"Bill Clinton is a rapist!" yelled at Bill Clinton event

[mmm 879]

2 minutes ago, calmar said:

It's really shocking and disgusting, but it's how being a lawyer works in the United States - neither as a prosecutor nor as a defendant do you choose who you represent. You do cases for payment; it's your job. The 1975 case of Thomas Alfred Taylor likely did have her ask at least once to not do the job, but because the judge presiding over the case did not let her, she did her job professionally, which, naturally, takes a good amount of swallowing one's ethics and morals I personally do not think I am capable of doing, especially in that specific case.

I did not know that but still she should have done something to not take the case regardless of the consequences but if she still wants her job, she should take the case and look at it and if the evidence shows that she was a victim, she should only present the facts which will help the girl or atleast not have the evidence disappear. She even made fun and laughed at the girl! If she is willing to make a rape child victim suffer so she can keep her job, what is she willing to do to keep this job?

[calmar 22,802]

6 minutes ago, Fay said:

 She even made fun and laughed at the girl! 

I am not sure if this is the exact tape that the Trump campaign (among others) are using to lambaste Clinton on, but here you can listen to Clinton discussing the 1975 trial with laughter interspersed in, courtesy of the University of Arkansas Special Collections Department. At no point is the victim laughed at, but rather some of the odd circumstances about how the case played out.

It's pretty obvious that if Clinton did her job well, allowing her to keep food on the table for herself, the poor 12 year old girl would get traumatized by the experience of not only rape but the whole criminal justice system going against her; but it would not represent a personal glee on Clinton's part, or a vendetta. The world is simply a wretched place. 

[Leaf 2,429]

[Whispering 18,865]

12 hours ago, Fay said:

I did not know that but still she should have done something to not take the case regardless of the consequences but if she still wants her job, she should take the case and look at it and if the evidence shows that she was a victim, she should only present the facts which will help the girl or atleast not have the evidence disappear. She even made fun and laughed at the girl! If she is willing to make a rape child victim suffer so she can keep her job, what is she willing to do to keep this job?

No, she could not have done anything to get out of the job. Public defenders advocate and fight for their client, even if they are guilty or they suspect them to be. It would be against the law and unethical for a Public Defender to try to throw the case. That's not how our justice system works! 

For someone who is always claiming to "know more" than those who are actually citizens of the US, you don't even understand the very basic tenants of our justice system. 

Also, Hillary did NOT make fun of or laugh at the victim. Look up the truth on Politico, Snopes of The NY Times. They all debunked this BS lie being passed around by all the alt right conspiracy nut cases and the deplorables. 

[Leaf 2,429]

Trump may have talked vulgar in private, in a locker room but he has never raped or molested any woman. Bill Clinton has. He was also impeached for lying under oath (perjury) in front of a grand jury, and for obstructing justice.

[Sizzily 14,571]

Not very TIHTY #ItsOnUs

[mmm 879]

2 minutes ago, calmar said:

It's pretty obvious that if Clinton did her job well, allowing her to keep food on the table for herself, the poor 12 year old girl would get traumatized by the experience of not only rape but the whole criminal justice system going against her; but it would not represent a personal glee on Clinton's part, or a vendetta. The world is simply a wretched place. 

I cant comprehend or understand where you are coming from.. when I do something horrible, I do not blame it on the world even if the system pressured me to do it. At the end of the day, you can have the choice of being poor instead of attacking a child victim of pedophilia and I think only a psychopath would choose to attack the rape victim. We should have principles and values we strongly hold to the point of dying because of it instead of being sheeps to the system and blame it for our choices and mistakes.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Whispering said:

No, she could not have done anything to get out of the job. Public defenders advocate and fight for their client, even if they are guilty or they suspect them to be. It would be against the law and unethical for a Public Defender to try to throw the case. That's not how our justice system works! 

For someone who is always claiming to "know more" than those who are actually citizens of the US, you don't even understand the very basic tenants of our justice system. 

Also, Hillary did NOT make fun of of laugh at the victim. Look up the truth on Politico, Snopes of The NY Times. They all debunked this BS lie being passed around by all the alt right conspiracy nut cases and the deplorables. 

Me not understanding the justice system is not a problem.. debates and arguments like this makes us learn about new things thats the point of debating an opposing side unlike arguments that tells me I should shut up based on my nationality which leads to nowhere. I always talk on the perspective of morality and not politics so me not knowing something about the US is still invalid. My point that is based on morality still stands as she can quit her job regardless of consequences or she could even make her case look week to defend or atleast help the girl.

[Whispering 18,865]

 

9 minutes ago, Fay said:

Me not understanding the justice system is not a problem.. debates and arguments like this makes us learn about new things thats the point of debating an opposing side unlike arguments that tells me I should shut up based on my nationality which leads to nowhere. I always talk on the perspective of morality and not politics so me not knowing something about the US is still invalid. My point that is based on morality still stands as she can quit her job regardless of consequences or she could even make her case look week to defend or atleast help the girl.

It is a problem if you are passing along strong opinions and judgements based on little to no knowledge. 

 In this country, every citizen has a right to a trial and legal representation. People who appear guilty sometimes aren't. They have every right to a fair trial and a public defense. The burden is on the prosecution and the court to prove someone is guilty of a crime. 

Maybe your country has a different way to prosecute criminals, but in the US, it works this way because someone us presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 

No, Public Defenders cannot "make their case weak". Hillary did exactly what was legal, ethical and fair. 

 You really don't get it. 

[Leaf 2,429]

Appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged illegal and unethical acts of Ms Clinton is sound reasoning re the evidence made public.

 

[mmm 879]

7 minutes ago, Whispering said:

It is a problem if you are passing along strong opinions and judgements based on little to no knowledge. 

In this country, every citizen has a right to a trial and legal representation. People who appear guilty sometimes aren't. They have every right to a fair trial and a public defense. The burden is on the prosecution and the court to prove someone is guilty of a crime. 

Maybe your country has a different way to prosecute criminals, but in the US, it works this way because someone us presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 

No, Public Defenders cannot "make their case weak". Hillary did exactly what was legal, ethical and fair. 

 You really don't get it. 

My new point after I was given new information from you and others about the system is that Hilary could do something to not get involved in all this. If Hilary did not hide the evidence and did not do a great job defending him, he could have lost the case. She can even quit her job and deal with the consequences of quitting her job instead of defending a rapist pedophile.

Me not knowing something about your system is not a problem because I am passing judgment only on the information I know and put it in public space where everyone can correct me.. after I am corrected with a new information and its proven, I use that information in my next argument. That is the point of debating, debating is not about trying to mock the other to prove you are right like what you constantly keep doing and using my nationality to make me look stupid. You refuse to acknowledge my argument or that I took your new information into perspective and instead want to try to make fun of me for not having enough information.

If you dont give a valid respond to my argument, this debate will continue in circles with no end so ill just ignore you until you provide a valid argument to my comment.

[Whispering 18,865]

8 minutes ago, Fay said:

My new point after I was given new information from you and others about the system is that Hilary could do something to not get involved in all this. If Hilary did not hide the evidence and did not do a great job defending him, he could have lost the case. She can even quit her job and deal with the consequences of quitting her job instead of defending a rapist pedophile.

Me not knowing something about your system is not a problem because I am passing judgment only on the information I know and put it in public space where everyone can correct me.. after I am corrected with a new information and its proven, I use that information in my next argument. That is the point of debating, debating is not about trying to mock the other to prove you are right like what you constantly keep doing and using my nationality to make me look stupid. You refuse to acknowledge my argument or that I took your new information into perspective and instead want to try to make fun of me for not having enough information.

If you dont give a valid respond to my argument, this debate will continue in circles with no end so ill just ignore you until you provide a valid argument to my comment.

No, Hillary could not "do something to avoid the case or undermine the case". She was a Public Defender and that was one of the cases she was given by the state judicial department. Public Defenders don't quit their job because they are given a guilty person to defend. That would mean that no one would be available to guarantee a fair trial for all. If a PD tries to throw a case, they will be disbarred and possibly charged with a crime. It is against the law and completely unethical to try and throw a case. 

Now you have new information, so now you know how the judicial system works in the US. 

If you still don't understand these basics of the US Justice System, try googling "Judicial System in the US" "The role of Public Defenders" "Why do the guilty get a trial", etc. 

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, Leaf said:

Appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the alleged illegal and unethical acts of Ms Clinton is sound reasoning re the evidence made public.

 

Actually, it would be illegal. Since Watergate, presidents do not have the power to appoint special prosecutors or independent counsels.

Once again, Trump proves he has just the opposite of sound reasoning. His reasoning is based on ignorance. 

[PartySick 173,478]

1 hour ago, Leaf said:

Trump may have talked vulgar in private, in a locker room but he has never raped or molested any woman. Bill Clinton has.

Ehhhh....

His first wife said he raped her, a woman in 1997 filed a sexual assault suit against him, and he goes to trial this year (unless that's changed since the last time I checked) for holding a 13 year old girl as a sex slave with another notorious pedophile billionaire, Jeffrey Epstein.

Of course, accusations are accusations and that's exactly what's brought against Bill.

Spoiler

If you asked Trump before this election, he would've defended Bill too.

If this issue alone decided my vote, I'd give my vote to the woman that did her job as a public defense attorney and has an alleged rapist for a husband than an alleged rapist/pedophile.

But hey, that's just me.

[Leaf 2,429]

Just now, Whispering said:

Actually, it would be illegal. Since Watergate, presidents do not have the power to appoint special prosecutors or independent counsels.

Once again, Trump proves he has just the opposite of sound reasoning. His reasoning is based on ignorance. 

"Well, when the secretary does it, that means it is not illegal."

[Whispering 18,865]

1 minute ago, Leaf said:

"Well, when the secretary does it, that means it is not illegal."

That has nothing to do with your comment or my reply and makes zero sense. You threw out something you thought sounded legit, but it was the complete opposite.