Don't see this in US news (yet ) ?

One thing I don't get is why Hillary is so trashed over being a defense attorney for an accused pedohpile.

Do they not believe that everyone has a right to a fair trial? Yes she grilled the victim but that is kind of the job of a defense attorney, to defend their client and make the prosecution prove the alleged crime actually occurred. Furthermore if a defense attorney does not do a good job representing their client they could be held liable. To suggest an accused individual does not deserve good representation goes against the very idea at the core of our justice system.

One thing I don't get is why Hillary is so trashed over being a defense attorney for an accused pedohpile.

Surprise, surprise!

One thing I don't get is why Hillary is so trashed over being a defense attorney for an accused pedohpile.

Do they not believe that everyone has a right to a fair trial? Yes she grilled the victim but that is kind of the job of a defense attorney, to defend their client and make the prosecution prove the alleged crime actually occurred. Furthermore if a defense attorney does not do a good job representing their client they could be held liable. To suggest an accused individual does not deserve good representation goes against the very idea at the core of our justice system.

That doesn't fit into her message that she is a champion of women and children rights.
Just like a car salesman saying that you are always a friend and part of their family.

One thing I don't get is why Hillary is so trashed over being a defense attorney for an accused pedohpile.

Do they not believe that everyone has a right to a fair trial? Yes she grilled the victim but that is kind of the job of a defense attorney, to defend their client and make the prosecution prove the alleged crime actually occurred. Furthermore if a defense attorney does not do a good job representing their client they could be held liable. To suggest an accused individual does not deserve good representation goes against the very idea at the core of our justice system.

   If you know your client is guilty and you get him off any way you can, is that really "a fair trial" ?
Is it fair or justice for the victim ?
To me it's the fact is SHE KNEW he was GUILTY OF RAPING AND BEATING  A 12 YR OLD GIRL INTO A COMA and got him acquitted. 
Just another reason lawyers have a bad rep.

Perhaps you would think differently if it was your little girl.   

   If you know your client is guilty and you get him off any way you can, is that really "a fair trial" ?
Is it fair or justice for the victim ?
To me it's the fact is SHE KNEW he was GUILTY OF RAPING AND BEATING  A 12 YR OLD GIRL INTO A COMA and got him acquitted. 
Just another reason lawyers have a bad rep.

Perhaps you would think differently if it was your little girl.   

I don't let emotion get involved when it comes to justice.

The accused plead guilty of a lesser crime so no he did not get off and there is no proof she knew him to be guilty. Don't believe everything you read in a meme. I think too many are failing to view republican hit pieces with the same skepticism that they view democrat hit pieces. I mean come on, I could post a meme saying that Hillary eats live puppies and someone would repeat it as truth.

This story is a convenient and easy hit piece on Clinton because to many people are either blinded by emotion or don't know enough about how the justice system works.

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/09/why-donald-trump-just-attacked-hillary-clinton-for-defending-an-accused-child-rapist-explained/

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
#1 source for this  Snopes report....Clinton, Hillary Rodham.   Living History, ( by Hillary Rodham Clinton)

Author of Snopes report Kim LaCapria (She described herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal.) is a New York-based content manager and longtime snopes.com message board participant. Although she was investigated and found to be "probably false" by snopes.com in early 2002, Kim later began writing for the site due to an executive order unilaterally passed by President Obama during a secret, late-night session (without the approval of Congress).
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/
You can always check Snopes BS for "mass shootings'' , it's just as biased and useless.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/
Fact Check
"Clinton: Of course he claimed he didn’t. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs. [laughs]
Surely the comment above shows she knew he was guilty.
"So [judge] Maupin had to, you know -- under law he was supposed to determine whether the plea was factually supported. Maupin asked me to leave the room while he examined my client so that he could find out if it was factually supported. I said, ‘Judge I can’t leave the room I’m his lawyer !  ’ He said, ‘I know but I don’t want to talk about this in front of you.'” 
That act alone was enough to dismiss the case, she knew it was wrong but did it anyway.
And what happened to the cut of cloth from the underwear which would have proved rape ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/09/why-donald-trump-just-attacked-hillary-clinton-for-defending-an-accused-child-rapist-explained/

Aaron Blake ( a democrat) and the Washington Post? 
Yeah, that's real un-biased writing. 
You might as well have the Brady Camopaign do a Psychological Profile on us 2a Members.   

Aaron Blake ( a democrat) and the Washington Post? 
Yeah, that's real un-biased writing. 
You might as well have the Brady Camopaign do a Psychological Profile on us 2a Members. 

I realize they may be biased in favor of Hillary but where is the proof that Clinton knew he was guilty?

It is said over and over again but no one asks for proof because they want to believe it. But when someone says it isn't true you are so ready to jump to the defense of a meme with claims of bias. This is pure hypocrisy, we should have the same level of skepticism about all political claims, not just ones we don't like. Do you claim bias and disbelieve all the republican leaning news stories saying bad things about Clinton?

What does laughing in the interview even prove? You may say it points to knowledge of guilt but people laugh for different reasons and her laugh is not definitive. Even if she knew (more likely believed) he was guilty, a defense lawyer has the responsibility to defend their client and make the government prove guilt.