• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does this change your opinion of Hillary?

Does this change your opinion of Hillary?

  • Didn't like her before, still don't.

    Votes: 24 68.6%

  • Didn't like her before, now I do.

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Liked her before, still do.

    Votes: 4 11.4%

  • Liked her before, now I do not.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • It's a right wing conspiracy.

    Votes: 6 17.1%
  • Total voters
    35
Arbo

Arbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
10,395
Reaction score
2,744
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why Was Hillary Clinton Laughing About Helping Suspected Child Rapist? - The Daily Beast

Clinton’s client, a factory worker, was facing a 30-year prison sentence if convicted of luring the girl into his automobile, plying her with alcohol and sexually assaulting her. Instead, he was able to cop a plea, admitting to the unlawful fondling of a child, and ended up being sentenced to a year behind bars, with two months reduced for time served, the Free Beacon reported, noting that he died in 1992. At various points on the tape—which the Free Beacon says it unearthed from newly discovered archives of Clinton-related recordings housed at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville—Arkansas’ then-first lady is heard laughing about the police investigators’ incompetent mishandling of bloody underwear, potential evidence that the prosecutor was forced to discard. The interview was conducted for an Esquire magazine profile that never saw print, the Free Beacon reported.
For a former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state who touts her decades-long record of championing women and children, this snapshot of her legal career is—to put it mildly— way off-message. A Clinton spokesman offered no comment concerning the Free Beacon’s report.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not a fan of Hillary, nor her disproportionally large group of followers calling themselves leftists. Her foreign policy is dangerously hawkish, and her support for the massive bailout for the insurance industry masquerading as a welfare bill, the Affordable Care Act, is disappointing. Someone claiming to be left of center and not supporting healthcare as a right would be comical if it weren't so shameful.

This particular piece of evidence, however, is not going to change my opinion significantly. I'm not very knowledgeable on this incident, but unless further evidence is presented regarding the details of this case, I'm not convinced that this should shift my opinion.
 
Arbo said:
Why Was Hillary Clinton Laughing About Helping Suspected Child Rapist? - The Daily Beast

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Interesting story. I had never heard that.

The Free Beacon story cites a July 28, 1975 affidavit in which Clinton attacked the credibility of the young alleged victim, claiming that she was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”



Ah, so the victim deserved what she got, apparently.

She went on in the affidavit: “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 in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior.”

She added that the girl had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”



So the victim was just a little bitch?

If this was Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin or any other right-leaning woman who was caught on tape saying these things and laughing about it, the left wing media would be all over it - and would not let it go. So would NOW and advocates of rape victims.

Did I like her before? No. Do I like her less now? No, because nothing in this story surprises me. She is trash.

I hope all of the women who have already declared their support for her in 2016 are proud of defending someone who thinks rape and getting off rapists is amusing.
 
The right must really really be worried the Secretary Clinton will run for President.
 
Sababa said:
The right must really really be worried the Secretary Clinton will run for President.
Click to expand...

Spin and redirect rather than discuss the subject…
 
Arbo said:
Spin and redirect rather than discuss the subject…
Click to expand...

oh so that only works when right wingers say this. Got it.


In 1975 as a lawyer she was doing her job which is necessary by the ethics of the profession when she defended this guy. He, by rights, deserves representation. She and the reporter were laughing at the idiocy of the way the prosecution handled the evidence and also over the fact that a good defense lawyer can get anyone off. I am not certain here what the problem is, she was talking about the way things work. Tell you what, get that internet rag that once paid hookers to lie about a Senate candidate in an attempt to influence an election to post the entire interview with context.

Or I will just assume this is a hit piece designed and edited to help the sheep feel better about themselves in the their little pens.
 
Sababa said:
In 1975 as a lawyer she was doing her job which is necessary by the ethics of the profession when she defended this guy. He, by rights, deserves representation. She and the reporter were laughing at the idiocy of the way the prosecution handled the evidence and also over the fact that a good defense lawyer can get anyone off. I am not certain here what the problem is, she was talking about the way things work.
Click to expand...

Could have said that the first time. Why is drive by sniping done instead of simply responding? No need for that at all.
 
Arbo said:
Could have said that the first time. Why is drive by sniping done instead of simply responding? No need for that at all.
Click to expand...

i look forward to you calling out all the right wing sheep who do that.
 
Sababa said:
oh so that only works when right wingers say this. Got it.


In 1975 as a lawyer she was doing her job which is necessary by the ethics of the profession when she defended this guy. He, by rights, deserves representation. She and the reporter were laughing at the idiocy of the way the prosecution handled the evidence and also over the fact that a good defense lawyer can get anyone off. I am not certain here what the problem is, she was talking about the way things work. Tell you what, get that internet rag that once paid hookers to lie about a Senate candidate in an attempt to influence an election to post the entire interview with context.

Or I will just assume this is a hit piece designed and edited to help the sheep feel better about themselves in the their little pens.
Click to expand...

A hit piece?

It's nothing more than recorded conversation where the self-proclaimed champion of women and children's rights gloats about getting a guilty child rapist off. There's no real "piece" for it to be a hit piece. It's just her own recorded statements about how hilarious it is to rape girls.
 
shavingcollywob said:
A hit piece?

It's nothing more than recorded conversation where the self-proclaimed champion of women and children's rights gloats about getting a guilty child rapist off. There's no real "piece" for it to be a hit piece. It's just her own recorded statements about how hilarious it is to rape girls.
Click to expand...

She didn't gloat. I am sorry you think that since that is your bias. The hit piece is that it tells you what to think about it. It is edited so we don't have the context. Sounded to me like she was making fun of how the system works.
 
Sababa said:
She didn't gloat. I am sorry you think that since that is your bias. The hit piece is that it tells you what to think about it. It is edited so we don't have the context. Sounded to me like she was making fun of how the system works.
Click to expand...

Rapists getting off on technicalities is funny?
 
Seven people never liked her, two don't care that she's a cold, heartless old hag, and two blame Republicans; according to the current poll results, 100% of liberals are stubborn as hell!
 
Arbo said:
Why Was Hillary Clinton Laughing About Helping Suspected Child Rapist? - The Daily Beast

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

I don't think this will change anyone's minds. If you disliked Hillary before you will still dislike her now, this justs adds to the numerous reasons why you don't like her. If you are a Hillary champion, this will do nothing to change that. It will make you dig in your heels to defend her and come away that the Republicans will do anything to win. Now it may swing a few independent voters, but probably less than one percent. They don't pay attention to this stuff anyway. Most of this stuff is just inside the beltway types of things.
 
You dont have an option for me. It would be:

Havent decided about her and this story doesnt change that.
 
Sababa said:
oh so that only works when right wingers say this. Got it.


In 1975 as a lawyer she was doing her job which is necessary by the ethics of the profession when she defended this guy. He, by rights, deserves representation. She and the reporter were laughing at the idiocy of the way the prosecution handled the evidence and also over the fact that a good defense lawyer can get anyone off. I am not certain here what the problem is, she was talking about the way things work. Tell you what, get that internet rag that once paid hookers to lie about a Senate candidate in an attempt to influence an election to post the entire interview with context.

Or I will just assume this is a hit piece designed and edited to help the sheep feel better about themselves in the their little pens.
Click to expand...

Sure is funny how Hillary was "doing her job which is necessary by the ethics of the profession", but wanted to DENY Nixon HIS rights to a fair trial. I will never understand why people do not read what they write before they hit "enter". I will never understand the hypocrisy of Liberals either.
 
The wording of this article put my bull**** detector on high alert, i.e. "laughing during the interview" instead of clarifying what she was laughing at, exactly. So I decided to listen to the audio clip for myself.

1. First laughter: regarding the lie detector. She was laughing (dryly) because she believed that although the suspect most likely raped the girl, the fact that he passed sealed the deal for her that lie detectors were nonsense.
2. Second laughter: regarding sending the underwear back with the hole in it. The laughter pertained to the ridiculous claim by the prosecutor that she couldn't see the evidence.
3. Third laughter. I don't actually understand what the laughter is about here, meaning I don't understand what's funny about the "miscarriage of justice" comment. She doesn't think the case is funny, per se, as it's a grim story of a terrible crime where a guilty man might have walked simply because the evidence was hopelessly botched.
 
In many jobs, you have to emotionally detach yourself from what you're doing. I work in a medical lab, and what we call a beautiful microscope slide, is sometimes very bad for the patient.
 
In the blog's post was this telling sentence..."According to a report in the right-leaning Washington Free Beacon..." That sentence alone makes the OPINION piece suspect, imo.
 
theclown said:
In the blog's post was this telling sentence..."According to a report in the right-leaning Washington Free Beacon..." That sentence alone makes the OPINION piece suspect, imo.
Click to expand...

Yeah, suspect. Clearly all lies. Pay no attention to the tapes of Hillary, they are clearly fake. Pay no attention to the facts of the trial, that too is clearly all fake.

:lamo
 
Sababa said:
oh so that only works when right wingers say this. Got it.


In 1975 as a lawyer she was doing her job which is necessary by the ethics of the profession when she defended this guy. He, by rights, deserves representation. She and the reporter were laughing at the idiocy of the way the prosecution handled the evidence and also over the fact that a good defense lawyer can get anyone off. I am not certain here what the problem is, she was talking about the way things work. Tell you what, get that internet rag that once paid hookers to lie about a Senate candidate in an attempt to influence an election to post the entire interview with context.

Or I will just assume this is a hit piece designed and edited to help the sheep feel better about themselves in the their little pens.
Click to expand...

Actually, the OP contains a lie. Clinton did not laugh about how the prosecution mishandled the evidence. The truth is, she called is sad. She laughed about how she lost her trust of polygraphs because her client passed one, she laughed about how the blood expert she went to see lived in a "bombed-out" section of Brooklyn and worked out of a basement filled with detective magazines ("and stuff like that") and laughed about how the judge asked her to leave the courtroom while he asked the defendant a few questions because he didn't want to talk about sexual matters in the same room with a woman.

IOW, it's not just a hit piece; It's a lying hit piece

shavingcollywob said:
A hit piece?


It's nothing more than recorded conversation where the self-proclaimed champion of women and children's rights gloats about getting a guilty child rapist off. There's no real "piece" for it to be a hit piece. It's just her own recorded statements about how hilarious it is to rape girls.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is something more than a recorded conversation; It is an article that lies about what is said in that recorded conversation

Much like the way you lied about Clinton saying it was hilarious to rape girls.
 
Cardinal said:
Confused. I didn't see in that article what her laughter was directed at, precisely.
Click to expand...

If you click on the link in the OP, there's a copy of the recorded conversation on the page. Listen to it for yourself and see how Hillary does not laugh about the rape, the man getting off, or the prosecutors mishandling the evidence.

IOW, the OP is an untrue smear job
 
Arbo said:
Yeah, suspect. Clearly all lies. Pay no attention to the tapes of Hillary, they are clearly fake. Pay no attention to the facts of the trial, that too is clearly all fake.

:lamo
Click to expand...

I paid attention to the tapes, and there was nothing to indicate that the botched trial of a rapist was funny. In fact, she specifically called it sad.

Cardinal's rule of thumb: whenever your article makes the opposing side look like a puppy-eating Hitler on meth, verify the source.
 
sangha said:
If you click on the link in the OP, there's a copy of the recorded conversation on the page. Listen to it for yourself and see how Hillary does not laugh about the rape, the man getting off, or the prosecutors mishandling the evidence.

IOW, the OP is an untrue smear job
Click to expand...

When I had a few minutes I did, in fact. Not surprisingly at all, the audio didn't support the article. My suspicions lit up when the writer refused to clarify what she was laughing at, only that laughter happened during the interview.
 
Cardinal said:
Cardinal's rule of thumb:
Click to expand...

I don't need an article to know what a piece of garbage her and most other politicians are. But it's very entertaining to watch the same defenses and excuses over and over and over, from both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom