the private sector and had a job much like all the rest of us? Why this is shocking - an attorney doing her job!
Defense attorneys are such rotten low-life scum-sucking ba$tards - until you need one. (You can bet this one will go over big with the Nancy Grace crowd.)
I suppose now Tucker gets a star from the rest of the Hate-Hillary gang if he is the first to bring it up on national cable news.
Don't you just love election time in the good ol' USA? Brings out the wholesome best in all of us.
My Dog! Tucker, aren't all suspects innocent until proven guilty???
Oh wait! Since it turned out he was guilty, his lawyer is repulsive and immoral for making certain he got a fair trial. What a bone head. If I were a conservative, I'd yell from the roof tops to get TV and Radio pundits that have at least an IQ of 33 like the rest of us conservatives.
What a lousy excuse. When is she going to just get out of the race and let Obama become the Dem candidate?
"...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
United States Constitution, Ammendment 5
But - but - you're only supposed to quote the Constitution when it benefits CONSERVATIVES!!!!
(At least, that's what you'd think after hearing the ranting of such losers as Ann Coulter, Mark Levin, and Tucker Carlson.)
Are you being serious here, NAC? If you get accused of a heinous crime are you going to find someone "immoral" to represent you?
JustaConservative, I know the answer to this.
Whenever she decides to get out!!! How difficult is that to figure out.
my response would be, it's still repulsive and immoral
Apparently Tucker Carlson does not believe in innocent until proven guilty.
From Wikipedia...
Autobiography discusses false rape allegation
In 2003, Carlson authored an autobiography, Politicians, Partisans and Parasites: My Adventures in Cable News, about his television news experiences. One of the book's revelations was Carlson's description of how he was falsely accused of raping a woman he did not even know. Carlson wrote in the book that the incident was emotionally traumatic and strengthened his belief in the presumption of innocence, particularly on allegations of a sexual nature.
===
Does that explain anything? I'm sure he was putting himself in this young man's shoes.
I'm on the fence here - Our justice system isn't perfect but it's probably the best in the world. There are probably only 1 other professional career that is more misaligned and despised than defense attorney - an abortion doctor. As immoral as either might seem to some people, they both serve a purpose in society - and I'm sure that most doctors and lawyers think that their work is both just and moral.
LOSTLOGIC:
This is under the GOP "it's DIFFERENT" category.
See, it's like Nancy Reagan, good GOPer who says the government IS the problem, the free market and private sector should solve all ills, and that the government makes things worse. PLUS, the government should not be taking money from citizens to spend as the government sees fit ... that is always BAD, as a principle.
EXCEPT ... unless Ronnie gets Alzeheimers. THEN, it's all about the government shoveling money into a CURE. It's DIFFERENT, because in this instance, the problem affected Nancy PERSONALLY.
There are thousands of examples of GOPers abandoning their "root principles" when a problem shows up at their doorstep. THEN, all of a sudden, they see the wisdom of SOMEBODY doing SOMETHING to help them, and the government is the logical choice.
If consistent, Nancy should have started a "Just say NO! to Alzeheimers" campaign.
To be fair, there ARE exceptions. Dick Cheney, faced with having a gay daughter, sticks to his guns and believes that his own daughter ought to be treated like a second-class citizen, and should not have the same rights as "normal" citizens who are heterosexual. It takes a special kind of strength to stick to intolerant partisan POLICY even when it hurts your loved ones.
To be even more fair, a POLICY of neverending WAR seldom has a direct impact on the families of powerful GOPers.
To be fair, there ARE exceptions. Dick Cheney, faced with having a gay daughter, sticks to his guns and believes that his own daughter ought to be treated like a second-class citizen, and should not have the same rights as "normal" citizens who are heterosexual. It takes a special kind of strength to stick to intolerant partisan POLICY even when it hurts your loved ones.
To back up this fact – look at Alan Keyes. After causing a stir during the 2004 Republican convention by labeling Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter a sinner and calling homosexuality "selfish hedonism", when Keye’s own daughter came out, he threw her out on the streets and refused to pay for her college tuition. Using your observations, to explain why “this is different” – all you need to know is that conservatives think homosexuality is a choice. This makes it easy to say “it’s not my problem” and make the “personal responsibility” argument against homosexuals. It’s not like having a family member stricken with Alzheimer’s.
Unless Cheney of Keyes can accept homosexuality as a of natural variant of human sexuality, it would indicate a failure as a parent to condone the ”lifestyle”. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They are left professing to the world a hypocritical phony claim of “pride” and “love” for their children, when in reality each despises the other for the expressed ignorance in truly understanding the situation. This is how the Republican Family works – and I don’t mean that just in a genealogical sense of the word family. Much like it would be treason to speak out against a republican president – no matter how wrong he is, it is unthinkable for Maya Marcel-Keyes to speak about her father in anything other than loving terms. Americans have NO IDEA how many phony dysfunctional conservative Republican families there are out there. The portrayal of a Donna Reed, Ozzie and Harriet, or Leave It To Beaver family life is crucial to the Republican fantasy.
With all of us who see through the hypocrisy of such Republican politicians, is it any wonder voters have such a low approval rating for Cheney, or that they soundly defeated Keyes in his bid for the Senate vs. Obama – and that Keyes is lucky to get 2% of the vote in even the Republican presidential primaries? I almost feel bad for Republicans – they have allowed their party to be hijacked by the religious right - yet you can be certain that not EVERY Republican buys into the firm party stance against gay rights. (They will say it’s the marriage issue, not “rights” - but it really is a bigoted HATRED and FEAR of anything “gay”). It’s no wonder so many defectors are crossing party lines and turning to a more sane and moderate choice in Obama. We’ve ALL had enough hypocrisy – it truly is time for a CHANGE in Washington.
CLEVE:
You make great points.
The GREATEST OF ALL "Family Values" is that of Unconditional Love.
This is the love a parent has for his children, traditionally.
The Rightwing has two problems here. FIRST, is love of SELF. Having a gay daughter (or son) reflects badly on THE SELF, the image of the father, and everything in this world is all about HIM, and nobody else. Such Ego Centered thinking views every human relationship in how it benefits, or might harm, THE SELF.
The second problem is the very NATURE of love. Obviously, there is SELF LOVE. But what else is there to love, except WEALTH and MONEY? This, too, is a "CONDITIONAL" love ... the more you have, the more you can love it. If there is no cash, there can be no love.
Keeping these conditionings in mind, it's easy to predict and track the POLICY and PERSONAL actions of the Rightwing. Elitist self-aggrandizement and wealth accumulation defines every REPUBLICAN policy every advanced.
Helping others, compassion, empathy, love -- these are as a foreign language to the rightwing mentality. If you understand THIS, then nothing that comes from a rightwinger/Republican will ever surprise you.
PRINCE:
Go forth and conquer, nobel sir. I am honored you might find an occasional mace or dirk among my arsenal suitable for smiting regressives.
"There are probably only 1 other professional career that is more misaligned and despised than defense attorney - an abortion doctor."
Sorry, but I would put LOBBYISTS at the top of the list. No other profession has done more to destroy democracy in America.
I think both sides are being disingenuous here - of course everyone needs a fair trial, and providing them one isn't "immoral". However, the comment in the article about the girl not being Hillary's problem is absolutely not true IMO.
It shouldn't be a defense attorney's goal to get their client off no matter what, it should be the goal to make sure that they are convicted only if it can be proved that they are guilty. It should not, IMO, be a blank check to go after an accuser in any way possible, just to paint them as a liar.
This is all generally speaking - I have no idea what the details in this case were, and these are all "IMO", how I think it SHOULD be. I would say that a defense attorney who goes after the accuser even though he suspects his client is guilty, IS in fact immoral.
As a defense attorney I have an absolute duty to zelously advocate for my client's interests and test the state's case. The accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the state bears the burden of proof in all aspects. Any defense attorney who "make(s) sure that they are convicted only if it can be proved that they are guilty" violates their ethical duty to their client and will quickly lose their license to practice law. My duty is to make sure the state has enough evidence to prove their case, point out problems of proof and evidence. If that includes calling the complaining witnesses veracity into question, then so be it.
We all despise defense attorneys until we need them
"My duty is to make sure the state has enough evidence to prove their case" is exactly what I wrote that the defense attorney's duty is.
That doesn't mean they should have a blank check when it comes to how they treat the accuser - they might be within their legal limits and still be immoral. I'd say that a defense attorney who knows his client is guilty, but attacks the accuser in order to get his client free is immoral. What he should do is make sure that the trial is fair, that the evidence is presented correctly, and that the punishment fits the crime. That would be the morally correct thing to do.
Apparently Tucker Carlson does not believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Only when Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby, KKKarl Rove, or George W. Bush are being discussed.....
Morality is often subjective, and just because Clinton was deemed to be doing her job according to legal experts doesn't mean that it wasn't immoral in the eyes of some, including Carlson.
Legality and morality are two different standards.
It seems to me that if the system requires for everyone to be provided a defense, then Carlson's complaint is that the entire system is immoral.
What I would then wonder is what he would suggest instead, and until such radical changes are made if it is fair to condemn those who comply with the current system?
Personally, I have a hard time believing that Carlson is this wildly idealistic. It comes off as disingenuous, to say the least.
doesn't mean that it wasn't immoral in the eyes of some, including Carlson.
Yes, but they would be wrong and un-American if they feel that way. Everyone including the guilty deserve a defense. It isn't only the innocent.
Legality and morality are two different standards."
It would be immoral for her not to fight the charge. Do Hillary-haters have the least bit of sense? Do they have any idea how things work?
Trials are ways of ascertaining the truth and arriving at justice. It takes two parties to do so-- not just the police and their fans.
BRUCE:
MORALITY is dependent on CIRCUMSTANCE, no?
Apparently, Carlson decided that Hillary questioning a 12-year old alleged rape victim was IMMORAL.
Should rape accusers NOT be questioned, then? Or just young ones? How young?
Or was it HOW this accuser was questioned that Carlson considers "IMMORAL". WAS she just questioned, or did Hillary employ other techniques? The current administration considers waterboarding to be a proper interrogation technique, so did Hillary waterboard the victim? If she did, it would be odd for a rightwinger like Carlson to say it was IMMORAL as a device for getting at the truth, since it is endorsed by the administration he favors.
Or is Carlson's determination outcome based? If, under questioning, it turns out the accuser WAS making up the rape claim, would the questioning THEN be IMMORAL, still? Or is it only IMMORAL if the questioning reveals the truth of the accusation? And a conviction results?
This Bush Administration has also made policy of simply imprisoning people without charging them, having a trial or even a hearing where the accused is represented by counsel. Is THIS the way American should conduct MORAL justice?
Carlson really needs to flesh out what he considers MORAL as it applies to the American System of Justice, and questioning of victims/accusers.
Has Carlson considered that WITHOUT the testimony of this 12-year old, there was probably insufficient evidence to convict the perpetrator? Would it be MORAL, then, to let a rapist go free for lack of evidence? Or maybe we should just take everyone's WORD for whatever they say, with no cross-examination (Scooter Libby would sure love such a system).
The Bible cautions against judging others, yet Carlson considers himself a judge of who and what is "MORAL", and feels entirely comfortable declaring Hillary's actions to be IMMORAL, lacking any defining context.
It's almost as if Carlson has determined that Hillary IS Immoral and wishes to declare that nationally on his show, for reasons of his own, and that an example is not even necessary (but this one seemed good enough).
It's almost as if Carlson has determined that Hillary IS Immoral and wishes to declare that nationally on his show, for reasons of his own, and that an example is not even necessary (but this one seemed good enough).
There was no need for the first 4 words of this sentence - but I guess you already know that? :)
CLEVE:
Noted. Yup.
Bruce,
It appears that she was more than "doing her job". She invented circumstances, according to the investigator, that this 12 year girl had previously sought out older men to engage in "fantasizing", and that the girl had made false accusations about other persons who "attacked her body". There was no such evidence or sources for these allegations.
It's one thing to vigorously defend your client, but to invent false scenarios to make that defense is quite another.
TOMMY:
We must assume this rape case went to trial. Would it be too much to ask ... considering the issue here is EVIDENCE ... that you show in some sort of link, trial papers or newspaper report, that shows where and how Hillary presented INVENTED assertions which were baseless and with no evidence backup in a trial to try to discredit this alleged rape victim?
Perhaps this "investigator" you cite has a web record to back up his claims about what Hillary actually DID ... he MUST, or else you would not make allegations about Hillary as if they were factual.
I'm particularly interested in seeing how a LAWYER injects into a trial such "invented" stories, in a manner that cannot be cross-examined and easily impeached (if they are, as you claim, made up).
Offhand, I would guess that the only way to approach and introduce such testimony would be under defense cross-examination, where a lawyer might ask the accuser, "Have you fantasized about having sex with older men?"
And the accuser might answer, "YES" or "NO". If "NO", that would be the end of that line of inquiry. If "YES", there might be a pattern of behavior ... perhaps imagining affairs and claiming them TRUE ... which a jury might find relevant.
I can IMAGINE a variety of circumstances which would indicate a defense attorney simply doing a good job. But I don't care to speculate at length, when I have YOU here, making a claim based on what you consider credible factual basis. So SHARE, why don't you? What are the actual FACTS, the CONTEXT, the OUTCOME? All are vitally important to making a claim of IMMORAL behavior by a lawyer.
Surely YOU do not want to be guilty of what you accuse Hillary of doing, attacking someone with no factual basis whatsoever. Do you?
Tex,
I am only responding to the story and what the investigator said about the 12 year old girl. Perhaps you should read it for further clarification.
But if she did do that, is it that different from police and prosecuters lying to suspects about what evidence they have in order to try and elicit a confession?
Good point. Some might argue that a defense attorney should to go to any length to defend their client no matter what, I would argue that it is indeed immoral to do so, even if it might be legal. I don't know the circumstances in this case, so I can't say if what she did was immoral or not, but to say that it couldn't have been because she was doing her job is ridiculous.
I have a feeling some posters here would have a very different view if this was about a Republican politician.
She invented circumstances
And where in the Newsday article does it say that? It mentioned no evidence that she did.
"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."
And later:
"It's not true, I never sought out older men - I was raped,' the woman said in an interview in the fall."
Rodham says:
"'I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body.'"
And the investigater says he:
"doesn't recall seeing evidence that the girl had fabricated previous attacks."
So how can you say "she invented" it? What did I miss? I.e. Where is the EVIDENCE she did? Where is the accusation that she did other than the denial by the victim?
The most telling part of all this story is, of course:
"Echoing legal experts, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson says the senator would have been committing professional misconduct if she hadn't given Taylor the best defense possible."
That is simplistic. She was an attorney. Doing her job, appointed job, is an ETHICAL IMPERATIVE. That is she was ETHICALLY BOUND to be an advocate for her client. That Carlson doesnt understand that is understandable he is a dunce, I expect better from you, from day one you have shown insight and rationality.
Neo Cons claim to be strict constitutionalists, but they seem to conveniently forget parts of it when they suit their needs.
no bruce, morality has nothing whatever to do with her defense of a court appointed client, none whatever. as a member of the bar, she is required to vigorously and zealously represent her client's interests, period. she doesn't have to like her client or what her client's been accused of, that isn't required.
tucker carlson represents a great argument against nepotism.
Do neo-cons ever say anything that isn't un-american ,anti-freedom, mean-spirited, fascist, nonsense?
Now that's an interesting attack coming from Tucker Carlson:
"In 2003, Carlson authored an autobiography, Politicians, Partisans and Parasites: My Adventures in Cable News, about his television news experiences. One of the book's revelations was Carlson's description of how he was falsely accused of raping a woman he did not even know. Carlson wrote in the book that the incident was emotionally traumatic and strengthened his belief in the presumption of innocence, particularly on allegations of a sexual nature." (Wikipedia)
I guess the presumption of innocence in allegations of a sexual nature doesn't extend to rigorous legal defense when the accused isn't Tucker Carlson, eh?
This always amazes me, those who pump themselves up with self-righteousness by looking down their noses at criminal defense attorneys.
How desperate to confirm their own morality does a person have to be to think this is a strong moral stance? OK, you don't think raping a 12 year old girl is a good thing, I think we're all on board with that. What does that moral issue have to do with making sure somebody who commits such a horrible act is properly prosecuted?
Sad!
Would you care to expound on your theme there?
It has nothing to do with a liberal, or a conservative mindset. Did Hillary think that the little girl was traumatized, and probably irrevocably mentally damaged because of what happened to her, and that indeed the situation was sad? I'm betting that she did.
Fortunately though, in our legal system, everyone, and that even includes men who rape little girls, are afforded the benefit of defense when put on trial, regardless of the means to pay for said legal defense.
What Hillary's feelings were towards this case are irrelevant. What she did do was her job. If she hadn't done her job, she could have been dis-barred. Am I getting your drift straight here? That you think that it's a liberal mindset that it's OK for men to rape little girls? Because if that's what your spouting off about, you're way off base there.
Mag, I think Genghiz was just providing an example to support my comment, parading his morality for everybody by taking a firm anti-child-rape stance.
Well, not so much anti-child-rape as in favor of making sure that accused child-rapists are provided with incompetent legal representation, increasing the chances of charges being dropped. In short, he wants more child-rapists to go free.I can't think of any other explanation.
Apparently Tucker doesn't believe in the US justice system.
Why would one person ask Hillary about this? Because it just doesn't matter. She was a defense lawyer. Doing her job, you know, defending someone in court. Hey Tucker, check the Constitution buddy, this is how we operate. I hate to break it to you. Can't just round up the posse and convict people on the spot. We have a system, for better, or for worse, and it works well a lot of the time. Are you saying that Hillary shouldn't have done her job and represented this guy? Of course that's what you're saying, because it's only repulsive and immoral because Hillary did it, and not because you don't agree with it.
Republicans, digging their own holes during this election. If this is all that they have, no substance about, well, anything thus far, you're in big trouble. But then again, this could renew their career cheering against Obama or Hillary in the White House (whoever wins in November), and railing against how bad and evil that they are. I'll remember too, the times you, and arsehats such as yourself railed against people who dared to even criticize President Bush as being un-Patriotic and un-American. How dare someone criticize a President during a time of "war". I can't wait for their heads to spin around on that one.
This sort of thing just cracks me up especially in the part of the country that I live in.
Around here one of the most prominent defense atty's is a "good christian" type who wants to see books like Harry Potter banned from school libraries and wants to see more God put back in the public square. His most prominent cases, by that I mean the ones he gets the most media coverage for, are for..... rapists, murderers and the like. I have a question for all you knuckledraggers is he being immoral for representing the most heinous of criminals?
By the way he gets paid the big bucks for these cases and used to be our former county prosecutor.
Wrong. It's not the innocent or the guilty that deserve a defense. It's the ACCUSED.
Of course, on the other hand, it was fine for Little Tucker Carlson to LAUGH and MOCK a little girl who was disemboweled by a swimming pool filter known by the manufacturer to be dangerous...because she was represented by John Edwards.
Little Tucker Carlson, mocking a grievously wounded four-year-old girl. That's fine. Thanks, MSNBC for presenting judges of morality like Little Tucker Carlson.
How pathetic. How can a guy who was, himself, falsely accused of rape, condemn Mrs. Clinton for defending a man accused of rape? What am I missing here?
And did he also condemn Mike Huckabee for pressuring the Arkansas State Parole Board to release a convicted rapist who went on to rape and murder 2 other women? To be consistent, he surely must have heaped on Loveable Mike a lot more contumely and moral outrage. To do otherwise would mean that he, Tucker, is a hypocrite, after all. (snark)
I love when conservative commentators show how ignorant they are of people constitutional rights. I am a public defender and I represent a number of people whose actions disgust me. I also understand that my clients have an absolute constitutional right to my services. It's easy to stand by your beliefs when nobody challenges them. It's quite another when you take stands that are not publicly popular or downright vile yet are right.
The more that douche bag talks the less he actually adds to a debate.
"Now their defense is, "Well, that's what lawyers are supposed to do." In other words, it's legal, therefore it's allowed. I guess my response would be, it's still repulsive and immoral."
No, what's "repulsive and immoral" is your complete lack of understanding of the legal system and journalism as a whole.
it's still repulsive and immoral
Reads to me like it was her giving the child "an awfully hard time" that he thinks was repulsive and immoral, not simply her defending the accused.