Remember when Hillary Cunton defended the rapist of a 12-year-old girl in court, knowing that he was guilty...

Remember when Hillary Cunton defended the rapist of a 12-year-old girl in court, knowing that he was guilty, and then laughed about it on tape?

twitter.com/vivelafra/status/730202304809304066

Someone made a pretty good propaganda video about it.

Make it go viral. Tweet it at the God Emperor, Ann Coulter, you grandmother, anyone you know. Confront any feminist Hillary supporter who calls Trump a sexist with this video. Make sure as many onlookers in comments section and on social media see how they struggle to defend Hillary's actions.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Pw3JzEhia84
youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4
worldbeyondwar.org/hillarys-email-bombshell-saudis-financed-the-benghazi-attack/
youtube.com/watch?v=oCI9I8-eDbM
scribd.com/mobile/doc/229667084/State-of-Arkansas-V-Thomas-Alfred-Taylor
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Nicely made, bit short on details of what the victim and HRC actually said.

Off-topic, FBI director James Comey is supposedly giving a "press conference" today.
Seems to be a media blackout on it.

Here's the YouTube link:

...

A defense attorney is obligated to defend their client regardless of their personal feelings or beliefs on the client's guilt. That's how lawyers work.

True but irrelevant.

...

She didn't have to take the case.

Do you think most people understand legal process and will understand that?
No; fee-fees>facts/logic/rationality/intelligence for almost everyone.

Look at this bastion of logic and enligtenment, he is so smart and cares about NOTHING, because he is the supreme logic-lord and cares ONLY FOR LOGIC.

Tip your fedora, and walk away in your leather overcoat and katana, you autistic faggot

Where did this nigger come from?
I'm stating what is true.
Liberals put feelings before facts. That's why shit like this works on them.
It doesn't matter if Hillary, as a lawyer, is required to defend her client regardless of her stance. Liberals will just see this as "Hillary gets rapist off the hook".
But you're too stupid to see that.

She didn't have to take the case, but decided to take it. She didn't have to brag during an interview about getting a man that she knew was guilty of rape freed.

Also, the law isn't necessarily moral. More than anyone else, a leader should look to make the law fairer, better, more just. And when you have before you a woman who brags about getting rapists freed using the law, you have to ask yourself: do I want her for a leader?

Well, from a moral point of view, I think Hillary Clinton deserves death.

As in she took the case pro bono?

Most lawyers/attorneys don't just go out and sollicit cases in which they have to defend (alleged) child molesters.

...

Hillary took the case pro bono as a favor and knew the guy was gulty as fuck. Nice try.

This is a good idea.
her whole platform is "vote for me because i have a vagina" .
Honestly bernietards and trumptards should be running a tag team of good cop and bad cop on clinton and destroy her image.

Bernie voters are on the hush about Hillary. Knowing the chance of Bernie winning is low, they don't want to make Trump's job easier. Honestly, Hillary should have been attacked a lot earlier for Bernie to win.

Bernie is an old kike with no charisma or wit, all his attacks are scripted and he thought he could win on virtue alone.
For instance: Hillary considers herself an 'outsider' because she is a women.
So does that mean women are outsiders to politics? Does it mean she thinks women can't be apart of the establishment? What about all the successful women senators, congressmen, governors, etc? Are they not apart of the government? Are they outsiders to the process? Pretty sexist to say so, Hillary.

Doesn't matter, for propaganda purposes only feelings have to be tickled. Not logic.

In either case, a lawyer forced to take such a case would not necessarily laugh and brag about it.

That's not true actually. A lot of shows and movies like to play it off as such to create conflict and tension but that's not how it works, at least in the USA, UK and Canada.

If a lawyer believes their client to actually be guilty they have the option to recuse themselves from the case. Lawyers that continue even when they know their client to be guilty walk a fine ethical line and it's actually easy to spot in some court proceedings as the lawyer will not make any claims of their client's innocence, and will only attempt to bring about doubt. In fact they cannot claim their client to be innocent and must limit themselves to seeding doubt. This video works for feel and for facts.

Isn't it an ethical violation, though, to go on the radio after the fact and say you knew your client was guilty the whole time? What was she thinking?

yikes, that was spooky

bumping

STICKY THIS AND SPREAD IT LIKE WILDFIRE. THIS SHOULD BE ONE OF Holla Forums's OPS. THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO HAVE HAPPENED IN Holla Forums's HISTORY

That's there job, voluntary or not.
Though the laughter and bragging was unprofessional, I feel like using this as propaganda can come back to bite our butts, and even the butt of Law.

...

>Implying SJWs consistently apply the Just doing my job defense.

Remind me how many SJWs said George Zimmerman's lawyer was just doing his job and we should respect the jury's decision instead of going about White Privilege or chimping out?

If the 'just doing her job' defense works for her, then well…

All those guards at the 'death camps'… just doing their job.

Those evil racist cops? Just doing their job.

Ect..

That's not a road they'll go down. They'll probably make up shit about how hillary was being stare-raped by the victims lawyer and got all flustered and accidentally got her client off or something.

Fucking this. Bump

...

Bump. This would definitely be effective. Good ammo against anyone arguing she is the better person.

except not only did she take the case pro-bono, but she laughed about it

Was it seriously pro bono? If it was, that makes this even more damning but we'll need factual evidence of that so the Hillzilla backers can't just toss it out.

She wasn't assigned to the rapist as a defense attorny. A prosecution attorney asked her to defend the rapist as a favor.

I want to stress this to everyone, as this actually is a really important point to tell normies when they hear this case.

SHE WAS WILLING TO DEFEND THIS RAPIST NOT BECAUSE SHE WAS REQUIRED TO, BUT AS A FAVOR TO A FRIEND

Here's the interview that talks about it being a favor to a friend, but she doesn't talk about it being pro-bono. Does anyone else have any information about the case?

What does Clinton say in the recording? I can't make it out on tinny work speakers.

Lawyers can recuse themselves in the event they know their client is guilty OR they encourage their client to confess and go for a plea bargain.

Defense lawyers that do this on any sort of regular basis don't keep their jobs very long.

Defense lawyers don't defend guilty child rapists on a regular basis, either.

Encouraging obviously guilty clients to plead guilty is standard practice, particularly when it's to a lesser charge than might otherwise be sought. A defence attorney's job isn't just to get people off charges, but rather to seek the most favourable realistic outcome. In a great many situations the most favourable realistic outcome is a shorter sentence.

Yes, they do. They defend guilty people all the time. Every convicted pedo had a lawyer defending them.

They defend them in court and they defend them with vigor because every lost case counts against a defense attorney's record. Show too many moral objections or too many losses and you're going to end up chasing ambulances for a living.

best post

Bumping for justice.

...

are we being slided?

pg5 bump

One thing is to defend with fact, other is to lie and demonize the opposition. Don't buy into the modern TV bullshit of being the best manipulator.

bump

this is seriously top notch propaganda for normies. the best part is that it's all true.

spread this shit around folks.

yeah its fact a this point that the left only cares about an issue/cause/ or crime when it benefits there agenda.

Nigger riot to stand up to the gov, cheers
rednecks stand up to the government they should all be jailed

“CNN Host Ends Interview When Guest Mentions Hillary Defending A Pedophile Rapist”

youtube.com/watch?v=Pw3JzEhia84

page8bump

i wonder if they still teach media studies in school

pg10
only 5000views in 24 hours
what's the deal?

webm

youtube

Did the prosecution attorney know that she would free him based on the lies?

The funny thing is, and not to defend Obongo, but he was great for blacks. He gave them a dose of reality. He let them know that any black who went to university and made something of himself isn't going to give handouts to thugs who drop out of elementary school and refuse to learn to speak. A fantastic lesson.

She can't fucking get away with this

Smells like Jew rats in here.

I didn't think I could hate her anymore. I was wrong.

webm for everyone.

She chose to take the case

My only problem with this video is that when Hillary's audio plays it's really hard to make out what she says. they should have added subtitles for it.

JEW!!!

If you knew anything about Hilary Clinton's career is that she never did any criminal law cases. She took the case because an attorney general asked it off her as a personal favor to him. The guy was guilty as fuck and Hilary even knew it. She said in the tapes it destroyed her faith in polygraphs forever.

youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4
explains it all.

pg13
only 3000 more in 48 hours.

This probably needs its own thread, but…

Bernie Sanders may have been chivalrous when he told a beleaguered Hillary Clinton, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.” But when it comes to actually reading some of Clinton’s confidential exchanges, that’s another matter.

In December 2014, Hillary Rodham Clinton began providing the State Department with personal emails sent or received during her tenure as Secretary of State. The final batch was released on February 29, 2016. The entire collection is now posted on the State Department’s Public Reading Room and is searchable via this link.

But the collection is not complete. Clinton admits to having deleted 32,000 emails“deemed private.” Among the missing are a number of politically charged emails sent to Secretary Clinton by a trusted colleague named Sidney Blumenthal. Blumenthal’s emails were allegedly captured and copied by Marcel Lazar Lehel, an unemployed Romanian taxi driver better known as “Guccifer” and “Small Fume.” In April of this year, Lehel became an instant celebrity after he was identified as the cyber-savvy interloper who had hacked into Clinton’s official email account during her time as Secretary of State. (Lehel was recently awarded an all-expenses-paid trip from a Romanian prison to the US where he will spend his days in an American jail cell under 18-month extradition order.)

Guccifer’s sudden celebrity may seem a bit odd, given the fact that he initially released Clinton’s compromised communiqués some time ago—back in 2013, to be precise.

Before Guccifer became tabloid-fodder in the West, he had already popped a number of eyes by sharing his disclosures with the Russian media organization RT (“Hillary Clinton’s ‘hacked’ Benghazi emails: FULL RELEASE“) on March 20, 2013. (A second bundle of Guccifer’s Blumenthal-Clinton emails was released on March 22, 2013.)

Given the current frenzy over Guccifer and his revelations, it is remarkable that his headline-grabbing “leaks” went virtually unreported when he first twisted the spigot back in 2013. At the time, the mainstream media took little notice. The only “news outlets” to pick up on Guccifer’s cyber-pranks were a few conspiracy sites like The Smoking Gun and Cryptome. [Note: You may experience trouble trying to access the Cryptome website.]

The tranche of Clinton’s “damn emails” subsequently posted by RT included some pretty damning revelations. Perhaps none was more shocking than the disclosure that the deadly attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012—which took the life of US ambassador John Christopher “Chris” Stevens—was secretly financed by powerful figures in Saudi Arabia.

This information was contained within the text of four messages Secretary Clinton received from Blumenthal. It should be noted that Blumenthal was not an employee of the US State Department. He was an employee of the Clinton Foundation, earning salary of $10,000 a month as a consultant providing memo-worthy Intel to Secretary Clinton. On the side, Blumenthal also was serving an entrepreneurial role inside a Libyan company called Osprey that was hoping to reap lucrative medical and military contracts under the new post-Qadaffi government. (Since such business deals could require State Department approval, Hillary Clinton might be asked someday whether this relationship with Blumenthal posed a “conflict of interest.”)

One confidential memo dispatched to Clinton on February 16, 2013 bore the warning: “The following information comes from extremely sensitive sources and it should be handled with care.” In this memo, Blumenthal included a lengthy report from an “individual with sensitive access” who, “speaking on condition of absolute secrecy” described the role of the Mokhtar Belmokhtar (a former Al-Qaeda fighter from Algeria who became the leader of the Al-Murabitoun militia) in a January 16, 2013 hostage-taking incident at an Algerian gas facility. (A four-day battle eventually freed 685 Algerian workers and 107 foreigners and left 39 foreign hostages dead).

Blumenthal’s source then turned to the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi which was mounted by Ansar al Sharia, another radical militia. “This individual adds that this information provided by the French [intelligence] service indicates that the funding for both attacks originated with wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia. During July and August 2012, these financiers provided funds to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM) contacts in southern Europe, who in turn passed the money onto AQIM operatives in Mauritania. The money was used to recruit operatives and purchase ammunition and supplies.”

“In a separate conversation,” Blumenthal’s memo continues, “Algerian DGSE [the state intelligence agency] officers note in private that Libyan intelligence officers tell them that the Benghazi attacks were funded by these financiers in Saudi Arabia.”

Alleged Saudi funding of the attack in Benghazi is particularly troubling in light of the mounting suspicions that the 28 censored pages of Washington’s official 911 report spell out the role that powerful officials in Saudi Arabia played in supporting the hijackers who brought down the World Trade Center towers in 2011. It is disturbing to discover that Hillary Clinton was informed of Saudi involvement in the death of Ambassador Stevens in 2013 and has opted to remain silent.

The Blumenthal memos make many references to the complex role of foreign intelligence—most prominently the CIA and Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (SIS)—both during Qaddafi’s reign and after the unraveling of Libya’s government.

One of Blumenthal’s sources refers to the “heightened public interest in the liaison relationships conducted by the CIA and the SIS with Qaddafi’s intelligence and security services” and mentions the international organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) and its “efforts to tie Western governments to human rights violations committed under Qaddafi.” According to one of Blumenthal’s sources, Mohammed Yousef el-Magariaf, a Libyan politician who served as the president of the General National Congress and “interim head-of-state,” was concerned that his “enemies are working to take advantage of his suspected links to the CIA” and predicted “this situation will only grow more complex as Qaddafi’s son, Saif al Islam Qaddafi and al Senousi are brought before Libyan courts” since It was believed “both men will be linked to Western intelligence during their trials.”

Compounding the problem, Blumenthal warned Clinton, were “messages to Libya from the CIA and SIS [that] were found among the Tripoli Documents published by HRW indicating that the United States and Britain were eager to help Libya capture several senior LIFG [Libyan Islamic Fighting Group] figures.”

worldbeyondwar.org/hillarys-email-bombshell-saudis-financed-the-benghazi-attack/

page16

She's not obligated to laugh about it and mock the victim, is she?

How can anyone even defend this fucking psychopath?
I mean Hillary

page20

I've shown it to a few people. The initial response is disbelief but once it's allowed to sink in it's pretty powerful stuff.

Spread it like wildfire

page5

...

She tampered with evidence, which let the convict walk. Had Hillary not done that, he most likely would be in jail.

This has to be b8, no one could be conceivably this stupid, could they?

page8

Oh my God, I had no idea that,

BOB SAGET RAPED AND KILLED A GIRL IN 1990.

I sure hope this isn't a prank or a rumor, this could really damage his career.

What is she saying in the clip? I can't understand it

"I just [got Ray come/very pumped?] from New York …? (laughing) this miscarriage of justice. We got plea-bargain…"

maybe someone can get it better

Bump to make correctors upset

...

page14bump

Despicable. And some people still believe in "honest journalism".

get a load of this
she destroyed the evidence (the crime lab cut a hole in the underwear which contained sperm and blood) and she hired a renowned expert to give a summary 'judgment' (read: complete lie) as to why the main evidence is useless

'doing her job' means arguing the law in a justice court not tampering with evidence and doing illegal stuff like getting false expert testimonies

page9

bump for super important and also linked to the recent hillary threatening bills accusers

...

the Lord seeth your dubs;
and will judge them righteously on the final day

You had one job and you blew it.

this video should be shared around folks
my last bump

NO SLIDING IN FULL EFFECT

thanks for baiting people. Here's my bump.

An attorney's job is to defend their client to the utmost of their ability. If the attorney factually knows that the defendant committed the crime they are obliged to recuse themselves from the case. Of course they never get any kind of punishment for not doing so.

Here, have an upvote

page 20 bump

still at 45kviews
page11bump

...

...

still at 46kviews
page 17 bump

youtube.com/watch?v=oCI9I8-eDbM

page14bump

Yeah remember it, pretty dark stuff. I just wonder how people can genuinely go 'yeah but that's the past"

...

scribd.com/mobile/doc/229667084/State-of-Arkansas-V-Thomas-Alfred-Taylor

The race card expired on January 20, 2009.