Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are you serious? She doesn't have a record of attacking women? Tell that to Bill's victims. And it's her JOB to attack a 12 year old rape victim? There goes YOUR credibility.That's a nice little speech for defending Hillary's attacks on Bill's victims but the problem is that Hillary has a past record of attacking women BEFORE Bill was ever president. What's her excuse for attacking the 12 year old rape victim, and what's your justification for her doing it?You must not have around during the Clinton presidency then because every liberal, including Hillary (the defender of women lol) was excusing it because HE was the one doing it.I don't think I've every been in a conversation where assaulting women was looked on approvingly.
I was around. Broaddrick's claims looked weak, Monica Lewinsky wasn't sexually assaulted, nor was Gennifer Flowers. Paual Jones' story came out after the 96 election and she posed in Playboy.
I don't think Bill Clinton could get elected today. Thankfully that's not a problem.
If you want to pin everything on Hillary, that's fine, good luck. Usually the spouse who has been cheated on doesn't get along with the other women, it's a natural reaction and phenomenon. For the wife who was cheated on to call the other women bimbos and looneytunes isn't exactly an unreasonable response. No where near on par with claims of sexual assault (and stories now coming out).
For all the claims against Bill Clinton, this is your chance to now back away from your candidate that makes you look like a hypocrite when you protect him.
She doesn't have any kind of record of attacking women. She was a defense attorney once and she did her job.
You know what she didn't do? She didn't claim to grab peoples' genitals without their approval. She never claimed to sexually assault anyone.
It's hilarious and sad at the same time that you don't understand how big this is.
Yeah, she "defended" her 41 year old client (who she KNEW was guilty) by attacking and slandering his 12 year old victim. I'll bet you're proud of yourself.Are you serious? She doesn't have a record of attacking women? Tell that to Bill's victims. And it's her JOB to attack a 12 year old rape victim? There goes YOUR credibility.That's a nice little speech for defending Hillary's attacks on Bill's victims but the problem is that Hillary has a past record of attacking women BEFORE Bill was ever president. What's her excuse for attacking the 12 year old rape victim, and what's your justification for her doing it?You must not have around during the Clinton presidency then because every liberal, including Hillary (the defender of women lol) was excusing it because HE was the one doing it.
I was around. Broaddrick's claims looked weak, Monica Lewinsky wasn't sexually assaulted, nor was Gennifer Flowers. Paual Jones' story came out after the 96 election and she posed in Playboy.
I don't think Bill Clinton could get elected today. Thankfully that's not a problem.
If you want to pin everything on Hillary, that's fine, good luck. Usually the spouse who has been cheated on doesn't get along with the other women, it's a natural reaction and phenomenon. For the wife who was cheated on to call the other women bimbos and looneytunes isn't exactly an unreasonable response. No where near on par with claims of sexual assault (and stories now coming out).
For all the claims against Bill Clinton, this is your chance to now back away from your candidate that makes you look like a hypocrite when you protect him.
She doesn't have any kind of record of attacking women. She was a defense attorney once and she did her job.
You know what she didn't do? She didn't claim to grab peoples' genitals without their approval. She never claimed to sexually assault anyone.
It's hilarious and sad at the same time that you don't understand how big this is.
She was appointed a criminal defense attorney by a judge and she defended her client.
What she didn't do was claim to sexually assault others because she is a privileged celebrity. Donald Trump did and you still don't get how significant that is.
Yeah, she "defended" her 41 year old client (who she KNEW was guilty) by attacking and slandering his 12 year old victim. I'll bet you're proud of yourself.Are you serious? She doesn't have a record of attacking women? Tell that to Bill's victims. And it's her JOB to attack a 12 year old rape victim? There goes YOUR credibility.That's a nice little speech for defending Hillary's attacks on Bill's victims but the problem is that Hillary has a past record of attacking women BEFORE Bill was ever president. What's her excuse for attacking the 12 year old rape victim, and what's your justification for her doing it?I was around. Broaddrick's claims looked weak, Monica Lewinsky wasn't sexually assaulted, nor was Gennifer Flowers. Paual Jones' story came out after the 96 election and she posed in Playboy.
I don't think Bill Clinton could get elected today. Thankfully that's not a problem.
If you want to pin everything on Hillary, that's fine, good luck. Usually the spouse who has been cheated on doesn't get along with the other women, it's a natural reaction and phenomenon. For the wife who was cheated on to call the other women bimbos and looneytunes isn't exactly an unreasonable response. No where near on par with claims of sexual assault (and stories now coming out).
For all the claims against Bill Clinton, this is your chance to now back away from your candidate that makes you look like a hypocrite when you protect him.
She doesn't have any kind of record of attacking women. She was a defense attorney once and she did her job.
You know what she didn't do? She didn't claim to grab peoples' genitals without their approval. She never claimed to sexually assault anyone.
It's hilarious and sad at the same time that you don't understand how big this is.
She was appointed a criminal defense attorney by a judge and she defended her client.
What she didn't do was claim to sexually assault others because she is a privileged celebrity. Donald Trump did and you still don't get how significant that is.
The rape was so brutal, it left the child unable to have children. All of your justification of Hillary's treatment of the child illustrates your callous disregard for rape victims (even children). Winning is all that matters to you, isn't it?Yeah, she "defended" her 41 year old client (who she KNEW was guilty) by attacking and slandering his 12 year old victim. I'll bet you're proud of yourself.Are you serious? She doesn't have a record of attacking women? Tell that to Bill's victims. And it's her JOB to attack a 12 year old rape victim? There goes YOUR credibility.That's a nice little speech for defending Hillary's attacks on Bill's victims but the problem is that Hillary has a past record of attacking women BEFORE Bill was ever president. What's her excuse for attacking the 12 year old rape victim, and what's your justification for her doing it?
She doesn't have any kind of record of attacking women. She was a defense attorney once and she did her job.
You know what she didn't do? She didn't claim to grab peoples' genitals without their approval. She never claimed to sexually assault anyone.
It's hilarious and sad at the same time that you don't understand how big this is.
She was appointed a criminal defense attorney by a judge and she defended her client.
What she didn't do was claim to sexually assault others because she is a privileged celebrity. Donald Trump did and you still don't get how significant that is.
I'm very proud of myself. I'm not supporting a guy who brags about sexaully assaulting women (where corroborating stories exist).
Educate yourself on what Clinton did and did not do while being a defense attorney.
Clinton’s 1975 Rape Case
In a separate 2014 interview, Clinton said she had an “obligation” to represent Taylor. “I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did,” she said.
In her book, Clinton writes that she visited Taylor in the county jail and he “denied the charges against him and insisted that the girl, a distant relative, had made up her story.” Clinton filed a motion to order the 12-year-old girl to get a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing … [and] that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,” according to an affidavit filed by Clinton in support of her motion.
Clinton also cited an expert in child psychology who said that “children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to such behavior,” Clinton wrote in her affidavit.
Ultimately, expert testimony from a scientist “cast doubt on the evidentiary value of the blood and semen the prosecutor claimed proved the defendant’s guilt in the rape,” Clinton writes in her book. Clinton negotiated a plea deal and Taylor was charged with “Unlawful Fondling of a Child Under the Age of Fourteen” and was sentenced to one year in a county jail and four years of probation, according to a final judgment signed by Cummings.
