Rape victim to Hillary: You lied about me.

a reply to: burntheships

As usual, you're offering your own interpretation of the facts as "evidence."

First of all, trust that I will remind you in the future that you use CNN as a reference when you think it suits you.

But, let's start there ... from your article's author states quite clearly:

I was beginning my legal career as a prosecutor in New York during this time and it is clear to me that Clinton's legal tactics were quite consistent with those used by experienced and ethical defense attorneys of that era.

So, your source states clearly that Clinton's actions were ethical for the defense attorney's of the time. Should we stop there?

No. Let's get to the meat of your ironic claim. Your quote backs up EXACTLY what I said. Clinton, in filing an affidavit to bring expert testimony into the case, had been informed by a child psychologist that Kathy had previous issues.

So, your quote, minus your spurious attempt to spin it, actually says the same thing I said.

One more thing before we leave your CNN reference:

In listening to the tape, it is apparent to me that Clinton was not laughing about getting a man accused of rape off the hook, but rather at the ineptness of the prosecutors. On tape, she may also have been struggling to bond with the reporter, who often initiates the laughter. This type of shoptalk and gallows humor often takes place behind closed doors among criminal lawyers and prosecutors.

Hmmm. That actually sounds familiar. I think someone said something very much like that in this thread.

Now, let's look at a copy of the actual affidavit in question, rather than paraphrasing it for our our purposes, shall we?



Source

So, we can see the facts of the matter. Clinton did not falsely accuse Kathy Shelton of being a "promiscuous little Lolita" as some of you keep trying to portray it as. Look at the document: she is filing an affidavit relating what she was told as the basis to GET AN EXPERT involved in the case. That expert's testimony was entered into the record of the case, NOT Clinton's affidavit (except for the record). Clinton could not have "testified" against Shelton; I would think that would be obvious.

She's doing her job. She's working to get the best facts available entered into the record. If she hadn't, Taylor could have gotten a mistrial and would have gotten off any way. Of course, that doesn't serve the agenda at play here, so you all conveniently ignore that fact.

She didn't destroy crucial evidence (that was the police investigating the crime).

She didn't force acceptance of the plea deal (that was the mother.) (By the way, in 1970 and today, about 97% of rape cases are pled out for various reasons, usually to attempt to spare the victims involved, if that's important to you at all.)

She didn't let the rapist Taylor off for 2 mos time served (that was the Judge.)

So, no, it's not a matter of HIllary's opinion at all. You're either mistaken or you're misrepresenting the facts.

Hillary Clinton defended a child rapist - Check

Hillary Clinton defended her husband after he used a 22 year
old intern in the Oval Office for cheap thrills. - Check

Hillary Clinton worked with Bill Clinton to "destroy" the
women who dared to tell the truth about him - Check

originally posted by: burntheships
Hillary Clinton defended a child rapist - Check

Hillary Clinton defended her husband after he used a 22 year
old intern in the Oval Office for cheap thrills. - Check

Hillary Clinton worked with Bill Clinton to "destroy" the
women who dared to tell the truth about him - Check

Hillary Clinton was assigned to defend a child rapist. CHECK

Hillary Clinton was faithful to her marriage and overcame her husband's infidelity. CHECK

Hillary Clinton defends her family just as any of us would do. CHECK


BurnTheShips is desperately flinging any old debunked conspiracy theories at the wall to see what will stick because they just got their previous claim ripped to shreds by the facts.

CHECK.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Perhaps you'll explain what that has to do with sentencing a man to 2 months incarceration for raping a child.

A Clinton campaign donor appoints Bill's girlfriend to a case where evidence was destroyed and a child rapist walks away with a slap on the wrist, yet that doesn't raise any red flags for you?

You apparently don't read your own sources well. Judge Maupin was NOT Clinton's first "campaign donor" ... his son was. $400. LOL ... and your own article notes that the son was literally the FIRST Campaign donor in a Congressional race that Bill lost in 1974.

Let me guess ... this was all part of a deep conspiracy by people to put 2 Clintons in the White House starting in 1974.

Right? Or maybe you could stop the drama and tell us what red flags does it raise for you, chief?

It means that at the very least that his family had actively contributed money to the clintons and were close enough to be the very first donors to their campaign. But if you want to imply that cronyism doesn't exist by appealing to ridicule and plausible deniability then i suppose we are at a fundamental impasse in this discussion.

originally posted by: soulwaxer
Here is a story about a 12-year-old rape victim. She was raped by a 41-year-old man who had Hillary Clinton as his defence lawyer. This man beat and raped a virgin 12-year-old resulting in a 5-day coma, months of rehabilitation, 10 years of therapy, and never able to have children. (see her thrashed body in the video).

Hillary used every trick in the book to get the rapist off, for example:
- The girl was into older men. (at 12 years old...)
- She had rape fantasies. (at 12 years old...)
The rape apparently wasn't humiliating enough to the girl.

She got him off with only 2 months in a county jail. Then bragged and laughed about it (audio in the video). This is painfully reminiscent of her bragging and laughing about Khadaffi's brutal murder (“We came… we saw… he died! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!”).

In the mean time, Hillary likes to pride herself on her defence of women’s rights.

Anyone who has seen this side (the one behind the mask) of Hillary, and still votes for her, is just as much of an enabler as she is and deserves everything coming to them if she wins.

Now, I'm curious to see who of you is going to defend Hillary on this one.

soulwaxer

This is probably nitpicking, but the reason her being a Virgin wasn't allowed as evidence and the reason it is in poor taste that you mention it here is that it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if she was a virgin or not, It wouldn't make it more acceptable if she wasn't a Virgin or less acceptable that she was a Virgin.

Kidnapping, Assault, and Rape are Kidnapping, Assault, and Rape regardless of whether or not she was a Virgin. I understand you will argue that the defense made claims, but whether or not she was a Virgin was still irrelevant. To even mention it is showing you are trying to manipulate emotions. It is not necessary, it and she and he are deplorable enough without it. This isn't a court of law and there will be no trial. Defense lawyers do terrible things every single day, sometimes they are worth it and sometimes they aren't (thats for the attorney and client to decide).

If he would have had a public defender they would have done the exact same thing. If Hillary didn't try to defend her client he could have possibly called for a mistrial or new trial due to insufficient representation. As terrible as it was that the child had to go through that, it was most likely going to happen no matter what. And it was possibly necessary to make sure that her tormentor didn't just get off completely.

That doesn't excuse HRC flippant attitude about it at all, or make her less despicable for that flippant attitude but I don't know that it is as damning as you think it might be. At least for anyone willing to think critically, and they already knew what she was to begin with.

Thats my opinion at least.

a reply to: DeathShield

We aren't at any sort of impasse in this discussion, unless you just want to make your declaration and not correspond (by the way, was I talking to you with my statement? Are you Bone75? Your reference to me seems kinda strange if not ... at any rate: )

Feel free to explain how the fact that the son of the judge in this 1975 rape case had given $400 to the failed Congressional campaign of Bill Clinton (who wasn't married to Hillary Rodham at that point) a year before this case (1974) somehow contributes to proving that Hillary acted inappropriately in her first defense case.

I'll be glad to see your argument.

a reply to: sputniksteve

Cogent, clear and factually-based.

A very welcome breath of fresh air in this thread: thank you from one member!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: sputniksteve

Cogent, clear and factually-based.

A very welcome breath of fresh air in this thread: thank you from one member!

I am embarrassed now that I didn't first check to see if she was in fact a public defender required to represent him, which I see after reading the thread was done. It is really silly that all of these people so upset saying she should have just shown up and not done her job don't realize that would have actually worked even more to his benefit.

I don't know why I even bother with these political threads. I won't be voting regardless but as soon as you try and be logical about either one you are all of the sudden in love with the opposite one. People refuse to believe that there can be anyone that feels the same way about both of them. Like you can't be neutral, if you hate HRC you have to love Trump or if you hate Trump you have to love HRC.

It is really disgusting how these people allow themselves to be manipulated. I wish we could all just grow up finally and stop playing this stupid game. Just gross.

a reply to: sputniksteve

Agreed on all points. (I figured you'd pick up on the Public Defender thing, )

It isn't the opinions on the subject (Clinton) that bother me so much ... it's the poor thought processes, fallacious logic and reality-denial it takes to get one there.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Clinton, in filing an affidavit to bring expert testimony into the case, had been informed by a child psychologist that Kathy had previous issues.

This is actually only your opinion, in truth the fact is the "psych report" has no
name included, it is only HR's word, her word which is worthless.

Your link unmasked. huh? what kind of a source is that???

www.ifyouonlynews.com...

By the way I would never click on one of your odd non vetted sources,
they carry cooties.

Bottom line, Clinton used her own word in the affidavit to get the rapist
off, there was no report done at the time of the affidavit, otherwise
there would be a psych's name attached, which there is none.


How telling it is you start yelling when proven wrong, big type and all.

a reply to: burntheships

LOL ... I posted the actual affidavit from the link; sources are required - you're not required to click on them.

Folks can read that and see the truth.

You started with the all caps, dear, not me. I see you haven't figured out the pot/kettle thing yet.

Clinton didn't "get the rapist off," for the 57th time. He was convicted. The judge let him go with time served.

You don't even seem to understand the basic facts of the case.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Clinton, in filing an affidavit to bring expert testimony into the case, had been informed by a child psychologist that Kathy had previous issues.

This is actually only your opinion, in truth the fact it the psych report has no
name included, it is only HR's word, her word which is worthless.

Your link unmasked. huh? what kind of a source is that???

www.ifyouonlynews.com...

By the way I would never click on one of your odd non vetted sources,
they carry cooties.

Bottom line, Clinton used her own word in the affidavit to get the rapist
off, there was no report done at the time of the affidavit, otherwise
there would be a psych's name attached, which there is none.


How telling it is you start yelling when proven wrong, big type and all.

Capitalizing the word CHECK at the end of a non capitalized sentence is Yelling?

Just out of curiosity, in a perfect world where you personally can rewind time what is it you would like to see happen? Is it just "someone else" defended him? Would you have somehow made her ignore the requirement to defend him or would you somehow convince the judge to appoint a different attorney?

I won't be voting for either Trump or Hillary. I won't be voting at all. I have no skin in the game. Having said that since I don't understand the manufactured outrage lets pretend it's justified, what is it that you would like to have been done different or what could be done now to appease you?

**edit** Because I am now laughing at the thought of Gryphon sitting at home politely reading each sentence then screaming CHECK then politely reading sentence the screaming CHECK, etc. Oh boy ATS is a hoot.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks Gryphon.

. . . sadly, the right-wing in this country tends to favor the rapists rather than the victims.

I don't see how your statement follows from the links you provided. The quotes are clearly anti abortion; even in the case of rape, a situation were I lean towards pro-choice, some I'd agree are callous and ignorant, but I don't see how they demonstrate a tendency to "favor the rapists rather than the victims" Looks like the equivalent of something like 2 + 2 = 7 to me.

Regarding the rest of the thread, I think the case could legitimately raise questions about Hillary's commitment to women's issues. But only questions, not proof she's not a genuine advocate for women's issues. She was a lawyer doing what the law required of her and it was a long time ago. I don't see her taking office and making it harder to get convictions in rape cases or advocating for lighter sentences in the case of rape, you know, unless the rapist is a friend of hers, or pays her a lot of money, or controls a large voting block.

Anyway, I do get the sense that the woman in the video is being "used" for political purposes and it's utterly distasteful.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

LOL ... I posted the actual affidavit from the link; sources are required - you're not required to click on them.

Folks can read that and see the truth.

I have never heard of that internet site, does it belong to
Correct The Record? Or a related Hillary site perhaps?

In any case, if you wish to stand by your assertion that is
real, please everyone take note that there is no psychologist
report cited, no quotes from it, no psychologists name.

Again, it is only the word of then Hillary Rodham,
working hard to get a child rapist free who also violently
beat the young girl. Now notice there is nothing in the
report at all about how 12 year old girls like to be
violently beaten?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Hillary Clinton was assigned to defend a child rapist. CHECK

Hillary Clinton was faithful to her marriage and overcame her husband's infidelity. CHECK

Hillary Clinton defends her family just as any of us would do. CHECK

I posted this on another similar thread, but it still remains true.

The reality is that Hillary turned a blind eye to all of it, that is the kicker here.

She's a despicable wife, and mother to have allowed this to go on, it shows her character and judgement on women's rights, and respect for women.

Who in there right mind allows their husband to cheat, lie, commit infidelity, rape, and more, then think they can somehow allow those morals, and ethics to be part of the highest office, in our land?

Either Hillary has very low self esteem to allow all this to have happened, or she just doesn't care about good morals and ethics, and I'm wagering the latter is the answer.

And for the record Trump is right there with Hillary in ethics and morals.

There's a difference in doing one's job, and someone that is a sociapathic sadist. Yes he was convicted, but the little girl was treated like the criminal in these proceedings by Hillary.

Children are easy targets and need protection, unfortunately in Hillary's case she exploited the age, gender, and chaos from this victims circumstances.

Hillary is a despicable human being then and now.

a reply to: imwilliam

You're welcome imwilliam.

The American right-wing generally conflates issues in order to confuse and falsely equate vastly differing problems, and this is the case particularly regarding the subject of aborting fetuses that are the result of rape. It seems reasonable to most people that a woman whose body has been violated in rape surely should have the right to remove the product of that rape from her body if she chooses to. Of course, that fact seems lost on many, who, in order to preserve the defense of being against a woman's right to choose, seek to diminish the reality of the utter VIOLENCE of rape.

So, no, the quotes I provided are not merely "talking about abortion."

You find the fact that Mrs. Clinton did her job in 1975 (actually, she failed at her "job" because the man was found guilty), that somehow that negates the next 40 years or so of her work on behalf of children and women?

Fair enough. I find that position utterly preposterous on its face.

You don't see her taking office and doing anything? I'll ask a silly question: have you tried to find out anything about her policy positions on women's and children's issues and rights?

For your reference, if you're interested:

Campus Sexual Assault

Paid Family and Medical Leave

Women's Rights and Opportunity

Now, based on your presentation here, I'm willing to bet that you quite likely don't care about what Clinton has actually done in her life or what she stands for in terms of policies, but I wanted to give you the ability to educate yourself on the latter at least, if you wish.

Good on you for noticing that Kathy Stelton is being roughly used by those who will simply discard her when she is no longer useful to them, which, by extension, includes those here who are justifying this horrendous use of her story merely to harm a politician's prospects.

It's abominable.

a reply to: burntheships

Do you have some comment to make about the veracity of the affidavit? Of course not. You don't care about the facts of the matter, you're only interested in attempting to make silly, paltry little points implying that I'm involved in CTR.

And you're just not very good at it. The articles that you yourself have quoted from reference the language in the affidavit: are they lying as well? (Do you even try to think things through before you type them? Jesus.)

Apparently, you're also not very good at reading English. The affidavit in question was submitted to have the Court authorize a formal psychological evaluation of Kathy Shelton for the court record.

Again, it's obvious that you are simply pandering to emotion here, you don't care a whit about Kathy Shelton (let's notice that you haven't even used her name ONCE in this monotonous diatribe of yours) you care about trying to condemn Hillary Clinton.

Your feeble efforts just aren't fooling anyone.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Realtruth
The only despicable people I see here are those who would use the tragic story of Kathy Shelton for a few paltry political points.

Quoted for truth. Sad, sad truth. I've looked into this whole affair and it it's genuinely tragic. Misrepresenting Clinton's work as a public defender is horrific. She didn't even want the job, but it was her job as a matter of public service.