Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bubba said:
Thanks, Saw snopes earlier.

Just want to know if true as in the one video below...whether the girl was in a coma five days and barren for life.

This 3 min video claims all that and edits the audio to spin it.
https://www.youtube. dot com/embed/BdNHf1g4ivA

This six min video has complete audio with out spin.

https://www.youtube. dot com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4
.
Click to expand...
Sorry, argument by YouTube video, even if you had working links, is not convincing. No, the girl was not in a coma because of the rape, as she walked into the emergency room at 4:50am the morning after, according to snopes. The claim of being barren also seems to be a new spin, with no reports before this year.



Eta: Even if the girl became barren, what does that have to do with Clinton being forced to defend the man who pled guilty to the rape?
 
Last edited:
Of course! She should not have plea bargained with her client so the guy would get the maximum years from a jury! Isn't that what lawyers are for?
 
wareyin said:
Sorry, argument by YouTube video, even if you had working links, is not convincing.
Click to expand...


The video wold be same as transcript, but extra with voice inflection, laughter etc.
Click to expand...

No, the girl was not in a coma because of the rape, as she walked into the emergency room at 4:50am the morning after, according to snopes. The claim of being barren also seems to be a new spin, with no reports before this year.
Click to expand...


OK thanks.


Eta: Even if the girl became barren, what does that have to do with Clinton being forced to defend the man who pled guilty to the rape?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


"forced" ?

Not really even if public defender but not actually.

"Roped in" is more like it. Try retract your "forced', for accuracy please.
 
Bubba said:
I see but...

Not where declining or resigning would be not forced.

.
Click to expand...

It doesn't work that way. A judge assigns you a case. You do it. A judge could hold her in contempt of court if she refused. She could even be disbarred. Also, you should keep in mind she was trying to set up free or low cost legal aid. Most defendants are going to be guilty whether they have money or not. What is universally true In our system is that every defendant is entitled to a vigorous competent defense, but one is not likely to get one if you don't have money. Is Hillary supposed to not do her job?
 
It makes me think of the movie "From the Hip" about the lawyer Stormy Weathers, who uses courtroom theatrics to win his first case, but then gets stuck having to defend a client in a murder case who he knows is guilty. The defendant expects him to defend him to the best of his ability, and to use all the theatrics he is famous for.

His conscience gets to him, and in the end, he represents the guy, but ends up getting him to confess in court, and so gets Stormy off the hook.

According to IMDB, it was a movie starring Judd Nelson in 1987, but I could swear I saw a version of it in high school, which would have been 86 or before. I may be misremembering that, but I can't imagine where else I might have seen it. I very clearly remember it, though, because I was able to look up the name Stormy Weathers.
 
caveman1917 said:
I will ask you this again: do you know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is? Hint: it doesn't just mean looking at how candidates poll, but at the reason behind them polling at the numbers they do.
Click to expand...

Yes yes, we all know what you are saying. The problem you have is a self-fulfilling prophecy has to have a snowball's chance in hell of causing itself. And you don't even have that much chance in this case.
a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true
Click to expand...

Nothing anyone posts (or doesn't post) telling third party voters they are wasting their time will have an impact on Stein's or Johnson's chance of winning the election.

I predict you'll be like Trump after he loses, blaming a rigged election. In your case you'll be blaming the people who self-fulfilled the prophesy for the third parties' dismal vote counts.
 
Bubba said:
Regarding Hilly's 1970s rape defense job, I gather


* the 1980s Ray Reed/Hillary interview is real.
* its true the (then 12 yr old, 1970s rape victim) recently said Hillary ruined her life.
* Hilly's joke about lie detectors indicated she knew the guy was guilty

(there are audio clips on youtube with Hilly laughing about how she bluffed the prosecutor into lowering charges by claiming evidence she did not have)

Is it also true the 12 yr old rape victim was battered and in a coma for 5 days, as one of the videos asserts?
.

https://www.youtube dot com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4
.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that if the crime is considered heinous enough that Defense lawyers should not do everything within their ability and the law to defend their client?
 
acbytesla said:
It doesn't work that way. A judge assigns you a case. You do it. A judge could hold her in contempt of court if she refused. She could even be disbarred. Also, you should keep in mind she was trying to set up free or low cost legal aid. Most defendants are going to be guilty whether they have money or not. What is universally true In our system is that every defendant is entitled to a vigorous competent defense, but one is not likely to get one if you don't have money. Is Hillary supposed to not do her job?
Click to expand...

Not to belabor the point, but didn't a judge just force a mayor to represent an indigent client? It was something to that effect but my googlefu is currently weak.
 
plague311 said:
Not to belabor the point, but didn't a judge just force a mayor to represent an indigent client? It was something to that effect but my googlefu is currently weak.
Click to expand...
That'd be the governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon. Per Missouri law, any memeber of the state bar association can be named a public defender, so the head of Missouri's public defenders made him one, in order to protest major cuts to the programme.
 
acbytesla said:
It doesn't work that way. A judge assigns you a case. You do it. A judge could hold her in contempt of court if she refused. She could even be disbarred. Also, you should keep in mind she was trying to set up free or low cost legal aid. Most defendants are going to be guilty whether they have money or not. What is universally true In our system is that every defendant is entitled to a vigorous competent defense, but one is not likely to get one if you don't have money. Is Hillary supposed to not do her job?
Click to expand...

We all understand that lawyers sometimes represent unsavory clients. The allegation against Hillary is that she unjustly claimed that the 12-year-old rape victim was crazy and got the indisputably guilty defendant a light sentence. And of course the larger question is whether a win-at-all-costs trial lawyer is the best person to run a government that must serve all of us.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/
 
Bob001 said:
We all understand that lawyers sometimes represent unsavory clients. The allegation against Hillary is that she unjustly claimed that the 12-year-old rape victim was crazy and got the indisputably guilty defendant a light sentence. And of course the larger question is whether a win-at-all-costs trial lawyer is the best person to run a government that must serve all of us.http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/
Click to expand...

I'll take that over a sleazy con man any day of the week.
 
Bob001 said:
We all understand that lawyers sometimes represent unsavory clients. The allegation against Hillary is that she unjustly claimed that the 12-year-old rape victim was crazy and got the indisputably guilty defendant a light sentence. And of course the larger question is whether a win-at-all-costs trial lawyer is the best person to run a government that must serve all of us.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/
Click to expand...

How can you continue to post such rubbish when you yourself give links that show you are making things up?
 
Travis said:
I'll take that over a sleazy con man any day of the week.
Click to expand...

The description of "a win-at-all-costs trial lawyer" is simply the job description of all "trial lawyer", they are legally obligated to represent their client and their client's instructions to the best of their ability. Not doing so could even lead them to being guilty of malpractice etc.

I blame that pesky constitution you lot have.
 
Darat said:
How can you continue to post such rubbish when you yourself give links that show you are making things up?
Click to expand...


Whether or not the allegations are persuasive, I'm not making anything up.
In a sworn affidavit aiming to coerce a psychiatric evaluation of the sixth-grade victim, Clinton during the case nearly 40 years ago called into question the girl's emotional stability, arguing she had exhibited "a tendency to seek out older men and engage in... fantasizing." She added, citing a child psychology expert that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant, are even more prone to such behavior."

But in the recording, Clinton indicated she believed her client was indeed guilty. Heard laughing, she said the polygraph test he managed to pass "forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs."
Click to expand...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/

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.
Click to expand...
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/
 
Darat said:
The description of "a win-at-all-costs trial lawyer" is simply the job description of all "trial lawyer", they are legally obligated to represent their client and their client's instructions to the best of their ability. Not doing so could even lead them to being guilty of malpractice etc.

I blame that pesky constitution you lot have.
Click to expand...



Actually, lawyers are required to accept a code of ethics that prescribes how they will treat clients, adversaries, juries, colleagues and the courts. They are not permitted, for example, to knowingly permit false testimony or present false evidence. As to opposing witnesses:
Canon 18. Treatment of Witnesses and Litigants.

A lawyer should always treat adverse witnesses and suitors with fairness and due consideration, and he should never minister to the malevolence or prejudices of a client in the trial or conduct of a cause. The client cannot be made the keeper of the lawyer’s conscience in professional matters. He has no right to demand that his counsel shall abuse the opposite party or indulge in offensive personalities. Improper speech is not excusable on the ground that it is what the client would say if speaking in his own behalf.
Click to expand...
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/mrpc/Canons_Ethics.authcheckdam.pdf
 
Last edited:
Well, America has a less-than spotless history ; don't you want someone to defend it with all she's got anyway?

Just a different perspective...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
And you don't even have that much chance in this case.
Click to expand...

More Americans identify as independents than either as Democrats or Republicans. Yet in the election they all vote for either the Democratic or Republican candidate. Do you have another explanation for this phenomenon that is not that self-fulfilling "realist" argument?
 
caveman1917 said:
More Americans identify as independents than either as Democrats or Republicans. Yet in the election they all vote for either the Democratic or Republican candidate. Do you have another explanation for this phenomenon that is not that self-fulfilling "realist" argument?
Click to expand...

How many people in any country 'identify' as anything other than 'independent'?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Well, America has a less-than spotless history ; don't you want someone to defend it with all she's got anyway?

Just a different perspective...
Click to expand...

HC's whole life has been dedicated to everything that true US values are supposed to detest .Her criminality , along with her now Parkinsons suffering co -conspirator , seems boundless . I predict that history will mark her as the greatest American mistake of modern times , should she live much longer or be allowed to take office .
 
The Big Dog said:
yes that is exactly what the WaPo article and State's lawyer said.

Disk 1: 14,900 from Hillary's servers and other devices
disk 2: classified docs
disk 3 the docs previously turned over to state
additional disks, other people accounts and etc.

although, I do like the idea that the 14,900 is IN ADDITION to the ones Hillary admitted destroying.
Click to expand...
I see you've started moving the goalposts.
:rolleyes:

The Great Zaganza said:
During "Lawyergate" the Bush administration destroyed 5million emails - where was the Republican outcry there?
Click to expand...
Because there's a lot of people utterly deranged on the subject of the Clintons who'll grasp at any straw.
 
Noztradamus said:
Exactly. You are still going to vote for her. Dedication
Click to expand...

It's not dedication. It's an honest assessment about what is best for the nation.

One candidate has spent a lifetime of helping people and in public service.
The other has spent a lifetime cheating people and looking out for himself.

One fought to make Healthcare a right
The other wants to take it away.

One has fought for equal rights for women
The other says that the best way with women is to treat them like ****.

One has fought for unions and working people.
The other has fought to prevent workers from organizing.

One has a history of fairly consistent stands.
The other has been on both sides of every single issue.

One has an in depth knowledge of both domestic and foreign policy.
The other is TOTALLY CLUELESS.

One has a plan to help working people directly.
The other thinks that helping the rich helps the poor.

There are probably a million more reasons why Hillary is a much better choice than the narcissistic orangutan, but those will do for now.
 
caveman1917 said:
More Americans identify as independents than either as Democrats or Republicans. Yet in the election they all vote for either the Democratic or Republican candidate. Do you have another explanation for this phenomenon that is not that self-fulfilling "realist" argument?
Click to expand...

Yeah: they are not stupid.
 
Bob001 said:
We all understand that lawyers sometimes represent unsavory clients. The allegation against Hillary is that she unjustly claimed that the 12-year-old rape victim was crazy and got the indisputably guilty defendant a light sentence. And of course the larger question is whether a win-at-all-costs trial lawyer is the best person to run a government that must serve all of us.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/
Click to expand...

Instead, you want a win at all costs con man?

The ethical thing for any lawyer is to do the best job for his or her client. In fact, they take an oath to do just that. The victim was not subjected to a harsh cross examination and the defendant's sentence was in line with others committing the same crime.

The suggestion that we should dismiss from consideration an extremely qualified candidates from the Presidency for doing her job the way she is required by law to do 40 years prior is ABSURD.
 
Bob001 said:
We all understand that lawyers sometimes represent unsavory clients. The allegation against Hillary is that she unjustly claimed that the 12-year-old rape victim was crazy and got the indisputably guilty defendant a light sentence. And of course the larger question is whether a win-at-all-costs trial lawyer is the best person to run a government that must serve all of us.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/
Click to expand...

You consider a lawyer defending a client against rape charges who gets her client to plead guilty to be "winning"?
 
Malbec said:
HC's whole life has been dedicated to everything that true US values are supposed to detest .Her criminality , along with her now Parkinsons suffering co -conspirator , seems boundless . I predict that history will mark her as the greatest American mistake of modern times , should she live much longer or be allowed to take office .
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe that Hillary Clinton's entire life has been about upholding TRUE American values and laws. I also believe that she will be a great President. Certainly better than a narcissistic lying cheating stealing self absorbed con man.

But hey, that's just me.;) And probably the electoral college in December.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom