Ganji wrote:Dantares wrote:So I’m also here to support Trump. I, at 12 years old, Hillary put me through something that you would never put a 12 year old through. And she says she’s for women and children. And she was asked last year on what happened and she says she’s supposed to defend whether they did it or not and now she’s laughing on tape saying she know they did it.”
did hillary really defend a rapist and then laugh about it on tape? I want to see proof, I don't believe it.
Really have to take the whole context and the whole picture into account when looking at this particular tidbit. Now I'm no Clinton fan (not a Trump fan either)...but there are several things that, if you actually dig a little further, casts this in a completely different light than what the Trump camp is trying to portray.
1.
Clinton laughing because she "knew he (the guy she was defending) was guilty" - the laughter was an analogy used to stress her statement of "forever destroyed her faith in polygraphs" and not really at some glee she got at getting the guy off on serious charges. In other words, the implication of the laugh was that "if this guy (who was clearly guilty) was able to lie on a polygraph and pass, that polygraphs (which seem to have sold an "absolute" hold on judicial proof) are useless".
2.
That Clinton knowingly and willingly defended a guy that she knew was guilty (and took some joy or thrill from defending the guy) - she actually did try to NOT defend the guy. Mahlon Gibson, the prosecutor that was actually trying to put Clinton's client behind bars for a long time, actually himself said that Clinton came to him and asked him if he (the prosecutor) can get her (Clinton) off this case because Clinton couldn't stand the notion of defending a guy that was accused of raping a 12 year old. Again, this was from the guy on the other side that was representing the victim that said that Clinton (who represented the defendant) that Clinton tried to get out of having to take this case. Gibson said that he told Clinton to take her pleas to the judge which he said, she did, but the judge refused to excuse her from the case.
3.
Clinton (basically) winning the case as proof that Clinton was lying about her subsequent stance on women, victimization and sexual abuse - now while no one knows how serious her stance is, the notion that because Clinton managed to get her client off on all the serious charges means that she was definitely lying about her strong "pro woman" stance is just a bit ludicrous. At the end of the day, it was her job. It was a distasteful case (she even was quoted in saying it decades ago...before she had any notion of running for office...when interviewed on this) but she said it was her obligation (if she could not get out of having to defend the defendant) that she put her all into defending him. That, regardless of any and all shady things that Clinton may or may not have done since, is actually a COMMENDABLE trait isn't it? I mean would you rather that a potential future President of the US, held onto her obligations and did her job to the best of her ability or intentionally failed to perform her job because of personal (emotional) opinion?
4.
Clinton didn't have to try so hard if she really cared about the victim (or victims in general as an analogy) - actually if you do a little digging into the case, it was actually the prosecution (and some apparently bumbling and fumbling by the Arkansas legal system) that essentially handed Clinton her biggest defense (which was lack of evidence). Apparently the only physical evidence (i.e. irrefutable proof) the prosectuion had was the victims blood inside the underwear of the defendant. The problem? Apparently the forensic group cut out the ENTIRE section of the underwear that the blood was to test and then (incredulously) destroyed (or otherwise 'misplaced') that section. So Clinton took the underwear (with the big hole in it) to an "well known expert" who then basically testified that "there is no evidence" to prove that the defendant actually raped the girl. Basically the prosecution's only spot of evidence was gone. Any semi skilled lawyer would have been able to do this. What she did was basically Criminal Defense 101. She didn't pull something extra magical out of her bag. Would you rather than she didn't bother using that to defend her client? That she intentionally with hold that from trial...and essentially fail to do her job as a defense attorney? What's to stop her then from failing to do the job of the President of the US?
Now I'm sure that Clinton knew the guy was guilty but it's not actually uncommon for defense lawyers to defend people that they know are guilty...believe it or not...as distasteful as it may seem. And the laughing wasn't at the victim or at some glee that she managed to get the guy off...it was at the inadequacies of the system which basically handed her the ability to get this guy off despite what common sense would say (i.e. that he was guilty).
Again, this doesn't mean that Clinton is a saint herself (I would expect she has more cobwebs in her closet than we know) or that she's any better an option for President than Trump but the way that this case is being presented is just more political spinning hoping to get people that really doesn't care for the actual truth to believe in their version of the truth. It's why you have to take everything that is coming out of both sides of this race with huge grains of salt. It's also why if you really are offended by what each side is portraying the other side as, that you do some digging to make sure that you get the fact and cull out the fiction.
RIP mags
