The Lubed Ass solution.

WTF is this? .... The fact is that... any fairly competent attorney who is well-versed in criminal laws would have whipped that prosecutor's sorry ass. That's exactly what had taken place in that instance. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Hey AndyMissedTheMarkAgain, would ANY competent attorney accuse a 12-year-old rape victim of fantasizing about sex with older men?

Or is that something only hildebeest would do, since she is a true defender and champion of women?

Hey AndyMissedTheMarkAgain, would ANY competent attorney accuse a 12-year-old rape victim of fantasizing about sex with older men?

Or is that something only hildebeest would do, since she is a true defender and champion of women? Originally Posted by lustylad

Accuse???!!! Where did you get this from? In her motion, Hillary did state that she had "been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasing... [and] that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body." Of course Hillary couldn't have possibly taken those "information" at their face value, the only way to evaluate the merit of those "information" is to have an impartial third party psychiatrist conducting independent evaluations of the said victim. So what Hillary had done here is perfectly appropriate.

But again the fact is that the victim had never been subjected to "psychiatric exams" of which she has repeatedly accused Hillary. Because the day after Hillary filed her motion for a psychiatric exam, her motion was denied. Looking back now, Hillary is absolutely vindicated for requesting psychiatric exams of the said victim, considering the victim has lied repeatedly that Hillary had subjected her to numerous psychiatric exams.

Don't take my words for it, go and "meet Pa. lawyer who staked her profession against 'Hillary Clinton freed a [forbidden subject]' claims". You should be able to verify it in person, since that lawyer is, like you, from Pittsburgh.

Listen again to the part where she laughs at how her client beat the lie detector. She said he passed the lie detector test and she now has no faith in them.

She knew he was guilty, helped him get off, and later laughed about it.

If a 12 year old relative of yours were sexually assaulted, would you want Hillary to defend the perp?

Listen again to the part where she laughs at how her client beat the lie detector. She said he passed the lie detector test and she now has no faith in them. Originally Posted by goodman0422

Of course she "has no faith in them." Neither did any U.S. court back in 1975. And you know what? They are still entirely inadmissible by a number of the States today.


http://legalmatch.com/law-library/ar...-in-court.html

She knew he was guilty, helped him get off, and later laughed about it. Originally Posted by goodman0422

According to Roy Reed, who conducted the original interview with Hillary, has emphatically stated that Hillary didn't laugh at the victim in that 1980s interview; that's good enough for me.

If a 12 year old relative of yours were sexually assaulted, would you want Hillary to defend the perp? Originally Posted by goodman0422

I would have told the judge who forced Hillary staying on that case to get lost.

...So what Hillary had done here is perfectly appropriate. Originally Posted by andymarksman

So you think smearing the reputation of a 12-year-old adolescent rape victim by suggesting that she fantasized about sex with older men is "perfectly appropriate" and consistent with hildebeest's claims that she has been "fighting for women and children" all her life?

Too bad the judge in the case didn't agree with you, AndyMissedTheMarkAgain:

...the day after Hillary filed her motion for a psychiatric exam, her motion was denied. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Of course she "has no faith in them." Neither did any U.S. court back in 1975. And you know what? They are still entirely inadmissible by a number of the States today. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Nice try, AndyMissedTheMarkAgain. The point isn't whether they're admissible or not. The point is that hildebeest laughingly cited this case - where her client, the accused rapist, passed a polygraph test - as proof of their unreliability. In other words, she KNEW her client was guilty of raping a 12-year-old girl.

Which Jews are you talking about Luke?

According to Roy Reed, who conducted the original interview with Hillary, has emphatically stated that Hillary didn't laugh at the victim in that 1980s interview; that's good enough for me. Originally Posted by andymarksman

So who are we supposed to believe - Roy Reed or our lying ears?

Is Roy Reed a mind reader? Did he ask hildebeest why she was laughing at the time? Yet he somehow knows "emphatically" 35 years later?

When you caught people snickering behind your back in grade school, did you believe them when they said "We were just laughing with you, not at you"?

I would have told the judge who forced Hillary staying on that case to get lost. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Did the judge hold a gun to her head and "force" her to represent the rapist? Why didn't hildebeest tell the judge to get lost? Oh wait, that would not have been helpful for her career as a Little Rock lawyer. And we all know her career is more important to hildebeest than doing the right thing!

Such a fearless and dedicated champion of women and children! She's been fighting for them all her life!

Which Jews are you talking about Luke? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

you, you fake jewtard ahahahhhahaaa

Did the judge hold a gun to her head and "force" her to represent the rapist? Why didn't hildebeest tell him to get lost? Oh wait, that would not have been helpful for her career as a Little Rock lawyer. And we all know her career is more important to hildebeest than doing the right thing! Originally Posted by lustylad

the op will not reply. they have no answer . they are losers

shshshshssssssssssssssssssssss sssssshhshshhhsshhhssss

SNICK

the op will not reply. they have no answer. they are losers.

shshshshssssssssssssssssssssss sssssshhshshhhsshhhssss

SNICK Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

That's ok. I know they won't admit what they really think. But if this whole sordid episode doesn't trouble them deeply, it means they have no empathy for 12-year-old rape victims.

I am getting to you or are you frustrated because your wager thread will cost you 90 days? Originally Posted by Luke_Wyatt

Hey Lube UpMyAss, it is almost the 1st of the month. Your probably going to hit up the HEB on SE Military drive and I-37 when govt check arrives?

According to Roy Reed, who conducted the original interview with Hillary, has emphatically stated that Hillary didn't laugh at the victim in that 1980s interview; that's good enough for me. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Of course. She just happened to laugh as she was thinking about it but her laugh may have been completely unrelated.

She is as soulless as you are ignorant.

(Just so you understand, that's really fucking ignorant!)