Whenever Her Highness takes to the stage to tout her commitment to “the children” and her work on behalf of “the children”, I’m going to go ahead and assume she doesn’t mean stuff like this:

Hillary Rodham Clinton often invokes her “35 years of experience making change” on the campaign trail, recounting her work in the 1970s on behalf of battered and neglected children and impoverished legal-aid clients.

But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn’t mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant. 

Look, she was a defense attorney, and as such, she is legally obligated to zealously represent her client.  Fine.  Just doing her job.  Cool.  But you can’t go around telling the world what a child advocate you are when you did everything you could to keep a child rapist out of prison.

It also doesn’t help when you gloss over that sordid chapter in your life thusly (from ):

In her 2003 autobiography “Living History,” Clinton writes that she initially balked at the assignment, but eventually secured a lenient plea deal for Taylor after a New York-based forensics expert she hired “cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff’s office.”

However, that account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to a Newsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.

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. 

Oh, I see.  She “wanted it”, in other words.  Interesting, considering that this is the line that mosts rapists use to justify their evil deed.  So how does the victim describe the Hildeb#tch’s characterization of her?

The victim, now 46, told Newsday that she was raped by Taylor, denied that she wanted any relationship with him and blamed him for contributing to three decades of severe depression and other personal problems.

“It’s not true, I never sought out older men - I was raped,” the woman said in an interview in the fall. Newsday is withholding her name as the victim of a sex crime.

With all the anguish she’d felt over the case in the years since, there was one thing she never realized - that the lawyer for the man she reviles was none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton. 

Her Highness has a track record of enabling rapists, doesn’t she?

This is a heinous, despicable human being.  It’s a shame she won’t be getting her party’s nomination, because something like this could have been used to bludgeon her over the head in the general election.

Or, more accurately, a lack thereof.  Sure, he’ll gladly deal with the Tossed Salad Man, but no Walkman?  Why, that’s tantamount to waterboarding!  From The Smoking Gun:

An al-Qaeda operative serving life in prison for his role in the bombing of American embassies in Africa contends that his rights are being violated by U.S. jailers who have denied him access to Arabic publications and religious books, limited his mail privileges, and no longer allow him to use a Walkman. Mohamed Al-Owhali, 32, claims that his incarceration at the “supermax” federal prison in Florence, Colorado has left him so severely depressed that he stopped eating for months, forcing Bureau of Prisons officials to feed him via a tube placed through his nose. 

He’s lucky it’s a tube in his nose instead of a tubesteak in his falafelhole.  Would anyone be surprised if we found out the ACLU was championing this weirdbeard’s cause?

File this under “shiite I couldn’t make up if I tried”!  From Stop the ACLU:

She faced up to 30 years for conspiring with a terrorist and got a slap on the wrist of 28 months in October of last year. So how is it that she is able to teach a class now? The judge said Stewart could remain free while she appeals, a process that could take more than a year. Is this still going on?

And of all things, she will teach a law school about ethics? What ethics?

A disbarred lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists will be teaching at an upcoming law school ethics conference.

Lynne Stewart, who was found guilty of conspiring with terrorist Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, will be speaking October 16 at Hofstra Law School’s “Legal Ethics: Lawyering on the Edge,” in Hempstead, New York.

The speaking engagement comes only a year after Stewart was sentenced to twenty-eight months in prison on charges of conspiracy and providing material support to terrorists.

Prosecutors alleged that Stewart had passed on messages to Abdel Rahman’s radical Muslim followers, authorizing a resumption of terrorist operations against the Egyptian government.

As a result of the convictions, Stewart was automatically disbarred from practicing law.

Her client, Abdel Rahman, was convicted in 1996 of plots to bomb landmarks around New York City.

Stewart will be speaking at Hofstra Law School’s 2007 Legal Ethics Conference, “Lawyering at the Edge: Unpopular Clients, Difficult Cases, Zealous Advocates.” The conference is scheduled for October 14 to 16, 2007 in the Sidney R. Siben and Walter Siben Moot Courtroom (room 30 of Hofstra Law School.

According to the University’s website, the conference will feature “dynamic speakers who will weigh in on controversial issues such as prosecutorial abuse, the challenges of representing prisoners at Guantanamo, and attacks on lawyers who represent unpopular clients and causes.”

You have got to be kidding me! Last I heard, she was granted medical stay because of her breast cancer. She’s well enough to teach a class…I think she’s well enough to serve her time….as little as it is. This woman is a traitor. She shouldn’t be given the time of day, much less a teaching job….of ETHICS for goodness sakes! These students are most likely future ACLU lawyers! 

Higher education at Hofstra…isn’t.

Feel free to question not just their patriotism, but their sanity. From Hot Air:

Whose water are the Democrats carrying on this? It seems to come down to two suspects — trial lawyers or the mau mauers at CAIR. Or both.

Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.

The legislation, which moves to a House and Senate conference committee this afternoon, will implement final recommendations from the 911 Commission.

Rep. Pete King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the bill after a group of Muslim imams filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways and unknown or “John Doe” passengers after they were removed for suspicious behavior aboard Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix on Nov. 20 before their removal.

“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement,” Mr. King said in an interview last night.

“This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists,” Mr. King said.

“I don’t see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity,” Mr. King said.

Republicans aides say they will put up a fight with Democrats when the conference committee begins at 1 p.m., to reinsert the language, but that public pressure is also needed.

The story notes that Democrats like Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson opposed the “John Doe” protection out of fears it would lead to racial profiling. Because, of course, racial profiling is so much worse than losing a city full of innocent people.
…
Update: It’s just breaking that the Democrats actually spiked the John Doe proposal in committee. They have exposed to Americans to more terrorism and the threat of lawsuit at the same time. They really ought to reap the whirlwind for this.

If the Democrats get their way, ordinary Americans like Brian Morganstern will have to weigh the threat of lawsuit when they decide whether to trust their gut when they see or hear something suspicious. Some will choose to avoid the lawsuit, and Americans will die.

As for me, I am John Doe.

As am I.

From Patterico:

Howard Dean and the DNC are being sued for defamation and discrimination by a former employee - claiming among other things that Dean discriminates against gays and violated the “D.C. Human Rights Act”.

So much for that “Big Tent Party” thingy. Anywho, it’s funny to see the top dawg of the party that caters to ambulance chasers getting this kind of treatment.

More specifically, stymied by a House Republican. From the Washington Times:

House Republicans tonight surprised Democrats with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity — the first step by lawmakers to protect “John Doe” airline travelers already targeted in such a lawsuit.

After a heated debate and calls for order, the motion to recommit the Democrats’ Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language passed on a vote of 304-121.

Republicans said the lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams against US Airways and “John Does,” passengers who reported suspicious behavior, could have a “chilling effect” on passengers who may fear being sued for acting vigilant.

Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, offered the motion saying all Americans — airline passengers included — must be protected from lawsuits if they report suspicious behavior that may foreshadow a terrorist attack.

“All of our lives changed after September 11, and one of the most important things we have done is ask local citizens to do what they can to avoid another terrorist attack, if you see something, say something,” said Mr. King.

“We have to stand by our people and report suspicious activity,” he said. “I cannot imagine anyone would be opposed to this.”

Mr. King called it a “disgrace” that the suit seeks to identify “people who acted out of good faith and reported what they thought was suspicious activity.”

The vote was 304-121. What a shocker: all 121 “allow private citizens to be sued for reporting suspicious activity” votes came from Democrats, trial lawyers’ (and terrorists’) best friends. Harsh characterization? You tell me:

Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, opposed the motion over loud objections from colleagues on the House floor, forcing several calls to order from the chair.

“Absolutely they should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law,” said Mr. Thompson, who suggested that protecting passengers from a lawsuit would encourage racial profiling.

Glad to see the race-hustling poverty pimps have their priorities straight. Muslims behaving suspiciously? Pffft! We should be more focused on not offending anyone’s ethnic sensibilities! I mean, if the plane blows up, at least the bigger travesty of political incorrectness would be avoided, n’est-ce pas?

Plus, you know it’s the right thing to do when CAIR objects:

Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in an open letter yesterday to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty that “the only individuals against whom suit may be raised in this litigation are those who may have knowingly made false reports against the imams with the intent to discriminate against them.”

The Becket Fund criticized the lawsuit last week and in a letter to Mr. Awad asked that the “John Does” be removed from the lawsuit, however CAIR is standing by the decision.

Kudos to Congress for getting something right, for once. Shame on the Democrats who sided with the imams and trial lawyers over normal Americans!