>>707358161 I did read up on it and I watched the video. State failed to make a case. She did her job providing testimony of her client in the affidavit. They say she slandered the girl when it's actually her own client's words.
>>707359326 I read someone say the bar can no longer be lowered, it's now flush with the ground. And he himself called those women losers back when he was chumming around with Jeff Epstein and cheating on Melania by groping women...
>>707359721 The hypocrisy of Trump is unbelievable. He's so cancerous that he would rather take her down with him than let her win. I've heard the talk of how it can't get any lower. There's a couple of feet left before bottoming out. They could start cursing at one another on TV Hillary calling Trump a motherfucker and Trump calling Hillary a bitch or cunt. Beyond that is them getting into a physical altercation.
>>707360295 *sigh* Bernie has largely forgiven her for that and is out there campaigning for her. Also, I'm sure that the Democrats are going to reward Bernie for helping her even after the DNC bullshit.
>>707360400 proof that he called the women losers? >http://www.vox.com/2016/10/9/13221678/donald-trump-paula-jones-loser that he's friends with Jeffrey Epstein? >http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/30/the-billionaire-pedophile-who-could-bring-down-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton.html or proof that when he talked about grabbing women by the pussy when he was married to Melania, that he said what he said?
>>707362539 An attorney has an ethical duty to zealously represent their client within the bounds of the law. This doesn't matter who the client is or what the client has done, the client has a legal right to competent representation. Our legal system is adversarial meaning that the opposing side i.e. the prosecutor in this case was also a competent attorney and he zealously represented his client, i.e. the people in this case. With both sides represented by competent attorneys we can assume the system is as fair as possible. If Clinton would have shirked her duty in any way shape or form in representing her client because of who he is then our legal system is not fair for anyone and justice can't be served.
>>707358011 They're not people, they're trumpkins. They grab at anything that might possibly show the Lizard Queen in a bad light. If only they would be more selective in their examples, they would be ever so much more convincing.
>>707363318 The problem is that actual justice and what the layperson perceives as justice is more often than not misunderstood. Justice is very black and white. Ad hominem arguments have no merit. Arguments with logic and merit decide a case.
>>707363730 Thanks fam, I guess I can also add an addendum to my post that failure to provide a client with competent representation can result in an attorney facing a malpractice claim from the client and also discipline from the state's bar association. Also in this case I believe, she was also appointed the client by a judge and I think most states have rules that if you are appointed you can't drop the client without a valid reason.
>>707364104 As opposed to what? Misrepresenting her client? The character of the girl was questioned because it's a serious accusation that has long lasting repercussions. She did a good job by examining whether or not the girl is capable of lying and or providing false testimony. When you get an attorney you want an attorney who is going to fight for you even if you are guilty. It is up to the state to fight harder and prove guilt. The system is designed like this to thoroughly run the plaintiff and defendant through a process of eliminating every single doubt that the defendant is guilty. A good attorney is not a cuck and puts aside this bullshit about smearing a 12 year old girl.
>>707364209 As human beings we need a court system that is fair for all. Having a rigged system is terrible for society. If defense attorneys aren't willing to get their hands dirty and do what's best for their clients then we run the risk of actual innocent people getting punished because the system is rigged. The court system needs to be as fair as we can make it.
>>707365186 Becuase she's a woman and becuase the right in this country is pretty shitty. They barely have anything to throw against her so they desperately try to dig up trivial shit or make up stuff completely to discredit her.
Politics in general in this country are pretty bad. It's not enough that people disagree but both parties have to hate each other venemously and have to appear to not compromise so as not to appear weak in front of their constituents.
>>707364778 What's worse, that the girl had to go through the ordeals of being on the stand and being subject to cross or denying someone a constitutional right. One of the oldest rights we have that even pre dates the constitution is that an accused gets to face their accuser in court. This is one of those fundamental liberties that the constitution tries so hard to protect. The prosecutor should have and surely did prepare her for taking the stand. The prosecutor had just as much opportunity as Clinton to talk to the girl and get the story across his way.
>>707366306 They legit made up the whole story. Honestly it's sorta depressing how cartoonish the right has become. No one who prescribes to their bullshit checks their facts. They just spout whatever rush Limbaugh or Jim Ross has to say and beleive anything and everything fox news has to say.
You can read the court affidavit yourself and listen to the tapes where Hilary describes her involvement in the case. She vehemently disliked being assigned to the case and went on record trying to get off the case on multiple occasions. You can hear here discuss the case and she doesn't laugh about it. The rapist didn't even get off. He was forced into a plea bargain. Instead of the right looking this information up for free online they just shout and spout bullshit.
This is why I can't take the right seriously. Even after you're presented with facts you just move on like it didn't happen.
>>707358011 Because most people don't understand what public defenders do or what their role is in the justice system is. They think defending someone accused of a crime is the same thing as being being guilty of that crime.
>>707366611 Right, and it's a shame that the girl didn't have better representation. Cases like this do hold the DA to be accountable for their mistakes, and I would hope that they at least learned from it.
>>707359068 >i want you to focus on what donald trump said 11 years ago >and please ignore all the rapey stuff my husband has been doing for the last 30 years >and also please ignore that ive been complicit in all of it
>>707364209 She did her job well. You would literally have to hate every single public defender if you hate Clinton for this. They don't get to choose between representing the truly innocent or guilty. They have to represent we the people as innocent until proven guilty. You are very fortunate to have this system in place.
>>707367277 Read the tapes, she laughed because he passed the polygraph and she said that's when she knew she could never trust a polygraph again, then chuckled about how ridiculous it is that he passed. Which by the way polygraphs don't hold up in court anymore cause they are bullshit, but you jesus christ all you retartds saying she laughed about it because shes obviously some evil person who loves rape. I have a friend with severe autism and you make him look like hes high functioning
>>707365373 You know it may sound crazy, buy attorneys probably enjoy their job and take pride in what they do. Even this case of the 12 year old. She worked hard believing that the prosecution would work harder. Unfortunately they didn't.
>>707368946 I don't think what I said is anything but realistic. You guys sound like the SJWs here because you get all feels over an attorney doing this job well. No wonder you guys get cucked all the time and can't win a Presidency. Protip: thinking like an attorney is for winners not losers
>>707368688 I'm pro attorneys bro. I wasn't bashing Clinton for her work as a public defender. In fact, I think she did an excellent job in this case. I was wondering why others can't wrap their mind around the way the justice system works.
Any adult woman can avoid this contact. Circumstance is not a valid argument to define "sexual assault". If a woman weighs her options in her head and consents to the contact, regardless of the circumstance (unless it's cohersion based on fear of imminent physical violence) she cannot go back later and say it was assault.
Are you defining sexual assault as any sexual contact?
If so, the entirety of humanity is guilty of sexual assault.
>>707369479 >I'm pro attorneys bro. I wasn't bashing Clinton for her work as a public defender. In fact, I think she did an excellent job in this case. I was wondering why others can't wrap their mind around the way the justice system works.
American's don't want justice. They want vengeance. The justice system exists to prevent that.
>>707358011 Mostly because Hillary has been at the recieving end of a pretty ruthless campaign to discredit her ever since she had the gall to stick her nose into the healthcare debate while she was first lady. I don't think the GOP ever dreamed it would be this successful, and they ended up creating a monster that they can't reign in. She was a lawyer, she did the job legally required of her.
>>707369257 They literally took the damning evidence they had against the defendant and threw it away. Sorry, but just saying "we had evidence but we lost it" is not valid.
A child psychologist, among others, said that the girl had a tendency to seek out other men and make up false accusations, so the defense requested that a court appointed therapist validated that.
The prosecutor, at the request of the victim and her family, offered the plea bargain.
The fact that Hillary Clinton was appointed as defense in a case where the prosecution horribly bungled what should have been an easy conviction is not her fault. Her only other legal option would be to simply give up on her aspirations for having a career in law. You cannot intentionally lose a case just because the prosecutor fucked up, even if you know the guy did it.
>>707369310 Take the standard for the tort of battery as a baseline. Battery can occur in the event of (among other things) "offensive contact," which is touching that "violates prevailing social standards of acceptable touching." I think we can agree that grabbing some woman's pussy "violates prevailing social standards of acceptable touching." So that would be battery unless the woman had consented beforehand to such contact. I think sexual assault can be approached basically the same way.
>>707370068 I tend to agree. I think the hate went back even further though to her time when Bill was governor of Arkansas. She comes off as being arrogant I think because she's got the mindset if an attorney, and she also doesn't conform to the norms of society.
As much as I don't like Clinton, she dindu nuffin in this case. The legal system screwed up and she exploited it, same as any lawyer, now let's just hope they've learned their lesson when it comes to handling evidence.
>>707369575 That's complete bullshit. Coercion does not need to be based on a fear of imminent physical violence for it to count as rape. If I threaten to break a girl's neck if she won't have sex with me, it doesn't matter if I say I'm going to do it now or tomorrow. That's still rape. If I have the power to take all her money and belongings, forcing her into poverty and homelessness, and give the impression that I will do just that if she doesn't let me feel her up, that's still sexual assault.
The difference between courting and coercion is that one is providing reasons to say yes and the other is deterring them from saying no. Trump was quite clearly bragging about how, because he has power, women CANNOT say no. That is sexual assault. If instead he said that because of his money women would throw their pussies into his hands, that wouldn't be sexual assault (unless he was saying that he has so much money that women won't take no for an answer, in which case they would be sexually assaulting him).
>>707371306 >You are trying to skew the law to your emotions. Nothing in any of my posts suggests emotion in any way. You are clearly creating something where there is nothing to "win" an argument, usually only done when someone knows they are wrong.
>>707370754 Wait a minute, are you suggesting that the lack of consent needs to be expressed after the fact, or else consent is implied? That's not how it works. It's the toucher's burden to show that there WAS consent, not the other way around.
>>707370731 Precisely. Our system should prevent innocent people being convicted over all else, even if the guilty occasionally go free. It sucks sometimes, but the investigators have to be as perfect as possible.
>>707371463 Actually she didn't. That was more the testimony of her client. She was obligated to provide evidence to eliminate the doubt that he is innocent. The prosecution should have worked harder to eliminate doubt that he is guilty. Feels have no place in justice.
>>707371502 >It's the toucher's burden to show that there WAS consent Depends on the context. In everyday life, it is my responsibility to get the consent before I do anything. However, if after the fact it goes into any sort of legal challenge, as the defendant it would not be my responsibility to provide proof of consent, but her responsibility to show lack of consent.
You are right in the sense that we aren't saying Trump should definitely be in jail.
>>707372179 Not that guy, but have been saying Hillary did nothing wrong ITT. Zimmerman is not guilty, and the Trayvon Martin case is very similar to this one (as in the accusations against Hillary, not Taylor) in that people are intentionally misinterpreting and misrepresenting things to fit a political narrative, it's just that in this case the right is doing it instead of the left.
>>707372638 Tell that to the Duke Lacrosse team of 2006.
It is an all too human failing to argue that when something doesn't go the way you want it to, or support the story you want to tell, to claim that things are unfair or that someone else is cheating. Humans are largely hypocrites, regardless of political leaning.
>>707372528 what if you had to go under the knife tonight. what ever reason. how would you feel if the OR was placing bets on your life? the question is her conduct and ethics or the lack of ethics. anyone can become a lawyer. not everyone should be a lawyer. why do you think Z is innocent?
>>707372179 Not the person you asked but I'll weigh in. Zimmerman wasn't guilty of what he was charged with. I said all along that the DA reached too high on that one. Same thing with Casey Anthony. Had they tried either of them on a lesser charge like negligence then they would have definitely gotten a conviction.
>>707372973 I agree that humans are bias and hypocritical by nature. It is possible to control it though. The legal system is pretty much the best we can do at the moment to give everyone a fair chance at justice.
>>707367696 on top of that, they don't really represent people as much as they represent one side of the law. Guilt or Innocence doesn't matter. It looks at - is there enough evidence to convict. They defend YOUR rights - just some other SOBs are the ongoing test cases for it.
>>707373037 If the OR was placing bets in favor of them doing their job well? I probably wouldn't care. If they were betting against me? I'd be upset. To be relevant to this situation, I would be upset if the tapes of Hillary laughing about this case were her laughing about how she intentionally fucked it up so that the guy would be found guilty even though the prosecution was terrible.
I think Zimmerman is innocent because Trayvon played a huge role in causing the confrontation, but that more importantly there was just not enough valid evidence to support the case against Zimmerman. Much of the information that swayed people to Martin's side was shown to be blatantly false or edited in such a way to be misleading.
No he didn't, none of the polls reflect that. Five Thirty Eight predicted every state correctly in the 2012 election and give Hillary an 81% chance of winning. Trump is fucked but keep believing so your tears are more salty.
>>707373886 Trump only "won" the debate in the eyes of people who were already going to vote for him. All he did was stop his camp from bleeding voters like they have been for the last few days. Considering he's still losing and time is running out, that is far from a win in any meaningful way. A win would be convincing undecided voters to vote for him, which I don't believe he did at all.
>>707373774 thank you. clearly there is one adult here. yes the bet was whether you would make it or not. lawyers are scum. our justice system is too carrier oriented. pray to god you never have to go through it.
They just need to be proven wrong enough times to understand. It's inevitable. This used to happen around when someone hit 20 but I truly believe that these days one can go find a way to validate their own bullshit so easily that they never really need to face the humbling fact of being wrong until much later.
>>707373767 > a sexual assault conviction Then we're talking about something entirely different. One of my posts was >>707371838
To be clear, I think that what Trump was talking about in the tapes is a clear example of someone committing sexual assault ("grab them by the pussy" because they can't say no), which is troubling for a candidate for the most powerful political office in the country. It is not, however, even close enough to support any sort of conviction or even trial for sexual assault.
Five Thirty Eight aka Nate Silver predicted the 08 election correctly as well. It's an aggregate of polls and has been very accurate in the US. On Betfair Hillary's odds have been backed in from 1.61 to 1.22 in the last week which means the market gives her an 81% chance. Trump has run of steam and you would have to spend all your time in an echo chamber to think otherwise.
>>707366958 I fully agree with you, and I'm by no standards right leaning, but it's not like the resilience against facts are one sided. This is the political climate of 2016, it's all about show and nothing about facts or playing your hands in the open. The obvious corruption surrounding the Clinton 'unintentional' bullshit, the Trump lack of substance all together, far right extremists gaining power in Europe, all while the rest of the political spectrum stand stunned and afraid of them. It's like chickens running around without a head. There's nothing in this for the public, nobody gives a fuck about the public, about actually doing political work and help society. It's just fucking depressing.
For example, I only recently decided how I am going to vote. I live in Kansas, which will go to Trump no matter what. I wasn't undecided on if I was going to vote for Hillary over Trump, I was undecided on if I was going to vote for Stein (closest to my political views, but still a fucking crazy hippie lady with ridiculous anti-science views), Johnson (in hopes that he gets enough votes that this year works slowly towards moderating the Republican party by showing that the far right aren't the only voters worth listening to), or not voting for anyone in the presidential election. It was very unlikely I would ever vote for Clinton, and there was never a chance I was going to vote for Trump. The debates could have been a chance for Clinton to win me over as an undecided voter.
On the other hand, if there's someone who knows they are going to vote for Trump or Hillary but can't decide which, they are a fucking idiot.
>>707375809 Not necessarily. Pretty much any time someone famous is accused of anything, you'll get people coming out of the woodwork saying "yeah, he did it to me, too!" just for attention because they are crazy narcissists. If the person actually did do what the first accuser said, then it's more likely that the people coming forward are telling the truth. However, if the first accuser was just stirring shit for their own reasons, it's less likely that the people coming out to support with their own stories are telling the truth.
>>707374986 OK I understand, and you are entitled to think that way. I do think, however, that I'm more than capable of thinking critically though. I concede that Donald Trump had much better comebacks and he is able to connect with people via his populist rhetoric, but I think it's hard to deny that there were times where he fumbled majorly. Hillary fumbled majorly as well. The answer she gave on the public and private positions had me cringing and her seeming inability to defend accusations against Bill Clinton and the fact that she didn't attack him more on the video showed she was rattled a bit. She did however have a relatively solid performance with substance, but not as good as the first
>>707358011 >why do people hate trump for making jokes over a decade ago
Same reason, because 95% of voters are too autistic to care about the real issues that affect them, it's too scary for them to ponder the fact that within 2 years of a clinton presidency there will be 5 million more smelly muslims who don't speak english leaching on our social programs.
>>707376236 /b/ is anarchy, /b/ hates everyone, we were the fucking hate machine, we would never have supported a presidential candidate until the hordes of summerfags and "le too edgy for reddit" tards started occupying this once horrible place. Now it's just right leaning 9gag, and it's because of people like you who honestly have no sense of the great deeds carried out by these faggots.
>/b/ just want to watch the world burn >now it's about being the most edgy >thereby supporting trump What a diluted shit site this ended up as...
>>707376964 /pol/ is full of Alex Jones paid shills. Not surprising they're for trump. Fuck trump, have hated him since almost a decade ago; he's a joke. Voting for Hillary solely so he doesn't get in the white house.
>>707377519 Does the ongoing Trumpster Fire not realize that when articles and videos are posted, people are capable of looking at them to see if they support what the headline or spin says? Because I've watched that video, and it absolutely does not support the narrative you think it does.
>>707377872 Doesn't support the narrative I think it does? You supposedly know what I think? Get your head out of your ass. She laughs in the video as she recalls the case and she admits she knew he was guilty. Get over yourself. You're pathetic.
>>707377339 >pic related >the news story that brought you here in 2007 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2177843/ best case scenario. worst case, link related. 2012. you wouldn't know what this place was if it literally fucked you in the ass with no lube.
Clinton was put on a rape case because the defense thought a female lawyer would look good, then she took advantage of a technicality to have evidence thrown out. She abused the system and got her client off because upholding law was a sport to her and not a duty. Go listen to the video. She also hopped on the "But she was totally asking for it, bro!" train and tried to make a 12 year old girl shoulder the responsibility of a grown ass man's actions. Go read the transcript.
The thing that's bad here isn't that Clinton merely did what due process required of her, but that she went above and beyond to undermine the purpose of that system. She let a guilty man go because it got her rocks off. Plain and simple. There's no neutrality in what she did. Then she laughed about it.
>>707378110 He's talking shit, actually. /b/ was overwhelmingly pro Ron Paul in 2007 and 2008, and hadn't had any sort of groupthink yet established for the 2004 election to have been considered either for a candidate or for anarchy. It simply hadn't been around long enough at that point.
So for at least 3 of the last 4 elections, possibly all of them, he's talking out his ass.
>>707378567 >then she took advantage of a technicality to have evidence thrown out That technicality was that the people examining the evidence had literally thrown it out. It's like when a kid says "my dog ate my homework."
>She also hopped on the "But she was totally asking for it, bro!" train and tried to make a 12 year old girl shoulder the responsibility of a grown ass man's actions. Actually, her client said the girl had a history of seeking older men and making up stories about inappropriate conduct, and her background from a broken home supported that type of behavior coming from a child. So she did exactly her duty in requesting that the girl see a therapist to determine the validity of such a defense (failure to do that would have been a dereliction of duty, by the way).
She also didn't let a guilty man go, he plead guilty and got sent to jail, with the time he had already spent in prison counting toward his sentence.
What the tapes show her laughing about include a judge being highly unprofessional by asking legal counsel to not be present because he felt uncomfortable discussing the facts of the case in front of a woman, but at no point does she laugh at the victim or the crime.
>>707378589 >thinking /b/ has a single mindset That's where all of you fags fucked up. That "we are anonymous" bullshit was a JOKE. It was a shit tier meme at best, and the reason it was FUNNY was because NO ONE on /b/ can agree on ANYTHING. Case in point, this entire thread. So we didn't agree on one candidate, on one cause, or on one way to hack this or that. The joke was that there was no unity here to be observed, thereby making the concept of unity LAUGHABLE at best. Those "we are legion" threads used to get trolled to fuck and back because no one took any of that shit seriously. One rogue acting on his own, hacking into X, doesn't mean that there was a social movement behind it. But faggots on reddit thought those jokes were serious, and Occupy Wallstreet fell to shit so the tumblrites needed a new "movement" to follow and 4chan became it.
And now we get newfags showing up en masse with 9gag and imgur memes, bitching about their own culture shock as soon as they got here. Oldfags are pissed because this place had to change into reddit 2.0 to protect newfags feely feels.
>>707368193 I don't give a shit about that because who actually cares? She was a lawyer that was her job. She's done plenty of other things that cast doubt on what she says and whether shed be a good president
If you need a post removed click on it's [Report] button and follow the instruction.
If you like this website please support us by donating with Bitcoins at 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that RandomArchive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.