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.

 

Victim in Clinton rape case comes forward

page: 3
90
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Actually anybody with an ounce of empathy and compassion in their soul would have said no to that case, especially a first case. But not Hillary she grabbed it, and laughed when she won, I would think as a woman YOU would have more compassion an empathy for that 12 year.

But deep within the core of your soul you already know all this, your posts are just political justifications, when there is zero justification on this topic for Hillary. You should stop now as you are making Hillary female supporters look bad, seriously.




posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UnBreakable
They have their heads buried so far up her arse they only hear their own echos from her colon walls.


How many threads are there going to be on this?

She did her job.

There's nothing more to it.


You are one of the biggest hypocrites on this board. I don't care if I get warned or banned for this, you are a disgusting human being.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: James1982

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UnBreakable
They have their heads buried so far up her arse they only hear their own echos from her colon walls.


How many threads are there going to be on this?

She did her job.

There's nothing more to it.


You are one of the biggest hypocrites on this board. I don't care if I get warned or banned for this, you are a disgusting human being.


Why? Doesn't bother me what you call me. It really only reflects back on you.

I stated the truth.

Hillary did her job. That's a fact.

She was a Public Defender and got her clients sentenced reduced.

I guess women lawyers are under a different set of rules. They have to use emotion, not law.


edit on 11-8-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
New information was received in a discussion on TV tonight.

This little girl was so brutally attacked that she need surgery to repair the damage, and she was never able to have children after that.

Yet, Clinton laughs about getting this guy off easy.




posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

And the MSM is still silent on it ( I just checked). I applaud your work here Blue and it's such a shame how much of it falls on deaf ears.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
People are very naive when it comes to the legal system. The nature of the system is adversarial. It's always a fight between one side and the other. The fight is decided by evidence and rulings of law. There are not supposed to be situations where cases are decided by collusion between the parties trying the case. Some people seem to think that a defendant's lawyer ought to engage in collusion to make sure that her client is convicted if she thinks he is guilty. When this kind of thing happens justice is thrown out the window.

Justice is not truth.

Justice is giving rulings on cases according to the law, which is designed to create the conditions under which a civilized society can function with as little violence and as much fairness as possible.

In this particular case, the prosecution apparently mishandled the evidence and were not able to present a strong case against the accused. A plea bargain was the result. Most of the laughing in the OP's original tape was being done by the interviewer, not Mrs. Clinton, and none of the laughter was directed at the rape victim. The humor in the situation, such as it was, seemed to be connected to vagaries of the legal system and personalities on the prosecution and judicial side of the case.

Only a judge or jury can pronounce guilt. Prosecuting or defending attorneys don't have that privilege and what their personal opinions are, of any case, are only of marginal interest, and for very good reason. Cases are decided on evidence given at trial, not on the opinion of attorneys.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

At some point as a human you cross a line when you knowingly defend, using all available tools, and still prop up a defendant. It's unethical at the least and the person who did this is running for POTUS.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Hmmmm, am I the only one that notices the parallel's with all this and the case at the start of the movie Devil's Advocate?



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
Hmmmm, am I the only one that notices the parallel's with all this and the case at the start of the movie Devil's Advocate?


Whoaa

Deja Vu.






posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

Well this settles it, I've found proof. Hillary is literally a child of the devil.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Does that make Soros, Al Pacino?



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

If anyone fits the role of Satan in this modern world, I can think of no better representation.

I think we're really onto something here.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
At some point as a human you cross a line when you knowingly defend, using all available tools, and still prop up a defendant. It's unethical at the least and the person who did this is running for POTUS.


On the contrary, I think it would be unethical of her not to have defended him to the best of her ability.

Think of what happened. The lab tested a portion of the defendant's underwear and (presumably) said that the portion tested was stained with blood of the same type as that of the alleged victim. Then they "threw out" the tested portion and submitted the remnant of the underwear that they had not tested,as evidence. Mrs. Clinton found an internationally renowned expert who said that the untested remnant had no testable stains on it.

In my mind there is a reasonable doubt that even the tested portion of the underwear would have confirmed guilt. Why did they throw it out? Was it really just carelessness?

If a legal system is to be maintained, attorneys must perform to the best of their ability. It would have been unethical for Mrs. Clinton to have said to herself. "I think this guy is guilty and I'm not going to bother challenging the prosecution's ridiculous evidence against him."

I think attorney's who decide that they will perform according to their opinions of their client's guilt would have a good chance of being disbarred.
edit on 11-8-2016 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Possibly!

Except Bill is no Charlize Theron.




posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

I understand your position but I disagree.
She had free will to take on this case and I'm only assuming that she knew the probability of winning.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I get the feeling that there are people in this world who think that some kinds of defendants should not be allowed legal representation. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on Mrs. Clinton's handling of this particular legal case.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Not even close to what I was implying. We can agree to disagree, no reason to take cheap shots and illustrate men of straw.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: ipsedixit

I understand your position but I disagree.
She had free will to take on this case and I'm only assuming that she knew the probability of winning.



Public Defenders have free will to take on cases?

She was a female lawyer, in the south, in 1975. It would have been career suicide to turn down a case.

I'm the same age as Hillary. And I know how things were in the work place for a woman in a "man's world" 40+ years ago.


edit on 11-8-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: JinMI

I get the feeling that there are people in this world who think that some kinds of defendants should not be allowed legal representation. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on Mrs. Clinton's handling of this particular legal case.


Well, you know - - if you're a woman - - you have to defend women.

In this case Hillary should have committed career suicide by refusing to do her job.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: ipsedixit

I understand your position but I disagree.
She had free will to take on this case and I'm only assuming that she knew the probability of winning.



Public Defenders have free will to take on cases?

She was a female lawyer, in the south, in 1975. It would have been career suicide to turn down a case.

I'm the same age as Hillary. And I know how things were in the work place for a woman in a "man's world" 40+ years ago.



That's not entirely correct.


“The public defender was appointed to represent him and for some reason the public defender, I guess, wanted off or couldn’t handle it, I don’t know what the problem was there,” said Gibson.

Clinton offered yet another variation of the events leading to her taking the case in her autobiography Living History, saying the judge appointed her to the case after Gibson recommended her.

“One day the Washington County prosecuting attorney, Mahlon Gibson, called to tell me an indigent prisoner accused of raping a 12-year-old girl wanted a woman lawyer,” wrote Clinton. “Gibson had recommended that the criminal court judge, Maupin Cummings, appoint me.”


freebeacon.com...

Woman and men alike have quit their positions based upon their ethics.




top topics



 
90
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join