Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,' Rape Victim Says

seriously. you all claim Hillary is guilty of perjury and suborning perjury because a twelve year old girl said so? Have you all lost your collective minds?

 

Well, you're wrong b/c there's plenty of people, including some lawyers who do care about the kids and this one was raped not by just one so-called 'man' but 2, then beaten to the point that left her in a coma and just hearing about what those savages did to her would strike the cord called 'human decency' in some some lawyers and they wouldn't touch the case simply b/c they wouldn't want to be part of causing any more harm to the 12 yr old girl than what had already been done to her.......

This child rapist and beater really got lucky when Hillary took his case. She didn't have to do everything she did to smear the girl's reputation since the prosecution had lost a vital part of the evidence against the pig, but she happily did..... and chuckled about it later.

Going out of her way to destroy a 12 yr old rape victim as much as she could, who was left comatose, screams volumes about a female who's totally lacking a conscience.....

 

A twelve-year old girl didn't say so. A 52-year old woman who was raped when she was twelve said so. Has your political fervor eroded your mind?

And, I'm sure you believe Hillary was told this and that and then submitted it in a sworn document to the court. With Hillary's history of being truthful and honest how could anyone not believe her. You also believe Bill did not have sex with that woman and Obama loves America. You probably believe there are defense attorneys who don't lie to the court, suborn perjury, conceal and destroy evidence, and obstruct justice. You also believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

 

so one woman says Hillary lied 40 years ago and, in your twisted world, that equates to being "guilty of perjury"???? Are you on drugs???

have you ever taken a civics course? have you ever been inside a courtroom? do you have a clue how our system of jurisprudence even works????

my GOD.... your ignorance is astounding!

 

I don't think it's that simple. Prosecutors overreach too. The Duke Lacrosse prosecutor was disbarred and that was basically the prosecutorial version of what Hillary did except that the truth came out there in a different way.

 

that's your opinion. As long as no laws or canons of ethics were broken, it's all fair game. All you all have is one woman saying that forty years ago, Hillary Clinton lied about her. That's not the definition of anything except innuendo. You chose to believe the 52 year old woman.... who cares? What does a court of law say about it? What did the court of law say about it 40 years ago? Nada.

 

I thought the audio tape was Hillary saying she knew the man was guilty?

 

so what? he still deserves a vigorous defense.

 

I was responding to this part. It's not about who we chose to believe, the situation is pretty clear.

 

Sorry I got here late...but I had no idea Hillary was raping people....wow....I better not vote for her...

 

clear to those who want to convict Hillary in the court of public opinion you mean.

Hillary's client may very well have been guilty of sexually assaulting the 12 year old. How does that automatically mean that the 12 year old was NOT a slut who fellated every man and boy in her neighborhood?

YOU certainly have no idea.

Hillary had every right - nay, every DUTY - to attempt to impeach the credibility of the witness against her client.

 

I think the question is, should a lawyer give a less then vigourous defense to a client they know or suspect is guilty. Ethicly, No in my laymans opinion.

 

that is the case.

If you are referring to the request for psychiactric examination of the victim, then it was a court document only added to the public record long after the case. It was NEVER seen by the young victim until it was shown to her decades later.

If you are referring to the attempted smear job by the right wing propaganda machine, the answer is of course blatantly obvious.

Not that it is going to stop the uninformed and/or grossily misinformed partisan hacks into trying yet again to morph misrepresentation of the facts into "scandal".

 

It says she was a competent lawyer, doing her job.

this idea that the lawyer is somehow tainted by the cases they take is ridiculous and indicates a complete lack of understanding of the adversarial legal system. qu'elle suprise.

 

She does not say that. That is RW propaganda spin.

What she says was that the accused passed a lie detector test, and Clinton jokes that it destroyed her faith in lie detector tests. From that you could infer that she thought he was guilty, but she could also have been making a jest. She never says she believes, much less knew, he was guilty.

 

Something tells me that Hillary is going to support these college kangaroo courts that protect adult women from needing to air their sexual laundry but she wouldn't give the same privilege to an innocent child. An adversarial legal system doesn't necessarily mean no holds barred. Individuals can still think for themselves and make decisions based upon what they know the facts to be. Hillary didn't do that here, she counted on the system protecting her as she ravaged an innocent kid to raise her own stature.

 

Modern laws now limit issues relating to the victim's sexual history. But credibility -- whether she falsely accused others of assault in the past, is always relevant.

The evidence against the guy must have been pretty weak for the judge and prosecutor to drop the statutory rape charge.

 

Case in point, I take it that the liberals here who disagree with this criticism of Hillary also disagree with Obama's support for college rape trials where the sexual history of the woman is off-limits? Do you have any moral argument at all or are you just going to blindly support what the law says as it changes to polar opposites because it's convenient?

Something tells me this is /thread.

 

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking me whether I support laws making sexual history off limits?

 

I'm asking you how you can presumably support Obama saying it's off-limits but also support Hillary going all-in with it regarding an innocent 12-year old victim. It seems to me that you have no moral argument and are just using the letter of the law as cover even though the two positions are polar opposites.

 

Sure. One is a policy issue, whether it should be, and the other is what the law was.

An attorney should zealously represent her client, and if there is evidence about a victim's prior conduct, including sexual activity, that supports a theory that she is lying, then the attorneys should present that evidence if the law permits it.

That is a different question than the whether a defendant should be able to present such evidence. I don't have a strong position on the issue. On the one hand, I am concerned about putting a potential victim through that kind of inquisition, when her prior sexual background is certainly no justification for being raped. On the other hand, it is also true that there are many false accusations of rape, and if there is information in the person's background relevant to that, it should be considered.

In the case of a 12 year old, it is statutory rape, meaning she cannot have given consent. It may relate to the accuser's credibility.

 

Are you serious? When a lawyer is defending someone, they are not supposed to care about the other side. Their first, second, and third priority is their client, who is INNOCENT UNTIL PEOVEN GUILTY. That can sometimes take a lot of strength, but Hillary didn't buckle, and she didn't go the easy way out by saying no and letting the next public defender do the case. She knew if he was found guilty it would haunt her future political career because people like you don't understand out court system is based on due process, not knee jerk moral decisions, but she did it anyway. That actually makes her better than a lot of lawyers to be honest.

 

what a crock.

She didn't ravage an innocent child in any fashion whatsoever.

this kind of over the top rhetoric merely indicates the intellectual dishonesty that extreme partisanship fosters.

 

So when she says now she was smeared it doenst matter because she wasnt shown the document when she was 12? The document didnt exist because she didnt see it until recently?

Damn you guys are desperate to spin for Hilary. Hilary is responsible for her accusations against her. Hilary is responsible to the taped interview. Commenting on it is not a smear job. She did those deeds and people have a right to discuss them.

 

No one has accused her of it.

I call it public ethics and yes smearing a victim, making baseless accusations about a 12 year old borders on the legal and certainly transgresses the public which is the higher issue here. So do you go for the "well she dressed sexy so she asked for it" rape defense?

I didn't rape a 12 year old.

So have you picked out the parts of the interview where she showed any sympathy for the victim?