As Attorney, Clinton Defended Alleged Rapist

[ClydeR]

Will this hurt Clinton?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4

It's a recently discovered audio recording of an interview from the 1980s in which she recounts defending an accused rapist when she was a young lawyer. In the interview, she says that she required her client to take a lie detector test, even though it would not be admissible in court. He passed the lie detector test. Clinton says the results of that lie detector test have shaken her faith in lie detector tests ever since.

The alleged victim heard the recording and says that it proves Clinton knew her client was guilty.

Article about it..
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html

[Tgo01]

The alleged victim heard the recording and says that it proves Clinton knew her client was guilty.

Alleged nothing, the fucker pleaded guilty. There is nothing more to "allege."

[Androidpk]

Shocker. How many times did she defend her husband and the charges of sexual assault and rape by him against other women?

[Dwaar]

Not sure if it will hurt her, but historically she is a survivor. I personally believe the Clintons have some real dirt, that they've just covered up along the way. But, until someone can actually prove it, or not die before they can, then it will be what it will be.

As for the tone, definitely not compassionate at all. Not one mention of the victim. I think she only thinks about herself. Other people don't matter to her, she is just to self-absorbed. I don't think she realizes it's not a game, that real people are affected. Basically, she is extremely selfish. Not to bring up the Benghazi thing, but if you watch her throughout the ordeal, she makes a point to say "Ambassador Stevens was a dear friend!", but if you watch her reactions around that single statement, nothing would give you that impression.

Definitely not someone I would ever choose to be around or know in a personal sense. I do hope the Democrats choose someone other than her.

[kutter]

It is funny because I have real mixed emotions about this, she is after all a lawyer and her job is to defend someone. Having said that, she did not have too, or at the very least, not seemed so glib about it.

I would have to agree with Dwaar though, I would never want to have anything to do with her. I would probably have a beer with Bill since I feel like he is not the brains behind the duo, as that joke about them and the gas station attendant goes.

[Latrinsorm]

Alleged nothing, the fucker pleaded guilty. There is nothing more to "allege."I know of at least one person who pleaded guilty to a capital offense that he later turned out not to have committed. Our legal system does not reliably establish truth, that's why we go so far out of our way to make it hard to convict people.
Not sure if it will hurt her, but historically she is a survivor. I personally believe the Clintons have some real dirt, that they've just covered up along the way. But, until someone can actually prove it, or not die before they can, then it will be what it will be.

As for the tone, definitely not compassionate at all. Not one mention of the victim. I think she only thinks about herself. Other people don't matter to her, she is just to self-absorbed. I don't think she realizes it's not a game, that real people are affected. Basically, she is extremely selfish. Not to bring up the Benghazi thing, but if you watch her throughout the ordeal, she makes a point to say "Ambassador Stevens was a dear friend!", but if you watch her reactions around that single statement, nothing would give you that impression.

Definitely not someone I would ever choose to be around or know in a personal sense. I do hope the Democrats choose someone other than her.That's a total catch-22 though. If she shows emotion she's just another hysterical woman and probably on the rag too. If she doesn't show emotion she's an ice cold bitch, no wonder Bill fooled around huh guys? Ha ha ha! This guy knows what I'm talking about. Ha ha ha!

As to the topic, this is what happens when your system of proof is lawyers arguing: child rapists go free. If their had been video evidence, they wouldn't have.

[Tgo01]

I know of at least one person who pleaded guilty to a capital offense that he later turned out not to have committed.

Doesn't matter. If you plead guilty or are found guilty by a jury then you are guilty until proven otherwise.

Y'know, innocent until proven guilty? So we just go around telling people they are "alleged" victims forever? Isn't that kind of fucked up?

[Latrinsorm]

Doesn't matter. If you plead guilty or are found guilty by a jury then you are guilty until proven otherwise.

Y'know, innocent until proven guilty? So we just go around telling people they are "alleged" victims forever? Isn't that kind of fucked up?No, we install universal surveillance and then everyone knows for sure. It's the only practical way to de-fucked-upperize our justice system.

[Tgo01]

No, we install universal surveillance and then everyone knows for sure. It's the only practical way to de-fucked-upperize our justice system.

Until then I'll continue calling a convicted rapist a rapist. I'm not going to sugar coat it and say "So you're allegedly a rapist huh? But we know bitches be crazy, wink wink."

[Latrinsorm]

Obviously rape victims are easy to side with, but put yourself in the place of a man wrongfully accused and convicted of rape. There's no easy answer to this one, Terrence.

Except for universal surveillance.

[Tgo01]

Obviously rape victims are easy to side with, but put yourself in the place of a man wrongfully accused and convicted of rape.

Don't worry, I'll call a bank robber a bank robber and a shop lifter a shop lifter too.

[Gelston]

Obviously rape victims are easy to side with, but put yourself in the place of a man wrongfully accused and convicted of rape. There's no easy answer to this one, Terrence.

Except for universal surveillance.

Personally, I think the identity of the accused should be kept out of records until conviction, as they do with the victims. Duke Lacrosse ring a bell?

If the person is on the run though, plaster that picture everywhere.

[Latrinsorm]

Personally, I think the identity of the accused should be kept out of records until conviction, as they do with the victims. Duke Lacrosse ring a bell?

If the person is on the run though, plaster that picture everywhere.Actually the goal of lacrosse is to put a ball in a net, bells aren't involved at all. I'm not sure what you're thinking of.

[ClydeR]

Alleged nothing, the fucker pleaded guilty. There is nothing more to "allege."

I don't know how they do things were you're from, but in America, you're innocent until proven guilty. He was not convicted of rape, nor did he plead guilty to rape. As part of a bargain, he pleaded guilty to a lesser crime.

If you had been keeping up with conservative thinking, as you should have been, then you would know that back in April the White House claimed that one in five (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/29/us/tougher-battle-on-sex-assault-on-campus-urged.html) female college students had been assaulted. Conservatives aren't going to stand for that -- that ridiculous statistic. Glenn Beck did an absolutely hilarious (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-29/glenn-becks-man-in-a-blonde-wig-fails-to-debunk-rape-statistics) skit about it. Conservatives laughed about that for hours. And then George Will wrote one of his columns saying those women were hypersensitive and delusional (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-college-become-the-victims-of-progressivism/2014/06/06/e90e73b4-eb50-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html). You might not be able to read Will's column in your local paper, since some of them have dropped his column as a result. This is the same George Will who moved (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/business/media/george-will-to-leave-abc-news-for-fox-news.html) from ABC to Fox last year as a teevee commentator, and I think the people he is associating with at Fox are having a good influence on him. Conservatives want to be sure that only "legitimate rape" is counted.

[Tgo01]

I don't know how they do things were you're from, but in America, you're innocent until proven guilty. He was not convicted of rape, nor did he plead guilty to rape. As part of a bargain, he pleaded guilty to a lesser crime.

That would be awesome if you said the "alleged rapist" but what you said was...


The alleged victim heard the recording and says that it proves Clinton knew her client was guilty.

The fucker pleaded guilty therefore she is a victim. Come on, Latrin, get off your ClydeR account and fight me like a man.

[Latrinsorm]

Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left! What are you gonna do, bleed on me?

[Tgo01]

Just a flesh wound.

[JackWhisper]

If you cut off their legs too, you can mate with them Nugget-style. Like Nairdin does.

[~Rocktar~]

If their had been video evidence, they wouldn't have.

Haven't you seen The Running Man, Judge Dread (Stallone version) and any of dozens if not hundreds of other movies where video evidence is falsified? Nothing is infallible where man is concerned. Even Hal9000 was botched not to mention Skynet.

[Elantari]

Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left! What are you gonna do, bleed on me?

You have always been a retard. You were one of the most retarded individuals who posted on the official forums when those opened up. You remain just as retarded as you have always been. I find it astonishing that folks here respond to your utter retardation. I guess they do it for old times sake, or something like that.

[kcostell]

I don't really see what the problem is here. For our justice system to work, criminals need to receive a fair trial. Part of that is having a defense attorney that does their job to the best of their ability. And yes, that means rapists and murderers get to have attorneys too. Even the guilty ones.

[Tgo01]

I don't really see what the problem is here. For our justice system to work, criminals need to receive a fair trial. Part of that is having a defense attorney that does their job to the best of their ability. And yes, that means rapists and murderers get to have attorneys too. Even the guilty ones.

I think there is a big difference between defending your client and attacking the victim. When it comes to sexual assault cases against women this is often the tactic though; "She's just making it up", "She had it coming", "Look at the way she dressed!"

You don't often hear this type of tactic in a murder case; "Can you blame the man for murdering her? Look at the way she dressed!"

Not even a mugging; "The man was wearing a Rolex watch for Christ's sake! How can you blame my client for mugging him?!"

[Gnome Rage]

I think there is a big difference between defending your client and attacking the victim. When it comes to sexual assault cases against women this is often the tactic though; "She's just making it up", "She had it coming", "Look at the way she dressed!"

You don't often hear this type of tactic in a murder case; "Can you blame the man for murdering her? Look at the way she dressed!"

Not even a mugging; "The man was wearing a Rolex watch for Christ's sake! How can you blame my client for mugging him?!"

From my understanding of the conversation, she didn't take that approach at all. She used forensic evidence (or lack of, due to negligence of the processing facility that cut the blood sample out).
And as far as her tone during the session, when you are in a field that involves you with these types of things on a daily basis, you don't think about them the same way after a while. Plus, she was really talking more about her ability as a lawyer than a case, trying to paint herself to look capable and in control.

But I agree with you that blaming the victim is a huge problem, in court and out of court. We live in a society where it is easier to ban things than teach ourselves control, and it is easier to blame someone for being enticing, than to blame someone for having no ability to stop themselves.

[Tgo01]

From my understanding of the conversation, she didn't take that approach at all.

Except she kinda did :/

In court documents Clinton said she believes the victim required a psychiatric examination. She also said the victim was emotionally unstable who often sought out older men and in the past made false accusations about people, claiming they had attacked her. Clinton also said she spoke with an expert and the expert supposedly told her that children in adolescence often exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that children in "disorganized" families, which she said describes the victim's family, are even more prone to this behavior.

[Tenlaar]

The woman saying she is "plumb mad" because Hillary lied on her is not evidence to the contrary of Clinton's statements. She defended the guy (which was her job, and his right), he plead to a lesser charge, and he spent time in jail. How many times has this happened in the 40 years since that case?

[Tgo01]

The woman saying she is "plumb mad" because Hillary lied on her is not evidence to the contrary of Clinton's statements.

The girl was 12 years old at the time, making her look like some sort of slut because she "sought out older men" has 100% nothing to do with the case. You're right though; the woman saying Clinton lied isn't proof that Clinton lied. I would love to see Clinton's proof that the 12 year old victim had often falsely accused people in the past, came from a "disorganized" family and that the victim was emotionally unstable and needed a psychiatric examination.

[Tenlaar]

You do know that there are, in fact, 12 year old sluts all over the world?

[Androidpk]

You do know that there are, in fact, 12 year old sluts all over the world?

Leave Back out of this.

[Tgo01]

You do know that there are, in fact, 12 year old sluts all over the world?

It doesn't matter if the 12 year old girl threw herself on the man and demanded that he ravaged her until the end of time; it's against the law for the man to engage in sexual intercourse with a 12 year old girl for any reason. The dude broke the law. Saying "Well it's the victim's fault!" is exactly what I was referring to earlier.

[Wrathbringer]

You do know that there are, in fact, 12 year old sluts all over the world?

defend a pedo, but you better not say redskin!

[Tenlaar]

It doesn't matter if the 12 year old girl threw herself on the man and demanded that he ravaged her until the end of time
I disagree, but that's irrelevant to this particular point.


The dude broke the law.
And served time.


Saying "Well it's the victim's fault!" is exactly what I was referring to earlier.
I never said it was the victim's fault. I said that there is no evidence presented, either for or against, Clinton's statements. No evidence either way is not a logical reason to assume that Clinton lied in 1975 and thus shouldn't be President, which is what this thread is actually about.

Let me ask you this: why was the prosecution ok with the guy pleading to the lesser charge? Perhaps it could have been because there was something off about the girl's story? Maybe even that she was mentally unstable and had some history of such behavior and claims?

[Tgo01]

I disagree, but that's irrelevant to this particular point.

You disagree with the law or you disagree with my interpretation of the law?


And served time.

Yes, so he's guilty of a crime. Let's stop sugar coating this by calling the victim an "alleged" victim and saying she was just a slut.


I never said it was the victim's fault.

You didn't just say there are lots of 12 year old sluts in the world then imply a 12 year old girl could bring it upon herself to be raped?


I said that there is no evidence presented, either for or against, Clinton's statements. No evidence either way is not a logical reason to assume that Clinton lied

That's a pretty awesome loop hole. The woman said Clinton lied, is that not more proof than Clinton is providing? You really are going to great lengths to defend Clinton calling this 12 year old girl a slut and that she had mental problems.


Perhaps it could have been because there was something off about the girl's story? Maybe even that she was mentally unstable and had some history of such behavior and claims?

Are you sure you're not blaming the victim? Because it sure as hell sounds like you are. What's really funny is you say this right after you just said " No evidence either way is not a logical reason to assume that Clinton lied" but now you're willing to believe the girl made everything up and was crazy with no proof whatsoever?

Why did the prosecution agree with the plea deal? Just some possible reasons off the top of my head:

They were worried the girl was so rattled she wouldn't be able to testify.
They were worried there wasn't enough evidence and they didn't want to put the girl through a trial only to see the man walk.
The parents didn't want to put the girl through more shit by having her relive everything in court.
They were assholes and didn't give a shit about justice and just wanted an easy win instead of going to trial and possibly losing.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t1.0-9/10414518_10152171654556581_7197847208178877333_n.j pg

[Tenlaar]

You disagree with the law or you disagree with my interpretation of the law?
I disagree that it doesn't matter whether sex is consensual or not.


Yes, so he's guilty of a crime. Let's stop sugar coating this by calling the victim an "alleged" victim and saying she was just a slut.
I didn't call anybody alleged, and I didn't say she was a slut.


You didn't just say there are lots of 12 year old sluts in the world then imply a 12 year old girl could bring it upon herself to be raped?
I acknowledged that 12 year old sluts do exist. I do not follow your apparent belief that a 12 year old can never be held accountable for any portion of their actions.


That's a pretty awesome loop hole. The woman said Clinton lied, is that not more proof than Clinton is providing?
Do you know what proof means? Hint: it isn't whatever somebody says at any given time. If anything, the fact that the prosecutor and judge accepted the plea to a lesser charge could be taken as proof that Clinton's statements rang true.


Are you sure you're not blaming the victim?
Yep.


Because it sure as hell sounds like you are.
Nope.


What's really funny is you say this right after you just said " No evidence either way is not a logical reason to assume that Clinton lied" but now you're willing to believe the girl made everything up and was crazy with no proof whatsoever?
I do not know which is true. I simply posit that what Clinton said is, in fact, entirely possible and could be 100% true. I am not jumping to a conclusion on either side because I do not have the information needed to base one on. That does not seem to be stopping you though, is it?


Why did the prosecution agree with the plea deal? Just some possible reasons off the top of my head:
You forgot one of the possible reasons.

[Tgo01]

I disagree that it doesn't matter whether sex is consensual or not.

So you disagree with the law then?


I didn't call anybody alleged, and I didn't say she was a slut.

You implied it.


I acknowledged that 12 year old sluts do exist. I do not follow your apparent belief that a 12 year old can never be held accountable for any portion of their actions.

In the US a 12 year old is never responsible for being statutorily raped. You can disagree with me all you want but you're wrong.


If anything, the fact that the prosecutor and judge accepted the plea to a lesser charge could be taken as proof that Clinton's statements rang true.

This is not how plea bargains work. The prosecutor offering/accepting a plea deal does not mean they think the defendant is innocent.


Yep.

Nope.

Might want to choose your words more carefully in the future then.


I simply posit that what Clinton said is, in fact, entirely possible and could be 100% true.

And it's entirely possible that Clinton is 100% full of shit yet throughout this whole conversation you haven't given the victim a single benefit of the doubt.


You forgot one of the possible reasons.

Which is?

[Laviticas]

When rape can't be used by a liberal to further their political agenda, it's never "rape, rape".

Whoopi Goldberg in her defense of Roman Polanski for the drugging and sexual assault of a 13 year old: "it wasn't rape, rape"

[Wrathbringer]

I disagree that it doesn't matter whether sex is consensual or not.


I didn't call anybody alleged, and I didn't say she was a slut.


I acknowledged that 12 year old sluts do exist. I do not follow your apparent belief that a 12 year old can never be held accountable for any portion of their actions.


Are you a pedo? You sound like a pedo. Just sayin.

[ClydeR]

When rape can't be used by a liberal to further their political agenda, it's never "rape, rape".





SQUAMISH, British Columbia — North America isn’t short on tiny, remote liberal arts colleges, but even by those standards Quest University is remarkably tiny, remote, and liberal. Located on an idyllic mountain range in British Columbia and operating under the motto “Question everything,” Canada’s first and only private, secular nonprofit university is a promising experiment in higher education: A 2013 national survey ranked Quest, which is only seven years old, the best university in Canada.

More... (http://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/quest-university-campus-sexual-assault)

You should click on the like just to see the campus photo. Impressive.


But Quest became the center of a less utopian experiment last spring when it faced a flood of sexual harassment allegations, many against the same male student. After three freshman women filed formal complaints alleging assault, the school hired external investigators who cited speculation about the complainants’ sexual history and drinking habits before declaring the claims were false. When the outraged women tried to support one another, Quest warned them that they risked violating the school’s confidentiality code by discussing the complaint process. Privacy is critical when there are only 550 students on campus. But without a forum to openly discuss what happened, overblown rumors about the accused spread through the tiny community. And these rumors were taken much more seriously than the ones used to discredit the accusers.

At the risk of sounding insensitive, I have to ask why don't they just follow the law? If the accused broke the law, then punish him. If not, then tell the accusers to be more careful.

[Tenlaar]

So you disagree with the law then?
To an extent.


You implied it.
Did not.


The prosecutor offering/accepting a plea deal does not mean they think the defendant is innocent.
I did not say they thought the defendant was innocent. Argue against the things I say, not what you read in the empty spaces where I don't say things.


Might want to choose your words more carefully in the future then.
Read them more carefully in the future.


And it's entirely possible that Clinton is 100% full of shit yet throughout this whole conversation you haven't given the victim a single benefit of the doubt.
You are mistaken. I have given BOTH parties the benefit of the doubt. The only reason I posted at all was the expressed belief that Clinton lied simply because a woman said she lied 40 years ago and because you guys want more reasons to dislike her. At no point have I said that the defendant was innocent, that the victim was guilty, or that I believe one thing is the truth over the other. I am just pointing out that Clinton's side could in fact be 100% accurate because there is absolutely no evidence either way, yet here you guys are acting as if there is anything that proves Clinton lied about anything besides your desire for it to be so.


Which is?
That what Clinton said was accurate.

[Tenlaar]

Are you a pedo? You sound like a pedo. Just sayin.

I'm a pedo because I knew 12 year old sluts when I was 12? Apparently nobody else knew a girl that gave blowjobs on the back of the school bus or bragged about fucking older guys.

[Tgo01]

To an extent.

To what extent?


Did not.

Did so.


I did not say they thought the defendant was innocent. Argue against the things I say, not what you read in the empty spaces where I don't say things.

Uh? Clinton was saying the girl has mental problems, girls like her often exaggerate their romantic encounters and the girl had a history of making this sort of shit up then you said the fact that the judge and prosecutor agreed to the plea deal "could be taken as proof that Clinton's statements rang true." You're either trying to back peddle or you're not being very clear in your arguments.


Read them more carefully in the future.

Alright. So when I say it's fucked up that Clinton was trying to say the 12 year old was a slut and someone comes back with "But there are lots of 12 year old sluts!" I shouldn't take that to mean that the person is agreeing with Clinton that the girl could have been a slut.

If implying were a blunt instrument you would have just beaten this entire thread into submission with it.


That what Clinton said was accurate.

And you have the nerve in this very post to say you didn't say the prosecutor felt the guy was really innocent.

I do believe you owe me an apology.

[Tgo01]

I'm a pedo because I knew 12 year old sluts when I was 12? Apparently nobody else knew a girl that gave blowjobs on the back of the school bus or bragged about fucking older guys.

Are you totally positive you're not implying this girl was a slut?