You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Are_we_sure ago

You're lying.

I bet you're not even aware of how much you lying, you just repeat things that are false. Virtually every item on this list is is a lie. All are deceptive in some way or another.

Let's start here. This is a lie. I bet you don't even know why this is lie.

Flight records allege Bill Clinton took 26 trips to that island and Hillary took 6.

cantfindmenow ago

Hi @Are_we_sure, surely you can't deny that these facts about Hillary -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729466/Child-rape-victim-comes-forward-time-40-years-call-Hillary-Clinton-liar-defended-rapist-smearing-blocking-evidence-callously-laughing-knew-guilty.html

For me this tells us a lot about the character and ethics of Hillary. I personally do not know of any female who would knowingly defend a brutal child rapist like this. A man who caused injuries so bad the victim could never bear children. Hillary was unaffected by the instinctual feminine empathy any normal woman would have towards a child who had been brutally raped and injured by an unrepenting man. She proves to us she has no empathy in real life for crimes such as this against children. In fact she values the rapist more and sees it only as an opportunity to further her career.

This is the definition of a psychopath.

As a starting point, this FACTUAL case sure paves the way for believing all the other allegations against her that you say are lies.

If, for example, she had actually vigorously defended the victim and got that rapist the 30 years he deserved then maybe we could say her character does not match her alleged crimes.

This is not the case.

Do you know of any females who would defend a child rapist that you knew was guilty in a case like this?

Are_we__sure ago

Please let me know what "facts" you think are contained in that article. There's been about a million fact checks that debunk this. The rest of your post is straight up standard lies about Hillary Clinton.

This lie is straight up bonkers

In fact she values the rapist more and sees it only as an opportunity to further her career.

An opportunity to further her career? That's just ludicrous. She was appointed by a court because the defendant insisted on a female lawyer. She didn't take this case herself. She was ordered by a judge to take it. She didn't have the right to refuse this case.

This is the definition of a psychopath.

No, this is a fake character you created to rip down. You demonize her, give her zero benefit of any doubt, lie about the facts and then make this claim.

The truth of this case, is Hillary Clinton did not put this girl through anything, legal experts said she did nothing unethical and the reporter who interviewed her says she never laughed at the girl once. What this girl went through was not Hillary Clinton's doing. Clinton never questioned her and never had her questioned. It was the prosecutors who grilled her and eventually had her take a polygraph, because the prosecutors believed she wasn't telling the full story of what happened. In fact, you take Hillary Clinton out of this story and this poor woman's story doesn't change a whit.

Do you know of any females who would defend a child rapist that you knew was guilty in a case like this?

You have no idea how our criminal justice system works. Female lawyers defend clients all the time. The American Bar Association says "Defense counsel is essential to the administration of criminal justice" and says

Defense attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent all clients, those whom they think will be justly found guilty as well as those whom they think are factually innocent.

If she didn't defend her client vigorously, he could appeal his conviction and have it overturned. It's called "appeal due to ineffective counsel." The American system is the government has to prove you are guilty and when you are found guilty, we can say you had a defense and a jury of your peers still found you guilty. This is a system of justice, not a system of tyranny. It's not a kangaroo court you find in dictatorships.

The part when she says she knew he was guilty was due to the fact he plead guilty. She specifically laughing at why polygraphs are not used as evidence. He passed his polygraph and later plead guilty.

For example this claim in the article is false, this "grueling court-ordered psychiatric examination" never took place and the girl never knew anything about this at the time.

Shelton said Clinton accused her during the case of 'seeking out older men', and demanded that the 12-year-old undergo a grueling court-ordered psychiatric examination to determine whether she was 'mentally unstable'.

Clinton filed a request and it was turned down. This exam never happened. A lawyer found the full case files after these news stories came out. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/11/the-facts-about-hillary-clinton-and-the-kathy-shelton-rape-case/?utm_term=.b4a33995e09a

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.)

The questioning she experienced was on behalf of the prosecutor not Clinton. Clinton never got to question her at all and there was no cross examination and no trial.

Shelton said one of her worst memories of the case was being questioned repeatedly by appointed experts.

'It got so bad that I told my mom I wasn't going back, and whatever happened, happened,' said Shelton. 'It's sad that a 12-year-old had to go through what I had to go through, because for days I cried and cried and cried over it.'

Her worst memories have nothing to do with Clinton.

In fact, the victim in this case said in 2008 that she bore no ill will to Clinton would was just doing her job. The people who actually gave her grief in this case were the cops and the prosecutor because they didn't believe her story. This article is the most fact-filled article on the case. It originally came out in 2008. Here's what the woman said.

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.”........ ...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.

Hillary was court-appointed to defend this guy and legal ethics say you have to vigorously defend your client. It's part of our system for hundreds of years. It's a check on the government's awesome power to take away your liberty. Legal experts said she did nothing unethical. The guy got a lesser charge, because he the prosecutors had an extremely weak case and he got a plea deal. They didn't fully believe the girl, the cops lost the physical evidence connecting him with the crime and the girl's mother didn't want her to testify. 95% of violent crime convictions in this country are the result of a plea deal.

Shelton said she 'wasn't surprised' that Clinton has yet to express sympathy for the plight she went through as a victim.

This is false too. Clinton was not laughing at this woman. She called the case a terrible case on those very same tapes and said it inspired her to open the first rape hotline in Arkansas. She was laughing at things like the judge wouldn't let her hear evidence against her client because she was a woman. She never laughed about the girl. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/19/did-clinton-laugh-about-a-rapists-light-sentence-and-attack-sexual-harassment-victims/?utm_term=.8be93e8e1884

cantfindmenow ago

I replied to @Are_we_sure yet @Are_we__sure replies? Are you using 2 accounts? Why is one article declared 'lies' over another? Why are you trying to use legal logic when my point was she has no empathy or morals? You didnt answer one of my only questions just tried to lecture me -

Do you know of any females who would defend a child rapist THAT THEY KNEW WAS GUILTY in a case like this?

I don't know any women who would. I wouldn't want to.

Psychopaths lack empathy, are driven by power and are depraved of morals. No one forced Hillary to do this, I find that reasoning most laughable. If someone in my line of work asked me to do something which went against my morals in such a way, meant huge injustice and risks to the public would be carried out - I would refuse. Even if it meant leaving my job. I have left a position of employment before as I no longer agreed with the ethics of the employers and despite raising my concerns they wouldn't change position so I did.

Are_we__sure ago

Yes, I use two accounts.

Why is one article declared 'lies' over another?

Because one has care for the facts involved and the other practices checkbook journalism. The Daily Mail routinely pays people for their stories and when they do, they don't check out their claims. The victim in this case, Kathy Shelton tried to raise money over "Clinton's treatment of her." The problem was all the bad treatment she cites had nothing to do with Clinton. She complained about being questioned over and over by investigators and being given a polygraph. Clinton had nothing to do with this, Clinton never questioned her. Shelton's GoFundMe once claimed

Next I was sent for a psychiatric examination. It felt like I was the one on trial.

She had to take this down. Why? She was never sent for a psychiatric examination. This was a lie.

Why are you trying to use legal logic when my point was she has no empathy or morals?

Because you are making a claim that is completely ignorant of our system of justice and you seem to not understand the moral dimension of justice "The principle of justice could be described as the moral obligation to act on the basis of fair adjudication between competing claims."

Unless you believe the government can do no wrong, you support accused people having a fair trial. To convict someone of a crime, you must first have a trial. To have a trial, the defendant must have a lawyer. She was appointed by the Court to be his lawyer and she is then obligated to "zealously advocated for him." If defense lawyers are working with the prosecutors you have a corrupt system. You claim that her acting as his lawyer implicates her morality and her empathy. That is false. You further make the sexist claim that no female lawyers would do this. As for her empathy, at the time Clinton's job was teaching law and running a Legal Aid clinic offering legal help to the poor. A job that was her choice and a job that requires empathy. She also was pioneering legal research that expanded advocacy for children's rights. After this case she started the first rape crisis hotline in Arkansas, one of the first in the country. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/allida-black/blazing-a-trail-hillary-clinton_b_5610884.html

I don't know any women who would. I wouldn't want to.

That's because you are not aware of basic legal precepts and you don't seem to care for justice. Not caring for justice is immoral. You keep claiming she knew he was guilty......yes in an interview years after he plead guilty

Psychopaths lack empathy, are driven by power and are depraved of morals. No one forced Hillary to do this,

This is a lie. Yes, Clinton was forced to do this. She was ordered by the court. Do you understand what a court order is? She was obligated to. She tried to get out of this and the judge wouldn't let her. She was bigshot defense lawyer, she ran a legal aid clinic.

If someone in my line of work asked me to do something which went against my morals in such a way, meant huge injustice and risks to the public would be carried out - I would refuse.

You don't know what you're talking about. There's no injustice at all at giving someone a fair trial. A fair trial means the guy is going to have a lawyer and the government is obligated to prove his guilt. Doesn't matter if it was Clinton or someone else. Your scenario is imaginary. To convict, he needs to have a lawyer. Having a lawyer is a basic component of justice, it's not an injustice. The consequences of refusing would be more than leaving her job. It might affect her law license and her ability to offer legal counsel to the poor.

Your entire premise is incorrect and your arm-chair psychology is completely at odds with the facts.

mrohm ago

If your friend is so innocent and uninvolved,, David, why does the rape victim claim otherwise?

By the way, David, your friend initially said that she did the case as a favour to a male lawyer because the rapist requested a female lawyer. She changed her story later (http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/). Why did she change her story?

While your friend was "just following orders," she has never bothered to apologise to the victim. The thing is, David, your boss has a pattern of aiding and abetting sexual predators; Bill, Anthony Weiner, Harvey Weinstein, Skippy. Why?

Are_we__sure ago

If your friend is so innocent and uninvolved,, David,

Why so Stupid? Why are you pretending this? Makes you feel special to pretend you have secret knowledge?

why does the rape victim claim otherwise? Because giving her the benefit of the doubt she is being used by others. Casting a more skeptical eye, she was trying to raise money from Clinton haters.

your friend initially said that she did the case as a favour to a male lawyer because the rapist requested a female lawyer. She changed her story later

Because you can't understand colloquial speech. The prosecutor confirmed she was appointed by the judge to take the case and she asked out of it and was denied.

While your friend was "just following orders," she has never bothered to apologise to the victim.

She has absolutely nothing to apologize for. Why do you think she does?

mrohm ago

Pretend what, exactly? It's pretty obvious what you are.

"Did a favour" is not colloquial for "was assigned to a case and tried to get out of it."

Apologise for? For assaulting her character, for stating that she "wanted" it to happen, for using junk Kinsey science when we understand child sexual assault much better now, and understand that victims aren't responsible for their assaults? For being part of a now discredited legal strategy? She's morally culpable, especially since she pretends to be such a feminist and advocate for women and children.