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.
1, It IS her history.
2, She CHOSE to defend him.
3, She DID it for the money.
And far from petty it SHOWS smear campains have been her FIRST resort NOT truth.
If you listen to the video she was hand picked by him because she was a woman.
BUT she ACCEPTED and did NOT have to.
PLUS she destroyed a 12 year old doing it.
Hillary IS the war on women UNLESS YOU are prepared to defend rape.
Do YOU defend rape?
Dork Fury, every suspect has the legal right to an attorney. And that attorney is obligated to try and save their client.
Look, you had your ass handed to you, just tuck your tail between your legs and run home. Come back when you have a winnable argument, not some shit-stirring nonsense that even the right wing won't touch.
And just for the record? Hillary Clinton was in violation of attorney-client privilege when she told that reporter that her client had passed the polygraph and that result forever changed her opinion of the validity of that test.
And just for the record? Hillary Clinton was in violation of attorney-client privilege when she told that reporter that her client had passed the polygraph and that result forever changed her opinion of the validity of that test.
It depends on the state jurisdiction, but generally once the trial (and subsequent appeals) are over such information is within the public domain.
Attorney's don't lose the responsibility to protect the attorney-client privilege because a trial or appeals are over, Grandma...I don't know where you're getting that idea from.
Check the video IN the OP.They have to follow rules and offer the best defense possible. Ridiculing the victim behind closed doors is not part of that. Hillary made snide comments and indicated that she thought the whole thing was humorous.
Proof of this? Evidence? Video? Audio? Testimony?
Have you really not heard the recording, Stats?
I agree totally that lawyers do have to offer the best defense possible but when you find it "amusing" that you got a rapist off with time served...two months...and joke about it to someone else...that makes you a scumbag in my eyes.
Well, then, point me to the recording.
It's there. AND you can track it back to Youtube.
OR....
The Audio...
She was in 1980 still quite PROUD of getting a child molester off.
She destroyed the 12 year old to boot.
So, I listened to it. TWICE.
Clinton laughs right before the 2 minute mark (1:54 or so) when she mentions that she made her client take a polygraph test and he passed it and then she laughed because she meant that that moment destroyed her faith in polygraphs. In other words, she did not believe that her client was telling the truth. This is very, very common. She wasn't laughing at the assumed victim in this case: the 12 year old girl.
She laughs slightly at 2:49 because she was absolutely right that she, as a defense attorney, had a right to see evidence from the bloodied underwear that had undergone a forensics investigation. It's a short laugh, the kind that people make when they know that what they are about to have to relate is so ridiculous, they cannot believe they even have to relate it. But alas, in the adversarial system of Justice, this kind of stuff happens.
The CRUX of the argument as to why her client got off is clearly about this piece of evidence and she explains it at the 3 minute mark, but here she is not laughing. In other words, she was doing EXACTLY what one would expect a good defense attorney to do.
She laughs again at 4:58 about the fact that because since the forensics lab fucked-up and got rid of the hole in the underwear that they cut out and analyzed, a guilty verdict would be a miscarriage of justice. And actually, it would have been.
So, Clinton laughs exactly 3 times on this recording of an interview where she is recounting some details from this case. Each laugh was less than 1/2 second in length. So, we are talking about 1.5 seconds out of 6 minutes.
I want to THANK you for providing me with the video, because it shows you to be just the stupid, moronic fuck I figured you were.
You have to go 35 years back in history to find a 6 minute audio of a recording of a woman talking "shop" with an interviewer and you think she is laughing at the victim of the rape? You are really that stupid? Or just a fucked-up partisan blowhard? I go with both possibilitiey.
Look, buddy, the adversarial system of Justice breeds exactly this type of lawyers, and it needs them.
Did this guy rape that poor little (then) 12 year old girl? I dunno. Probably, he did. But the prosecution fucked up more than once, quite obviously, and Clinton did her job. In other words, in your attempt to smear her, you just proved that she knows how to get the job done.
I bet you thought I would not listen to the recording. But I did, as I wrote, TWICE.
Thanks for your support of Hillary Clinton.
So, that point is now destroyed. She never ridiculed the victim, never laughed at the victim, and once a case is over, making an interview about the general details is absolutely allowed, because those are the same details that would be in the court records, anyway.
You also claim in your OP title that she lied, and yet, you have no evidence to prove it. You also claim that she destroyed the 12 year old girl, and yet, you have not evidence to prove that, also.
But it's ok, yer a Rightie and live in Unicornland, I expect no real level of excellence here from you. With Righties, I have learned to set the bar
very,
very
low.
I graciously accept your concession. Thanks for playing.
Derideo_Te Mertex LoneLaugher Luddly Neddite Grandma - here is some good entertainment for y'all!
If a lawyer believes that everyone is entitled to a defense that lawyer will take on some pretty reprehensible clients.
Once the legal battle is joined it is between the prosecutor and defense attorney. The victim and perpetrator become more like props instead of the real fight.
We just saw a prosecutor who wanted to win so badly an innocent man went to prison for 39 years. In his defense the prosecutor said he wanted to win. They all want to win.
And just for the record? Hillary Clinton was in violation of attorney-client privilege when she told that reporter that her client had passed the polygraph and that result forever changed her opinion of the validity of that test.
It depends on the state jurisdiction, but generally once the trial (and subsequent appeals) are over such information is within the public domain.
Attorney's don't lose the responsibility to protect the attorney-client privilege because a trial or appeals are over, Grandma...I don't know where you're getting that idea from.
Really slow, for your ageing brain: any information that was already discussed at the trial is ALREADY public domain. And laughing about the results of a polygraph test does not break client trust long after a case is closed. Lawyers even write their impressions in case law in many large books, for the sake of precedence. Besides, her comment was not about her client, it was about a piece of machinery. As far as I can tell, that piece of machinery was not on trial. You do understand this, right?
What part of "adversarial justice system" do you not understand?
Check the video IN the OP.Proof of this? Evidence? Video? Audio? Testimony?
Have you really not heard the recording, Stats?
I agree totally that lawyers do have to offer the best defense possible but when you find it "amusing" that you got a rapist off with time served...two months...and joke about it to someone else...that makes you a scumbag in my eyes.
Well, then, point me to the recording.
It's there. AND you can track it back to Youtube.
OR....
The Audio...
She was in 1980 still quite PROUD of getting a child molester off.
She destroyed the 12 year old to boot.
So, I listened to it. TWICE.
Clinton laughs right before the 2 minute mark (1:54 or so) when she mentions that she made her client take a polygraph test and he passed it and then she laughed because she meant that that moment destroyed her faith in polygraphs. In other words, she did not believe that her client was telling the truth. This is very, very common. She wasn't laughing at the assumed victim in this case: the 12 year old girl.
She laughs slightly at 2:49 because she was absolutely right that she, as a defense attorney, had a right to see evidence from the bloodied underwear that had undergone a forensics investigation. It's a short laugh, the kind that people make when they know that what they are about to have to relate is so ridiculous, they cannot believe they even have to relate it. But alas, in the adversarial system of Justice, this kind of stuff happens.
The CRUX of the argument as to why her client got off is clearly about this piece of evidence and she explains it at the 3 minute mark, but here she is not laughing. In other words, she was doing EXACTLY what one would expect a good defense attorney to do.
She laughs again at 4:58 about the fact that because since the forensics lab fucked-up and got rid of the hole in the underwear that they cut out and analyzed, a guilty verdict would be a miscarriage of justice. And actually, it would have been.
So, Clinton laughs exactly 3 times on this recording of an interview where she is recounting some details from this case. Each laugh was less than 1/2 second in length. So, we are talking about 1.5 seconds out of 6 minutes.
I want to THANK you for providing me with the video, because it shows you to be just the stupid, moronic fuck I figured you were.
You have to go 35 years back in history to find a 6 minute audio of a recording of a woman talking "shop" with an interviewer and you think she is laughing at the victim of the rape? You are really that stupid? Or just a fucked-up partisan blowhard? I go with both possibilitiey.
Look, buddy, the adversarial system of Justice breeds exactly this type of lawyers, and it needs them.
Did this guy rape that poor little (then) 12 year old girl? I dunno. Probably, he did. But the prosecution fucked up more than once, quite obviously, and Clinton did her job. In other words, in your attempt to smear her, you just proved that she knows how to get the job done.
I bet you thought I would not listen to the recording. But I did, as I wrote, TWICE.
Thanks for your support of Hillary Clinton.
So, that point is now destroyed. She never ridiculed the victim, never laughed at the victim, and once a case is over, making an interview about the general details is absolutely allowed, because those are the same details that would be in the court records, anyway.
You also claim in your OP title that she lied, and yet, you have no evidence to prove it. You also claim that she destroyed the 12 year old girl, and yet, you have not evidence to prove that, also.
But it's ok, yer a Rightie and live in Unicornland, I expect no real level of excellence here from you. With Righties, I have learned to set the bar
very,
very
low.
I graciously accept your concession. Thanks for playing.
Derideo_Te Mertex LoneLaugher Luddly Neddite Grandma - here is some good entertainment for y'all!
This is the same conservative smear tactic that gave us hundreds of threads claiming Hillary said "What difference does it make?" that Americans were killed
Context and an understanding of the English language does not apply to conservatives
Actually, it was not 2 months in jail, it was 1 year in jail, with 4 years probation.... which is still very little time.And just for the record? Hillary Clinton was in violation of attorney-client privilege when she told that reporter that her client had passed the polygraph and that result forever changed her opinion of the validity of that test.
It depends on the state jurisdiction, but generally once the trial (and subsequent appeals) are over such information is within the public domain.
Attorney's don't lose the responsibility to protect the attorney-client privilege because a trial or appeals are over, Grandma...I don't know where you're getting that idea from.
Really slow, for your ageing brain: any information that was already discussed at the trial is ALREADY public domain. And laughing about the results of a polygraph test does not break client trust long after a case is closed. Lawyers even write their impressions in case law in many large books, for the sake of precedence. Besides, her comment was not about her client, it was about a piece of machinery. As far as I can tell, that piece of machinery was not on trial. You do understand this, right?
What part of "adversarial justice system" do you not understand?
The reason you don't see lawyers going on Court TV or CNN or any other media outlet discussing their past clients trials and giving us all the "real scoop" on their guilt is that to do so would result in their being disbarred. When Hillary Clinton did her little spiel about how she had her client take a polygraph and then comments how that totally changed her view of the validity of polygraphs she just told that interviewer (and hence the rest of us who might read his story) that in her opinion her client was guilty as sin and got away with a two month time served sentence for raping that 12 year old girl.
Check the video IN the OP.Have you really not heard the recording, Stats?
I agree totally that lawyers do have to offer the best defense possible but when you find it "amusing" that you got a rapist off with time served...two months...and joke about it to someone else...that makes you a scumbag in my eyes.
Well, then, point me to the recording.
It's there. AND you can track it back to Youtube.
OR....
The Audio...
She was in 1980 still quite PROUD of getting a child molester off.
She destroyed the 12 year old to boot.
So, I listened to it. TWICE.
Clinton laughs right before the 2 minute mark (1:54 or so) when she mentions that she made her client take a polygraph test and he passed it and then she laughed because she meant that that moment destroyed her faith in polygraphs. In other words, she did not believe that her client was telling the truth. This is very, very common. She wasn't laughing at the assumed victim in this case: the 12 year old girl.
She laughs slightly at 2:49 because she was absolutely right that she, as a defense attorney, had a right to see evidence from the bloodied underwear that had undergone a forensics investigation. It's a short laugh, the kind that people make when they know that what they are about to have to relate is so ridiculous, they cannot believe they even have to relate it. But alas, in the adversarial system of Justice, this kind of stuff happens.
The CRUX of the argument as to why her client got off is clearly about this piece of evidence and she explains it at the 3 minute mark, but here she is not laughing. In other words, she was doing EXACTLY what one would expect a good defense attorney to do.
She laughs again at 4:58 about the fact that because since the forensics lab fucked-up and got rid of the hole in the underwear that they cut out and analyzed, a guilty verdict would be a miscarriage of justice. And actually, it would have been.
So, Clinton laughs exactly 3 times on this recording of an interview where she is recounting some details from this case. Each laugh was less than 1/2 second in length. So, we are talking about 1.5 seconds out of 6 minutes.
I want to THANK you for providing me with the video, because it shows you to be just the stupid, moronic fuck I figured you were.
You have to go 35 years back in history to find a 6 minute audio of a recording of a woman talking "shop" with an interviewer and you think she is laughing at the victim of the rape? You are really that stupid? Or just a fucked-up partisan blowhard? I go with both possibilitiey.
Look, buddy, the adversarial system of Justice breeds exactly this type of lawyers, and it needs them.
Did this guy rape that poor little (then) 12 year old girl? I dunno. Probably, he did. But the prosecution fucked up more than once, quite obviously, and Clinton did her job. In other words, in your attempt to smear her, you just proved that she knows how to get the job done.
I bet you thought I would not listen to the recording. But I did, as I wrote, TWICE.
Thanks for your support of Hillary Clinton.
So, that point is now destroyed. She never ridiculed the victim, never laughed at the victim, and once a case is over, making an interview about the general details is absolutely allowed, because those are the same details that would be in the court records, anyway.
You also claim in your OP title that she lied, and yet, you have no evidence to prove it. You also claim that she destroyed the 12 year old girl, and yet, you have not evidence to prove that, also.
But it's ok, yer a Rightie and live in Unicornland, I expect no real level of excellence here from you. With Righties, I have learned to set the bar
very,
very
low.
I graciously accept your concession. Thanks for playing.
Derideo_Te Mertex LoneLaugher Luddly Neddite Grandma - here is some good entertainment for y'all!
This is the same conservative smear tactic that gave us hundreds of threads claiming Hillary said "What difference does it make?" that Americans were killed
Context and an understanding of the English language does not apply to conservatives
Because as we all know...when Hillary made that comment she was talking about...?
Check the video IN the OP.Well, then, point me to the recording.
It's there. AND you can track it back to Youtube.
OR....
The Audio...
She was in 1980 still quite PROUD of getting a child molester off.
She destroyed the 12 year old to boot.
So, I listened to it. TWICE.
Clinton laughs right before the 2 minute mark (1:54 or so) when she mentions that she made her client take a polygraph test and he passed it and then she laughed because she meant that that moment destroyed her faith in polygraphs. In other words, she did not believe that her client was telling the truth. This is very, very common. She wasn't laughing at the assumed victim in this case: the 12 year old girl.
She laughs slightly at 2:49 because she was absolutely right that she, as a defense attorney, had a right to see evidence from the bloodied underwear that had undergone a forensics investigation. It's a short laugh, the kind that people make when they know that what they are about to have to relate is so ridiculous, they cannot believe they even have to relate it. But alas, in the adversarial system of Justice, this kind of stuff happens.
The CRUX of the argument as to why her client got off is clearly about this piece of evidence and she explains it at the 3 minute mark, but here she is not laughing. In other words, she was doing EXACTLY what one would expect a good defense attorney to do.
She laughs again at 4:58 about the fact that because since the forensics lab fucked-up and got rid of the hole in the underwear that they cut out and analyzed, a guilty verdict would be a miscarriage of justice. And actually, it would have been.
So, Clinton laughs exactly 3 times on this recording of an interview where she is recounting some details from this case. Each laugh was less than 1/2 second in length. So, we are talking about 1.5 seconds out of 6 minutes.
I want to THANK you for providing me with the video, because it shows you to be just the stupid, moronic fuck I figured you were.
You have to go 35 years back in history to find a 6 minute audio of a recording of a woman talking "shop" with an interviewer and you think she is laughing at the victim of the rape? You are really that stupid? Or just a fucked-up partisan blowhard? I go with both possibilitiey.
Look, buddy, the adversarial system of Justice breeds exactly this type of lawyers, and it needs them.
Did this guy rape that poor little (then) 12 year old girl? I dunno. Probably, he did. But the prosecution fucked up more than once, quite obviously, and Clinton did her job. In other words, in your attempt to smear her, you just proved that she knows how to get the job done.
I bet you thought I would not listen to the recording. But I did, as I wrote, TWICE.
Thanks for your support of Hillary Clinton.
So, that point is now destroyed. She never ridiculed the victim, never laughed at the victim, and once a case is over, making an interview about the general details is absolutely allowed, because those are the same details that would be in the court records, anyway.
You also claim in your OP title that she lied, and yet, you have no evidence to prove it. You also claim that she destroyed the 12 year old girl, and yet, you have not evidence to prove that, also.
But it's ok, yer a Rightie and live in Unicornland, I expect no real level of excellence here from you. With Righties, I have learned to set the bar
very,
very
low.
I graciously accept your concession. Thanks for playing.
Derideo_Te Mertex LoneLaugher Luddly Neddite Grandma - here is some good entertainment for y'all!
This is the same conservative smear tactic that gave us hundreds of threads claiming Hillary said "What difference does it make?" that Americans were killed
Context and an understanding of the English language does not apply to conservatives
Because as we all know...when Hillary made that comment she was talking about...?
Umm...maybe the ones who committed the crime?
Check the video IN the OP.
It's there. AND you can track it back to Youtube.
OR....
The Audio...
She was in 1980 still quite PROUD of getting a child molester off.
She destroyed the 12 year old to boot.
So, I listened to it. TWICE.
Clinton laughs right before the 2 minute mark (1:54 or so) when she mentions that she made her client take a polygraph test and he passed it and then she laughed because she meant that that moment destroyed her faith in polygraphs. In other words, she did not believe that her client was telling the truth. This is very, very common. She wasn't laughing at the assumed victim in this case: the 12 year old girl.
She laughs slightly at 2:49 because she was absolutely right that she, as a defense attorney, had a right to see evidence from the bloodied underwear that had undergone a forensics investigation. It's a short laugh, the kind that people make when they know that what they are about to have to relate is so ridiculous, they cannot believe they even have to relate it. But alas, in the adversarial system of Justice, this kind of stuff happens.
The CRUX of the argument as to why her client got off is clearly about this piece of evidence and she explains it at the 3 minute mark, but here she is not laughing. In other words, she was doing EXACTLY what one would expect a good defense attorney to do.
She laughs again at 4:58 about the fact that because since the forensics lab fucked-up and got rid of the hole in the underwear that they cut out and analyzed, a guilty verdict would be a miscarriage of justice. And actually, it would have been.
So, Clinton laughs exactly 3 times on this recording of an interview where she is recounting some details from this case. Each laugh was less than 1/2 second in length. So, we are talking about 1.5 seconds out of 6 minutes.
I want to THANK you for providing me with the video, because it shows you to be just the stupid, moronic fuck I figured you were.
You have to go 35 years back in history to find a 6 minute audio of a recording of a woman talking "shop" with an interviewer and you think she is laughing at the victim of the rape? You are really that stupid? Or just a fucked-up partisan blowhard? I go with both possibilitiey.
Look, buddy, the adversarial system of Justice breeds exactly this type of lawyers, and it needs them.
Did this guy rape that poor little (then) 12 year old girl? I dunno. Probably, he did. But the prosecution fucked up more than once, quite obviously, and Clinton did her job. In other words, in your attempt to smear her, you just proved that she knows how to get the job done.
I bet you thought I would not listen to the recording. But I did, as I wrote, TWICE.
Thanks for your support of Hillary Clinton.
So, that point is now destroyed. She never ridiculed the victim, never laughed at the victim, and once a case is over, making an interview about the general details is absolutely allowed, because those are the same details that would be in the court records, anyway.
You also claim in your OP title that she lied, and yet, you have no evidence to prove it. You also claim that she destroyed the 12 year old girl, and yet, you have not evidence to prove that, also.
But it's ok, yer a Rightie and live in Unicornland, I expect no real level of excellence here from you. With Righties, I have learned to set the bar
very,
very
low.
I graciously accept your concession. Thanks for playing.
Derideo_Te Mertex LoneLaugher Luddly Neddite Grandma - here is some good entertainment for y'all!
This is the same conservative smear tactic that gave us hundreds of threads claiming Hillary said "What difference does it make?" that Americans were killed
Context and an understanding of the English language does not apply to conservatives
Because as we all know...when Hillary made that comment she was talking about...?
Umm...maybe the ones who committed the crime?
I thought you said she wasn't talking about the Americans that were killed?
She was being grilled by that panel over the response of the State Department to the attack and the State Department's policies leading up to the attack when she made that comment. Sorry, Winger but it's hard to see how Clinton's poor choice of words was about anything else.
She was being grilled by that panel over the response of the State Department to the attack and the State Department's policies leading up to the attack when she made that comment. Sorry, Winger but it's hard to see how Clinton's poor choice of words was about anything else.
She was talking about whether the attackers were spontaneous or a planned terrorist attack
Her point was that it did not make a difference in bringing them to justice
The real question of course is will this new edition of the "Stop Hillary Express" be more successful than the "Stop Obama Express"?
The real question of course is will this new edition of the "Stop Hillary Express" be more successful than the "Stop Obama Express"?
Since the "Obama Express" is the thing that actually stopped Hillary last time it's obvious that Hillary doesn't have the same slobbering love affair with the main stream media that Barry had back in 2007 and 2008.
She was being grilled by that panel over the response of the State Department to the attack and the State Department's policies leading up to the attack when she made that comment. Sorry, Winger but it's hard to see how Clinton's poor choice of words was about anything else.
She was talking about whether the attackers were spontaneous or a planned terrorist attack
Her point was that it did not make a difference in bringing them to justice
The questions she was being asked was whether or not she knew if it was a spontaneous or planned attack and when it was that she DID know that! Clinton misled the families of the dead men and the American people when she characterized the attacks as spontaneous reactions to a YouTube film and THAT was why she was being grilled by those members of Congress!
Nope.The real question of course is will this new edition of the "Stop Hillary Express" be more successful than the "Stop Obama Express"?
