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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Rape victim to Hillary: You lied about me.

page: 10
94
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

did you listen to that video you posted??? they seem to had conveniently lost a key piece of evidence thanks to the lab..
kind of sounds like they didn't have much of a case against the guy because of it....
did hillary cut that piece of evidence out of the guys underwear and throw it away herself... or have anything to do with it?? nope!! that's just the way the legal system worked back then....and probably now considering just how many rape kits never make it to the lab!!

listen to the video you posted, she ain't bragging about how she got him off... it's more like she is talking about the systematic insanity of the case!




posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: Nucleardoom

Really? Ever read "To Kill A Mockingbird"?

Your faux outrage is showing.


Yes. And i took actual classes on law and am related to actual crimimal defense attorneys. I dont see what harper lee has to do with this, let alone a ham fisted comparison between institutional racism in missouri and a 12 year Old girl being accused of perjury after physicians find injuries consistent with rape, in arkansas.




Attorney Rodham was assigned the case under duress and she did what she was required to do by the tenants of her profession: her best effort


So you have the records to prove it. Instead of politifact-hearsay from former officials who have everything to lose if they are exposed as frauds?



What more should Rodham have done? Refuse the bargain on behalf of her client and demand a harder sentence for him? She would have been disbarred in a heart beat.


File a formal request to leave the case and inform the judge fully of her findings, and NOT leave the state with key evidence that had already been destroyed once.

That is what blows me away about this. Instead of doing what any CD would do, she drives the underwear to an out of state researcher in order to find MORE damning evidence...instead of having it thrown out by the court like any other time a lab screws up.


Clearly we should take the people who could potentially face charges and imprisonment for their ignorance and misconduct at face value, especially whenever there is a conveniently documented case that victim-blames and loses all key evidence for the prosecution due to those silly lab techs.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Not to take anything from the little girl but maybe she should have had a better lawyer.
Hillary had a job to do and did what was legally permissible.

I'm no hillary lover but a job is a job.


Wow...sounds very similar to the excuses given by the Nazis.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperDaveAPK

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Not to take anything from the little girl but maybe she should have had a better lawyer.
Hillary had a job to do and did what was legally permissible.

I'm no hillary lover but a job is a job.


Wow...sounds very similar to the excuses given by the Nazis.


No, it sounds like rights guaranteed under the Constitution.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: soulwaxer
She was also a lawyer that took an oath to defend people to the best of her ability. She did.


Yeah, sure, she was expected to represent the guy. But she didn't just do that, she got a kick out of knowing she was successfully defending a man who brutally raped a 12 year old. That's not a lawyer, that's a pure psychopath.


Don't you love when someone (uninvited) enters another's mind and decides what they think?


I didn't have to. She was laughing about it.


NO, she wasn't.

I listened to the entire audio.

It is exactly as Gryphon66 said.


I wonder how many folks have even listened to the tape?

I'd wager, probably none.

They don't have to ... they've been told what to say about it.

I guess the bottom line here is that any rational person can look at this situation and see the truth ... and that truth is that there are those who are desperately trying to use Kathy's tragedy for their benefit ... or what they think is their benefit.



Why do you need to invoke an appeal to emotion if you are correct in that the state had all the facts? Lets look at some other facts that keep getting glossed over with red herring rhetoric.

Fact: Evidence was detroyed due to bad methodology.

Fact: Clinton stated in the affidavit that two unnamed people ( EXTREMELY unusual BTW) one who was an "Expert" supported the "Fantasy"claim and character assassinations from the mysterious informant. The claim was later accepted by the court at some point.

Fact: She found it credible enough ( instead of dismissing as hearsay amd highlighting a lack of physical evidence as stronger) to request a formal investigation.
Fact: She took evidence out of state, despite the courts asking her not to and legally stymieing her.

Fact: There is no formal record of her requesting to leave the case, only her word and the word of people who stand to lose their jobs and social status should she be indicted. This reality is inconsistent with her own claims.

Fact: Clinton recounts the tale three different yet nearly identical ways in media, the last two which would abscond her of responsibility should former colleagues corroborate it.

This is interesting considering all three stories occur when clinton is personally poised to gain an office.

edit on 8-10-2016 by DeathShield because: We really need a preview button for mobile



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DeathShield




That is what blows me away about this. Instead of doing what any CD would do, she drives the underwear to an out of state researcher in order to find MORE damning evidence...instead of having it thrown out by the court like any other time a lab screws up?


actually that should have been the prosecutors job... as soon as he was aware of the lab mixup, he should had what was remaining of the evidence tested to see if it still proved anything... so where was he?

hillary could have just smiled and let things ride an wait for the prosecutor to present the evidence and then just question how the underwear, now with the evidence cut out and disposed of, proves anything...
ya know bring the child in to testify and relive the nightmare....
or she could get permission to take the underwear to a different lab and find out if there was anything there that could be used as evidence. that is what she did... that child, an adult now, may have bad feeling towards hillary for all these years for representing the rapist, but I don't thing they would compare to what she would have been feeling if she had went through the the trial and had to go through the unpleasantness of testifying in that time in our history.... no matter who the lawyer was! and, I imagine that the prosecution had to accept the terms of the plea deal, so they probably thought that evidence was key to their case and they risked losing the care without it... and if they lost...
we we have the difference of the rapist pleading either guilty or no constant and time served and him walking away with the state's sincerest apologies for keeping him confined.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: soulwaxer




This man beat and raped a virgin 12-year-old resulting in a 5-day coma


This just isn't true!


At 4:50 a.m., the girl walked into a local emergency room, badly shaken. The doctor’s report noted that she had injuries consistent with rape.


Why would "they" lie about this? If they lied about this, what else are they lying about?



She had the option not to take this case.


Wrong.


In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later.



As Hillary Clinton wrote in her 2003 biography Living History, she didn't volunteer to represent the defendant, but rather was appointed to the case by the judge:
[Prosecuting attorney Mahlon Gibson] called me to tell me an indigent prisoner accused of raping a twelve-year-old girl wanted a woman lawyer. [Prosecutor Mahlon] Gibson had recommended that the criminal court judge, Maupin Cummings, appoint me. I told Mahlon I really didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request.


If you want to be upset with anyone, you should be upset with the judge.


Finally, Hillary didn't "free" the defendant in the case. Instead, the prosecuting attorney agreed to a plea deal involving a lesser charge that carried a five-year sentence, of which the judge suspended four years and allowed two months credit of time already served towards the remaining year:


SOURCE



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ssenerawa

I'm guessing Hillary supporters will just read the thread and not reply


You mean read the headline, you have to be willfully ignorant to support that trash.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Perhaps you'll explain what that has to do with sentencing a man to 2 months incarceration for raping a child.


A Clinton campaign donor appoints Bill's girlfriend to a case where evidence was destroyed and a child rapist walks away with a slap on the wrist, yet that doesn't raise any red flags for you?



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SuperDaveAPK

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Not to take anything from the little girl but maybe she should have had a better lawyer.
Hillary had a job to do and did what was legally permissible.

I'm no hillary lover but a job is a job.


Wow...sounds very similar to the excuses given by the Nazis.


No, it sounds like rights guaranteed under the Constitution.


Yes, but no one made her take the case.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperDaveAPK

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SuperDaveAPK

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Not to take anything from the little girl but maybe she should have had a better lawyer.
Hillary had a job to do and did what was legally permissible.

I'm no hillary lover but a job is a job.


Wow...sounds very similar to the excuses given by the Nazis.


No, it sounds like rights guaranteed under the Constitution.


Yes, but no one made her take the case.


That is incorrect.

She asked the judge to be excused. He said no.

You wanna blame someone? Blame the judge.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Not to take anything from the little girl but maybe she should have had a better lawyer.
Hillary had a job to do and did what was legally permissible.

I'm no hillary lover but a job is a job.


The nazi soldiers used that excuse, what the law permits, and what one does, one is obligated first to one's moral code second to the law of men, the true laws of the world supersede the feeble laws of men. And does the job require gloating and laughing about it years after the case, supposedly, even laughing about it and villifying the victim is no go?
edit on 8-10-2016 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: burntheships

did you listen to that video you posted??? they seem to had conveniently lost a key piece of evidence thanks to the lab..
kind of sounds like they didn't have much of a case against the guy because of it....
did hillary cut that piece of evidence out of the guys underwear and throw it away herself... or have anything to do with it?? nope!! that's just the way the legal system worked back then....and probably now considering just how many rape kits never make it to the lab!!

listen to the video you posted, she ain't bragging about how she got him off... it's more like she is talking about the systematic insanity of the case!

yes just like the supposed we came we saw he died? haha



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SuperDaveAPK

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SuperDaveAPK

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Not to take anything from the little girl but maybe she should have had a better lawyer.
Hillary had a job to do and did what was legally permissible.

I'm no hillary lover but a job is a job.


Wow...sounds very similar to the excuses given by the Nazis.


No, it sounds like rights guaranteed under the Constitution.


Yes, but no one made her take the case.


That is incorrect.

She asked the judge to be excused. He said no.

You wanna blame someone? Blame the judge.
have proof of that or just hillary's claims like the claim she had one device but she had thirteen devices destroyed?



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



. . . sadly, the right-wing in this country tends to favor the rapists rather than the victims.


How is it that you arrive at this conclusion?



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SuperDaveAPK

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SuperDaveAPK

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Not to take anything from the little girl but maybe she should have had a better lawyer.
Hillary had a job to do and did what was legally permissible.

I'm no hillary lover but a job is a job.


Wow...sounds very similar to the excuses given by the Nazis.


No, it sounds like rights guaranteed under the Constitution.


Yes, but no one made her take the case.


That is incorrect.

She asked the judge to be excused. He said no.

You wanna blame someone? Blame the judge.
have proof of that or just hillary's claims like the claim she had one device but she had thirteen devices destroyed?


It's been posted several times in this thread.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: soulwaxer

It sure is not right what she did.

The only thing I would wish to point out is that all lawyers that have to defend a rapist or murderer is terrible, however sad to say. It is their job.

However if we are putting that with the fact that same lawyer wishes to be president, well. Probably best laugh at that thought.
edit on 8-10-2016 by BlackProject because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: Gryphon66



. . . sadly, the right-wing in this country tends to favor the rapists rather than the victims.


How is it that you arrive at this conclusion?



Eight Staggering GOP Comments on Rape and Women

The Party Of Rape Culture: 40 Republican Rape Quotes We All Should Remember In November

Republicans on Rape

That should get you started, if you're really interested.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Perhaps you'll explain what that has to do with sentencing a man to 2 months incarceration for raping a child.


A Clinton campaign donor appoints Bill's girlfriend to a case where evidence was destroyed and a child rapist walks away with a slap on the wrist, yet that doesn't raise any red flags for you?



You apparently don't read your own sources well. Judge Maupin was NOT Clinton's first "campaign donor" ... his son was. $400. LOL ... and your own article notes that the son was literally the FIRST Campaign donor in a Congressional race that Bill lost in 1974.

Let me guess ... this was all part of a deep conspiracy by people to put 2 Clintons in the White House starting in 1974.

Right? Or maybe you could stop the drama and tell us what red flags does it raise for you, chief?



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO
a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you trying to say something about abortion and rape ??

Your logic is very bizarre and is connected to things that should not be.......

Almost sounds like you would support rapists going free any day over the inability to abort.

And *gasp* being exposed to people who think abortion is not cool.



All due respect, you're not the person to criticize "bizarre logic."

No, nothing I've said comes close to saying I "support rapists going free any day over the inability to abort."

If you care to discuss it, quote something I've said and make factual statements or questions regarding it and I'll explain it to you.




top topics



 
94
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join