Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

one of rape victims was only 12 YEARS OLD? and higgardly blamed the GIRL. Defended the rapist

calfoxwc

By calfoxwc
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
Posted

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3829975/Bill-raped-Hillary-threatened-Trump-holds-photo-op-90-minutes-debate-cast-Clintons-sexual-abusers-battles-October-surprise.html

 

'Bill raped me and Hillary threatened me!' Trump brings FOUR Clinton 'sex victims' to tonight's debate - to cast BOTH of them as sexual abusers

  • Donald Trump hosted a brief photo-op with three women – Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones, who have accused Bill Clinton of sexually abusing, harassing and raping them
  • A fourth woman, Kathy Shelton, said Hillary Clinton blamed her when she was a 12-year-old victim and the future first lady represented her rapist
  • The move came as a counterpunch from Trump just two days after audio surfaced of him talking about sexual abuse of women in vulgar terms
  • 'Mr. Trump may have said some bad words, but Bill Clinton raped me,' Broaddrick said, 'and Hillary Clinton threatened me. I don't think there's any comparison'
  • Reporters in the photo-op ignored the women's stories and instead pressed Trump about whether he ever touched women without consent
  • Paula Jones turned it back on them: 'Why don't y'all go ask Bill Clinton that?' she exclaimed. 'Go ahead, ask Hillary as well!'
  • The four accusers took prime seats in the audience of the debate

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3829975/Bill-raped-Hillary-threatened-Trump-holds-photo-op-90-minutes-debate-cast-Clintons-sexual-abusers-battles-October-surprise.html#ixzz4MePuqQvM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
Posted

CNN jumped in after Trump's panel and said Hillary was her court-appointed attorney just doing her job.

 

Total lie from the propaganda outlet doing damage control. (She wasn't court-appointed, she took the case after being asked to as a "favor" - she had no legal obligation to defend the child rapist and decimate a little girl's life)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

I agree. We shouldn't defend people accused of awful crimes.

 

 

And if someone very powerful in your profession asks for a favor, tell them to fuck off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are we really doing this all AGAIN? Can't the Trump campaign implode with something new at least?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

Snopes is a biased left wing site that has no credibility with me anymore.

 

The problem is not that Clinton did her job as a defense attorney in defending a pedophile the problem was her attitude at getting a pedophile cleared of charges which she knew he was guilty of and laughing over the incident. She laughed about her guilty client passing a lie detector test and went after the character of the 12 year old victim. It really was shameful. Again I understand she had a job to do as a defense attorney but to gloat over a case where she got a guilty child molester set free? Who would do that except someone without a conscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised

http://thingsthatsuck.info/snopes-caught-lying-for-hillary-again-questions-raised/

 

they wont click the link maybe...

***************************************

"Notice that the TRUE and FALSE sections don’t match the claim. That’s because Snopes is playing the logical fallacy game of moving the goalposts and using straw men. The claim, as stated by Snopes, is 100% true.

Clinton did successfully defend her client; very successfully, in fact. Getting a beneficial plea bargain that is the best outcome a client can hope for is a successful defense. LaCapria is displaying her ignorance. Acquittal isn’t the only successful defense outcome.

Clinton also laughed about the case. What would you call this? (from FactCheck.org)

In 2014, the Washington Free Beacon published the audio of an interview that Arkansas reporter Roy Reed conducted with Clinton in the 1980s. In the interview, Clinton recalls some unusual details of the rape case, and she can be heard laughing in three instances, beginning with a joke she makes about the accuracy of polygraphs.

Clinton: Of course he claimed he didn’t. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs. [laughs]

At another point, Clinton said the prosecutor balked at turning over evidence, forcing her to go to the judge to obtain it.

Clinton: So I got an order to see the evidence and the prosecutor didn’t want me to see the evidence. I had to go to Maupin Cummings and convince Maupin that yes indeed I had a right to see the evidence [laughs] before it was presented.

Clinton then said that the evidence she obtained was a pair of the accused’s underwear with a hole in it. Clinton told Reed that investigators had cut out a piece of the underwear and sent the sample to a crime lab to be tested, and the only evidence that remained was the underwear with a hole in it.

Clinton took the remaining evidence to a forensic expert in Brooklyn, New York, and the expert told her that the material on the underwear wasn’t enough to test. “He said, you know, ‘You can’t prove anything,’” Clinton recalled the expert telling her.

Clinton:I wrote all that stuff and I handed it to Mahlon Gibson, and I said, “Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.” [laughs]

That is certainly laughing about the case. Then Snopes tries equivocation, saying that Clinton didn’t laugh about theoutcome of the case. I see: she laughed (three times!) while talking about the case, but wasn’t laughing about the case’soutcome, just…the case.

Ridiculous.

Similarly ridiculous is Snopes’ claim that Hillary “did not assert that the complainant ‘made up the rape story.’” She pleaded that her client was not guilty, meaning that she argued in court that he didn’t rape the victim. Hillary claimed that her client was not guilty of rape while the victim was saying he raped her. Again from FactCheck.org:

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.

If Snopes is arguing that Hillary didn’t use the precise words ‘made up the rape story,’ that’s deceit. Obviously her defense was that the child said there was rape when there wasn’t one. In the meme Snopes was using in its post, “made up” is reasonable short hand for “falsely claimed that she was raped.”

Contrary to Scopes’ denials, Hillary also made it clear, in her quotes in the interview, that she thought her client was guilty. What else could “I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs” mean?

No, she didn’t volunteer for the case, and saying that she “freed” him is self-evidently sloppy in describing any criminal defense representation. Judges, juries and prosecutors free defendants; no defense lawyer has that power. Did Clinton’s efforts on behalf of the rapist make him a free man long, long before he would have been without Clinton’s efforts?Unquestionably. He was sentenced to just one year in a county jail and four years of probation, according to the final judgment signed by the judge.

Conclusion: Snopes was dishonestly spinning for Hillary, even though what she had done in this case was simply competent lawyering, and entirely honorable.

As I explained here, there was nothing wrong, unethical or hypocritical about Clinton’s work in this case. Her laughter in the interview is a little unsettling, but Hillary’s laughter is often unsettling. She did her job as a defense lawyer, ethically, and well. The accusation that what she did was unethical is ignorant, but Snopes’ deceitful and misleading denial of what she did is just partisan spin.

In June, Snopes decided that the outrageous news story about a school calling the police to grill a fourth grader about something he said at a class party warranted undermining. After all, we can’t have people thinking that our schools abuse students based on hysterical political correctness and race-baiting. Snopes then titled its post, dishonestly: “Police Called Over ‘Racist’ Brownies?”

No news reports claimed that the police were called because of the brownies. None. Police were called because a student made some statement about brownies that another student deemed racist, and the school staff called the police. It’s really easy to debunk a claim that was never made. Does the Snopes story prove that the story is false in any way? No. Why was it written then?

In July, we learned that the trend was no aberration. Snopes apparently felt that the inspiring Facebook post by officer Jay Stalien needed to be discredited, so it had LaCapria write this, which suggested by the inherent innuendo of presenting such a post on a hoax-exposure site that readers should be skeptical. The Stalien post expressed anti-Black Lives Matter sentiments. And Kim couldn’t prove that Stalien exists.

Come to think of it, I can’t prove that Kim exists.

When did Snopes start fact-checking Facebook opinion posts? It started when the site decided to choose sides, that’s when.

Last week, several sources, all so-called “conservative” news media, noted that the American flag was conspicuous by its absence on the set of the Democratic National Convention on its first day. Liberal media went into full-spin mode, scoffing at the criticism. Ethics Alarms concluded that the omission was intentional, at least to some extent.

Then Snopes, in full spin mode, issued a rebuttal of the no-flag observation, complete with a couple of photographs showing when the flag appeared in digital form, a bunch of flags stuffed away somewhere, and a few individual Democrats in flag-themed garb. I expressed my skepticism about Snopes’ “proof.” It turned out that the rebuttal was worse than I suspected. The site was just busted by The Daily Caller, which checked the photos."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

higgardly didn't want to represent that lawyer, and laughed about getting him off later?

 

she did NOT have to be that rapist's lawyer. She should have just quit her job like the libs

demand that gal who did not want to issue phoney "marriage" licenses should....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Steve Grand Master

Westside Steve

Posted
Posted

I agree. We shouldn't defend people accused of awful crimes.

 

 

And if someone very powerful in your profession asks for a favor, tell them to fuck off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are we really doing this all AGAIN? Can't the Trump campaign implode with something new at least?

Actually it comes down to the cold cold basics of the law and politics vs right and wrong. I understand people are entitled to a defense. I personally would be troubled, as would any normal human being, by putting the most vile of Dangerous Child Predators out on the street. Wouldn't you Woody? What if it was someone you care about? Would you applaud the law and put the animal that molested or killed the child back into the public?

 

Let's not be naive, the prosecutors probably said the guys most likely guilty do you want the case or not? She said how much and what the fuck.

 

Just her bad luck to have a laugh about it.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Steve Grand Master

Westside Steve

Posted
Posted

So Trump says we're not supposed to judge him on himself from 11 years ago, but he's talking about a case Hillary worked 41 years ago? Got it.

I guess that's basically the case Chris but remember one guy said some dirty shit that probably every guy here has said, except maybe for Cal and old Browns fan since his conversio, and another one put a child rapist out on the street.

Hillary could say well I wouldn't do that today but she probably would if she thought it would get her vote or a donation.

;)

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

All this, btw, boils down to some unproven allegations (the likelihood I'm not sure about - I was seven when slick willie came to office) against Bill, and Hillary's defence of a rapist 40 years ago. Not to say she's squeaky clean, but that's all there is there.

 

On the other hand Trump's comments - and does anything he's said and done over the last year lead anyone to believe he's actually vastly changed from age 60 to 70? - are either true, in which case he is admitting to being a sexual assaulter; or they're false (more likely) in which case he's acting like a 12 year old boy trying to impress his older friends by how cool he is. Neither state of affairs is a particularly attractive trait in a president.

 

There's a lot of 'I don't care what Trump said, we can't let hillary win' from republicans, without realising what electing Trump would represent. I do wonder how his comments are likely to be received by the 'core' republican voters - your family values, deeply christian types, who were probably fully behind someone like Ted Cruz (OBF I'm looking at you), who were up in arms about the idea of a man entering a women's changing room and peeping, or exposing, or groping etc only a couple of months ago, and now are being asked to vote for someone who boasts about doing those kinds of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

PS trump did say he was sorry and he was wrong. Did Hillary?

 

WSS

Come on. Trump is sorry he got caught, that's all. Or are you telling me you actually bought that canned apology, which was only forthcoming after his original "it's just locker room talk" so-called apology was rejected by the GOP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Steve Grand Master

Westside Steve

Posted
Posted

Come on. Trump is sorry he got caught, that's all. Or are you telling me you actually bought that canned apology, which was only forthcoming after his original "it's just locker room talk" so-called apology was rejected by the GOP?

I'm not a fool Chris I don't think anybody apologizes unless they get busted or it benefits them in some way.

Still your girl did something distasteful and didn't apologize for it so what would be the point here?

She says she apologized for her mistake with the emails. You think she's sorry?

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

It comes back again, to the same thing lots of people inside and outside the US have been saying for some time now - is this really the best the US can do? Are these really the best candidates both sides could offer? US politics needs to take a long look at itself and figure out where it went wrong. The DNC basically decided it was Hillary's turn and assumed they'd beat whoever the GOP put up. The GOP's recent rhetoric fanned the flames of what's driving the Trump appeal and in doing so has seen its party hijacked.

 

This election *should* be a watershed moment in the way things are done, but who knows if it will be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Steve Grand Master

Westside Steve

Posted
Posted

It comes back again, to the same thing lots of people inside and outside the US have been saying for some time now - is this really the best the US can do? Are these really the best candidates both sides could offer? US politics needs to take a long look at itself and figure out where it went wrong. The DNC basically decided it was Hillary's turn and assumed they'd beat whoever the GOP put up. The GOP's recent rhetoric fanned the flames of what's driving the Trump appeal and in doing so has seen its party hijacked.

 

This election *should* be a watershed moment in the way things are done, but who knows if it will be?

Color Me jaded but I don't think so my friend. No one, and I repeat no one, is qualified to be president of the United States. No one can handle the job no one can do much more than stand in front of a camera while the wheels turn around him or her.

They only let us vote because it doesn't really matter and it makes us feel important.

The most you can say is it gives us an idea of which way the majority of the voters are leaning politically.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

I'm not a fool Chris I don't think anybody apologizes unless they get busted or it benefits them in some way.

Still your girl did something distasteful and didn't apologize for it so what would be the point here?

She says she apologized for her mistake with the emails. You think she's sorry?

WSS

'your girl'? You know me better than that. I don't think that either of these two candidates are particularly fit to be president, I just think Hillary's less unfit than Trump. She's unfit in the 'traditional politician' kind of way. I think whoever wins this election will be a one term president either way. It's basically too late and difficult for the GOP to decouple from Trump at this stage, and if he should lose, they'll not miss a moment's sleep kicking him from the party. If Trump somehow wins, and continues to be the guy he is currently, the DNC just need to put someone pretty centrist in there (who's also not called Clinton for a start) and appeal to the GOP voters who are disenfranchised by Trump, bank on the left not wanting four more years and go from there.

 

No, I don't think she's particularly sorry. I think she probably sees what she did as basically the same as everyone else in government who has done similar and not gotten called out on it, and only would want to change it because of how it's blown up in her face. She (and her IT team) was lazy, cut corners and got caught out, and like any lazy corner cutter is only sorry she got caught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

Color Me jaded but I don't think so my friend. No one, and I repeat no one, is qualified to be president of the United States. No one can handle the job no one can do much more than stand in front of a camera while the wheels turn around him or her.

They only let us vote because it doesn't really matter and it makes us feel important.

The most you can say is it gives us an idea of which way the majority of the voters are leaning politically.

WSS

I suspect what's more likely to happen if anything is that *less* emphasis will be placed on the popular vote, and more on senator/governor/congressperson votes. You saw how the DNC was terrified by Bernie, and McConnell/Ryan/Priebus' disdain for Trump is self evident. If it were up to them, we'd be seeing Clinton vs Bush, I'm sure, and they'd continue with their behind the scenes machinations, trading votes on a bill for votes on another etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gftChris Newbie

gftChris

Posted
Posted

There's a similar thing happening here with Jeremy Corbyn being elected leader of the Labour party. He was a lifelong backbencher who ran on a platform of 60s hippy liberalism and extreme socialism, similar to Bernie but a few decades out of touch. He won the leadership vote, but basically every major Labour MP has said they don't want to work with him, that they think there's no way he can win a general election, and the recently called a vote of no confidence. So there was *another* leadership vote, which he again won, thanks to his 'grassroots' support, with over 60% of the vote. Clearly, the party establishment hates that they're now tied to his leadership for the next four year - during which time there's going to be a lot of anti-tory sentiment coming up for various reasons, and where they'd have a very good chance of winning the next election with a strong candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...