this woman is surely born of the Devil himself..  >:(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcqh0gRy-og&list=PLKkSfhYk-XBhYhpac4yoCOYsudZ0-g84N&index=34

Don't worry Mechanic - she's no longer a threat.

She's also so sick that I doubt she'll last long.

Bobby. wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 7:44pm:

she's no longer a threat.

Neither is her Foundation, by all accounts

She defended him because she was appointed by the Judge to defend him.  According to the prosecuting attorney she contacted him saying she did not want the case. He goes on to say


Quote:

I told her "Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,"but I also said don't jump on him and make him mad", Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn't remove her and she stayed on the case."

Documents from the 1975 case include an affidavit (p. 34) sworn by Clinton, from which the "in court, Hillary told the judge that I made up the rape story" portion of the claims was derived. That affidavit doesn't show, as claimed, that Hillary Clinton asserted the defendant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about men"; rather, it shows that other people, including an expert in child psychology, had said that the complainant was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body," and that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences." Clinton therefore asked the court to have the complainant undergo a psychiatric exam (at the defense's expense) to determine the validity of that information.

What she did do was her job. She was legally and ethically required to provide her client with the best defence she could.

She did audibly laugh or chuckle at points, not about "knowing that the defendant was guilty" or "getting a guilty guy off" (which makes little sense, given that the defendant pled guilty) but rather while musing about how elements of the case that might ordinarily have supported the prosecution worked in the defendant's favor (i.e., observing that the defendant's passing a polygraph test had "forever destroyed her faith" in that technology)

Raven wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 9:24pm:

She defended him because she was appointed by the Judge to defend him.  According to the prosecuting attorney she contacted him saying she did not want the case. He goes on to say Quote: I told her "Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,"but I also said don't jump on him and make him mad", Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn't remove her and she stayed on the case." Documents from the 1975 case include an affidavit (p. 34) sworn by Clinton, from which the "in court, Hillary told the judge that I made up the rape story" portion of the claims was derived. That affidavit doesn't show, as claimed, that Hillary Clinton asserted the defendant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about men"; rather, it shows that other people, including an expert in child psychology, had said that the complainant was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body," and that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences." Clinton therefore asked the court to have the complainant undergo a psychiatric exam (at the defense's expense) to determine the validity of that information. What she did do was her job. She was legally and ethically required to provide her client with the best defence she could. She did audibly laugh or chuckle at points, not about "knowing that the defendant was guilty" or "getting a guilty guy off" (which makes little sense, given that the defendant pled guilty) but rather while musing about how elements of the case that might ordinarily have supported the prosecution worked in the defendant's favor (i.e., observing that the defendant's passing a polygraph test had "forever destroyed her faith" in that technology)

you will never convince mental midgets like mechanic.

Raven wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 9:24pm:

She defended him because she was appointed by the Judge to defend him.  According to the prosecuting attorney she contacted him saying she did not want the case. He goes on to say Quote: I told her "Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,"but I also said don't jump on him and make him mad", Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn't remove her and she stayed on the case." Documents from the 1975 case include an affidavit (p. 34) sworn by Clinton, from which the "in court, Hillary told the judge that I made up the rape story" portion of the claims was derived. That affidavit doesn't show, as claimed, that Hillary Clinton asserted the defendant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about men"; rather, it shows that other people, including an expert in child psychology, had said that the complainant was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body," and that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences." Clinton therefore asked the court to have the complainant undergo a psychiatric exam (at the defense's expense) to determine the validity of that information. What she did do was her job. She was legally and ethically required to provide her client with the best defence she could. She did audibly laugh or chuckle at points, not about "knowing that the defendant was guilty" or "getting a guilty guy off" (which makes little sense, given that the defendant pled guilty) but rather while musing about how elements of the case that might ordinarily have supported the prosecution worked in the defendant's favor (i.e., observing that the defendant's passing a polygraph test had "forever destroyed her faith" in that technology)

Another crystalline post, Raven. Your posts resonate with truth. You are the very antithesis of the dulled, mediocre standard of this board.

Great work.

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 8:21pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 23rd, 2017 at 7:44pm: she's no longer a threat. Neither is her Foundation, by all accounts

yes, the clinton fondation has seized up.

Which points to the corruption therein.
Why did anyone donate money before the election, but not after ?

let me get this straight, Mechanic wants to critique Clinton who as a lawyer did her job and defended a rapist, while he defends Trump, who admits to sexually assaulting women?


can you people get any fkken dumber?

;D ;D ;D ;D

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 11:27pm:

yes, the clinton fondation has seized up. Which points to the corruption therein. Why did anyone donate money before the election, but not after ?

same reason no one donate to John Howard anymore you idiot.

John Smith wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 11:49pm:

let me get this straight, Mechanic wants to critique Clinton who as a lawyer did her job and defended a rapist, while he defends Trump, who admits to sexually assaulting women? can you people get any fkken dumber? ;D ;D ;D ;D

so tampering with evidence is ok with you then??

any wonder you are the forum idiot..  ::)

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 5:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 23rd, 2017 at 11:49pm: let me get this straight, Mechanic wants to critique Clinton who as a lawyer did her job and defended a rapist, while he defends Trump, who admits to sexually assaulting women? can you people get any fkken dumber? ;D ;D ;D ;D so tampering with evidence is ok with you then?? any wonder you are the forum idiot..  ::)

Well not really, before the case went to trial the State lost crucial evidence, including portions of the girls underwear that contained blood and semen.

Clinton had a legal requirement to provide the best possible defence to her client, part of that duty is to provide expert witnesses. In this case an expert who could provide testimony that cast doubt on the remaining blood and semen evidence.

Because the State lost the evidence they offered the plea deal. That and the fact the victims mother pushed the State into offering a plea deal to save her daughter the pain of going through court.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 5:36pm:

so tampering with evidence is ok with you then??

tampering with evidence?  ;D ;D ;D

fkken ell but you are stupid beyond belief

John Smith wrote on Jan 24^th, 2017 at 8:47pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 24th, 2017 at 5:36pm: so tampering with evidence is ok with you then?? tampering with evidence?  ;D ;D ;D fkken ell but you are stupid beyond belief

[smiley=thumbsup.gif]

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2017 at 6:59pm:

this woman is surely born of the Devil himself..  >:( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcqh0gRy-og&list=PLKkSfhYk-XBhYhpac4yoCOYsudZ0-g84N&index=34

y
Oh look a youtube video. Colour me convinced by your completely unconvinicing evidence.