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.

—Media Matters staff