New audio of Clinton talking about 1975 defense of alleged child rapist

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conservatives-are-making-hay-out-of-hillary-clintons-defense-of-an-accused-rapist/2014/06/16/7d087efa-f576-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

More from the Daily Beast:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/16/why-was-hillary-clinton-laughing-about-helping-suspected-child-rapist.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's the audio in question, ftr:

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

[Mr. Morden]

Obviously, she was obligated to defend the guy, and no one can fault her for that.  It is nonetheless disheartening to read that she basically tried to use the "little bit nutty, little bit slutty’’ rape defense in a case where the victim was a 12 year old.  (E.g., she wrote "I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable...with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fastasizing.”)  I hope she now wishes that she hadn't decided to go that route, but whatevs.  It was a long time ago.

[Mr. Morden]

Obviously, she was obligated to defend the guy, and no one can fault her for that.  It is nonetheless disheartening to read that she basically tried to use the "little bit nutty, little bit slutty’’ rape defense in a case where the victim was a 12 year old.  (E.g., she wrote "I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable...with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fastasizing.”)  I hope she now wishes that she hadn't decided to go that route, but whatevs.  It was a long time ago.

At the risk of sounding MRA here, I don't see why that isn't something that should be considered if actually true, especially if the girl had made false accusations in the past.  In fact, I don't even consider that the disturbing part of the tape in the same way her laughing about the ordeal was.

Fair enough.  I would like to point out, for the record though, that if you go back and look at the coverage of this case during the 2008 campaign:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-versus-the-allegedly-raped-child

the alleged victim still maintains that she was raped, and was shocked at this "history of false accusations" defense.  She said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyway, the original February 2008 Newsday article about this no longer appears to be online, but you can read extensive exerpts from it in the link above, as it provides more background.

[Mr. Morden]

Listening to that audio….her accent sure was different back then.

[Mr. Morden]

Obviously, she was obligated to defend the guy, and no one can fault her for that.  It is nonetheless disheartening to read that she basically tried to use the "little bit nutty, little bit slutty’’ rape defense in a case where the victim was a 12 year old.  (E.g., she wrote "I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable...with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fastasizing.”)

Well, to play the devil's advocate for a moment... her strategy worked, didn't it?

Is it a defense counsel's obligation to seek a more ethical, but potentially less effective strategy?

I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.  I don't know what the professional code of ethics includes.

I would be curious if any lawyers here can offer their take on two distinct types of character attacks on a witness:

1) Attack the witness's credibility for the purpose of convincing the jury to doubt their story.

2) Attack the witness's credibility by engaging in character assassination of the type that would be traumatic to the witness solely because you want to intimidate them into not testifying, thus encouraging the prosecutor not to bring the case to trial.

#1 seems like common sense.  If you're a good lawyer you have to do it.  #2 seems rather ethically sketchy, and gets into creepy territory when you're talking about a kid.  But of course, one can't really prove in a particular case what the lawyer's motivation for such a character attack is.

[Mr. Morden]

The victim spoke to Josh Rogin: "Hillary Clinton took me through hell."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

A defense attorney has an obligation to offer the most spirited defense of a defendant, no matter how infamous the defendant and the alleged crime. In the 1970s the norm of a rape defense was to accuse the victim. In essence,

"She dressed provocatively".
"She egged him on".
"She was loose".

With a twelve-year-old girl, none of this would now work.  If an adult has any sexual contact with a twelve-year-old child, then he has committed statutory rape. But that is not how things were in the 1970s, when the legal practice was far more permissive toward men.

Sexual attitudes have changed severely in forty years. We have become far more accepting of homosexuality and extremely intolerant of sex with children.  

Right.  But that doesn't get at the question I posed: OK, "A defense attorney has an obligation to offer the most spirited defense of a defendant" as you say.  But is there any such thing as an unethical defense?  If you attack the credibility of a witness for the purpose of intimidating them from testifying because they won't want to testify if their name is dragged through the mud (and thus forcing a plea bargain) rather than for the purpose of convincing the jury, is that unethical?  Are you ethically required to do that if you think it will work?  I understand that this used to be a very common tactic for lawyers in rape cases, but was it right?

Also, this woman says that Hillary lied about the supposed rumors of her "seeking out older men" and accusing others.  We don't know the truth of that, of course, but if Hillary was in fact just making it up, then is that a breach of ethics, or does anything go for a lawyer as long as you legitimately think your tactic will "work"?