Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
She was appointed by the judge in this case to be the defense lawyer. That how it's done in America. Why do you people hate American values?
Isn't this just another in a long list of phony scandal the alt right media has fed you bubbleheads?
No. If you run a "for women and children" candidate and campaign and then you find out the lawyer actually lied to the court and blamed the victim, you're going to get blow back.
Clinton claimed that the 12 year old girl fantasized about making it with older men. Good grief. Unreal.
I'm picking up from Shelton's lawyer that Hillary specifically sent the underwear evidence to a blood expert without the blood and the semen spot.
No. I didn't say that got him acquitted. I'm not sure that Trump said she got him acquitted. I think he said that she got him off (with an extremely light sentence) (with a sentence of time served.)This was put out by the NYT in a list of so-called "Fact Checks"
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/09/us/elections/fact-check-debate.html?_r=0
**********************
Mr. Trump accused Mrs. Clinton of laughing about getting a man acquitted of raping a 12-year-old girl.
Not true.
**********************
We have a TAPE of her conversation. While she didn't actually get him acquitted, she got him off with time served (roughly two months) and she did laugh about it. (the reporter may have put "acquitted" in the claim rather than a verbatim quote of Trump)
The NYT can kiss my ass! Liberal trash rag!
So she didn't get him acquitted and you think it should be rated as true?
Hillary ruined her life with her argument that she (as a 12 yo girl) had fantasies of being with older men. This is something that the bitch Hillary made up
I think far too many people do not understand how the law works and what it is attorneys are trained and paid to do. The fact of the matter is that attorneys are paid to make the most compelling argument on behalf of their client(s). It really doesn't matter whether the client did or did not commit the crime if the client is of a mind to plead "not guilty." In those situations, the defense attorney must put forth the strongest case they can.
So what defines whether an attorney is good? Quite simply, it's whether s/he develops a track record of making stronger -- in jurors' minds -- arguments than do their opposing counselors at trial. (For cases that don't go to trial, the defining factors are different.) For a defense attorney, that ultimately comes down to being able to present compelling arguments that erode the ultimate assertion every criminal prosecutor makes: that the evidence the prosecutor presents shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did indeed perform everything (actus rea) and, when applicable, think everything (mens rea) as stated by the prosecution.
In the matter raised in this thread regarding Mrs. Clinton's defense of the man who assaulted the Arkansas girl, Mrs. Clinton did her job. As for what she was laughing about, well, one needs to listen to the interview in which she discussed the matter. Listening to her discuss the matter, it becomes very clear that what she's laughing about is the state's mishandling of the evidence, not about the girl's having been assaulted, and not about her success in obtaining the outcome they did.
Here is the original interview:
Here's CNN's synopsis of the matter:
In closing, I have only to say that while there are things about Hillary Clinton that one can legitimately take exception, her handling of that case is not one of them. The woman did what she was engaged to do and she did her job well. The manner in which the underwear was handled was laughable, so I see nothing wrong with her having laughed about it.
Going forward, I suggest you not be so willing to rely on your own opinion and instead dig into the details to find out whether they indeed support your claim. That way you won't come off looking as though you do not know what you are talking about.
No. A lot of the records and evidence were destroyed by flood some years ago. However, there was an affidavit that reveals it. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a self-serving, dishonest bitch. I will throw a party shortly after she croaks and call it the "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead Party".Hillary ruined her life with her argument that she (as a 12 yo girl) had fantasies of being with older men. This is something that the bitch Hillary made up
You got a transcript of the trial where the court appointed Lawyer for the defense made that accusation about the victim?
he said he could get away with it, because he was a Star/celebrity.No thats not locker room talk. Thats an admission of guilt. It wasnt consensual because he said he got away with it because he was the person in charge.I distinctly remember him saying sexual assault as in he grabs them by the pussy. Is that not sexual assault instead of just thought assault?Did Drumpf really admit to sexual assault?
Yeah.. Thought assault. When that becomes illegal, most folks will be in jail.
It's locker room talk. And remember the Clinton's excuse. It's personal. It's consensual so bugger off.
I LOVE the way folks jump to conclusions that EVERYONE (cept me) has LEPT to conclusion that the relationship with the woman was not consensual.
Where IS SHE? Did she die? Anyone asked about the terms of that relationship? NO.. You party animals are all insane..
I suggest you read and understand the entire link:SIMPLY NOT TRUE! and has been debunked a thousand times over!
The facts about Hillary Clinton and the Kathy Shelton rape case
Clinton’s 1975 Rape Case
Trump wrongly says Clinton laughed at rape victim
Trump: Clinton vicious with those who charged abuse by Bill
SIMPLY NOT TRUE! and has been debunked a thousand times over!
The facts about Hillary Clinton and the Kathy Shelton rape case
Clinton’s 1975 Rape Case
Trump wrongly says Clinton laughed at rape victim
Trump: Clinton vicious with those who charged abuse by Bill
I think far too many people do not understand how the law works and what it is attorneys are trained and paid to do. The fact of the matter is that attorneys are paid to make the most compelling argument on behalf of their client(s). It really doesn't matter whether the client did or did not commit the crime if the client is of a mind to plead "not guilty." In those situations, the defense attorney must put forth the strongest case they can.
So what defines whether an attorney is good? Quite simply, it's whether s/he develops a track record of making stronger -- in jurors' minds -- arguments than do their opposing counselors at trial. (For cases that don't go to trial, the defining factors are different.) For a defense attorney, that ultimately comes down to being able to present compelling arguments that erode the ultimate assertion every criminal prosecutor makes: that the evidence the prosecutor presents shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did indeed perform everything (actus rea) and, when applicable, think everything (mens rea) as stated by the prosecution.
In the matter raised in this thread regarding Mrs. Clinton's defense of the man who assaulted the Arkansas girl, Mrs. Clinton did her job. As for what she was laughing about, well, one needs to listen to the interview in which she discussed the matter. Listening to her discuss the matter, it becomes very clear that what she's laughing about is the state's mishandling of the evidence, not about the girl's having been assaulted, and not about her success in obtaining the outcome they did.
Here is the original interview:
Here's CNN's synopsis of the matter:
In closing, I have only to say that while there are things about Hillary Clinton that one can legitimately take exception, her handling of that case is not one of them. The woman did what she was engaged to do and she did her job well. The manner in which the underwear was handled was laughable, so I see nothing wrong with her having laughed about it.
Going forward, I suggest you not be so willing to rely on your own opinion and instead dig into the details to find out whether they indeed support your claim. That way you won't come off looking as though you do not know what you are talking about.
The bitch, Hillary made up stories to describe the 12 year old girl as the responsible party. Your defense of the bitch, Hillary is basically correct in that a defense lawyer should do everything legally and ethically permitted to defend and acquit his client. Lying about the victim is NOT among them.
You fail.
No. A lot of the records and evidence were destroyed by flood some years ago. However, there was an affidavit that reveals it. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a self-serving, dishonest bitch. I will throw a party shortly after she croaks and call it the "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead Party".Hillary ruined her life with her argument that she (as a 12 yo girl) had fantasies of being with older men. This is something that the bitch Hillary made up
You got a transcript of the trial where the court appointed Lawyer for the defense made that accusation about the victim?
When Hillary Clinton Trashed A 12-Year-Old Rape Victim
[Hillary] 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.
But the record shows that [Hillary] Rodham was also intent on questioning the girl's credibility. That line of defense crystallized in a July 28, 1975, affidavit requesting the girl undergo a psychiatric examination at the university's clinic.
"I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing," wrote Rodham, without referring to the source of that allegation. "I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body."
Dale Gibson, the investigator, doesn't recall seeing evidence that the girl had fabricated previous attacks. The assistant prosecutor who handled much of the case for Mahlon Gibson died several years ago. The prosecutor's files on the case, which would have included such details, were destroyed more than decade ago when a flood swept through the county archives, Mahlon Gibson said. Those files also would have included the forensics evidence referenced in "Living History."
The victim was visibly stunned when handed the affidavit by a reporter this fall. "It kind of shocks me - it's not true," she said. "I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life."
In December, when Clinton was campaigning in Iowa , the woman was being released from a state prison after serving a year for forging checks to pay for her methamphetamine addiction.
She doesn't blame Taylor for all her problems, but says the incident continues to haunt her, compounding her bouts of depression and anxiety.
"I remember a lot of bad things about what he did to me in that pickup of his," said the woman, who says she attempted suicide a year after the incident. "I've had a lot of counseling and saw a psychiatrist for five to ten years ... It really affected me mentally. I was always kind of scared to be alone with a guy afterwards."
down from 1st deg rape to "2 months time served"..
down from 1st deg rape to "2 months time served"..
Except that's not true. He got a year in prison with the two months time served taken off his sentence. It's a bull shit charge that denigrate our system of justice where everyone deserve legal defense. That how the 27 year old rookie lawyer was assigned, by the judge in the case, her first criminal case. The fault for the reduced charges and plea deal lies with whoever lost the evidence, not the defense lawyer.
down from 1st deg rape to "2 months time served"..
Except that's not true. He got a year in prison with the two months time served taken off his sentence. It's a bull shit charge that denigrate our system of justice where everyone deserve legal defense. That how the 27 year old rookie lawyer was assigned, by the judge in the case, her first criminal case. The fault for the reduced charges and plea deal lies with whoever lost the evidence, not the defense lawyer.
The test were done on the missing material. They showed considerable proof of the crime. The fact the lab destroyed the ORIGINAL fabric swatch, is still nothing to revel over. Or chuckle about..
I think far too many people do not understand how the law works and what it is attorneys are trained and paid to do. The fact of the matter is that attorneys are paid to make the most compelling argument on behalf of their client(s). It really doesn't matter whether the client did or did not commit the crime if the client is of a mind to plead "not guilty." In those situations, the defense attorney must put forth the strongest case they can.
So what defines whether an attorney is good? Quite simply, it's whether s/he develops a track record of making stronger -- in jurors' minds -- arguments than do their opposing counselors at trial. (For cases that don't go to trial, the defining factors are different.) For a defense attorney, that ultimately comes down to being able to present compelling arguments that erode the ultimate assertion every criminal prosecutor makes: that the evidence the prosecutor presents shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did indeed perform everything (actus rea) and, when applicable, think everything (mens rea) as stated by the prosecution.
In the matter raised in this thread regarding Mrs. Clinton's defense of the man who assaulted the Arkansas girl, Mrs. Clinton did her job. As for what she was laughing about, well, one needs to listen to the interview in which she discussed the matter. Listening to her discuss the matter, it becomes very clear that what she's laughing about is the state's mishandling of the evidence, not about the girl's having been assaulted, and not about her success in obtaining the outcome they did.
Here is the original interview:
Here's CNN's synopsis of the matter:
In closing, I have only to say that while there are things about Hillary Clinton that one can legitimately take exception, her handling of that case is not one of them. The woman did what she was engaged to do and she did her job well. The manner in which the underwear was handled was laughable, so I see nothing wrong with her having laughed about it.
Going forward, I suggest you not be so willing to rely on your own opinion and instead dig into the details to find out whether they indeed support your claim. That way you won't come off looking as though you do not know what you are talking about.
The bitch, Hillary made up stories to describe the 12 year old girl as the responsible party. Your defense of the bitch, Hillary is basically correct in that a defense lawyer should do everything legally and ethically permitted to defend and acquit his client. Lying about the victim is NOT among them.
You fail.
No, actually, you fail, and you don't even realize it.
Were you to deliver what you just wrote above as your analysis of the case, it's you who'd fail. What is it you'd fail? Well, it'd either be an actual exam question in a law school class or it'd be an actual trial where you were supposed to have been studying for your client. The only thing that lets you get way with that drek is that you are posting here and there are no rules of law and procedure in the court of public opinion.
I think far too many people do not understand how the law works and what it is attorneys are trained and paid to do. The fact of the matter is that attorneys are paid to make the most compelling argument on behalf of their client(s). It really doesn't matter whether the client did or did not commit the crime if the client is of a mind to plead "not guilty." In those situations, the defense attorney must put forth the strongest case they can.
So what defines whether an attorney is good? Quite simply, it's whether s/he develops a track record of making stronger -- in jurors' minds -- arguments than do their opposing counselors at trial. (For cases that don't go to trial, the defining factors are different.) For a defense attorney, that ultimately comes down to being able to present compelling arguments that erode the ultimate assertion every criminal prosecutor makes: that the evidence the prosecutor presents shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did indeed perform everything (actus rea) and, when applicable, think everything (mens rea) as stated by the prosecution.
In the matter raised in this thread regarding Mrs. Clinton's defense of the man who assaulted the Arkansas girl, Mrs. Clinton did her job. As for what she was laughing about, well, one needs to listen to the interview in which she discussed the matter. Listening to her discuss the matter, it becomes very clear that what she's laughing about is the state's mishandling of the evidence, not about the girl's having been assaulted, and not about her success in obtaining the outcome they did.
Here is the original interview:
Here's CNN's synopsis of the matter:
In closing, I have only to say that while there are things about Hillary Clinton that one can legitimately take exception, her handling of that case is not one of them. The woman did what she was engaged to do and she did her job well. The manner in which the underwear was handled was laughable, so I see nothing wrong with her having laughed about it.
Going forward, I suggest you not be so willing to rely on your own opinion and instead dig into the details to find out whether they indeed support your claim. That way you won't come off looking as though you do not know what you are talking about.
The bitch, Hillary made up stories to describe the 12 year old girl as the responsible party. Your defense of the bitch, Hillary is basically correct in that a defense lawyer should do everything legally and ethically permitted to defend and acquit his client. Lying about the victim is NOT among them.
You fail.
No, actually, you fail, and you don't even realize it.
Were you to deliver what you just wrote above as your analysis of the case, it's you who'd fail. What is it you'd fail? Well, it'd either be an actual exam question in a law school class or it'd be an actual trial where you were supposed to have been studying for your client. The only thing that lets you get way with that drek is that you are posting here and there are no rules of law and procedure in the court of public opinion.
There's nothing in your posts to suggest you are an expert in any field. There is recorded evidence that HR laughed about the case that she had won through dishonest means (painting the child as the aggressor). She deliberately destroyed the life of a young girl to get a sexual predator off light. Her duty to defend her client as best she can does NOT include fabrication of lies intended to make the victim out to be the villain. She was underage, the man gave her alcohol, the man raped her brutally....and Hillary chuckles about the case.
This is actually not unexpected cur dogs. Bill and Hillary have similar traits in that regard. They are both cur dogs.
I think far too many people do not understand how the law works and what it is attorneys are trained and paid to do. The fact of the matter is that attorneys are paid to make the most compelling argument on behalf of their client(s). It really doesn't matter whether the client did or did not commit the crime if the client is of a mind to plead "not guilty." In those situations, the defense attorney must put forth the strongest case they can.
So what defines whether an attorney is good? Quite simply, it's whether s/he develops a track record of making stronger -- in jurors' minds -- arguments than do their opposing counselors at trial. (For cases that don't go to trial, the defining factors are different.) For a defense attorney, that ultimately comes down to being able to present compelling arguments that erode the ultimate assertion every criminal prosecutor makes: that the evidence the prosecutor presents shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did indeed perform everything (actus rea) and, when applicable, think everything (mens rea) as stated by the prosecution.
In the matter raised in this thread regarding Mrs. Clinton's defense of the man who assaulted the Arkansas girl, Mrs. Clinton did her job. As for what she was laughing about, well, one needs to listen to the interview in which she discussed the matter. Listening to her discuss the matter, it becomes very clear that what she's laughing about is the state's mishandling of the evidence, not about the girl's having been assaulted, and not about her success in obtaining the outcome they did.
Here is the original interview:
Here's CNN's synopsis of the matter:
In closing, I have only to say that while there are things about Hillary Clinton that one can legitimately take exception, her handling of that case is not one of them. The woman did what she was engaged to do and she did her job well. The manner in which the underwear was handled was laughable, so I see nothing wrong with her having laughed about it.
Going forward, I suggest you not be so willing to rely on your own opinion and instead dig into the details to find out whether they indeed support your claim. That way you won't come off looking as though you do not know what you are talking about.
The bitch, Hillary made up stories to describe the 12 year old girl as the responsible party. Your defense of the bitch, Hillary is basically correct in that a defense lawyer should do everything legally and ethically permitted to defend and acquit his client. Lying about the victim is NOT among them.
You fail.
No, actually, you fail, and you don't even realize it.
Were you to deliver what you just wrote above as your analysis of the case, it's you who'd fail. What is it you'd fail? Well, it'd either be an actual exam question in a law school class or it'd be an actual trial where you were supposed to have been studying for your client. The only thing that lets you get way with that drek is that you are posting here and there are no rules of law and procedure in the court of public opinion.
There's nothing in your posts to suggest you are an expert in any field. There is recorded evidence that HR laughed about the case that she had won through dishonest means (painting the child as the aggressor). She deliberately destroyed the life of a young girl to get a sexual predator off light. Her duty to defend her client as best she can does NOT include fabrication of lies intended to make the victim out to be the villain. She was underage, the man gave her alcohol, the man raped her brutally....and Hillary chuckles about the case.
This is actually not unexpected cur dogs. Bill and Hillary have similar traits in that regard. They are both cur dogs.
As I wrote earlier...you don't even realise the insipidity of what you've been writing. You just keep proving my point. You write about the recorded evidence, yet that evidence is in my post and there for all to hear that what you make of it, and what actually was, aren't at all the same things.
