Author Topic: The Real Hillary Clinton.  (Read 1206 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1931
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2016, 11:37:30 AM »
Do you really seriously believe most Barristers or other defense council aren't aware of their clients guilt or innocence ?

Pull the other one.

The point you are missing everyine is: She KNEW her client was guilty she could have advised him to plead guilty, or proved him innocent which she couldn't do. So for one upmanship she turned a little girl of 12 into a willing participant, humiliating her and rejoicing when she 'won' her guilty clients freedom, destroyed a childs life! You serioulsy think this woman is fit to claim she is for womens rights?  like seriously? AND we can't be sure about her coverups of her husbands 'womanising'. I certainly question that. She doesn't care who she tramples on as lomng as she gets things done her way!

Offline Carana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9354
  • Newbie
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2016, 12:19:25 PM »
The point you are missing everyine is: She KNEW her client was guilty she could have advised him to plead guilty, or proved him innocent which she couldn't do. So for one upmanship she turned a little girl of 12 into a willing participant, humiliating her and rejoicing when she 'won' her guilty clients freedom, destroyed a childs life! You serioulsy think this woman is fit to claim she is for womens rights?  like seriously? AND we can't be sure about her coverups of her husbands 'womanising'. I certainly question that. She doesn't care who she tramples on as lomng as she gets things done her way!

I think it might be worthwhile re-reading JP's comment on this.

Everyone in a democratic judicial system has a right to a fair trial.

Without a fair and adequate defence, we'd be back to the Middle Ages.

From what I've been able to find, she didn't KNOW (in the sense of having clear proof) that he was guilty as charged. She SUSPECTED that he was.

She said that he denied it. (Some people do falsely accuse others of crimes that they hadn't, in fact, committed, either because it never happened, or because the victim was mistaken in the identity of the perp.)

In view of his denial, and despite her suspicions, the only recourse open was to pursue the line of defence that he was innocent, and that means questioning whether the girl's account was beyond doubt.

The other line of defence was to have a second opinion on the underpants. If the result of a second opinion requested by the defence was that whatever had been found clearly corroborated the result found by the prosecution's analysis, then the defence lawyer can present the results to the client and go from there. As in "Anything you want to tell me about this?"

If the defence results had shown that the defendant couldn't have been the person in question, then the prosecution fails, obviously, and the prosecution would need to keep searching for a different perp, or indeed question whether the alleged victim had been telling the truth.

The other option, if the perp finally admits that he / she was indeed guilty, is to admit to the crime committed, but present potentially mitigating circumstances: diminished responsibility at the time of the events, proof of heartfelt remorse, abusive childhood, or whatever.

One of the problems in this case is that the forensic lab (whose service had been requested by the prosecution)had discarded / thrown away / couldn't find the crucial part of the underpants that could have been retested for a second opinion.

Offline Carana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9354
  • Newbie
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2016, 12:28:28 PM »
Any lawyer who knowingly represents a guilty party should be struck off IMHO.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Offline stephen25000

  • Veteran Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18154
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2016, 12:39:32 PM »
The point you are missing everyine is: She KNEW her client was guilty she could have advised him to plead guilty, or proved him innocent which she couldn't do. So for one upmanship she turned a little girl of 12 into a willing participant, humiliating her and rejoicing when she 'won' her guilty clients freedom, destroyed a childs life! You serioulsy think this woman is fit to claim she is for womens rights?  like seriously? AND we can't be sure about her coverups of her husbands 'womanising'. I certainly question that. She doesn't care who she tramples on as lomng as she gets things done her way!

You are allowing your hatred for Clinton to cloud your judgement

I can't stand her, but she did what other lawyers would have done, and don't deceive yourself otherwise.

Meanwhile , how do you view Trump's indictment for the rape of a 13 y.o. girl ?
The McCanns were solely responsible for their childcare arrangements and there is no one else to blame.

S and S, two more amateurs making money from a disappeared child, and clearly without a clue.

Offline Carana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9354
  • Newbie
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2016, 12:44:16 PM »
Not everyone suspected of having done something reprehensible is necessarily the guilty party. There can sometimes be a mistake over identity, for example.

What are your thoughts on this, Miss Taken Identity?



Offline Miss Taken Identity

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1931
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2016, 01:00:41 PM »
I think it might be worthwhile re-reading JP's comment on this.

Everyone in a democratic judicial system has a right to a fair trial.

Without a fair and adequate defence, we'd be back to the Middle Ages.

From what I've been able to find, she didn't KNOW (in the sense of having clear proof) that he was guilty as charged. She SUSPECTED that he was.

She said that he denied it. (Some people do falsely accuse others of crimes that they hadn't, in fact, committed, either because it never happened, or because the victim was mistaken in the identity of the perp.)

In view of his denial, and despite her suspicions, the only recourse open was to pursue the line of defence that he was innocent, and that means questioning whether the girl's account was beyond doubt.

The other line of defence was to have a second opinion on the underpants. If the result of a second opinion requested by the defence was that whatever had been found clearly corroborated the result found by the prosecution's analysis, then the defence lawyer can present the results to the client and go from there. As in "Anything you want to tell me about this?"

If the defence results had shown that the defendant couldn't have been the person in question, then the prosecution fails, obviously, and the prosecution would need to keep searching for a different perp, or indeed question whether the alleged victim had been telling the truth.

The other option, if the perp finally admits that he / she was indeed guilty, is to admit to the crime committed, but present potentially mitigating circumstances: diminished responsibility at the time of the events, proof of heartfelt remorse, abusive childhood, or whatever.

One of the problems in this case is that the forensic lab (whose service had been requested by the prosecution)had discarded / thrown away / couldn't find the crucial part of the underpants that could have been retested for a second opinion.

Everyone in a democratic judicial system has a right to a fair trial.

Without a fair and adequate defence, we'd be back to the Middle Ages.


We already are back there and have been for many a millenium with regards to the rights of victims who seem to have no rights not even to the courtisey of dignity, at the expense of the defendant.

Suspecting he was guilty is a play on words; IF he was innocent it would  an open and shut case and IF she was a great lawyer as she was gagging to prove herself- she would have got him off.


and that means questioning whether the girl's account was beyond doubt.

So, pray tell what was his defence? ( the one where the defendant didn't need to prove beyond doubt) she was begging for it? she threw herself at me? she was teasing me knowing I would take her? We were secret lovers and she was a wiling participant?

Joy, joy oh what joy He got off. let's all laugh ,smirk, giggle


Offline Carana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9354
  • Newbie
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2016, 01:11:00 PM »
Everyone in a democratic judicial system has a right to a fair trial.

Without a fair and adequate defence, we'd be back to the Middle Ages.


We already are back there and have been for many a millenium with regards to the rights of victims who seem to have no rights not even to the courtisey of dignity, at the expense of the defendant.

Suspecting he was guilty is a play on words; IF he was innocent it would  an open and shut case and IF she was a great lawyer as she was gagging to prove herself- she would have got him off.


and that means questioning whether the girl's account was beyond doubt.

So, pray tell what was his defence? ( the one where the defendant didn't need to prove beyond doubt) she was begging for it? she threw herself at me? she was teasing me knowing I would take her? We were secret lovers and she was a wiling participant?

Joy, joy oh what joy He got off. let's all laugh ,smirk, giggle

He got a 1-year sentence. If the forensic lab hadn't lost the forensic evidence, perhaps he'd still be in jail.

Offline Carana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9354
  • Newbie
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2016, 01:14:15 PM »
I don't understand. Are you saying that people SHOULDN'T have the right to a fair trial?

Offline Miss Taken Identity

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1931
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2016, 01:15:58 PM »
He got a 1-year sentence. If the forensic lab hadn't lost the forensic evidence, perhaps he'd still be in jail.

Having sex with a minor.  1 year.  hmm

Offline Carana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9354
  • Newbie
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2016, 01:20:53 PM »
Having sex with a minor.  1 year.  hmm

That's not the issue. This wasn't consensual sex between teenagers. But the prosecution somehow lost the forensic evidence.

The chain of evidence is important.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1931
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #25 on: October 30, 2016, 01:26:34 PM »
You are allowing your hatred for Clinton to cloud your judgement

I can't stand her, but she did what other lawyers would have done, and don't deceive yourself otherwise.

Meanwhile , how do you view Trump's indictment for the rape of a 13 y.o. girl ?
[/quote

I am not deceiving myself at all, I am forcing the issue of someone who has close links to the law makers, a Lawyer claiming to be a hero for the women who quite blatanlty is self serving in her claims. Do many lawyers rejoice and brag they got a rapist off? I just wonder if it were her own 12 year old daughter if she would have gone at her with the same indefference? Hmm no didn't think so.

how do you view Trump's indictment for the rape of a 13 y.o. girl ?

I am surprised you ask me to comment as you, with others are quite adamant that the law should prevail, so even if he is guilty then so what? He  sould be defended or we go back to middle ages... Maybe the girl is lying, maybe it is a case of mistaken identity like Carana said... who knows?

Now if  you change that question to: what do you think about his sentence after a 13 yearold was grilled, knowing he was guilty his lawyer got him off with it and he is rejoycing. The I would reply with he self same reply to what Clinton did. BUt then you and Carana would tell me I was wrong so...

Offline Carana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9354
  • Newbie
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #26 on: October 30, 2016, 01:33:19 PM »
There are many victims of abuse as children, adolescents or even adults who shy away from public scrutiny at the prospect of a trial. It's a hard decision to take.

Not everyone can bring a cast-iron proof case against their abusers.

Nor, presumably, is every victim willing to have their entire past history scrutinised. Not even by journalists bound by court-room ethics, let alone by social media.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1931
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #27 on: October 30, 2016, 02:10:04 PM »
I don't understand. Are you saying that people SHOULDN'T have the right to a fair trial?

we both have differing views on what a fair trial is, and the duties and responsibilities are.

As far as I am aware a child of 12 was raped, she accuses the man, The lawyer,claiming to be a great president candidate and hero of womens rights- berates a child knowing full well the child has been violated and then is joyous at getting her client off because she used the childs psychological trauma as her defence and NOT proving his innocence by other means. That is not justice and those who live by that  are in denial of the true meaning of a fair trial.
Next we will hear  prostitues deserved to be raped... OR women with short skirts deserve to be groped by any passing male.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1931
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #28 on: October 30, 2016, 02:14:34 PM »
That's not the issue. This wasn't consensual sex between teenagers. But the prosecution somehow lost the forensic evidence.

The chain of evidence is important.

Indeed it is.  The child was raped and subjected to a second humiliation by Mrs President.

Offline stephen25000

  • Veteran Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18154
Re: The Real Hillary Clinton.
« Reply #29 on: October 30, 2016, 02:40:06 PM »
You are allowing your hatred for Clinton to cloud your judgement

I can't stand her, but she did what other lawyers would have done, and don't deceive yourself otherwise.

Meanwhile , how do you view Trump's indictment for the rape of a 13 y.o. girl ?
[/quote

I am not deceiving myself at all, I am forcing the issue of someone who has close links to the law makers, a Lawyer claiming to be a hero for the women who quite blatanlty is self serving in her claims. Do many lawyers rejoice and brag they got a rapist off? I just wonder if it were her own 12 year old daughter if she would have gone at her with the same indefference? Hmm no didn't think so.

how do you view Trump's indictment for the rape of a 13 y.o. girl ?

I am surprised you ask me to comment as you, with others are quite adamant that the law should prevail, so even if he is guilty then so what? He  sould be defended or we go back to middle ages... Maybe the girl is lying, maybe it is a case of mistaken identity like Carana said... who knows?

Now if  you change that question to: what do you think about his sentence after a 13 yearold was grilled, knowing he was guilty his lawyer got him off with it and he is rejoycing. The I would reply with he self same reply to what Clinton did. BUt then you and Carana would tell me I was wrong so...




My point is evidently obvious.

Neither should be up as candidates for a presidential election.

Don't you agree ?
The McCanns were solely responsible for their childcare arrangements and there is no one else to blame.

S and S, two more amateurs making money from a disappeared child, and clearly without a clue.