Well, considering that she did not slander a 12 year-old and laugh about getting the rapist off, you can't use that point. So, you're a glass-nearly-empty person when it comes to Presidents. Fair enough. I see them in a much more positive light without deifying them. I can certainly point out a number of achievements for every President since FDR (well, I don't know about Gerald Ford, his was a very short tenure), but from your perspective, it seems that the only thing you consider achievements are laws. Which is fine. I don't think most people see it that way.
Except she did She even admitted it Documents from the 1975 case include an affidavit (p. 34) sworn by Clinton, from which "in court, Hillary told the judge that I made up the rape story" portion of the claims and we all saw the video of her saying she believed he was guilty and laughing about getting him off on a reduced sentence. “Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” A virgin before the assault, she spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape, and over 10 years in therapy. The doctors told her she would probably never be able to have children.
Trump settled over cheating people multiple times. I'm not OK with that, nor am I with Clinton. Trump changing the electoral paradigm?? Are you kidding? The hope for future elections has nothing to do with Trump, believe me. The hope for future elections has to do with the electorate. If enough people want change, you're eventually going to have people elected who drive that change. Clinton winning is not going to ruin America or mean that our elections are ****ed from now on. People said that about Obama, and seriously, what is so different about America from 2008 to 2016? Did he take our guns? Start a war? Plunge us into a depression? Change takes place over decades. We had slavery, and then it was done. Women couldn't vote, and then they could. There was never a chance for a 3rd party candidate to gain any traction, and then we had Ross Perot. The Boston Red Sox won the World Series, the Cleveland Cavaliers won the NBA championship, an NFL team went 0 and 16, and the Cubs are now in the World Series. The electoral paradigm being dismantled can happen in the future regardless of whether or not Trump is elected.
Read this and admit you're wrong: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
Taylor was assigned a public defender in the case but Gibson said he quickly “started screaming for a woman attorney” to represent him. Gibson said Clinton called him shortly after the judge assigned her to the case and said, “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?” “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: So, Clinton did not want to represent this guy and wanted off the case, but she could not. And she is obligated under the Rule of Law to provide adequate representation for her client or face disbarment- I believe that is correct. So, even though she didn't want to, she had to represent him and do her job to the best of her ability. If you're criticizing Clinton for this, then you're criticizing her for doing her job. The opposite would be applauding her for not doing her sworn duty. I don't think that fits in with the Law & Order narrative on the right. As far as the laughing: The audio on these tapes is difficult to understand, but Clinton can be heard describing the case as "terrible." 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) That indicates laughing about the defendant? I guess what they say is true: you can make anything stick if you really, really want.
I read it. But I'm right... PER SNOPES The Claim is she successfully defended an accused rapist and later laughed about the case PER SNOPES WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later. Pretty sure those two bolds match up- so this is not mostly false, its 100% truth. They just contradicted themselves now for the rest I didn't claim she got him off. Snopes says it's mostly false because the rumor is she got him off.. I said she got him a severely reduced sentence. (which is actually what the claim is.. the claim isnt that she got him off) I never claimed she asked for the case or wanted the case like the rumor says which makes the snopes 'Mostly False'. It doesn't matter to me whether she wanted it or not.(plus this isn't in the claim) As for the false claim that Hillary Clinton "knew the defendant was guilty," she couldn't possibly have known that unless she were present when the incident in question occurred. geez I hope you're smart enough to see that play on words.. Hillary BELIEVES the defendant was guilty. WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, Hillary Clinton was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant. She admits she has no belief in polygraph because her client passed, but went forward anyways and she later chuckled about that.
I don't think you understand the definition of slander, either. Slander: oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Clinton's assertions were based on evidence presented by 3rd parties. That does not equate to slander. But, hey, let's face it, you're going to believe what you want regardless of the facts. You're going to criticize Clinton for doing her job- that's the slander part- and you're going to criticize her for laughing about getting the defendant off free- which is not the case. What should really bother you is a system in which someone like this can get off with a reduced sentence. You can't fault Johnny Cochran for the miscarriage of justice in the OJ case- fault the jurors, or those who handled evidence, etc. I think most reasonable people would agree with that. That's our justice system, for better or worse. But what partisans take away from that is that Clinton slandered and laughed at a 12 year-old girl who was raped. Pretty sick and twisted view, IMO. Even I don't think Trump thought he was belitting these women he made advances on - I think he grew up entitled to believe he could act this way and that it wasn't wrong.
Slander : the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. Pretty sure the false newspaper front page exposes that Hillary influenced and got pumped out saying the girl fantasized about men along with all kinds of other b/s claims constitute as slander The fact the victim to this crime admits her reputation in the town never recovered from all the false claims and articles also falls into the slander definition
You're wasting your time bro. The bar for Trump is so much lower than it is for Clinton. Everything alleged about Trump is a lie, he told us so.
OK, so in their opinion, Snopes was wrong, but then maybe you missed this: As I explained here, there was nothing wrong, unethical or hypocritical about Clinton’s work in this case. Her laughter in the interview is a little unsettling, but Hillary’s laughter is often unsettling. She did her job as a defense lawyer, ethically, and well. The accusation that what she did was unethical is ignorant, but Snopes’ deceitful and misleading denial of what she did is just partisan spin. That is their opinion, but Snopes' conclusions were equally valid. And what we're left with is that Clinton did her job and laughed about aspects of the case. Their assertion: "That is certainly laughing about the case. Then Snopes tries equivocation, saying that Clinton didn’t laugh about the outcome of the case. I see: she laughed (three times!) while talking aboutthe case, but wasn’t laughing about the case’s outcome, just…the case. Ridiculous." The question was never posed about the defendant. If they asked her that, and she said, "Well, the girl was obviously crazy (chuckle)", then you'd have a valid point. But it seems to me that what happens with this, and Benghazi, and her role in her husband's affairs- and what happens with Trump's taxes, and his comments about the 2nd Amendment, and some other things, is that people put way more into these things than what actually exists. Clinton's biggest flaw is her mistake in using a private email server. Trump's biggest flaw is not having any experience in government. I've been preaching for 17 years that experience and achievements in your field are critical selling points in job search, and it seems that one of these candidates fits the criteria that any sane employer would include as part of any job opening, particularly at the C-level. But agree to disagree. G'night.
Trump racially discriminated against thousands of black people and you think that's less serious than sexually herrassing one? Interesting.
A statement by an attorney in a complaint does not amount to a libelous or defamatory statement. It is their opinion of what they can prove. As a general rule, however, statements made by attorneys during the course of litigation are privileged from a slander standpoint. The things said by the attorneys in court are also most likely privileged and you probably do not have a cause of action against them.
Go Trump Go! Election Update: Trump May Depress Republican Turnout, Spelling Disaster For The GOP Instead of a poll, let’s start today’s Election Update with some actual votes. According to the estimable Nevada journalist Jon Ralston, Democrats have a 26-percentage-point turnout edge so far based on early and absentee voting in Clark County (home to Las Vegas), Nevada. And they have a 10-point edge in Washoe County (home to Reno). Nevada is one of a number of states where Democrats usually do better in early voting than in the vote overall, so this shouldn’t be taken to mean that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Nevada, Catherine Cortez Masto, are going to win their races by double digits. But Nevada is an interesting state, insofar as both Clinton and Donald Trump can find things to like about its demographic makeup: In Clinton’s case, the growing number of Hispanic and Asian-American voters bodes well for her; in Trump’s case, there’s the fact that only about one-third of Nevada’s white voters have college degrees, according to FiveThirtyEight’s estimates. Furthermore, Nevada has shown tight polling all year, with Clinton having only pulled ahead since the debates — surprising given that President Obama won Nevada by 7 percentage points in 2012 and that Clinton isbeating Obama’s numbers in other Western states. Those early-voting numbers, though, don’t look good for Trump. Democrats are matching their 2012 pace in Clark County, according to Ralston. And they’re beating it in Washoe County, a place where the demographics ought to be relatively Trump-friendly. If Clinton is pulling in her marginal voters and Trump isn’t getting his, things could go from bad to worse for the GOP. One needs to be careful about drawing too many inferences from early-voting data. There are a lot of states to look at and a lot of ways to run the numbers, and we’ve seen smart analysts trick themselves into drawing conclusions that didn’t necessarily hold up well by Election Day. But it seems fair to say the data is mostly in line with the polls. Democrats are seeing very strong early-voting numbers in Virginia and reasonably encouraging ones in North Carolina, two states where Clinton has consistently outperformed Obama in polls. They also seem set to make gains in Arizona and Colorado, where the same is true. But Democratic numbers aren’t all that good in Iowa or Ohio, where Clinton has underperformed Obama in polls. The problem for Trump is that taken as a whole, his polls aren’t very good — and, in fact, they may still be getting worse. An ABC News national poll released on Sunday morning — the first live-caller poll conducted fully after the final presidential debate — showed Clinton leading Trump 50 percent to 38 percent. Clinton’s 12-point lead in that poll is toward the high end of a broad range of results from recent national polls, with surveys showing everything from a 15-point Clinton lead to a 2-point Trump edge. But the ABC News poll is interesting given its recency and given why Clinton has pulled so far ahead in it — Republicans aren’t very happy with their candidate and may not turn out to vote: The previous ABC/Post poll found a sharp 12-point decline in enthusiasm for Trump among his supporters, almost exclusively among those who’d preferred a different GOP nominee. Intended participation now has followed: The share of registered Republicans who are likely to vote is down 7 points since mid-October. I’d urge a little bit of caution here, given that swings in enthusiasm can be transient and can sometimes exaggerate the underlying change in voter sentiment. Our polls-only forecast has Clinton up by about 7 percentage points instead of by double digits — and our polls-plus forecast would still bet on the race tightening slightly. But you can easily see how the worst-case scenario is firmly on the table for Trump and Republican down-ballot candidates, where the bottom falls out from GOP turnout. Consider: Trump is getting only about 80 percent of the Republican vote, whereas candidates typically finish at about 90 percent of their party’s vote or above. Furthermore, the Republicans missing from Trump’s column tend to be high-education, high-income voters, who typically also have a high propensity to vote. Voters are increasingly convinced that Clinton will win the election, and turnout can be lower in lopsided elections. (Although, this presents risks to both candidates: complacency on the part of Democrats, despondency on the part of Republicans.) Republicans and Trump have a substantial ground game deficit, with Clinton and Democrats holding a nearly 4-1 advantage in paid staffers. Trump’s rhetoric that the election is rigged could discourage turnout among his own voters. Trump’s base is relatively small, especially if he underperforms among college-educated Republicans. The nightmare scenario for the GOP is that high-information Republican voters, seeing Trump imploding and not necessarily having been happy with him as their nominee in the first place, feel free to cast a protest vote at the top of the ticket. Meanwhile, lower-information Republican voters don’t turn out at all, given that Trump’s rigging rhetoric could suppress their vote and that Republicans don’t have the field operation to pull them back in. That’s how you could get a Clinton landslide like the one the ABC News poll describes, along with a Democratic Senate and possibly even — although it’s a reach — a Democratic House. That isn’t the only scenario in play, but it’s an increasing possibility. Overall, Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency are 87 percent according to our polls-only model and 85 percent according to polls-plus.
Apparently this is happening in GA with GOP women. They are turning out in force in early voting and voting Hillary.
Clinton's biggest flaw is her character, but that's been punched and beaten down by the GOP for the last 25 years, so that's factored in the polling results. OTOH, Trump is an unknown in politics and governance so anything new and "wikileak'd" punches, grabs and surprises harder than anything people have already known about Hillary. Most of his supporters are also unknown and new as well... As much as the Trumpers (possibly Birthers?) would like to think people are slavishly voting for Hillary, this differential makes it plain and clear. - Large amount of people hate Trump. - Large amount of people hate Hillary. + But people hate Trump more to the point where they'll vote for Hillary.
What matters is that both Clinton and Trump are way more important people than any of us because they are wealthy and famous, and therefore have a different standard by which they are judged. The reasonable reaction is to advocate the return of the guillotine, not to argue about which is less embarrassing to vote for.
“If You Can’t Run Your Own House, You Can’t Run The White House!” Every time I hear Michelle speaking for Hilary, I think of this. Michelle is an elegant woman who is very classy, but this is just awkward
Says the guy supporting the candidate with three marriages, who cheated on each of his wives, lusts for his daughter, walked in on underage beauty contestants dressing, and serially groped women.
