[Glock]

This is too good: Hillary Clinton, the self-appointed champion of women and would-be first woman president is getting a taste of her ilk's medicine. Back in Arkansas in her lawyer days, she defended an accused rapist she herself believed was guilty of raping a 12-year-old girl. She won the case for her client (which is what any lawyer should do). The accused got off with time served.

Now Hillary is being pilloried by the now-52-year-old accuser for putting her through "hell." It is truly delicious to see feminists turn on each other. Here's the link and an excerpt from the story:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...-says.html

Quote:

Hillary Clinton is known as a champion of women and girls, but one woman who says she was raped as a 12-year-old in Arkansas doesn’t think Hillary deserves that honor. This woman says Hillary smeared her and used dishonest tactics to successfully get her attacker off with a light sentence—even though, she claims, Clinton knew he was guilty.




The victim in the 1975 sexual abuse case that became Clinton’s first criminal defense case as a 27-year-old lawyer has only spoken to the media once since her attack, a contested, short interaction with a reporter in 2008, during Clinton’s last presidential campaign run. Now 52, she wants to speak out after hearing Clinton talk about her case on newly discovered audio recordings from the 1980s, unearthed by the Washington Free Beacon and made public this week.

In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings.

“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said. The Daily Beast agreed to withhold her name out of concern for her privacy as a victim of sexual assault.

The victim said if she saw Clinton today, she would call her out for what she sees as the hypocrisy of Clinton’s current campaign to fight for women’s rights compared to her actions regarding this rape case so long ago.

“I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”

The victim’s allegation that Clinton smeared her following her rape is based on a May 1975 court affidavit written by Clinton on behalf of Thomas Alfred Taylor, one of the two alleged attackers, whom Clinton agreed to defend after being asked by the prosecutor. Taylor had specifically requested a female attorney.

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Clinton, then named Hillary D. Rodham, wrote in the affidavit. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

Clinton also wrote that a child psychologist told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” especially when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”

The victim vigorously denied Clinton’s accusations and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never accused anyone of attacking her before her rape.

“I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying,” she said. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.”

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

If Hillary isn't feminist enough for these people, then who is?

I feel no schadenfreude over this. The whole idea just scares me. She did her duty as a lawyer and it's absurd that someone is attacking her for it now.

[Slick Shimmer]

Hilary is a champion of shit and the embodiment of what is wrong with this country. Despite innumerable scandals and quaffs, she retains prominence and office solely through marketing.

[El Chinito loco]

It's not surprising. Hillary always struck me as a cold unfeeling female ambition-bot. Someone who is willing to do just about anything to advance her own career but really has no personality or empathy. Basically, a political sociopath. If you have ever seen her give long speeches about shit as secretary of state you will know what I mean.

[Glock]

I am hoping that people will be brought to their senses after the lives of a few prominent feminists have been ruined by the hysteria we are now experiencing.

Something similar happened with alimony reform in Massachusetts. After some rich and powerful women started feeling the sting of alimony laws that had been fleecing men for decades, people were finally able to recognize injustice and changed the laws.

[xpatplayer]

(06-20-2014 12:23 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

If Hillary isn't feminist enough for these people, then who is?

I feel no schadenfreude over this. The whole idea just scares me. She did her duty as a lawyer and it's absurd that someone is attacking her for it now.

This is actually a very scary development. Now lawyers who defend accused rapists are being targeted in the witch-hunt.

"Hilary took me through hell". Well isn't that what lawyers are supposed to do? You don't hire a lawyer because he is nice and ethical, you hire him because he gets you off the hook. That's what Hilary did and she's being attacked for it? Shit, I hope society wakes up and sees progressives for the evil scumbags they are.

Edit: I don't like Clinton, her policies and her platform. I want to see her lose because of her terrible personality and platform, not because of some bizarre witch-hunt.

[Dusty]

(06-20-2014 12:38 PM)xpatplayer Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 12:23 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

If Hillary isn't feminist enough for these people, then who is?

I feel no schadenfreude over this. The whole idea just scares me. She did her duty as a lawyer and it's absurd that someone is attacking her for it now.

This is actually a very scary development. Now lawyers who defend accused rapists are being targeted in the witch-hunt.

"Hilary took me through hell". Well isn't that what lawyers are supposed to do? You don't hire a lawyer because he is nice and ethical, you hire him because he gets you off the hook. That's what Hilary did and she's being attacked for it? Shit, I hope society wakes up and sees progressives for the evil scumbags they are.

Edit: I don't like Clinton, her policies and her platform. I want to see her lose because of her terrible personality and platform, not because of some bizarre witch-hunt.

I want her held to the same standards a man or an R would be held too.

If a republican male candidate had the same background, the press would effectively end his candidacy post haste. However irrational, I want the same treatment. They make the rules, they need to enforce them with no double standard.

[xpatplayer]

(06-20-2014 12:46 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

I want her held to the same standards a man or an R would be held too.

If a republican male candidate had the same background, the press would effectively end his candidacy post haste. However irrational, I want the same treatment. They make the rules, they need to enforce them with no double standard.

My point was that if she is held to such impossible standards, what will a male candidate or any Republican candidate be held to? It will certainly be higher and much more detrimental to the country.

She did her duty as a lawyer and she's being criticized for that? What will happen to other candidates who were defense attorneys? They too will be criticized and rendered unvotable because they did their duty.

We are seeing this everywhere. Unless you have a clean slate (according to progressives), you cannot have any positions of power. Otherwise, the media will eviscerate your public image.

[polymath]

This article is slanted, and I encourage you all to actually listen to the audio. It doesn't sound at all as damning as the article makes it out to be. Sounds like there was zero real evidence that this man committed a crime, and Hillary went to an expert to prove that the only significant piece of evidence submitted did not prove a thing.

(06-20-2014 12:25 PM)Slick Shimmer Wrote:  

Hilary is a champion of shit and the embodiment of what is wrong with this country. Despite innumerable scandals and quaffs, she retains prominence and office solely through marketing.

Hillary did good work as Secretary of State, especially considering that her service followed the Bush administration, which was not so good at making friends across the globe. She stood firm and did her job through the Benghazi political sideshow, a security situation which even Bob Gates said he would have approached similarly. Hillary was faithful to her husband through a very embarrassing public infidelity spectacle, and she is an example of a woman who achieved much in her lifetime due to hard work and persistence.

There is a difference between a woman who wants the bar to be lowered so that she can be considered exceptional, and a woman who works hard to be exceptional by a fair standard. Hillary, I think, is the latter.

Keep in mind that this is a Yale Law graduate, former senator, Secretary of State, among other high-pressure and high-exposure positions...if she actually sucked and was only good at marketing, I doubt she would have made it so far in her career.

[TheWastelander]

(06-20-2014 12:46 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 12:38 PM)xpatplayer Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 12:23 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

If Hillary isn't feminist enough for these people, then who is?

I feel no schadenfreude over this. The whole idea just scares me. She did her duty as a lawyer and it's absurd that someone is attacking her for it now.

This is actually a very scary development. Now lawyers who defend accused rapists are being targeted in the witch-hunt.

"Hilary took me through hell". Well isn't that what lawyers are supposed to do? You don't hire a lawyer because he is nice and ethical, you hire him because he gets you off the hook. That's what Hilary did and she's being attacked for it? Shit, I hope society wakes up and sees progressives for the evil scumbags they are.

Edit: I don't like Clinton, her policies and her platform. I want to see her lose because of her terrible personality and platform, not because of some bizarre witch-hunt.

I want her held to the same standards a man or an R would be held too.

If a republican male candidate had the same background, the press would effectively end his candidacy post haste. However irrational, I want the same treatment. They make the rules, they need to enforce them with no double standard.

You're never going to get the same treatment from the mainstream press because they cater to their audiences (women, libs, low information voters), so it's best to just accept that and move on.

These days they're pretty much state propaganda organs when one of their boys is in power.

But openly taking Hillary to task over this is stupid precisely because of what xpat said. Instead people should be doing more internet guerilla warfare with this shit. Troll the feminists and SJWs with it.

[Dusty]

(06-20-2014 01:03 PM)polymath Wrote:  

Keep in mind that this is a Yale Law graduate, former senator, Secretary of State, among other high-pressure and high-exposure positions...if she actually sucked and was only good at marketing, I doubt she would have made it so far in her career.

She hooked up with a talented guy, and rode his coat tails.

Every job she held was a disaster. She has zero accomplishments (except holding positions that her husband's connections and name enabled). She and her supporters can not even name a single accomplishment.

[Truth Teller]

I've said this several times: she's the frontrunner until she actually starts the campaign.

She's a boring, uncharismatic, unlikeable candidate. No candidate since Calvin Coolidge has been elected with any of those three characteristics.

[Dr. Howard]

(06-20-2014 01:56 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

I've said this several times: she's the frontrunner until she actually starts the campaign.

She's a boring, uncharismatic, unlikeable candidate. No candidate since Calvin Coolidge has been elected with any of those three characteristics.

Exactly, her political affiliations aside, I think she would have a tough time winning anything that required charm...like an election. Romney had no charm but at the worst was like your old Dad trying to be hip and lost. Contrast that to a guy like Herman Cain who had crazy policies but enough charm that they had to smear him just in case.

Hillary is beyond no charm, she actually comes off mean and cunt-y. It looks like smiling is painful to her when she does it. It will be like trying to get people to elect the cunt boss from that movie "the devil wears prada"

[Akula]

(06-20-2014 02:31 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 01:56 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

I've said this several times: she's the frontrunner until she actually starts the campaign.

She's a boring, uncharismatic, unlikeable candidate. No candidate since Calvin Coolidge has been elected with any of those three characteristics.

Exactly, her political affiliations aside, I think she would have a tough time winning anything that required charm...like an election. Romney had no charm but at the worst was like your old Dad trying to be hip and lost. Contrast that to a guy like Herman Cain who had crazy policies but enough charm that they had to smear him just in case.

Hillary is beyond no charm, she actually comes off mean and cunt-y. It looks like smiling is painful to her when she does it. It will be like trying to get people to elect the cunt boss from that movie "the devil wears prada"

I'd like to believe that Hillary will eventually rule herself out, but I doubt it.

The mainstream media will cover her ass 24-7 and then some. I don't see any way she'll lose, and the Republicans will as usual have some unelectable idiot candidate running against her.

Also, a lot of women will act in a not so honest way when it comes time to pull the ballot - kinda like Obama with African Americans. When push comes to shove, they will buy into the hype and selfishness of voting for 'the first woman president of the US of A."

You can take that to the fucking BANK.

I'm outta here....

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Quote:

the Republicans will as usual have some unelectable idiot candidate running against her

Absolutely second this. I want the Republicans to win and rid us (at least a bit) of this liberal scourge, but they're more like kamikaze.

[Dr. Howard]

(06-20-2014 04:55 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:

the Republicans will as usual have some unelectable idiot candidate running against her

Absolutely second this. I want the Republicans to win and rid us (at least a bit) of this liberal scourge, but they're more like kamikaze.

I unfortunately agree. Their most likely choice will be to run someone with no charisma (I hold no hope of Rand Paul, Trey Gowdy, Scott Walker, or Paul Ryan running because that would make sense). At best they will come up with an AWESOME PLAN like "we should run a bitchy woman too" and it will be someone like Bachman, Palin or John Mcain's wife up there debating and they will lose because Hillary is more seasoned, with all bitchy wrinkles being equal.

[Slick Shimmer]

(06-20-2014 01:03 PM)polymath Wrote:  

She stood firm and did her job through the Benghazi political sideshow, a security situation which even Bob Gates said he would have approached similarly.

Similarly as in, completely fabricating a story and running with it to the UN knowing it was false?
Similarly as in, handwaving her role in the deaths of a number of US citizens at the consulate?

I do not give a shit if propaganda and lies have reached absolute saturation.
When they are found out, they should be treated as TREASON, plain and simple.
She is guilty of treason.

[Sp5]

There are good reasons to vote against her, (1) I am male and her presidency would be non-stop male-bashing, (2) she's a warmonger seething with internal rage who might start a nuke war just for payback of Bill's cheating.

Her doing her job as a lawyer a long time ago is not a good reason to vote against her.

[Sp5]

Well, she's doing a "town hall" on CNN right now with obedient servant Christine Amanpour (married to former Clinton official), so she's running.

Makes me sick, blatant favoritism and propaganda. Will the other candidates get free time on CNN?

[Truth Teller]

(06-21-2014 08:03 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Well, she's doing a "town hall" on CNN right now with obedient servant Christine Amanpour (married to former Clinton official), so she's running.

Makes me sick, blatant favoritism and propaganda. Will the other candidates get free time on CNN?

CNN and MSNBC tell you everything the Democratic Party wants you to know. Fox tells you everything the GOP wants you to know.

If you want balanced news, read Politico.

[placer]

As someone who both supports Hillary being president and thinks about 25-50% of rape accusations are false, my sense is that this article just regurgitates the bullshit from this supposed victim.

Quote:

12-year-old in Arkansas

• The age of consent in Arkansas today is 16
• A lot of girls develop early and can look like a young adult at 13 or even 12
  

Quote:

This woman says Hillary smeared her

Again, this article is based on the hearsay of a single woman describing events from 40 years ago.

Quote:

“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Clinton, then named Hillary D. Rodham, wrote in the affidavit. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

The article presents no evidence why we shouldn't believe this and some evidence that we should.

Some more telling evidence from the article

Quote:

prison where the victim was serving time for drug-related offenses

This woman is a criminal with a criminal history.

Quote:

The victim was put through several forensic procedures, including a lie detector test. At first, she failed the lie detector test

And she failed the lie detector test when asked if she was raped.

Quote:

she spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape

So claims the "victim". If this were true, why was there no physical evidence of this? Why weren't the supposed assailants prosecuted for battery?

One last thing: The Daily Beast has a history of regurgitating feminist malarkey