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

Hillary Clinton defended a child molester and laughed about it

page: 1
27
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   




June 20, 2014 (FrontPage Magazine) - There's evil. There's real evil. And there's Hillary Clinton. When the Free Beacon published tapes in which Hillary Clinton laughed cheerfully about a case in which she got a child rapist off, ordinary people had a glimpse into the twisted mind of a woman who keeps claiming to be a role model for young girls.

Hillary's tactics including accusing a 12-year-old girl who had been savagely beaten and raped, in fine legal language, of being a mentally ill slut. The tapes were shocking even for her supporters. They revealed a complete lack of empathy and Hillary's willingness to do absolutely anything to win.

Now Josh Rogin of the Daily Beast has talked to the woman who was raped, once by her attackers, and again by Hillary Clinton's twisted manipulation of the legal system on behalf of her attacker.

In her interview with The Daily Beast, she recounted the details of her attack in 1975 at age 12 and the consequences it had for both her childhood and adult life. A virgin before the assault, she spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape, and over 10 years in therapy. The doctors told her she would probably never be able to have children.

Now 52, she has never married or had children.

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Clinton, then named Hillary D. Rodham, wrote in the affidavit.

I'm sure she fantasized her way into a coma.

Clinton also wrote that a child psychologist told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” especially when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”

Is being beaten into a coma Hillary Clinton's idea of a romanticized sexual experience?

The victim vigorously denied Clinton’s accusations and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never accused anyone of attacking her before her rape.

“I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying,” she said. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there."

Because that's what liars do. And Hillary Clinton is a notoriously compulsive liar.

On the tapes, Clinton, who speaks in a Southern drawl, appears to acknowledge that she was aware of her client’s guilt, brags about successfully getting the only piece of physical evidence thrown out of court, and laughs about it all whimsically.

“He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Clinton says on the recording, failing to hold back some chuckles.

For the victim, the tapes prove that while Clinton was arguing in the affidavit that the victim could have some culpability in her own attack, she actually believed that her client was guilty.

Of course she did.

After hearing the newly revealed tapes of Clinton boasting about the case, the victim said she couldn’t hold her tongue any longer and wanted to tell her side of the story to the public.

“I think she wants to be a role model being who she is, to look good, but I don’t think she’s a role model at all… If she had have been, she would have helped me at the time, being a 12-year-old girl who was raped by two guys,” she said.

In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings.

“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said.

"You are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”

"How many other lies has she told to get where she’s at today? If she becomes president, is she gonna be telling the world the truth? No."

The victim is concerned that speaking out will make her a target for attacks, but she no longer feels she is able to stay silent.

“I’m a little scared of her… When this all comes about, I’m a little worried she might try to hurt me, I hope not,” she said. “They can lie all they want, say all they want, I know what’s true.”

“When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”

“[Clinton] owes me a big apology, [but] I’ll probably never get anything from her.”




posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
So far, Hillary Clinton has alienated about 70% of the voting population.

She's hard at work to get it to 80%.

Democrats will suffer this year from her fumble-flops.




posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: RhinestoneCowboy

Wow, BREAKING NEWS!

While this is disgusting, how many threads are open about this? This partisan spam off is getting old. There are plenty of threads to comment on this. I have to skip 20 election threads to see anything else. And if anything breaking does come out people will just stop over it like the other 1000 quadruple posts.

here
here


edit on 10-10-2016 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: RhinestoneCowboy

My question is-with all of the sexual deviancy and sex crimes surrounding bill and hillary-why would the left even THINK about paying off a little girl/her family to lie and say that Trump raped her.

They don't care the numerous women/children bill clinton apparently forced himself onto.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: RhinestoneCowboy

Remember everyone: Women for Hillary: Hillary for America.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I know this have been covered already but here is the thing; it was brought up in the debate. She never responded to it. No moderator asked her about it. It just goes away. Now, people say she was doing her job ok then. Defend it. Defend laughing about a child saying she was raped. There is no defense for laughing about it. What is so funny about it. Explain.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: RhinestoneCowboy

You might not like Snopes, I'm sure you will call it dodgy, but if you look at the citations, links and facts you will see that what you have posted is at least 80% BS with the rest of it mangling of facts.

www.snopes.com...

But of course you will just ignore that and go for the version that suits you, won't you, because facts are such a horrible thing.

I notice you don't talk about the lawsuit around Trump allegedly raping a 13 year old though. Personally I wouldn't ever assume such a heinous crime without hearing facts. It seems the lawsuit was refiled on 30th September - what do you think about such claims being thrown around?

www.snopes.com...

But then as your original OP has been the source of multiple threads, I guess you just felt the need to put your spin on it?



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: LifeMode
I know this have been covered already but here is the thing; it was brought up in the debate. She never responded to it. No moderator asked her about it. It just goes away. Now, people say she was doing her job ok then. Defend it. Defend laughing about a child saying she was raped. There is no defense for laughing about it. What is so funny about it. Explain.
why respond to lies?



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: LifeMode
I know this have been covered already but here is the thing; it was brought up in the debate. She never responded to it. No moderator asked her about it. It just goes away. Now, people say she was doing her job ok then. Defend it. Defend laughing about a child saying she was raped. There is no defense for laughing about it. What is so funny about it. Explain.


I'm sure there's a fact checker on her website that says it wasn't her laughing and the little girl lied, and all of these Clinton supporters eat it up as gospel. Didn't take them long to overlook the racism of Hillary, which is how obama beat her in 2008. He said she'd tell you everything you wanted to hear and do nothing about it. Little did they know he'd be exactly the same.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: LifeMode
I know this have been covered already but here is the thing; it was brought up in the debate. She never responded to it. No moderator asked her about it. It just goes away. Now, people say she was doing her job ok then. Defend it. Defend laughing about a child saying she was raped. There is no defense for laughing about it. What is so funny about it. Explain.


I'm sure there's a fact checker on her website that says it wasn't her laughing and the little girl lied, and all of these Clinton supporters eat it up as gospel. Didn't take them long to overlook the racism of Hillary, which is how obama beat her in 2008. He said she'd tell you everything you wanted to hear and do nothing about it. Little did they know he'd be exactly the same.
it was debunked years ago, no fact checker needed, stop trolling like an idiot and get educated.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: RhinestoneCowboy

You might not like Snopes, I'm sure you will call it dodgy, but if you look at the citations, links and facts you will see that what you have posted is at least 80% BS with the rest of it mangling of facts.

www.snopes.com...

But of course you will just ignore that and go for the version that suits you, won't you, because facts are such a horrible thing.

I notice you don't talk about the lawsuit around Trump allegedly raping a 13 year old though. Personally I wouldn't ever assume such a heinous crime without hearing facts. It seems the lawsuit was refiled on 30th September - what do you think about such claims being thrown around?

www.snopes.com...

But then as your original OP has been the source of multiple threads, I guess you just felt the need to put your spin on it?


Yeah, EVERYTHING negative against Clinton is false. Every time, every allegation, even every fact. All false.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: RhinestoneCowboy

You might not like Snopes, I'm sure you will call it dodgy, but if you look at the citations, links and facts you will see that what you have posted is at least 80% BS with the rest of it mangling of facts.

www.snopes.com...

But of course you will just ignore that and go for the version that suits you, won't you, because facts are such a horrible thing.

I notice you don't talk about the lawsuit around Trump allegedly raping a 13 year old though. Personally I wouldn't ever assume such a heinous crime without hearing facts. It seems the lawsuit was refiled on 30th September - what do you think about such claims being thrown around?

www.snopes.com...

But then as your original OP has been the source of multiple threads, I guess you just felt the need to put your spin on it?


Why does it seem like everytime snopes is linked when I go to their own evidence it shows they are wrong.

For example, lets take one part of this snopes article. They claim Hillary never said she fantasized about having sex with older men, that was other people. BUt as a showed on another thread, the very court documents snopes links to show that is was in fact her that introduced these claims.

I will post from another thread:

I don't know how to post PDF but I will give the page numbers for you.
www.scribd.com...

Here is the site with the court documents (but you already read them so you knew that)

On page 33 it starts the beginning of the issue with her and a psychiatrist. It is a form that is Hillary recommending that the girl undergo a pysch eval at the university of Arkansas on the date of Jul 31, 1975.

Now the next page, page 34, give Hillary rational for that decision. She says





I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed that she has also in the past made false accusations about persons claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.



First, no matter who told her that, she is introducing to the court her belief that this girl fantasizes about sex with older men. This wasn't a witness that she had on the stand, this is her introducing the argument. She also mention how stubborn the girl can be. You know, those stubborn twelve year olds that don't like being raped.

No where in that does she say a psychiatrist told her that. IN fact we can assume by her next paragraph that indeed this wasn't a psychiatrist that told her that.





I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families such as the complainants are even more prone to such behavior.



She directly references a psychologists here, unlike the first paragraph, implying it wasn't a psychologist that told her this. If it had been a psychiatrist or psychologist that investigated the girl and told Hillary this, why would she then ask the judge to make the girl undergo an examination?

She goes on in this document to request that she be evaluated based on the above. In other words, she has yet to be evaluated.

And here is the kicker, this document is signed July 28, 1975. Thats right, the girl was to undergo her first evaluation at the University of Arkansas on July 31 1975.

So snopes is wrong. No psychiatrist said this, she did, and then she tried to get a psychiatrist to back these claims up.

So this is proof that a psychiatrist didn't say something that Hillary didn't see coming. When Hillary brought up that this girl fantasized about older men, she hadn't even been seen by a psychiatrist yet. Not only did hillary accuse this girl of fantasizing about sex with an older man, she accused her of being stubborn when not getting her way, and forced her to relive her rape by being examined by a psychiatrist.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: LifeMode
I know this have been covered already but here is the thing; it was brought up in the debate. She never responded to it. No moderator asked her about it. It just goes away. Now, people say she was doing her job ok then. Defend it. Defend laughing about a child saying she was raped. There is no defense for laughing about it. What is so funny about it. Explain.


I'm sure there's a fact checker on her website that says it wasn't her laughing and the little girl lied, and all of these Clinton supporters eat it up as gospel. Didn't take them long to overlook the racism of Hillary, which is how obama beat her in 2008. He said she'd tell you everything you wanted to hear and do nothing about it. Little did they know he'd be exactly the same.
it was debunked years ago, no fact checker needed, stop trolling like an idiot and get educated.


The irony of that statement is almost too much... Someone sounds angry and bitter. And yes, I fully understand that you don't need a fact checker when it comes to Hillary and negativity because nothing she says or does is true if it can negatively effect her. We should always take your word, or the word of sites hillaryclinton.com or Snopes.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: RhinestoneCowboy

You might not like Snopes, I'm sure you will call it dodgy, but if you look at the citations, links and facts you will see that what you have posted is at least 80% BS with the rest of it mangling of facts.

www.snopes.com...

But of course you will just ignore that and go for the version that suits you, won't you, because facts are such a horrible thing.

I notice you don't talk about the lawsuit around Trump allegedly raping a 13 year old though. Personally I wouldn't ever assume such a heinous crime without hearing facts. It seems the lawsuit was refiled on 30th September - what do you think about such claims being thrown around?

www.snopes.com...

But then as your original OP has been the source of multiple threads, I guess you just felt the need to put your spin on it?


Why does it seem like everytime snopes is linked when I go to their own evidence it shows they are wrong.

For example, lets take one part of this snopes article. They claim Hillary never said she fantasized about having sex with older men, that was other people. BUt as a showed on another thread, the very court documents snopes links to show that is was in fact her that introduced these claims.

I will post from another thread:

I don't know how to post PDF but I will give the page numbers for you.
www.scribd.com...

Here is the site with the court documents (but you already read them so you knew that)

On page 33 it starts the beginning of the issue with her and a psychiatrist. It is a form that is Hillary recommending that the girl undergo a pysch eval at the university of Arkansas on the date of Jul 31, 1975.

Now the next page, page 34, give Hillary rational for that decision. She says





I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed that she has also in the past made false accusations about persons claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.



First, no matter who told her that, she is introducing to the court her belief that this girl fantasizes about sex with older men. This wasn't a witness that she had on the stand, this is her introducing the argument. She also mention how stubborn the girl can be. You know, those stubborn twelve year olds that don't like being raped.

No where in that does she say a psychiatrist told her that. IN fact we can assume by her next paragraph that indeed this wasn't a psychiatrist that told her that.





I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families such as the complainants are even more prone to such behavior.



She directly references a psychologists here, unlike the first paragraph, implying it wasn't a psychologist that told her this. If it had been a psychiatrist or psychologist that investigated the girl and told Hillary this, why would she then ask the judge to make the girl undergo an examination?

She goes on in this document to request that she be evaluated based on the above. In other words, she has yet to be evaluated.

And here is the kicker, this document is signed July 28, 1975. Thats right, the girl was to undergo her first evaluation at the University of Arkansas on July 31 1975.

So snopes is wrong. No psychiatrist said this, she did, and then she tried to get a psychiatrist to back these claims up.

So this is proof that a psychiatrist didn't say something that Hillary didn't see coming. When Hillary brought up that this girl fantasized about older men, she hadn't even been seen by a psychiatrist yet. Not only did hillary accuse this girl of fantasizing about sex with an older man, she accused her of being stubborn when not getting her way, and forced her to relive her rape by being examined by a psychiatrist.


Snopes should be banned just like Sorcha Faal, a liberal cess pool of distortions.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a link to a recent thread about this topic, please for the love of all that is good and grand spread your feces in this one.

A little bit of searching goes a long long way, and then we don't have to rehash battles that have already been fought.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: RhinestoneCowboy

Remember everyone: Women for Hillary: Hillary for America.

You must be referring to the "private" America, that Hillary is for, because the "public" America is deplorable!



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

Well, sticking to the op would be a start.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

So, the first screen in the youtube video being referred to suggests Hilary Clinton 'got my rapist freed'. She didn't and snopes shows through use of information that the rapist (which one? You are referring to the older man, aren't you). So, did HRC get the rapist freed? No, he made a plea bargain and got a reduced sentence. He wasn't 'freed' by HRC.

Which bit of that claim from that video are you saying is not a lie and where is snopes wrong in showing it is a lie?

For the rest of what you've put - matter of opinion really. Once you use the phrase 'we can assume' in such a case then you are following your own reasoning, taking your opinion and assumption to build your own conclusion. Nice, but that's all it is.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: RhinestoneCowboy
“He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Clinton says on the recording, failing to hold back some chuckles.

For the victim, the tapes prove that while Clinton was arguing in the affidavit that the victim could have some culpability in her own attack, she actually believed that her client was guilty.

Of course she did.


Well, as her client pleaded guilty why shouldn't she believe that?

Try reading the whole story, instead of Trump supporters lies!



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: RhinestoneCowboy

You do realize that she tried to get out of defending that individual, but she was appointed to the position, and as an attorney she has a sworn duty to do her best for her client.




top topics



 
27
<<   2 >>

log in

join