Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 4:29:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 20:42:40 GMT
No, but she did laugh about the processes SHE used to set a child rapist free and laughed about the fact that she knew he was lying. For the big old self proclaimed fact checker-- The What's crystal clear in this thread is that there are a few who go to great lengths to just spit vitriol over Hillary. I never claimed she volunteered to be his lawyer. But since you mentioned it, "In Clinton’s first recorded commentary on the case, she said she took the case as a favor for a local prosecutor. Politifact was unable to locate any record that Clinton was appointed by a judge to take the case." As to the other Snopes claims, if you're laughing while saying "he passed a polygraph and it forever destroyed your faith in polygraphs" it clearly says you believe he's guilty. For the record, the victim spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape. Part of Clinton’s defense plan, mapped out in a court affidavit: She IS clearly "asserting the rape victim made up the story". As far as having him freed... she used a legal technicality (which she is heard on tape laughing about) to plead her client down to virtually no prison time for his act. He was facing 30 years in prison, Clinton successfully challenged the state’s evidence and negotiated a plea deal that landed her client in jail for one year, which was time he had already served, according to court documents. Your Snopes article is full of shit.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 5, 2016 20:44:26 GMT
FBI used words like "careless" and "negligent." I think we can add "monumentally stupid" to set up their own server s. Bad judgment personified. There. Fixed that for you.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jul 5, 2016 20:47:20 GMT
you are aware that lawyers have to sometimes defend people whether they want to or not, because that's the way our system works, aren't you??
ETA: but I really don't know what this issue has to do with the FBI decision, anyway...
ETA2: and that the standard to meet is 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' which sometimes means that guilty people DO get off on technicalities. Personally, I'd rather that happened sometimes, instead of the reverse situation which would be innocent people getting convicted (even more often than already does happen).
|
|
back to *pea*ality
Pearl Clutcher
Not my circus, not my monkeys ~refugee pea #59
Posts: 3,149
Jun 25, 2014 19:51:11 GMT
|
Post by back to *pea*ality on Jul 5, 2016 20:47:54 GMT
I watched with my boss, he is a Hillary supporter and all to eager to excuse her actions. He asked what my thoughts were. I said, I take greater care with security of the financial information that I handle as your family office controller than she did as Secrertary of State with responsibility of national security.
I think Comey saying that if someone else did exactly what HILIEry did there would be consequences and turning on his heel and walking out of the presser spoke volumes about the political pressure he acquiesced to. Bill Clinton's meeting with Lynch on a private plane stinks to high heaven.
The Clinton's believe as sociopaths do that they do no wrong. They believe what they do is for the greater good and it makes them above the law.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 4:29:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 20:49:17 GMT
you are aware that lawyers have to sometimes defend people whether they want to or not, because that's the way our system works, aren't you?? Yes I am aware of that. “A prosecutor called me years ago, said that he had a guy who was accused of rape and the guy wanted a woman lawyer—would I do it as a favor to him?” said Clinton in audio first released by the Washington Free Beacon in 2014.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 4:29:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 20:52:12 GMT
So why, then, if Karl Rove skipped off scot-free after deleting his emails, would you expect that things would be any different for Hillary? Keep in mind that the Rove incident was during the height of the war against al Qaeda - a CIA spy was outed and potentially put in danger, and it's possible that things kept on that server were hacked and used against US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Heck, a sitting president was involved with/had knowledge of the emails being kept on a personal server, and nothing was done. Exactly. Karl Rove skipped away from all that without consequences. He was not the first, and we all knew he wouldn't be the last. It's wrong no matter who does it, and they shouldn't get away with it. But with the state of our current party system, it's always going to be this way. This is nothing new, and anyone pretending that it is is just being disingenuous.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 4:29:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 20:54:41 GMT
you are aware that lawyers have to sometimes defend people whether they want to or not, because that's the way our system works, aren't you?? ETA: but I really don't know what this issue has to do with the FBI decision, anyway...
Ktdoesntscrap said: All I can say at this point is at least she hasn't been accused of raping a child.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 5, 2016 20:55:54 GMT
I never claimed she volunteered to be his lawyer. But since you mentioned it, "In Clinton’s first recorded commentary on the case, she said she took the case as a favor for a local prosecutor. Politifact was unable to locate any record that Clinton was appointed by a judge to take the case." As to the other Snopes claims, if you're laughing while saying "he passed a polygraph and it forever destroyed your faith in polygraphs" it clearly says you believe he's guilty. For the record, the victim spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape. Part of Clinton’s defense plan, mapped out in a court affidavit: She IS clearly "asserting the rape victim made up the story". As far as having him freed... she used a legal technicality (which she is heard on tape laughing about) to plead her client down to virtually no prison time for his act. He was facing 30 years in prison, Clinton successfully challenged the state’s evidence and negotiated a plea deal that landed her client in jail for one year, which was time he had already served, according to court documents. Your Snopes article is full of shit. Ya...Snopes really screwed that one up. Or you know, decide for yourself! Hillary, in her own words: The part that disgusts me is how seemingly lighthearted she is about all of it. "He took a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs, *laughter*!" "Well, this guy's ready to come from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice, *laughter*!" ETA: for anyone interested, sourceplanet.com debunked Snopes on this one.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jul 5, 2016 20:57:06 GMT
When her very first employer (the DOJ) fires her and claims she's the most dishonest person he's ever known, that should set off a kajillion red flags for all of us.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jul 5, 2016 21:00:55 GMT
<type, type, type... delete.> <type, type, type... delete.> <type, type, type... delete.>
Never mind. This thread is proof that people can make whatever is said or written into whatever they think suits their own viewpoint. Even things that are QUOTED by someone.
I really need to just stay out of this thread from now on.
ETA: and to be CLEAR-- I am not a supporter OR a detractor. Just someone who deals in FACTS and dislikes the twisting and manipulation of words.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 5, 2016 21:12:07 GMT
For the big old self proclaimed fact checker-- The What's crystal clear in this thread is that there are a few who go to great lengths to just spit vitriol over Hillary. I never claimed she volunteered to be his lawyer. But since you mentioned it, "In Clinton’s first recorded commentary on the case, she said she took the case as a favor for a local prosecutor. Politifact was unable to locate any record that Clinton was appointed by a judge to take the case." As to the other Snopes claims, if you're laughing while saying "he passed a polygraph and it forever destroyed your faith in polygraphs" it clearly says you believe he's guilty. For the record, the victim spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape. Part of Clinton’s defense plan, mapped out in a court affidavit: She IS clearly "asserting the rape victim made up the story". As far as having him freed... she used a legal technicality (which she is heard on tape laughing about) to plead her client down to virtually no prison time for his act. He was facing 30 years in prison, Clinton successfully challenged the state’s evidence and negotiated a plea deal that landed her client in jail for one year, which was time he had already served, according to court documents. Your Snopes article is full of shit. Of course that was the expected response from you!
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 5, 2016 21:12:33 GMT
I have a lot of respect for Comey, given his history going back to the Bush administration. I don't believe for a second that he would give politics any consideration. His past actions show that, I believe. Since you mentioned Comey's work history - here's what his old boss had to say. Giuliani: FBI's Comey Putting Hillary Clinton Above the Law
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 5, 2016 21:17:38 GMT
<type, type, type... delete.> <type, type, type... delete.> <type, type, type... delete.> Never mind. This thread is proof that people can make whatever is said or written into whatever they think suits their own viewpoint. Even things that are QUOTED by someone. I really need to just stay out of this thread from now on. ETA: and to be CLEAR-- I am not a supporter OR a detractor. Just someone who deals in FACTS and dislikes the twisting and manipulation of words. Exactly!!! So much of what a few haters here have took and twisted to make it align with their POV. No wonder Trump rise so fast!!! Even the post from Lauren about her being fired was also proven to be false! Smh
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Jul 5, 2016 21:27:32 GMT
Right.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jul 5, 2016 21:37:18 GMT
I have a lot of respect for Comey, given his history going back to the Bush administration. I don't believe for a second that he would give politics any consideration. His past actions show that, I believe. Since you mentioned Comey's work history - here's what his old boss had to say. Giuliani: FBI's Comey Putting Hillary Clinton Above the Law I am unimpressed by his opinion. He's a conservative pundit, so I would expect nothing less from him. Personally, I prefer to judge the man by his courageous past actions.
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Jul 5, 2016 21:38:45 GMT
I have a lot of respect for Comey, given his history going back to the Bush administration. I don't believe for a second that he would give politics any consideration. His past actions show that, I believe. Since you mentioned Comey's work history - here's what his old boss had to say. Giuliani: FBI's Comey Putting Hillary Clinton Above the Law So where was Giuliani during the Rove/Woo/Libby/Cheney mess? Did he speak out against the 22 Million emails that they deleted? (ETA - Also on a private server)
I don't presume to know the law or what evidence was presented, but I think stating it is crap that she isn't being charged when these political figures were in politics and in touch with the White House during the other scandal and didn't go on record then about it is extremely hypocritical. Which puts them in line with both Clinton and Trump. Not shocking at all.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 4:29:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 21:40:21 GMT
<type, type, type... delete.> <type, type, type... delete.> <type, type, type... delete.> Never mind. This thread is proof that people can make whatever is said or written into whatever they think suits their own viewpoint. Even things that are QUOTED by someone. I really need to just stay out of this thread from now on. ETA: and to be CLEAR-- I am not a supporter OR a detractor. Just someone who deals in FACTS and dislikes the twisting and manipulation of words. I believe that of you. I'm also someone who deals in facts and dislikes the twisting and manipulation of words. If you point out where I've done that, I'd like to consider your points.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jul 6, 2016 0:19:04 GMT
<snip> she questioned the credibility of the victim and suggested that the sixth-grader, who an ER doctor said showed injuries consistent with rape, had “a tendency to seek out older men.”
Clinton: “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable,’’ Clinton wrote in the affidavit, “with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.” The document, filed with the Washington County, Arkansas court on July 28, 1975, argued for a psychiatric evaluation for the victim.
“I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,’’ Clinton wrote.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gia: She IS clearly "asserting the rape victim made up the story".
^^^ NO, she is NOT "clearly asserting the rape victim made up the story." She IS relaying information she was informed about. That is all. One does not equal the other.
Gia: "if you're laughing while saying "he passed a polygraph and it forever destroyed your faith in polygraphs" it clearly says you believe he's guilty."
^^^ NO, no it doesn't. It doesn't 'say' anything. She laughed. She did not say she believed he was guilty. We have no idea why she laughed. MAYBE that's what it means (?), but since none of us are mind readers, the fact that she laughed doesn't CLEARLY says anything. Unless there is a quote from her saying "Yes, I believe he was guilty" then her laughing doesn't say anything. (and philosophically: even IF a lawyer believes a client is guilty, the defendant still gets to be represented to the best of the lawyer's ability-- that's how our justice system works. Beyond a reasonable doubt, and all that...)
And if she used a legal technicality to plead down the sentence, that is what lawyers who are representing clients DO. They look for technicalities. If he took a plea deal, she did not 'get him off' the charge. The statement "Clinton is an advocate for rapists" is pretty clearly skewed a certain way; 'lawyers are paid to represent their clients to the best of their ability ' and she negotiated a plea bargain' is nowhere NEAR as inflammatory.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 4:29:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 0:22:42 GMT
I think this will satisfy the middle-grounders. But not the haters or lovers. Nothing anyone could say would satisfy either extremes. ETA the findings did not surprise me at all. I don't hate her as a person but I certainly hate the level of deception and dishonesty she sunk to trying to cover up her lies. I also can't imagine someone being president that let classified information like that sit on a public server. Really there is no excuse for that. They found she did in fact lie and that many of the emails were classified. I guess days of having integrity in America are over?
|
|
|
Post by carly on Jul 6, 2016 0:26:31 GMT
i am am sure some of you have seen this video but it's great! 13 minutes of Hillary lies!
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 6, 2016 0:29:56 GMT
<snip> she questioned the credibility of the victim and suggested that the sixth-grader, who an ER doctor said showed injuries consistent with rape, had “a tendency to seek out older men.” Clinton: “ I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable,’’ Clinton wrote in the affidavit, “with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.” The document, filed with the Washington County, Arkansas court on July 28, 1975, argued for a psychiatric evaluation for the victim. “ I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,’’ Clinton wrote. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Gia: She IS clearly "asserting the rape victim made up the story". ^^^ NO, she is NOT "clearly asserting the rape victim made up the story." She IS relaying information she was informed about. That is all. One does not equal the other. Gia: "if you're laughing while saying "he passed a polygraph and it forever destroyed your faith in polygraphs" it clearly says you believe he's guilty." ^^^ NO, no it doesn't. It doesn't 'say' anything. She laughed. She did not say she believed he was guilty. We have no idea why she laughed. MAYBE that's what it means (?), but since none of us are mind readers, the fact that she laughed doesn't CLEARLY says anything. Unless there is a quote from her saying "Yes, I believe he was guilty" then her laughing doesn't say anything. (and philosophically: even IF a lawyer believes a client is guilty, the defendant still gets to be represented to the best of the lawyer's ability-- that's how our justice system works. Beyond a reasonable doubt, and all that...) And if she used a legal technicality to plead down the sentence, that is what lawyers who are representing clients DO. They look for technicalities. If he took a plea deal, she did not 'get him off' the charge. The statement "Clinton is an advocate for rapists" is pretty clearly skewed a certain way; 'lawyers are paid to represent their clients to the best of their ability ' and she negotiated a plea bargain' is nowhere NEAR as inflammatory. 😊 The laugh could/might have been towards the person asking her such a ridiculous and insulting question. You see it all the time where media asks a question that us completely inappropriate or out of context and the respondent will laugh at the question. I think those who are hell bent on the Hillary Hate Train are just going to argue every thing to death, make up shit, and find yet another thing to try to prove their POV, regardless if it is factual or truth. If something does not sway to their belief, then everyone else is wrong, a conspiracy theory is going on, there is nothing that anyone can put forth that will get that "dog off the bone".
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 6, 2016 0:43:41 GMT
she questioned the credibility of the victim and suggested that the sixth-grader, who an ER doctor said showed injuries consistent with rape, had “a tendency to seek out older men.” Clinton: “ I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable,’’ Clinton wrote in the affidavit, “with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.” The document, filed with the Washington County, Arkansas court on July 28, 1975, argued for a psychiatric evaluation for the victim. And she used a legal technicality to plead down the sentence. That is what lawyers who are representing clients DO. They look for technicalities. If he took a plea deal, she did not 'get him off' the charge. “ I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,’’ Clinton wrote. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Gia: She IS clearly "asserting the rape victim made up the story". ^^^ NO, she is NOT "clearly asserting the rape victim made up the story." She IS relaying information she was informed about. That is all. One does not equal the other. I don't read it as that either. I read it more like "here's an angle we can use to win the case - let's say she is ' emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.'" Gia: "if you're laughing while saying "he passed a polygraph and it forever destroyed your faith in polygraphs" it clearly says you believe he's guilty." ^^^ NO, no it doesn't. It doesn't 'say' anything. She laughed. She did not say she believed he was guilty. We have no idea why she laughed. MAYBE that's what it means (?), but since none of us are mind readers, the fact that she laughed doesn't CLEARLY says anything. I can see this as being a gallows-humor type of thing. My personal take is that she is laughing about someone who is clearly guilty passing a polygraph, which therefore "forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs, *laughter*!" Dark humor about a serious subject. Else why laugh? You certainly wouldn't find any of it funny if the person was truly innocent. And her other remark about the Nobel Prize winning forensic examiner? "Well, this guy's ready to come from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice, *laughter*!" Being a fluent speaker of sarcasm, that statement just drips.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Jul 6, 2016 1:52:51 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 13, 2024 4:29:33 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 1:55:38 GMT
<snip> she questioned the credibility of the victim and suggested that the sixth-grader, who an ER doctor said showed injuries consistent with rape, had “a tendency to seek out older men.” Clinton: “ I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable,’’ Clinton wrote in the affidavit, “with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.” The document, filed with the Washington County, Arkansas court on July 28, 1975, argued for a psychiatric evaluation for the victim. “ I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,’’ Clinton wrote. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Gia: She IS clearly "asserting the rape victim made up the story". ^^^ NO, she is NOT "clearly asserting the rape victim made up the story." She IS relaying information she was informed about. That is all. One does not equal the other. Gia: "if you're laughing while saying "he passed a polygraph and it forever destroyed your faith in polygraphs" it clearly says you believe he's guilty." ^^^ NO, no it doesn't. It doesn't 'say' anything. She laughed. She did not say she believed he was guilty. We have no idea why she laughed. MAYBE that's what it means (?), but since none of us are mind readers, the fact that she laughed doesn't CLEARLY says anything. Unless there is a quote from her saying "Yes, I believe he was guilty" then her laughing doesn't say anything. (and philosophically: even IF a lawyer believes a client is guilty, the defendant still gets to be represented to the best of the lawyer's ability-- that's how our justice system works. Beyond a reasonable doubt, and all that...) And if she used a legal technicality to plead down the sentence, that is what lawyers who are representing clients DO. They look for technicalities. If he took a plea deal, she did not 'get him off' the charge. The statement "Clinton is an advocate for rapists" is pretty clearly skewed a certain way; 'lawyers are paid to represent their clients to the best of their ability ' and she negotiated a plea bargain' is nowhere NEAR as inflammatory. I'm going to think about that for a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jul 6, 2016 2:14:31 GMT
<snip> she questioned the credibility of the victim and suggested that the sixth-grader, who an ER doctor said showed injuries consistent with rape, had “a tendency to seek out older men.” Clinton: “ I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable,’’ Clinton wrote in the affidavit, “with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.” The document, filed with the Washington County, Arkansas court on July 28, 1975, argued for a psychiatric evaluation for the victim. “ I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,’’ Clinton wrote. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Gia: She IS clearly "asserting the rape victim made up the story". ^^^ NO, she is NOT "clearly asserting the rape victim made up the story." She IS relaying information she was informed about. That is all. One does not equal the other. Gia: "if you're laughing while saying "he passed a polygraph and it forever destroyed your faith in polygraphs" it clearly says you believe he's guilty." ^^^ NO, no it doesn't. It doesn't 'say' anything. She laughed. She did not say she believed he was guilty. We have no idea why she laughed. MAYBE that's what it means (?), but since none of us are mind readers, the fact that she laughed doesn't CLEARLY says anything. Unless there is a quote from her saying "Yes, I believe he was guilty" then her laughing doesn't say anything. (and philosophically: even IF a lawyer believes a client is guilty, the defendant still gets to be represented to the best of the lawyer's ability-- that's how our justice system works. Beyond a reasonable doubt, and all that...) And if she used a legal technicality to plead down the sentence, that is what lawyers who are representing clients DO. They look for technicalities. If he took a plea deal, she did not 'get him off' the charge. The statement "Clinton is an advocate for rapists" is pretty clearly skewed a certain way; 'lawyers are paid to represent their clients to the best of their ability ' and she negotiated a plea bargain' is nowhere NEAR as inflammatory. 😊 The laugh could/might have been towards the person asking her such a ridiculous and insulting question. You see it all the time where media asks a question that us completely inappropriate or out of context and the respondent will laugh at the question. I think those who are hell bent on the Hillary Hate Train are just going to argue every thing to death, make up shit, and find yet another thing to try to prove their POV, regardless if it is factual or truth. If something does not sway to their belief, then everyone else is wrong, a conspiracy theory is going on, there is nothing that anyone can put forth that will get that "dog off the bone". Did you listen to the link above which actually showed the context for the laugh? It's a long 6 minutes, and I'm shocked by how different she sounds. For someone who was born in Ohio and didn't go south until after college, she sure picked up the Arkansas twang which is now absent from her speech patterns. I digress... based on the context of the interview above, MY opinion is she clearly knew he was guilty but the prosecution was incompetent - I mean throwing away evidence! It is EXACTLY the type of "technicality" a lawyer is SUPPOSED to use to ensure the integrity of the justice system - and it's exactly why I would make a very poor defense attorney. eta and this is exactly the kind of crap that drives me insane about our political/media system. This is not even remotely relevant to ME about discussing one's qualifications about being president.
|
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Jul 6, 2016 2:32:46 GMT
She is, IMO, a better choice *than* Trump. If I felt Trump was the better candidate, I'd vote for him. Saying, "tell me why you think someone is a better choice without telling me you think she/he is better," is ridiculous. I'll likely vote Libertarian, though.
|
|
|
Post by carly on Jul 6, 2016 3:06:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 6, 2016 3:13:11 GMT
"Consequences" does not always equate to legal charges. If you read the next sentence he mentions security or administrative sanctions. Sounds like those would be the consequences, not necessarily legal charges. Consequences include losing security clearance, which would make the office of President outside legal reach.
|
|
Nink
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,947
Location: North Idaho
Jul 1, 2014 23:30:44 GMT
|
Post by Nink on Jul 6, 2016 3:44:12 GMT
For starters, at least she can form coherent sentences instead of some nonsensical word salad.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jul 6, 2016 3:52:20 GMT
That is not even remotely funny.
|
|