It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Women Victims To Hit Campaign Trail

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I'd prefer someone that laughs about incompetent police work rather than someone who makes fun of the disabled in front of hundreds. Or makes jokes about dating their own daughter.

That's just me.




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The Rape Accountability Project for Education PAC, or RAPE PAC will make sure they never cross the line.

They have lawyers smarter than the Clintons.




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22




I never liked hillary very much but I lost pretty much all respect for her when she stood by her man.


This is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of situation. The "Christian" thing to do is to stay with your spouse through troubled waters, "Till death do us part". If she had left him, there would be "Hell to pay" from the religious right.

Once again, it's hypocritical to blame Hillary for her husband's transgressions. I've never scene a spouse attacked on the campaign trail, but I have scene male politicians lose all prospects after being exposed for sexual indiscretions.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Can you prove Public Defenders decline cases on moral grounds?


Public Defenders cannot openly refuse a case on moral grounds but they are able to file a motion to withdraw and cite conflict of interest.




edit on 9-5-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

The Rape Accountability Project for Education PAC, or RAPE PAC will make sure they never cross the line.

They have lawyers smarter than the Clintons.



But they're prolly not smarter than the Clintons' lawyers, or the lawyers the lawyers hire, so on and so forth.

Smart, in politics and law, is relative.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Who are their lawyers and what information do you have in regards to their intelligence, compared to that of the Clintons?



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

PDs get paid anyways right? I would think it would be rather satisfying to get sex offenders convicted just by "sucking" at your job. No pun intended.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Annee
Can you prove Public Defenders decline cases on moral grounds?


Public Defenders cannot openly reuse a case on moral grounds but they are able to file a motion to withdraw and cite conflict of interest.


In her case, as a young female attorney, public defender, in the south, 1975. It would have been career suicide.

I've been raped. My daughter was molested (fortunately not beyond someone putting a hand up her shirt).

I can be realistic and support her professional position of doing her job.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Hasn't Bill settled out of court with some of these women or am I making that up?

If so, unless they are under some kind of gag order it should be fine for them to tell their tales.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Yesterday, I took My Wife and Mother-In-Law to IHOP™ for Mother's Day. We were at the end of the meal and the nice waitress came by and handed Me the bill in the binder and I pushed it toward's My Wife saying "I'm a Feminist" She looked at Me w/a blank stare but to Her defense, English isn't Her first language and came over from India.
A pair lof Ladies sitting next to Us saw/heard this and chuckled and paid our bill and One said "We are too and appreciate that You support us..."


I'd also recommend the new IHOP "Cupcake Pancakes".. Per the M-I-L the 'Red Velvet Crepes' way to sweet, sugary..
But if You go 'Ultimate B'fast' You get 2 cupcake flapjacks plus the eggs, bacon, sausages and hash browns..


namaste



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: SmurfRider
PDs get paid anyways right? I would think it would be rather satisfying to get sex offenders convicted just by "sucking" at your job. No pun intended.


They get paid but not even remotely close to what good private practice attorneys make.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You seem to be knowledgeable on these sorts of issues.

Can you comment on the defamation aspect?



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimNasium
. . . the nice waitress came by and handed Me the bill in the binder and I pushed it toward's My Wife saying "I'm a Feminist" . . .


Smart waitresses today put the bill in the middle.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
In her case, as a young female attorney, public defender, in the south, 1975. It would have been career suicide.


I am not going to speculate one way or the other. She could, if she wanted to, have filed a motion to withdraw citing a numerous host of reasons why she could not defend a client.

What I think irritates people about her is not that she defended the rapist, but that she was gleeful and callous in her tactics used to discredit the victim.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
You seem to be knowledgeable on these sorts of issues.

Can you comment on the defamation aspect?


Sorry, I am not familiar with that aspect, can you provide more information?

ETA: I just saw what I think you are referring to on page 1. I think Clinton would have an uphill battle on that front. She is a highly public figure where the defamation aspect is harder to prove and she would have to then testify that she did not knowingly support the concerted effort to discredit the women joining this SuperPac.






edit on 9-5-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: windword


I never blamed hillary for bills actions. I do hold her accountable for her reactions to his behavior. She is supposed to be a leader of progressive women. She could have said i will not stand for this. Divorce does not hold the stigma it did in the 50's.

Even right wing poster child Ronald Reagan was divorced and remarried. She would have been applauded for sticking up for herself in my opinion.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Point is Hillary has a record against women.

www.washingtontimes.com...

It is well known, and a significant portion of the American voting block
does not trust her, and thinks she is dishonest. This aspect of
her character is part of that distrust.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UnBreakable


What Is Defamation of Character?

Defamation of character is the legal term for harming someone's reputation by making false statements. To prove defamation, a plaintiff must show:
The statement reflected negatively on the plaintiff’s reputation
The statement clearly referenced the plaintiff
The statement was communicated to a third-party who understood it
The statement actually damaged the plaintiff’s reputation
That the statement was false

Defamation is often divided into slander and libel:
Slander is non-broadcasted, verbal defamation
Libel is defamation in writing or some other permanent form, such as a radio or television broadcast f


www.legalmatch.com...


Ok, Bill has to prove defamation of character.

Can he prove:

The statement reflected negatively on the plaintiff’s reputation? No, he's always had a bad reputation.
The statement clearly referenced the plaintiff? Yes, he could prove this. They all said it was him.
The statement was communicated to a third-party who understood it? Yes, every person who knows Bill is aware of it.
The statement actually damaged the plaintiff’s reputation? No, see first question.
That the statement was false? He already indicated Paula Jones account was true by settling out of court. He's never denied thde rest.

So, to sum it up, he has no grounds for defamation. Just ask Monica Lewinski.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

What I think irritates people about her is not that she defended the rapist, but that she was gleeful and callous in her tactics used to discredit the victim.


Was she? In court or on the radio interview?

Kinda reminded me of medical personnel calling burned victims "crispy critters". Over hearing professionals talking among themselves about cases would probably upset many people, because they see the details of the case - - not the individual.

I listed to that interview. I was not upset by it.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships




It is well known, and a significant portion of the American voting block does not trust her, and thinks she is dishonest.


A significant portion of the American voting block also knows that Donald Trump has been less than honest in his business dealing as well.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join