Hillary [allegedly] Laughs at 12-year old rape victim

[Raider5678]

So there's a story out the Hillary laughed at a 12 year old rape victim.(Trump brought up the issue) She also tried to push that Shelton, the rape victim, get a "psychiatric exam" There's an audio recording but nobody can tell EXACTLY what Hillary was laughing at. So then politifact took that and decided that it was a lie, because, nobody can tell for CERTAIN. They're evidence was Hillary Clinton saying she didn't, and that's all they needed. Other sources have claimed that she got the accused racist off. Then others defend that she didn't.

https://thinkprogress.org/the-truth-about-kathy-shelton-the-12-year-old-rape-victim-trump-used-to-attack-hillary-clinton-72158e3c41cb#.gkbxw0sis

What they don't mention is that the rapist got off with LESS THEN A YEAR in prison.(personal opinion, not long enough. I'm sure someone will argue.)

 

Oh yeah, The 12 year old's victim's word means nothing, even though she, came out claiming the same thing as Trump. And while some argue she DID NOT laugh at the victim, some interpret that way.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/live/second-presidential-debate-fact-check-livewire/fact-check-yes-hillary-clinton-laugh-successfully-defending-child-rapist/

 

That's 2 websites, with no contradicting evidence, taking two different opinions on it. And one has statements made by the victim. This one tho, is just sad.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/11/rape-victim-hillary-clinton-laughed-blamed-getting-raped/

 

"When Clinton was representing Taylor, she ordered that Shelton undergo a 12-hour-long psychiatric evaluation to determine if she was “mentally unstable,” and reportedly said the child rape victim had a tendency to “seek out older men,” according to The Daily Mail."

 

Because......victim blaming. Obviously 12 year old girls seek out older men to rape them. Don't they all?

 

Hillary Clinton

✔@HillaryClinton

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary

1:24 PM - 14 Sep 2015

Twitter

 

As some here say, I call Bull.

 

 

And the NEVER ending call for proof, here.

http://lawnewz.com/video/the-truth-about-clintons-handling-of-kathy-shelton-rape-case/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/trump-says-clinton-laughed-about-rape-case/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/10/trump-is-wrong-hillary-clinton-did-not-laugh-about-the-rape-of-a-12-year-old-229455

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/trump-says-clinton-laughed-about-rape-case/

3 sites, based on Hillary's word as evidence.

https://thinkprogress.org/the-truth-about-kathy-shelton-the-12-year-old-rape-victim-trump-used-to-attack-hillary-clinton-72158e3c41cb#.inazklcc9 Failed to point out half the evidence and left out large portions of the story. Because, that's what republicans do.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/09/why-donald-trump-just-attacked-hillary-clinton-for-defending-an-accused-child-rapist-explained/ quote from here. "I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body.”

This was proven that she lied. the defendant had never made an prior accusations that were ever put on record. And that type of thing usually gets put on record.

 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/hillary-attacks-credibility-of-12-year-old-rape-victim-laughs I just put this in because I know you will hate it. I wouldn't take evidence from this as its obviously biased.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/11/rape-victim-hillary-clinton-laughed-blamed-getting-raped/

 

 

I have a personal hate for people who defend rapists, god forbid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Delta1212]

Defend conversationally or defend legally? Because everyone is entitled to a legal defense regardless of what they are accused of.

[rangerx]

I have a personal hate for people who defend rapists, god forbid.

 

 

 

Apparently the presumption of innocence, the preponderance of evidence and the role of public defenders are lost on your brand of bigotry.

[CharonY]

So, the sources basically contradict the title of this thread. And then you are accusing her of doing her job as public defender (according to your sources reluctantly)? What would be the alternative? Collude with the attorney's office to corrupt the justice system?

[Strange]

You can probably safely assume that anything in "The Daily Scum Mail" is untrue and largely fuelled by their hatred of women, foreigners and anyone more moderate than Genghis Khan.

[Raider5678]

Defend conversationally or defend legally? Because everyone is entitled to a legal defense regardless of what they are accused of.

Agreed, but lying is not legal in the defense or prosecution of anyone. But she lied saying the victim had made false accusations before, that isnt legal, hence making it controversial IMO.

 

Apparently the presumption of innocence, the preponderance of evidence and the role of public defenders are lost on your brand of bigotry.

Let me rephrase that

I have a personal hate for people who defend rapist through lies, bribery, and dirty tricks. This is not narrowed to Hillary Clinton.

 

So, the sources basically contradict the title of this thread. And then you are accusing her of doing her job as public defender (according to your sources reluctantly)? What would be the alternative? Collude with the attorney's office to corrupt the justice system?

 

No, I'm accusing her of lying, in a court, which isn't legal. Do not strawman me, intentionally or not intentionally.

 

You can probably safely assume that anything in "The Daily Scum Mail" is untrue and largely fuelled by their hatred of women, foreigners and anyone more moderate than Genghis Khan.

That is ABSOLUTELY true. But the quote is real, which is why I pointed it out. Edited October 11, 2016 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

I listened to the audience of this a about a week ago. Clinton is heard laugh in the audio. However she is not laughing at a rape victim. She is making what I'd describe as pretntious remarks about how inept other lawyers involved in the case were. Context matters.

[Raider5678]

I listened to the audience of this a about a week ago. Clinton is heard laugh in the audio. However she is not laughing at a rape victim. She is making what I'd describe as pretntious remarks about how inept other lawyers involved in the case were. Context matters.

Context does matter. And as I pointed out, how 2 different people interpret the context and the remarks is entirely up to them. I personally am not accusing her of laughing, the sites did and I simply brought it up all with them. What I AM accusing her of is falsely defending a rapist by lying.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Raider5678

[iNow]

So, she laughed at inept lawyers and got accused of laughing at 12 year old rape victims? Yep, sounds about right. That's been par for the course throughout the campaign.

Now, what lies? Be specific.

[Raider5678]

So, she laughed at inept lawyers and got accused of laughing at 12 year old rape victims? Yep, sounds about right. That's been par for the course throughout the campaign.Now, what lies? Be specific.

She falsely said the the victim had previously brought up false accusations against people. Which is a lie, there are none on record. And if you decide to argue that just because they were not on record doesn't mean they didn't happen, then that would effectively denounce most arguments about her e-mail ehhh, issue.

 

 

Also, to add to my previous points, she also made the remark to the twelve year old accusing her of seeking out older men.

 

Entirely right, true and completely appropriate.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Raider5678

[Arete]

"I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body.”

 

 

Clinton did not say the "victim was _____", she said she HAD BEEN INFORMED that the victim was ____ .

[Raider5678]

Clinton did not say the "victim was _____", she said she HAD BEEN INFORMED that the victim was ____ .

 

Except she could provide no evidence to where she "was informed." In court, one would provide the source of the evidence, no just say, I was informed. More like, I was informed by, such and such, who used such and such information, to prove such. Just kinda the way courts where I'm at usually go. They often provide evidence before saying I was informed. Unless, I am wrong and at courts other places evidence is completely pointless, thus defeating my entire argument. And all cases ruled by that court.

[Phi for All]

Let me rephrase that

I have a personal hate for people who defend rapist through lies, bribery, and dirty tricks. This is not narrowed to Hillary Clinton.

 

It was my understanding that Shelton didn't know about the request for a psych evaluation until a reporter showed her 9 years ago. Then she developed a memory about being put through a grueling psych test. But now it turns out that, although Hillary requested the evaluation, the judge in the case denied it. How is it Shelton remembers an evaluation that never took place? Lies? Bribery? Dirty tricks?

 

Or did I misread something?

[Raider5678]

It was my understanding that Shelton didn't know about the request for a psych evaluation until a reporter showed her 9 years ago. Then she developed a memory about being put through a grueling psych test. But now it turns out that, although Hillary requested the evaluation, the judge in the case denied it. How is it Shelton remembers an evaluation that never took place? Lies? Bribery? Dirty tricks?

 

Or did I misread something?

Not sure, perhaps I misread something. Where was this?

 

Also, in any event this would also prove that Hillary completely and utterly made up evidence. You can use evidence from an exam that never happened, or am I wrong because I am not a liberal or conservatist?

Edited October 11, 2016 by Raider5678

[Arete]

Except she could provide no evidence to where she "was informed." In court, one would provide the source of the evidence, no just say, I was informed. More like, I was informed by, such and such, who used such and such information, to prove such. Just kinda the way courts where I'm at usually go. They often provide evidence before saying I was informed. Unless, I am wrong and at courts other places evidence is completely pointless, thus defeating my entire argument. And all cases ruled by that court.

 

The quote is from an affidavit requesting a psychiatric evaluation, not evidence given in court. Also, her sources were cited in the affidavit.

 

 

 

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:

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/ Edited October 11, 2016 by Arete

[Phi for All]

Not sure, perhaps I misread something. Where was this?

 

From the Washington Post link in your OP:

 

Memories are malleable over time. The record shows that Shelton’s memories of the case have changed, specifically concerning being forced to take a psychiatric exam that, it turns out, was not approved by the court. Shelton did not know about Clinton’s affidavit asking for the exam in the 41-year-old case until it was shown to her by a reporter nine years ago. There is little indication that the outcome of the case would have been much different, no matter the defense attorney, given the mishandling of the evidence and Shelton’s difficulties as a witness. Yet now the exam has become a key part of her story in order to raise funds.

[Raider5678]

The quote is from an affidavit requesting a psychiatric evaluation, not evidence given in court.

 

Ok, fair enough.

If this were true though, wouldn't that be something you brinup in court, or is that just making a random remark about a 12 year olds sexual fantasies?

From the Washington Post link in your OP:

 

Ah, ok.

I would personally like to point two things out.

It wasn't approved by the court, yet Clinton used evidence from this physch examination. Unless she didn't and the court records were modified? Or she made up evidence.

[Arete]

It wasn't approved by the court, yet Clinton used evidence from this physch examination.

 

I highly doubt it was. I cannot fathom that a judge would deny a psychiatric exam and then allow fabricated evidence from that exam that never took place to subsequently be presented as evidence in the case. Do you have anything that indicates that this happened?

[Phi for All]

I would personally like to point two things out.

It wasn't approved by the court, yet Clinton used evidence from this physch examination.

 

Focus on supporting this assertion. This was not my understanding. The exam wasn't approved, it never happened, so how would the judge allow evidence to be presented from it?

[Raider5678]

Focus on supporting this assertion. This was not my understanding. The exam wasn't approved, it never happened, so how would the judge allow evidence to be presented from it?

I highly doubt it was. I cannot fathom that a judge would deny a psychiatric exam and then allow fabricated evidence from that exam that never took place to subsequently be presented as evidence in the case. Do you have anything that indicates that this happened?

 

http://lawnewz.com/video/the-truth-about-clintons-handling-of-kathy-shelton-rape-case/

"

Court documents show that as part of her defense strategy in the case, Clinton filed a motion for a psychiatric examination of Shelton. Clinton also signed a sworn affidavit that claimed Shelton was emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing. The affidavit also accused Shelton of having made false accusations against others in the past.

 

Unless I'm missreading,Court documents.

 

If she hadn't signed this,then the case would have gone in a dramatically different direction.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Raider5678

[Delta1212]

Ok, fair enough.

If this were true though, wouldn't that be something you brinup in court, or is that just making a random remark about a 12 year olds sexual fantasies?

Ah, ok.

I would personally like to point two things out.

It wasn't approved by the court, yet Clinton used evidence from this physch examination. Unless she didn't and the court records were modified? Or she made up evidence.

Based on the sources provided so far in this thread, it looks like Clinton requested a psych evaluation. The request was denied and no psych evaluation took place. Nine years ago, a reporter informed the victim of the psych evaluation request. Some time after that, this was incorporated into the victim's memory of the trial such that she remembered a psych evaluation that never actually took place, which while sounding a bit "out there" lines up very well with current research into how memory works. Inserting information planted after the fact into old memories and being unable to distinguish between the old memory and the newly introduced information is extremely common.

 

There is much more fiction in your memories than you realize.

[Raider5678]

Based on the sources provided so far in this thread, it looks like Clinton requested a psych evaluation. The request was denied and no psych evaluation took place. Nine years ago, a reporter informed the victim of the psych evaluation request. Some time after that, this was incorporated into the victim's memory of the trial such that she remembered a psych evaluation that never actually took place, which while sounding a bit "out there" lines up very well with current research into how memory works. Inserting information planted after the fact into old memories and being unable to distinguish between the old memory and the newly introduced information is extremely common.

There is much more fiction in your memories than you realize.

Yes, I looked into this a lot, its actually quite interesting IMO. What do you think?

 

 

Anyway, refer to my previous posts.

[DrmDoc]

Based on the sources provided so far in this thread, it looks like Clinton requested a psych evaluation. The request was denied and no psych evaluation took place. Nine years ago, a reporter informed the victim of the psych evaluation request. Some time after that, this was incorporated into the victim's memory of the trial such that she remembered a psych evaluation that never actually took place, which while sounding a bit "out there" lines up very well with current research into how memory works. Inserting information planted after the fact into old memories and being unable to distinguish between the old memory and the newly introduced information is extremely common.

 

There is much more fiction in your memories than you realize.

 

It also appears, from prior evidence provided by Arete, that Mrs. Clinton didn't lie in her affidavit to the court requesting a psych eval as Raider5678 claimed in prior posts. It appears that Mrs. Clinton did everything she was supposed to legally do as an officer of the court. Frankly, I don't see an issue here.

[Raider5678]

 

It also appears, from prior evidence provided by Arete, that Mrs. Clinton didn't lie in her affidavit to the court requesting a psych eval as Raider5678 claimed in prior posts. It appears that Mrs. Clinton did everything she was supposed to legally do as an officer of the court. Frankly, I don't see an issue here.

You have your issues backwards. She signed the affidavit after the "evaluation."

[Arete]

You have your issues backwards. She signed the affidavit after the "evaluation."

I believe you are mistaken. The affidavit was to request the evaluation. The request was denied. The evaluation never took place, and was never entered as evidence. The only place the quoted statements appear is in the affidavit, and not in evidence presented to a jury in court. It was never used as evidence to determine the defendant's guilt or innocence, simply to justify the exam.

You seem to be a little confused in that an affidavit requesting a psychological exam to a judge is a different document to a testimony submitted as evidence in a court. All the affidavit implies is that Clinton had been told that "that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body.”

The psychological exam was intended to determine if there was any factual basis to the claim. Clinton did not claim the above was fact, nor did she submit it as evidence. All she did was state that it had been said to her by parties named in the affidavit, and asked for a psychological evaluation be undertaken to determine its veracity.

All subsequent vetting of that affidavit have determined it to be a part of due diligence in providing the defendant with a just and fair trial. It was a lot more convoluted than is being presented - there were two defendants, one also a minor, and all parties involved were intoxicated. The defendant pleaded out to a lesser crime - which is not Clinton's decision, but the prosecutor's and likely based on the available (and demonstrably flawed) physical evidence. There's no wrongdoing present in her actions - all it really shows is that the job of a defense attorney is distasteful at times.

Now I'm no Clinton fanboy, but my family is full of lawyers, and this hatchet job does a major disservice to the role of the defense. If the defendant is guilty, the defense should make sure all reasonable doubt has been exhausted by the prosecution prior to conviction. If Clinton felt that the plaintiff's testimony might have represented reasonable doubt, even if she personally believed it, it's her duty to not only the defendant, but the people, to verify it.

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Arete