- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,665
- Reaction score
- 29,977
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Ok, how about backing off from the disingenuous misstatement of what you know I, in fact, did say, rogue.
By the simple fact that you got it right the first time... one has to wonder, why did you then change the phrasing? I said, and you quoted me:
"Besides that, the article confirms that she allowed a false claim to be put forward by her paid psychologist making up a story about the young girl fantasizing about seeking out older adult males and making false allegations about being attacked.".
Confirm = establish the truth or correctness of (something previously believed, suspected, or feared to be the case).
I did not say it will confirm for you, I said it confirms. I had already read the WP article and so the snopes article confirmed to me that the affidavit alluding to the fact Clinton, or team Clinton on this case, made the assertion that the young 12 fantasized about older men and had made accusations of attacks on her body. This an unfounded, from what I can determine, claim. And if she, or her team, made it up out of whole cloth, which it seems she did, this was beyond unnecessary, is in fact an egregious step for any lawyer to take, much less for a woman lawyer purporting to be concerned with the rights and protections of females in general.
It might certainly have been a method used in the 70s... but it is based upon a lie, it had no foundation in truth or fact and so could not be "expected to be done". If based on no facts, no reason to use such an ugly tactic in this particular case against a 12 year old girl. An upstanding lawyer simply would not do such a thing. Even if you have cases of generally respected lawyers doing so, it would only serve to inform me that they do not deserve to be respected. Sorry, one cannot, or rather should not, state things one knows are false just to get your client a lenient sentence.
As to snopes and what it did and did not do, I was, in my post to another enabler of men taking advantage of women and so no friend to women, only saying it may have somewhat cleared up the matter of her laughing at the case vs laughing at the girl in the case, but it does not show that Hillary as anything but a lawyer winning at any cost and in not in any particular manner doing what was right and proper, doing anything to make sure that the innocent females were not at least minimally protected and respected... this was more to help Hillary than to stand up for what is right and good, female, male or otherwise.
Except it didn't confirm that since there was nothing false there. It may have been unethical or wrong to do, but you can't show that the statement is false.
You really have no clue on how the law works. A good lawyer tries to provide the best case for their client regardless of their feelings. Being a lawyer is not easy, many can't do it because in order to be good at defending people, you are going to have to compromise your ethics.
And no she didn't laugh at the case or the girl, but rather some few aspects of the case. There is a difference.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk