|
Wayward5oul -> RE: Debate...Pre and Post (10/10/2016 6:40:57 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75
quote:
ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Again, Greta, facts. Why don't you go to Snopes and actually read up on it yourself. Because this is crap.
Snopes has been inaccurate before on Obama. Claiming Obama's birth father is not a Muslim but an Atheist.
And personally, if someone is accusing me of laughing at a 12 yr old rape. And if it's not true. I would vehemently defend it. She completely side swap it, because she couldn't defend it. Because if you observe throughout the debate, she was very quick in saying that All Trump said is not true, to most things. But when it came to this rape victim. She didn't say it's not true.
This is a very serious allegation. As a woman who is suppose to be FOR women. And that's the one she didn't defend?
Why does this 12 yr old rape victim feel aggrieve by Hillary?
She is angry because her attacker got off with a plea deal rather than being convicted of rape. In the process, she had to have a psychiatric examination, which would have been humiliating for her. If I was the woman, I would be pissed with Hillary too. It would be strange for a victim to not be pissed at the lawyer who defended her attacker, even if he had been convicted of rape.
Clinton was a legal aid lawyer at the time. The defendant requested a woman lawyer, so Clinton was assigned the case.
Hillary says, and this was verified by the prosecutor on the case, that she asked to be removed saying “I don’t want to represent this guy. I just can’t stand this. I don’t want to get involved. Can you get me off?” But the judge ordered her to stay on the case. If she had refused, she could have been censured or disbarred.
During the case, she asked for a psychiatric examination of the victim, because the defendant told her that the victim was emotionally unstable and had accused people of similar things before. At that point she was legally obligated to follow up on that. In arguing for the examination, Clinton cited a study by a child psychologist that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to such behavior".
She didn't say that the victim was doing any of those things. She said that studies had shown that children in situations like the victim's tended to do that, and that there needed to be a psychiatric examination to determine whether or not that was the case.
Later Clinton showed in court that the evidence used against the defendant had been mishandled and was not sufficient to be used against him. Rather than continue on with the case with the possibility of having it dismissed for lack of evidence, the prosecutor offered a plea deal.
A few years later Clinton was being interviewed about the case, and she was specifically discussing the events that led to a plea deal rather than conviction for rape. In three instances she laughs, about things that were screw ups in the case, not about anything to do with the victim at all. In fact one of the things that she laughs about was the fact that her client passed a polygraph test, which destroyed any faith she ever had in polygraphs. The other things were about things the prosecution had done trying to get a conviction which were obvious blunders on their part.
Honestly, it sounds to me like there was a chance she could have gotten him acquitted, especially in that day and age.
Do I feel that she was inappropriate with the laughter? I don't know, it was years later, she was recounting screw-ups that other people did, and gave short little laughs after each one. I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same in the same circumstances of the interview. But she was not talking about the victim or anything to do with the victim herself when that happened.
I read several articles on it, and this one seemed to be the most reliable and comprehensive.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/
|
|
|
|
