Date: May 11, 2016
The charges sound quite heinous…which demands a lawyer be present to do everything in their power, to make the prosecution prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. This process is all about throwing up as many obstacles as possible, to stop them from making their case against the defendant.
I don’t like the idea of Hillary as president…but this type of media goes a step too far.
Anyone put on trial for such a thing, should have a lawyer who fiercely defends them…It’s a vital part of the checks and balances of our “justice” system, which is supposed to be a built in element of the process…Hillary did what she was supposed to do.
This has nothing to do with who is guilty or innocent…It’s the way the system was designed to work…
Ugly matters often demand ugly paths of resolution, in order to retain integrity…Which is why, while often nobody likes watching it, it is vital that the accuser face the accused…It’s the only way to most clearly inventory, just what took place.
As a bit of an aside…however delicate and emotional the circumstances may be…the trend in recent years to video record statements from children, and offer those taped statements as testimony evidence, while the child [the presumed accuser] is nowhere present in the courtroom, has been especially concerning…Because it side steps so much of the process.
No…nobody wants a small child recounting all the details of a rape, in front of a crowd of people…But if they’re being video taped talking about just exactly that, and this video is going to be played in front of the same crowd…it’s already being done to them, they just don’t necessarily know it…[where are the anti child porn like arguments, and concern about the child’s dignity and emotional stability, when this is going on?…Oh yeah…This fits the social narrative…Child porn does not]…
It seems rational to me…that if the charges and consequences are severe…if they’re going to be parading the child’s experience in front of others, no matter what…then the child should be present in the courtroom, for live cross examination.
“Hillary Clinton’s role in a 40-year-old rape case became the focal point of a viral meme in 2016, but the claims were only partially accurate.
Claim: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case.
WHAT’S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Clinton was requested as lawyer for the defense in a rape case involving a 12-year-old girl; Clinton reluctantly took on the case, successfully challenged mismanaged evidence, and entered a plea bargain for the defendant.
WHAT’S FALSE: Clinton laughed about the unreliable nature of polygraphs, not the case’s outcome; Clinton did not volunteer to be the man’s lawyer; Clinton did not claim the complainant fantasized about being raped by older men; the case did not go to trial.”
In cases such as these, it is critical that we are crystal clear and honest.
I don’t just say this out of my personal disgust, over the lackadaisical manner in which the rights of the accused are often approached…
…I say this, because it is the only decent and humane path to move forward in.
If we reject this path…then we are neither decent nor humane.