[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

^ That's why I could never be a Lawyer. You need to be a certain type of person to be able to defend people who you think are guilty of the most horrible crimes and certainly the type of person who doesn't take their work home or are capable of detaching yourself from it.

I agree Niamh - Like Murder Detectives, can you imagine having to blot out from your mind all those corpses you have seen, some of little children when you go home to your own children every night?

I would find it impossible.

A Defence Attorney's predicament must be even worse, because - as you say - defending someone who you know or think are guilty, must be an impossible moral and emotional problem to have to wrestle with. Especially if you are successful and get them off.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I agree Niamh - Like Murder Detectives, can you imagine having to blot out from your mind all those corpses you have seen, some of little children when you go home to your own children every night?

I would find it impossible.

A Defence Attorney's predicament must be even worse, because - as you say - defending someone who you know or think are guilty, must be an impossible moral and emotional problem to have to wrestle with. Especially if you are successful and get them off.

Yeah, jeez, I just don't think I could do it. Also, social workers must be awful difficult I think

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah, jeez, I just don't think I could do it. Also, social workers must be awful difficult I think

That job, I definitely could not do Niamh. it would wreck me. Especially all those cases of little babies and tots being systematically tortured by a parent, step-parent or 'live-in' partner.

I have read cases which still haunt me today.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

That job, I definitely could not do Niamh. it would wreck me. Especially all those cases of little babies and tots being systematically tortured by a parent, step-parent or 'live-in' partner.

I have read cases which still haunt me today.

Horrendous, I know. A friend of my moms used to Foster kids years ago but eventually had to stop after a little boy she'd been fostering for ages was handed back to the parents who had sexually abused him, can you believe that?

[Jamie89]

I feel like I should prefix this by saying I'm not even a Hillary 'supporter'. I don't particularly like her and just because I'm anti-Trump, and just because I've made posts criticizing him, that doesn't mean I'm pro-Hillary. I just don't feel the need to criticize her based on something which I believe to be completely inaccurate.

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

what reaction there has been, has - in my opinion - been dismissive, denialist, and deflective.

But perhaps, it is not the above dismissive, denialist, and deflective 'voices' which are the most informative about the lack of impartiality, objectivity, and fairness, in some of the posts on here

I can only assume that my posts are included in this since you don't say who you're referring to but I'm sorry Kirk, I take offence to the assumption that I've lacked impartiality, objectivity and fairness in my posts. I've watched the video in the OP, I've looked into the facts of the case, and I've listened to the full original tapes that whoever made this video chopped up and presented in it. And I haven't seen that anyone in this thread has been to show that what I've said is inaccurate in any way. I've read the replies to my posts and none of them do.

And it is just that very 'nothing to say' sudden silence, which I am afraid to say, strips away all credibility from those views on here which have so vilified Trump.

You say that you've made conclusions based on certain members who have been anti-trump not posting in the thread, but could it be possible that they simply discredit the video based on the same reasons I have, and so feel that there isn't a worthy discussion to be had? Personally I don't feel like this discussion is worthy, I've only taken part in it myself because I've found it so crazy that people would watch the video and unquestionably believe its message when it isn't giving a real account of what happened.

I'm all for "let's talk about the things Hillary has done and what kind of person she is" and many Trump supporters keep saying that there's too many threads criticizing him and there isn't enough negative focus on Hillary, but when something as unfactual and biased as this is presented as a negative against her I don't find the reaction (or lack of reaction) to it surprising in the least or that people don't feel it's necessary to discuss. If people want to discuss Hillary's faults then something accurate should be presented at the very least. If people see the 'story' here that Hillary is a 'rape-enabler' as being something that's been made up, then why would they be driven to debate it?

The comparison between this and the Trump tape is that they are both tapes that make the people involved look bad, but the huge difference is that this one has been manipulated and edited out of all context and only exists to serve as anti-Hillary propaganda, and many people don't give credence to, or form opinions on that kind of thing. With Trumps tape on the other hand, the conversation he's having is clear, it wasn't manipulated and edited with the intention of showing a conversation that didn't happen, and given the nature of it and how disgusted people were, of course there's going to be a big reaction to that. And I reject the idea that it's 'historic'. It was 11 years ago and he was 59, they aren't the views of a teenage Trump who is yet to mature. 59 years old and he said those things.

The arguments over the 'historical' 'Busgate' video still rages, and it has been well enough covered, but as shocking and sexist as Trump's ego-driven boastful comments are, about power, wealth and fame enabling (some) men to grope (some) women at will without protest or resistance - WAS he lying?

Maybe he wasn't lying about the fact that some men can get away with doing that, but he wasn't presenting what he said in the same way you have. He was saying that they are things that he does, and he was suggesting that it's ok to do those things, as well as the other general comments he was making about women, that's why people have been so disgusted at him. And just because someone can get away something, that doesn't make it morally ok.

Or an historical video showing a now famous, wealthy, and powerful PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE boastfully TALKING about how - as a DEFENCE ATTORNEY - she used deceitful and dishonest tactics to ensure that a depraved sexuallly deviant monster who she KNEW had raped and beat a little, innocent 12 year old girl to such a degree that she was in a coma, to EVADE his rightful and proper punishment under the law?

This just isn't what happened at all, and I've talked previously in the thread about why I believe that to be the case so I won't repeat myself, and maybe all of this will be brushed aside anyway as me being blind to her faults or something, but it just seems completely inaccurate. So it's not that I think it's ok for Hillary to be a 'rape-enabler', it's that I don't think she is one. And so if anything, it's the makers of this video who I think are abhorrent because they're the ones who have used the rape of this girl (and the Trump campaign continues to use her) in order to sell a lie for political gains, and regardless of political leaning, why would anyone want to buy into that? And if anyone is buying it just because they are a Trump supporter, or just because they dislike Hillary, then I guess that's their prerogative, but I'd still urge anyone who believes that Hillary is a 'rape-enabler' based solely on this video (which honestly is such an extreme accusation to level at someone it should be taken seriously enough to base it on something more factual), to look into what happened further.

I'm entitled to my opinion too and I don't want to come across aggressive in any of this but I just think it's unfair to dismiss mine or anyone else's opinion as biased etc (especially when I've gone out of my way to explain why I have the opinion I do on this case) just because either they haven't posted, or have posted in defense of Hillary, or making an assumption that the only reason me or anyone else would have a particular opinion is because of being 'pro-Hillary' or 'anti-Trump', when actually I've spent time looking into what happened because when I first heard the rumour she was a 'rape enabler' I thought it was disgusting and I wanted to know what happened, and I've based my opinion on what I found. It has absolutely nothing to do with Trump or bias, I've judged it on it's own (lack of) merits.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I feel like I should prefix this by saying I'm not even a Hillary 'supporter'. I don't particularly like her and just because I'm anti-Trump, and just because I've made posts criticizing him, that doesn't mean I'm pro-Hillary. I just don't feel the need to criticize her based on something which I believe to be completely inaccurate.



I can only assume that my posts are included in this since you don't say who you're referring to but I'm sorry Kirk, I take offence to the assumption that I've lacked impartiality, objectivity and fairness in my posts. I've watched the video in the OP, I've looked into the facts of the case, and I've listened to the full original tapes that whoever made this video chopped up and presented in it. And I haven't seen that anyone in this thread has been to show that what I've said is inaccurate in any way. I've read the replies to my posts and none of them do.



You say that you've made conclusions based on certain members who have been anti-trump not posting in the thread, but could it be possible that they simply discredit the video based on the same reasons I have, and so feel that there isn't a worthy discussion to be had? Personally I don't feel like this discussion is worthy, I've only taken part in it myself because I've found it so crazy that people would watch the video and unquestionably believe its message when it isn't giving a real account of what happened.

I'm all for "let's talk about the things Hillary has done and what kind of person she is" and many Trump supporters keep saying that there's too many threads criticizing him and there isn't enough negative focus on Hillary, but when something as unfactual and biased as this is presented as a negative against her I don't find the reaction (or lack of reaction) to it surprising in the least or that people don't feel it's necessary to discuss. If people want to discuss Hillary's faults then something accurate should be presented at the very least. If people see the 'story' here that Hillary is a 'rape-enabler' as being something that's been made up, then why would they be driven to debate it?

The comparison between this and the Trump tape is that they are both tapes that make the people involved look bad, but the huge difference is that this one has been manipulated and edited out of all context and only exists to serve as anti-Hillary propaganda, and many people don't give credence to, or form opinions on that kind of thing. With Trumps tape on the other hand, the conversation he's having is clear, it wasn't manipulated and edited with the intention of showing a conversation that didn't happen, and given the nature of it and how disgusted people were, of course there's going to be a big reaction to that. And I reject the idea that it's 'historic'. It was 11 years ago and he was 59, they aren't the views of a teenage Trump who is yet to mature. 59 years old and he said those things.



Maybe he wasn't lying about the fact that some men can get away with doing that, but he wasn't presenting what he said in the same way you have. He was saying that they are things that he does, and he was suggesting that it's ok to do those things, as well as the other general comments he was making about women, that's why people have been so disgusted at him. And just because someone can get away something, that doesn't make it morally ok.



This just isn't what happened at all, and I've talked previously in the thread about why I believe that to be the case so I won't repeat myself, and maybe all of this will be brushed aside anyway as me being blind to her faults or something, but it just seems completely inaccurate. So it's not that I think it's ok for Hillary to be a 'rape-enabler', it's that I don't think she is one. And so if anything, it's the makers of this video who I think are abhorrent because they're the ones who have used the rape of this girl (and the Trump campaign continues to use her) in order to sell a lie for political gains, and regardless of political leaning, why would anyone want to buy into that? And if anyone is buying it just because they are a Trump supporter, or just because they dislike Hillary, then I guess that's their prerogative, but I'd still urge anyone who believes that Hillary is a 'rape-enabler' based solely on this video (which honestly is such an extreme accusation to level at someone it should be taken seriously enough to base it on something more factual), to look into what happened further.

I'm entitled to my opinion too and I don't want to come across aggressive in any of this but I just think it's unfair to dismiss mine or anyone else's opinion as biased etc (especially when I've gone out of my way to explain why I have the opinion I do on this case) just because either they haven't posted, or have posted in defense of Hillary, or making an assumption that the only reason me or anyone else would have a particular opinion is because of being 'pro-Hillary' or 'anti-Trump', when actually I've spent time looking into what happened because when I first heard the rumour she was a 'rape enabler' I thought it was disgusting and I wanted to know what happened, and I've based my opinion on what I found. It has absolutely nothing to do with Trump or bias, I've judged it on it's own (lack of) merits.

Thank you for responding without vitriol Jamie.

We have - basically - a difference of opinion in our interpretation of that video and are both entitled to our opinions.

I apologise to you Jamie, if you found offence re: my comments concerning impartiality, objectivity and fairness, and perhaps, I should have worded that differently and included that little word 'some'.

I am not always 'word perfect' when typing long posts.

I will though, stand by my comments regarding the absence of responses to this Clinton video from those who have been so vociferous about the Trump counterparts, and I will repeat; that I do so, not because I am a Trump fan, because I am not - as a careful search through ALL the Trump related threads prior to the past few days will attest - and I also stand by my interpretation of that video.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Horrendous, I know. A friend of my moms used to Foster kids years ago but eventually had to stop after a little boy she'd been fostering for ages was handed back to the parents who had sexually abused him, can you believe that?

I actually can believe it Niamh - as crazy and disgusting as such a decision is - because there are just too many reports of similar unbelievable decisions concerning 'Officialdom' and 'Children At Risk', that it seems to be more widespread than one would think.

I bet your mum's friends were heartbroken by this decision, and I don't want to even think about how mentally and emotionally tortured they must be, and will remain - wondering what horrors 'their' little boy is going through with those non parents.

It is all so unfair.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I actually can believe it Niamh - as crazy and disgusting as such a decision is - because there are just too many reports of similar unbelievable decisions concerning 'Officialdom' and 'Children At Risk', that it seems to be more widespread than one would think.

I bet your mum's friends were heartbroken by this decision, and I don't want to even think about how mentally and emotionally tortured they must be, and will remain - wondering what horrors 'their' little boy is going through with those non parents.

It is all so unfair.

she was devastated, had to stop fostering after it. Imagine putting a little child back into a house where he was abused and probably terrified it's disgusting and taking him out of a house where he was looked after properly and felt safe

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Ha! I'm afraid, that your dismissive attitude to me is no surprise, but that pales into insignificance when it comes to your dismissive attitude to the TRUTHFUL reality of just what Clinton did - and that was certainly FAR MORE than just 'her job'.

The question of whether Clinton knew that her client was guilty or not, will only ever be truly known to herself and her client, but the logical assumption - based upon her own words in the video under discussion - is that she either DID know, or at least greatly SUSPECTED as much.

And therein lies the problem, because it is not the question of whether she should have continued to defend her client or not, whilst knowing or suspecting that he was guilty, that indicts Clinton of being an unscrupulous, dishonest and thoroughly callous bitch, but more just HOW she freely CHOSE to conduct his defence.

Legal ethics do not come into this, because - despite precedents of Defence Attorney's continuing to plead a case for their client's innocence when they KNEW they were guilty which date as far back as the 'Courvoisier' murder case of 1840, and as recently as the 2006 case of David Westerfield (more below) - NO hard and fast ruling on just what the Defence Attorney should or should not do, exists.

So arguably, Clinton did nothing wrong in continuing to defend Taylor. whist knowing or suspecting that he was indeed guilty, but the manner in which she freely elected to defend this evil bastard is beyond belief, because her wholly reprehensible tactics in so coldly and cruelly attacking the little 12 year old victim, destroying her credibility, and vilely shifting blame and culpability for Taylor's evil ONTO her, is not only INDEFENSIBLE, but mirrors the equally disgusting case from 2006 which is mentioned above.

In that notorious case, a San Diego Defence Attorney named Steve Feldman, was defending an evil bastard called David Westerfield who abducted and slaughtered a little girl - Danielle Van Dam- whose body had never been found.

During plea bargaining, the prosecutor offered not to seek the death penalty if Feldman would get his client to disclose the location of the body so the poor girl's family could have at least the consolation of affording her a proper burial.

Westerman agreed to Feldman to accept this 'deal' and disclosed to Feldman the location of little Danielle's body.

So Defence Attorney Feldman KNEW beyond any doubt that Westerfield was guilty.

By their own efforts, however, the police found Danielle's corpse BEFORE the plea bargain deal was officially sealed and the deal was 'off'.

At trial, the disgusting Feldman conducted an aggressive defence and attacked Danielle's poor grief-struck parents and forever shamed them and besmirched their reputations by bringing to light, the totally irrelevant fact that they sometimes held 'sex parties' and suggested that one of their guests could have abducted and murdered their daughter.

YET this bastard KNEW that Westerfield was guilty.

At least Feldman's dishonest, deceitful, and unethical tactics FAILED and Westerfield was found guilty and is currently on Death Row awaiting his rightful execution.

UNLIKE Clinton's client who, thanks to her dishonest, deceitful, and unethical tactics SUCCEEDED in 'winning' her guilty client a mere two months imprisonment.

And UNLIKE Clinton, there are NO tapes around of Feldman BOASTING and LAUGHING at his own 'cleverness' in attacking people he knew were innocent because he KNEW his client was GUILTY.

I do not blindly and slavishly support any pop star, actor, politician, or political party so fanatically, that I lose all rationality and objectivity when it comes to RECOGNISING and ADMITTING any flaws and imperfections in them, so I will STAND behind my opinion, whether you dismiss it so readily or not.

Again, defense solicitors sometimes have to defend terrible people. They can't just sell them up the river during the trial or they'd never work again. Just like prosecutors sometimes send innocent people to prison. Both sides have to work with what they have to win the case.

Also, where's your proof that there was any wrongdoing on Hillary's part? Like I said before, this is all built on circumstantial evidence and guilt by association. That video and this whole story is just a desperate attempt by Trump and his supporters to gain some ground and it's completely hypocritical given that, if we were to use the same tactics on Trump, he'd be classed as a rapist. Hillary's not been brought up on any charges, Trump's got an underage sex lawsuit in December.

Your last paragraph is not worth talking about, stop acting like a victim because nobody is discounting your opinion in fact you're just looking for an argument judging by the other essay you wrote in this topic. Your little jab at the end at everyone who happens to disagree with you is also unneeded and deeply hypocritical.

[bots]

Clinton is a lawyer, and she has to represent those guilty or innocent with the same competence. However, she doesn't need to express joy and make jokes at a result when she knows that the person she was defending was stone cold guilty. That's the issue, I don't understand how people can write that off without calling her character in to question

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

she was devastated, had to stop fostering after it. Imagine putting a little child back into a house where he was abused and probably terrified it's disgusting and taking him out of a house where he was looked after properly and felt safe

I HATE passing Saddleworth Moors now because EVERY single time I do, I have thoughts which I cannot stop, of those poor little terrified children who Brady and Hindley tortured, murdered and buried there, all alone, terrified and crying for their parents in the dark with no one to help them.

It MUST be the same for those poor Foster Parents, and the officials responsible for this decision should be sacked.

I really hope that it has not been simply a case of 'handing them back' and that the Social Services are diligently pursuing a rigorous 'checking' procedure where they regularly inspect the child, his 'parents', and the home, to ensure that he is not being abused again.

I have, though, a sinking feeling, that this is probably NOT the case. I pray that I am wrong.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Again, defense solicitors sometimes have to defend terrible people. They can't just sell them up the river during the trial or they'd never work again. Just like prosecutors sometimes send innocent people to prison. Both sides have to work with what they have to win the case.

Also, where's your proof that there was any wrongdoing on Hillary's part? Like I said before, this is all built on circumstantial evidence and guilt by association. That video and this whole story is just a desperate attempt by Trump and his supporters to gain some ground and it's completely hypocritical given that, if we were to use the same tactics on Trump, he'd be classed as a rapist. Hillary's not been brought up on any charges, Trump's got an underage sex lawsuit in December.

Your last paragraph is not worth talking about, stop acting like a victim because nobody is discounting your opinion in fact you're just looking for an argument judging by the other essay you wrote in this topic. Your little jab at the end at everyone who happens to disagree with you is also unneeded and deeply hypocritical.

Because I do not agree with anything which you have written above - including the personal element and false supposition in the last paragraph - I will leave it here.

I have written my opinion - and the very factual and logical reasons it is based upon - and readers can make up their own minds whether to agree with it or not, and therefore, I have no wish to become embroiled in argument for arguments sake, when such argument would be futile, would not further the debate, and probably descend into highly personal barbed post trading.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Clinton is a lawyer, and she has to represent those guilty or innocent with the same competence. However, she doesn't need to express joy and make jokes at a result when she knows that the person she was defending was stone cold guilty. That's the issue, I don't understand how people can write that off without calling her character in to question

Exactly BOTS.

[Mokka]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I feel like I should prefix this by saying I'm not even a Hillary 'supporter'. I don't particularly like her and just because I'm anti-Trump, and just because I've made posts criticizing him, that doesn't mean I'm pro-Hillary. I just don't feel the need to criticize her based on something which I believe to be completely inaccurate.



I can only assume that my posts are included in this since you don't say who you're referring to but I'm sorry Kirk, I take offence to the assumption that I've lacked impartiality, objectivity and fairness in my posts. I've watched the video in the OP, I've looked into the facts of the case, and I've listened to the full original tapes that whoever made this video chopped up and presented in it. And I haven't seen that anyone in this thread has been to show that what I've said is inaccurate in any way. I've read the replies to my posts and none of them do.



You say that you've made conclusions based on certain members who have been anti-trump not posting in the thread, but could it be possible that they simply discredit the video based on the same reasons I have, and so feel that there isn't a worthy discussion to be had? Personally I don't feel like this discussion is worthy, I've only taken part in it myself because I've found it so crazy that people would watch the video and unquestionably believe its message when it isn't giving a real account of what happened.

I'm all for "let's talk about the things Hillary has done and what kind of person she is" and many Trump supporters keep saying that there's too many threads criticizing him and there isn't enough negative focus on Hillary, but when something as unfactual and biased as this is presented as a negative against her I don't find the reaction (or lack of reaction) to it surprising in the least or that people don't feel it's necessary to discuss. If people want to discuss Hillary's faults then something accurate should be presented at the very least. If people see the 'story' here that Hillary is a 'rape-enabler' as being something that's been made up, then why would they be driven to debate it?

The comparison between this and the Trump tape is that they are both tapes that make the people involved look bad, but the huge difference is that this one has been manipulated and edited out of all context and only exists to serve as anti-Hillary propaganda, and many people don't give credence to, or form opinions on that kind of thing. With Trumps tape on the other hand, the conversation he's having is clear, it wasn't manipulated and edited with the intention of showing a conversation that didn't happen, and given the nature of it and how disgusted people were, of course there's going to be a big reaction to that. And I reject the idea that it's 'historic'. It was 11 years ago and he was 59, they aren't the views of a teenage Trump who is yet to mature. 59 years old and he said those things.



Maybe he wasn't lying about the fact that some men can get away with doing that, but he wasn't presenting what he said in the same way you have. He was saying that they are things that he does, and he was suggesting that it's ok to do those things, as well as the other general comments he was making about women, that's why people have been so disgusted at him. And just because someone can get away something, that doesn't make it morally ok.



This just isn't what happened at all, and I've talked previously in the thread about why I believe that to be the case so I won't repeat myself, and maybe all of this will be brushed aside anyway as me being blind to her faults or something, but it just seems completely inaccurate. So it's not that I think it's ok for Hillary to be a 'rape-enabler', it's that I don't think she is one. And so if anything, it's the makers of this video who I think are abhorrent because they're the ones who have used the rape of this girl (and the Trump campaign continues to use her) in order to sell a lie for political gains, and regardless of political leaning, why would anyone want to buy into that? And if anyone is buying it just because they are a Trump supporter, or just because they dislike Hillary, then I guess that's their prerogative, but I'd still urge anyone who believes that Hillary is a 'rape-enabler' based solely on this video (which honestly is such an extreme accusation to level at someone it should be taken seriously enough to base it on something more factual), to look into what happened further.

I'm entitled to my opinion too and I don't want to come across aggressive in any of this but I just think it's unfair to dismiss mine or anyone else's opinion as biased etc (especially when I've gone out of my way to explain why I have the opinion I do on this case) just because either they haven't posted, or have posted in defense of Hillary, or making an assumption that the only reason me or anyone else would have a particular opinion is because of being 'pro-Hillary' or 'anti-Trump', when actually I've spent time looking into what happened because when I first heard the rumour she was a 'rape enabler' I thought it was disgusting and I wanted to know what happened, and I've based my opinion on what I found. It has absolutely nothing to do with Trump or bias, I've judged it on it's own (lack of) merits.

Thank you Jamie... succinct as always. And my feelings on the video have been so well represented by your posts... that i decided not to weigh in on this thread, and also because I am over trying to discuss Trump with this forum in general.

I am not one of the Hilary fanatics if the world either... I sit with you in the knowledge that both these candidates are atrocious... but my lack of posting in the many nonsense threads being made of the character of both candidates should not be read as my having no defense for my opinion....just a lack of willingness to engage regarding false rhetoric.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Clinton is a lawyer, and she has to represent those guilty or innocent with the same competence. However, she doesn't need to express joy and make jokes at a result when she knows that the person she was defending was stone cold guilty. That's the issue, I don't understand how people can write that off without calling her character in to question

She laughed when she mentioned aspects of the case that were ridiculous, because, I guess she found them laughably ridiculous. That's very different to laughing at the girl or the crime which is what the video suggests she is doing.

I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess that to be a good one you have to learn to be able to separate 'case' from 'crime' and to be able to detach emotionally from the case I'd imagine.

People may question her morality I suppose for that, and noone is suggesting she's a perfect person, but it doesn't make her a 'rape-enabler', which is what the issue is.

[Ammi]

...hmmm, I feel as though I might have to give a little absence note explanation here...I've been working and although I had seen the thread title and watched the OP vid, I haven't really had time to look further and like Jamie, it's not the sort of vid that I would comment on, on face value without looking into it a bit more because it seems very much contrived and slanted by the 'anti Hilarys'....and yes there is lots to be anti Hilary about as there is lots to be anti Trump about but I don't see the correlation between this vid and the one recently posted with Trump's conversation because they're entirely different circumstances...

...Donald Trump admitted his comments and he tried to justify and excuse them as 'locker room banter'...sexual assault and finding it amusing and abusing his 'star quality' is just the average locker room banter and represents males.../well no, it doesn't not one little bit...

...with Hilary and this vid...?...the vid itself seems to be a distortion so isn't accurate of the title 'rape enabler'...she was a young prosecuting lawyer and she did voice reservations about taking the case but it wasn't ultimately her decision, she was appointed by the judge because apparently she helped run a legal aid clinic at the time, so her name came up and Thomas Alfred Taylor had specifically asked for a female to defend him...Thomas Alfred Taylor was a grim person, an awful person...defence lawyers have to defend some pretty horrendous people..rapists/murderers and even though their thoughts may be of guilt with that person and even though they might be appalled at what they've done...they still have to defend them to the best of their abilities because everyone until guilt is proven in a court of justice, is entitled to that...there is often a whole team of investigators involved also and if errors are found that could reduce a sentence for the client etc, then a job wouldn't be done properly and to the best of their ability if that wasn't used...unpleasant maybe/the thought of that with someone like Thomas Alfred Taylor...but it's what defending attorneys have pledged to do..again to represent to the best of their ability...there seemed to have been mistakes made..and those mistakes are really what are accountable for the unfortunate sentencing and that 'proper justice' wasn't served for the victim...I completely understand the victim's feelings about it and her feelings directed toward Hilary, how could she not feel the way she does and has felt over the years...those flaws in a judicial system just shouldn't happen/it's all wrong but it does happen though..we hear of it so often sadly...with the laughter..?...that's the only thing to me that seems questionable in this and the original vid seems too paint a different thing completely in that Hilary's laughter seems ironic laughter at the judicial system and how things like the polygraph said he was telling the truth when she strongly suspected he was guilty and of forensic mistakes...I mean how ironic for her that she is forced to represent in a case that she doesn't want in the first place../a tough case where a guilt outcome and appropriate harsh sentencing are pretty much certain, so a case she's pretty certain that she's going to lose...and mistakes made and complete false 'truth indicator' in a polygraph meant that justice wasn't served...that to me seemed to be where her lughter was coming from.../the irony of it all...obviously that's just my own interpretation and my own perspective to it but it's definitely not a perspective of any slant of favour toward Hilary...they're both grim, Hilary and Trump, they're both grim in different ways...I just don't think that this is one of those ways for Hilary and represents what it's suggesting....she had a responsibility under her oath to represent and defend to the very best of her abilities and she did because even the most grim of grim people are entitled to a fair representative and fair trial ....

[Ammi]

..or fairly much what Jamie said really...