0
3

[–] plowboys 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I see a story in the Washington Post and I read it just to see what lengths they actually will go to lie and cover-up for the globalists? They rarely disappoint

0
2

[–] carmencita 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Right. She surely did. He was her first case and she went all out to discredit the victim. Laughing put the frosting on the cake. So very disgusting, but so very telling about the years to come.

0
2

[–] derram 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

https://archive.fo/GSprK :

Did Clinton laugh about a rapist’s light sentence and attack sexual harassment victims? - The Washington Post

'She politically attacked sexual harassment victims.” These claims are aimed directly at Clinton’s image as progressive defender of children’s and women’s rights. '

'She politically attacked sexual harassment victims, pretended she landed under sniper fire. '

'Hillary Clinton. '

'Readers can decide for themselves whether she was a victim of sexual harassment but it was never proven under the law. '

'As for attacking sexual harassment victims, the timeline does not support the claim that Hillary Clinton attacked Lewinsky, knowing that her husband had had a relationship with her. '


This has been an automated message.

0
1

[–] Shizy 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

She's a sociopath. Zero empathy for anyone else, even a child. And she's the "champion of women"! My ass!

1
1

[–] ParsonsWORDSinclair [S] 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Here are the four instances:

“Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” (Both Clinton and the reporter laugh)

“So I got an order to see the evidence and the prosecutor didn’t want me to see the evidence. I had to go to Maupin Cummings [the judge] and convince Maupin that yes indeed I had a right to see the evidence before it was presented. (Clinton laughs lightly between “evidence” and “before”)

“I handed it [a biography of her expert witness] to Mahlon Gibson, and I said, ‘Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.’” (Clinton laughs, as does the reporter)

“So [judge] Maupin had to, you know, under law he was supposed to determine whether the plea was factually supported. Maupin asked me to leave the room while he examined my client so that he could find out if it was factually supported. I said ‘Judge I can’t leave the room I’m his lawyer!’ he said ‘I know but I don’t want to talk about this in front of you.'” (Reporter says, “Oh God, really?” And they both laugh.)

2
-2

[–] Are_we_sure 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Right she never laughed at the victim and she never laughed that the guy got a lenient sentence. There was a fake claim pushed that she was laughing at the victim and then it changed to she was laughing at the sentence.

And it's clear the four instances of laughter are not about the lenient sentence

1 is lauging at the reliability of polygraphs. This guy protested his innocence, passed his polygraph and then pleaded guilty, showing the polygraph is not accurate.

2 and 4 is laughing at the sexism of the time. The judge wouldn't let the defense attorney see/hear the evidence because she was a woman. The reporter laughs in number 4 because he recognizes the judge's out of date attitude is absurd. If a female defense attorney can't see the evidence because the judge is embarrassed, then you are saying women can work on certain cases.

He was her first case and she went all out to discredit the victim.

Not true. When the victim was first interviewed about this case she said she had no hard feelings about Clinton who was just doing her job. Then a bunch of years later her story changed and she said Clinton put her through hell. Clinton opponents latched on this except the problem was it never happened. She submitted an affidavit to the judge to have the victim examined by a doctor and the judge turned her down the "putting through hell" was actually the cops and the prosecutor who believed the girl was not telling the full truth about the incident and made her take a polygraph.

The guy plead guilty in a plea deal that got him a lesser sentence. This is how about 90% of cases go. They offered him the plea because the only physical evidence connecting him to the crime was lost by the police.

0
0

[–] Shizy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

She's laughing because she KNEW HE WAS GUILTY and the stupid polygraph didn't catch it you asshole! That girl wasn't able to have kids because of what that sick fuck did to her but let's act like a dismissive dick as usual right?!!!