Producer Says There's Footage of Trump Saying the N-Word

a reply to: Grambler

So now that the documents show that it was Hillary that brought the argument to the court about a twelve year old rape victim fantasizing about sex with older men, are you ready to denounce her?

I don't think you're reading the document properly.

In section 4 it states that they were informed the girl was mentally unstable, had a record of past accusations and a tendency to seek out older men. Someone, whether it be a family member or what not, informed them of the girls past.

Section 5 states that an "expert" has stated that issues like that can be ehibited by that age group and home issues can play a part.

So in Section 6 they ask the court for an evaluation.

Hillary did bring the issue up in court based on what someone else had brought to her.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

So now that the documents show that it was Hillary that brought the argument to the court about a twelve year old rape victim fantasizing about sex with older men, are you ready to denounce her?

I don't think you're reading the document properly.

In section 4 it states that they were informed the girl was mentally unstable, had a record of past accusations and a tendency to seek out older men. Someone, whether it be a family member or what not, informed them of the girls past.

Section 5 states that an "expert" has stated that issues like that can be ehibited by that age group and home issues can play a part.

So in Section 6 they ask the court for an evaluation.

Hillary did bring the issue up in court based on what someone else had brought to her.

Hillary was told by someone, though no proof it was an expert, that the girl sought out older men.
The expert she references just told her that young girls are like that.

It was Hillary who pushed it and asked for the evaluation and put the girl through hell in the process.

Snopes debunked again.

a reply to: Indigo5
Oh so now you change your story. Just an hour ago you said you read the documents, and that a psychiatrist said this twelve year old girl fantisized about older men.

Now you change your story to say that it was the defendant? What made you change your mind. I mean, you were telling us all how we needed to read the documents, surely you wouldn't have done that without reading them yourself.

HAHAHA!

Ok, but now on to your next excuse. So a rapist tells Hillary basically the twelve year old girl that he raped fantasized about older men, and that she was stubborn when she didn't get her way.

I was Hillarys choice to make this an argument, period. There were tons of defenses she could have come up with to help her client. But she chose to engage in his sick delusion of suggesting this girl liked the rape, and she fantasized about having sex with an older man like him.

I am sure all sorts of sick criminals tell their lawyer "Yeah, she liked it when I raped her, she fantasized about older men" and yet those lawyers have the decency not to attack a 12 year old girl.

And she says when he past the lie detector test she knew he was guilty! So she attacked a 12 year old girl for a man she knew was guilty.

So are you willing to defend Hillarys actions now?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

So now that the documents show that it was Hillary that brought the argument to the court about a twelve year old rape victim fantasizing about sex with older men, are you ready to denounce her?

I don't think you're reading the document properly.

In section 4 it states that they were informed the girl was mentally unstable, had a record of past accusations and a tendency to seek out older men. Someone, whether it be a family member or what not, informed them of the girls past.

Section 5 states that an "expert" has stated that issues like that can be ehibited by that age group and home issues can play a part.

So in Section 6 they ask the court for an evaluation.

Hillary did bring the issue up in court based on what someone else had brought to her.

Yeah, I'm thinking we can rule out a family member giving this info to the defense.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
...the next video leak on Trump is supposed to land in 5 minutes time....

???????????????

Where are you hearing that?

I heard it was supposed to be 4pm ET.
I can't see anything yet.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler




I don't think you're reading the document properly.

In section 4 it states that they were informed the girl was mentally unstable, had a record of past accusations and a tendency to seek out older men. Someone, whether it be a family member or what not, informed them of the girls past.

Section 5 states that an "expert" has stated that issues like that can be ehibited by that age group and home issues can play a part.

So in Section 6 they ask the court for an evaluation.

Oh I read the document just right. Indigo said it was a psychiatrist that said that, now he is saying it was the defendant that said it. And as was mentioned, I doubt the victims family told Hillary those things.

It doesn't matter who told Hillary these things. She is the one that brought the accusations up. She chose to attack a twelve year old girl.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

So now that the documents show that it was Hillary that brought the argument to the court about a twelve year old rape victim fantasizing about sex with older men, are you ready to denounce her?

I don't think you're reading the document properly.

In section 4 it states that they were informed the girl was mentally unstable, had a record of past accusations and a tendency to seek out older men. Someone, whether it be a family member or what not, informed them of the girls past.

Section 5 states that an "expert" has stated that issues like that can be ehibited by that age group and home issues can play a part.

So in Section 6 they ask the court for an evaluation.

Hillary did bring the issue up in court based on what someone else had brought to her.

Yeah, I'm thinking we can rule out a family member giving this info to the defense.

Apparently it was the defendant! In other words Hillary pushed it with the courts, just like we said.

a reply to: Grambler

Oh I read the document just right. Indigo said it was a psychiatrist that said that, now he is saying it was the defendant that said it.

It doesn't matter who told Hillary these things. She is the one that brought the accusations up. She chose to attack a twelve year old girl.

Not just attacked her - ruined her entire life so she could get the win.

a reply to: UKTruth

I feel confident it was the defendant or someone sympathetic to the defendant. I can't imagine a family member aiding the defense, like that. And if it was a family member, I would think Hillary would have stated so to support her motion.

a reply to: Indigo5

I think he might have the perfect contractor for his wall all sorted.

a reply to: UKTruth

Hillary was told by someone, though no proof it was an expert, that the girl sought out older men. The expert she references just told her that young girls are like that.

That is not what she claims her "expert" said. Nice way of twisting it though.

It was Hillary who pushed it and asked for the evaluation and put the girl through hell in the process.

If it was mentioned as part of her investigative process that the girl was known to be unstable and had a record of accusations, it would be reasonable for her to ask for that evaluation. The document clearly states that someone else introduced that info to their defense.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

So now that the documents show that it was Hillary that brought the argument to the court about a twelve year old rape victim fantasizing about sex with older men, are you ready to denounce her?

I don't think you're reading the document properly.

In section 4 it states that they were informed the girl was mentally unstable, had a record of past accusations and a tendency to seek out older men. Someone, whether it be a family member or what not, informed them of the girls past.

Section 5 states that an "expert" has stated that issues like that can be ehibited by that age group and home issues can play a part.

So in Section 6 they ask the court for an evaluation.

Hillary did bring the issue up in court based on what someone else had brought to her.

Yeah, I'm thinking we can rule out a family member giving this info to the defense.

The man accused of raping her was a relative, if I am not mistaken.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Indigo5
Oh so now you change your story. Just an hour ago you said you read the documents, and that a psychiatrist said this twelve year old girl fantisized about older men.

Now you change your story to say that it was the defendant? What made you change your mind.

I scanned the docs, but after reading them (the pages you cited) I realized my assumption that it was the Psychologist was wrong...which led me to look closer...thanks for the nudge.

I mean, you were telling us all how we needed to read the documents, surely you wouldn't have done that without reading them yourself.

That is exactly what I did...and?

Ok, but now on to your next excuse. So a rapist tells Hillary basically the twelve year old girl that he raped fantasized about older men, and that she was stubborn when she didn't get her way.

Apparently...He also said he didn't do it...and she had him take a polygraph and he passed it.

As a defense attorney, she is obligated to have the girl talked to by a psychiatrist and exclude the possibility that she made it up.

I was Hillarys choice to make this an argument, period.

How so? If the defendant claims it and claims they are innocent and passes a polygraph...she can and should say "I was told that..." and ask for a psychiatrist to weigh in.

I am sure all sorts of sick criminals tell their lawyer "Yeah, she liked it when I raped her, she fantasized about older men" and yet those lawyers have the decency not to attack a 12 year old girl.

that is not what he claimed. He claimed he didn't do it.

And she says when he past the lie detector test she knew he was guilty! So she attacked a 12 year old girl for a man she knew was guilty.

No..she said "that forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs"...she didn't say when she realized he had been able to cheat the polygraph. It was likely around the time she convinced him to admit his guilt.

So are you willing to defend Hillarys actions now?

Yes.

I see no reason not to.

You still haven't acknowledged the facts, such as...

She asked repeatedly not to be given the case...

He said he didn't do it, and passed a polygraph...

There was no DNA evidence...

And despite all that she got her client to plead guilty...

Do you believe that the accused should not be given public defenders?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Hillary was told by someone, though no proof it was an expert, that the girl sought out older men. The expert she references just told her that young girls are like that.

That is not what she claims her "expert" said. Nice way of twisting it though.

It was Hillary who pushed it and asked for the evaluation and put the girl through hell in the process.

If it was mentioned as part of her investigative process that the girl was known to be unstable and had a record of accusations, it would be reasonable for her to ask for that evaluation. The document clearly states that someone else introduced that info to their defense.

Reasonable to ask a 12 year old rape victim, with a defendant you are pretty sure is guilty, to relive the whole situation and get grilled about being a slut. Yeah, in your world that might be reasonable. I guess so in sick Hillary's world too. I'll pass.

a reply to: Grambler

Oh I read the document just right. Indigo said it was a psychiatrist that said that, now he is saying it was the defendant that said it. And as was mentioned, I doubt the victims family told Hillary those things.

You doubt or you actually know?

It doesn't matter who told Hillary these things. She is the one that brought the accusations up.

She did not make any accusation. The document states that she was told of those issues, by whomever, and that the "expert" she talked to states individuals of a certain age group with certain home issues are prone to engaging in certain acts, and that for the sake of the trial an evaluation was requested.

She chose to attack a twelve year old girl.

No she did not. Don't be dramatic.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Hillary was told by someone, though no proof it was an expert, that the girl sought out older men. The expert she references just told her that young girls are like that.

That is not what she claims her "expert" said. Nice way of twisting it though.

It was Hillary who pushed it and asked for the evaluation and put the girl through hell in the process.

If it was mentioned as part of her investigative process that the girl was known to be unstable and had a record of accusations, it would be reasonable for her to ask for that evaluation. The document clearly states that someone else introduced that info to their defense.

Reasonable to ask a 12 year old rape victim, with a defendant you are pretty sure is guilty, to relive the whole situation and get grilled about being a slut. Yeah, in your world that might be reasonable. I guess so in sick Hillary's world too. I'll pass.

What would you suggest instead? Would you rather we just sent the accused to jail without due process or trial as is mandatory under the law?

Check your emotions and look at this logically.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Hillary was told by someone, though no proof it was an expert, that the girl sought out older men. The expert she references just told her that young girls are like that.

That is not what she claims her "expert" said. Nice way of twisting it though.

It was Hillary who pushed it and asked for the evaluation and put the girl through hell in the process.

If it was mentioned as part of her investigative process that the girl was known to be unstable and had a record of accusations, it would be reasonable for her to ask for that evaluation. The document clearly states that someone else introduced that info to their defense.

Reasonable to ask a 12 year old rape victim, with a defendant you are pretty sure is guilty, to relive the whole situation and get grilled about being a slut. Yeah, in your world that might be reasonable. I guess so in sick Hillary's world too. I'll pass.

Why was she "pretty sure he was guilty" when she requested the Psych evaluation? He had both denied guilt and passed a polygraph saying the same.

Do you think he could have gotten a conviction thrown out on mistrial if Hillary disregarded his claims of innocence and his polygraph results while serving as his defense attorney?

If she so enjoyed acting as you propose...why did she try repeatedly not to be assigned the case? And why did she...despite their being strong evidence for acquittal, convince him to plead guilty?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Hillary was told by someone, though no proof it was an expert, that the girl sought out older men. The expert she references just told her that young girls are like that.

That is not what she claims her "expert" said. Nice way of twisting it though.

It was Hillary who pushed it and asked for the evaluation and put the girl through hell in the process.

If it was mentioned as part of her investigative process that the girl was known to be unstable and had a record of accusations, it would be reasonable for her to ask for that evaluation. The document clearly states that someone else introduced that info to their defense.

Reasonable to ask a 12 year old rape victim, with a defendant you are pretty sure is guilty, to relive the whole situation and get grilled about being a slut. Yeah, in your world that might be reasonable. I guess so in sick Hillary's world too. I'll pass.

Check your emotions and look at this logically.

Good luck with that advice...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: UKTruth

I feel confident it was the defendant or someone sympathetic to the defendant. I can't imagine a family member aiding the defense, like that. And if it was a family member, I would think Hillary would have stated so to support her motion.

Strangely...the accused was "distant family"..

As best I can assume it was the accused that said those things as it followed Clinton interviewing the accused in jail, him denying it happened and then passing a polygraph.

a reply to: introvert

I thought she was staying at a friend's house and it was not a family member. But maybe I am misremembering.

Regardless...I am thinking back to being 12. I had posters of Michael Jackson and George Michael on my wall and wanted to marry them.

Could that be something used to suggest I had a record of fantasizing about older men and even older gay men? lol.

Honestly, it was likely something like that which supported Hillary's claim about being informed the kid fantasized about older men.