You will have to answer. She is caught in her own words as in in recording at the time laughing about getting the rapist off by using s lie detector knowing full well he was lying. She found it funny

Just this one case alone of Hillary further destroying a victim of life altering abuse and going way out of her way to brag about the extraordinary means she used to do it, shows how evil Hillary is. We cannot be surprised at any allegations, no matter how depraved, are flung her way.

Part of the MSM denial of reality is based on selling it as so horrible it cannot be true, but so much egregious evil about Hillary has been proven to be true.

Thank you for keeping this in the discussion.

haha cunts are lolling because it is april fools so edgy lol what a jape, you useless fucking idiotic fucktards

Ugh give it up already. You just jump around here criticizing with no links or backup to your inaccurate claims. It's getting old. Yawn. Just go away or admit you are scared of the truth coming out

You are damn funny I love your comments they always make me smile

KATHY SHELTON is that little girls name. I got banned from pretty much every news site during the election. I spent all my free time commenting in every pro-Hillary story about Kathy Shelton and what happened to her. I am glad to see we haven't forgotten her.

Wrong she has a long track record of blaming the victim. She's a disgusting human and that's why she's a two time LOSER for president.

She's a sick sick person.

A judge appointed her so she didn't really have a choice in representing him. She didn't just "take the case". Under the law everyone is entitled to representation (even shitbag pedos) so no matter what you think about HRC there are better hills to die on than this. All this is easily verifiable. There is really no reason to not include all the facts.

This is a lie and very easily verifiable. You will have to answer for defending this type of evil some day.

Here is the full context off that case. She starts talking about the case at around 5 minutes and 55 seconds into it. The title of the video is very misleading. And sometimes I wonder if YouTube gives these videos over the top names so people don't look at them. But if you listen she more than just laughed at it, it becomes very evident she damn well knew what she was doing, blaming an innocent child https://youtu.be/AShxw7BQyM8

Hi,

I know you hate the woman but these are not the facts of the case.

The reason the guy got a lighter sentence was it was a plea bargain deal. He reached a deal with the prosecutor to plead guility in exchange fore a 5 year term. That's a fairly reasonable term on a plea. The judge later reduced this sentence.

The reason the prosecutor agreed to plea was he had a weak case and it wasn't a sure thing they would convict the guy and the girls family was eager to wrap everything up quickly. The family did not want a trial.

It was weak for the following reasons. The police believed the girl lied during parts of her story, which at best, was inconsistent. It was unclear how she would come across as a witness. Her family was determined to not have her testify anyway.

Another weakens was the prosecution didn't have any physical evidence tying the guy to the crime scene. He claims he left a party with the girl, and his 20 year cousin, then they picked up a 15 boy, got some drinks, then he drove everyone home. He claimed never to have stopped in ravine by the highway where the incident was said to take place (The 15 year boy was charged as an underage offender.) Without physical evidence it would have been a he said/she said thing. The case becomes a lot stronger if they could prove he was there.

They had his underwear with blood on them. When Clinton asked to do an independent test, the gave her the underpants back with a hole cut out of them. And no blood on them. When they tested them they cut out the bloody part, tested it and threw it away. There was no way to test them again.

All the things about the woman said about Clinton putting her through hell, should be looked at with a very, skeptical eye. The woman has come forward publicly and we can identify her as Kathy Shelton. There's a lot of reasons to doubt Kathy Shelton when she said Hillary Clinton put her through hell.

The first is Kathy Shelton first learned that Clinton asked for an psychiatric evaluation of her in 2008. She never knew about the affadavit Clinton filed which a pretrial motion filed wth the judge. When first interviewed in 2008, she said she had no problems with Hillary Clinton. The article you quoted refers to this as "a contested, short interaction with a reporter in 2008," Here's the article from 2008, there's plenty of details from the woman. It seems like a carefully reported article.

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.

“I have to understand that she was representing Taylor,” she said when interviewed in prison last fall. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.”*

In 2005, while working in a laundry, the victim stole several hundred dollars worth of checks from her boss to buy drugs. She is now living in a halfway house and looking for work.

Despite these problems, she bears Hillary Rodham Clinton no ill will and was eager to read “Living History” — at least pages 72 and 73, which contain her case.

Kathy Shelton seems to confusing the cops and the prosecution's interactions with her with Clinton's. The case never went to trial so Clinton never cross-examined her, the lie detector tests the girl underwent were not asked for by Clinton. And she didn't under the pyschatric evaluation Clinton requested because the judge rejected her affadavit. . This is why she didn't even know about this until 2008. If that affadavit contains lies, they were not Clinton's. As Clinton wrote, she was "informed of this info." It could have been by her client or his family saying this. (they knew the girl previously.) There's nothing unethical about filing that affidavit and relaying any accusation her client made. And as the 2008 article makes clear, there is nothing unethical about a defense lawyer defended their client. In fact, it is considered profeesional misconduct for a lawyer not to vigorously defend her client. That's how our system works. Her legal obligations were to her client. The judge and the jury are in charge of justice. But when the state is trying to take someone's liberty away that person is presumed innoncent and has the right to the best defense possible.

“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.

The 2008 article gets one thing wrong. We now know the examination Clinton requested, because lasst year a lawyer found the original files

But the court docket, unearthed by Pittsburgh attorney Norma Chase and for the first time made public, shows that one day after Clinton filed a request for psychiatric exam, it was denied by the judge. The court docket for July 28 says Clinton filed her motion for an exam. On July 29, it states: “Hearing on Motion for Psychiatric Examination — Motion denied. Defendant objects.” (There is also no evidence that Clinton was responsible for arranging Shelton’s polygraph test.)

When Clinton was interviewed years later about this case. She did not laugh at the woman. She laughed at the state of justice in Arkansas in the mid-70s, especially for a woman lawyer. They did not want to give her the evidence in the case because it was underwear. When the prosecutor was going to relay the details of the assault, he wanted her to leave the room because a woman shouldn't hear those things. And she laughed about the reliability of lie detector tests since her client who plead guilty passed his. The reporter who interviewed her said this

As far as her laughing, God knows she was not laughing over the notion that this rapist was going to go free," said Reed. “I challenge any fair-minded reader of that transcript to make a case that Hillary Rodham was a coldblooded lawyer who was laughing over the plight of the 12-year-old rape victim."

TL/DR Clinton didn't take this case. The court appointed her because the guy wanted a woman lawyer. She asked to be removed. The judge refused. She didn't put the woman through an ordeal. The case was weak and led to a plea bargain. She didn't laugh at the victim. What she did do was shortly after this case she helped establish the first rape crisis hotline in Arkansas.

When that Washington Post article came out, Shelton changed her claims.

After this column appeared, Shelton’s gofundme site was substantially revised, with all references to an alleged psychiatric exam and the polygraph test removed.

Deep state recruits psychopaths. Word got out about a entity that would be known around the globe as HRC.

Good post as always.

The victim was very active on Twitter during the election. How people didn't believe her and still supported HRC and her "women's rights BULLSHIT" is beyond me

Hillary laughed about getting the rapist off. This alone should have been the end of the Clintons, how anyone can know the facts of this case and not see that Hillary is pure evil is completely beyond me.

Lying in a sworn affidavit should have permanently tanked her career in law. Yet she got away with it and almost ended up winning the presidency!

Don't get me started on the rest of it. Her "Always believe rape victims...unless they are talking about me or my husband." hypocrisy is mind numbing.

Ok. V___Z, don't speak in code and leave a puzzle for use to solve. State your latest Jones complaint explicitly, so I can dismantle it just like I've dismantled all your other posts attempting to vilify Jones.

Hi! I used Google to find related Voat posts using the URL(s) in your post and created the following link(s):