Hillary Clinton got a child rapist off on all charges when she knew he was guilty

[Timsup2nothin]

You seem so entrenched in your hatred of Hillary that you twist a situation where she did her job, as she should have, to uphold our justice system into a situation where she laughs about child rape.

I honestly don't know what to say to that.

I don't like to dogpile, but you, uh, really missed the mark here.

I like a good dogpile. Of course the last time I got dogpiled someone involved had the courtesy to come back two months later and point out that developing circumstances had demonstrated that I had been right all along, which isn't going to be the case for civman unless the constitution is about to be overturned.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Keep towing that Democratic line no matter what the cost, no matter how immoral. Apparently this is only about politics to you, so you are willing to ignore it. That's not only disturbing, but sad.

I could never defend anyone who did something like this no matter what their background is. This isn't about politics. Its about basic human decency. Something that is evidently non-existent among many on here.

No comment. Just wanted to quote before it gets edited.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Well, no, it's actually about upholding the integrity of our justice system. But maybe it's really about

Spoiler :

ethics in video-game journalism.

Spoiler :

But you never responded to my original post in this thread, which has more detailed thoughts. I'll quote it here:

I watched the video, and I didn't at all have the same takeaway. Several thoughts:

1. There's nothing wrong about voluntarily defending a guilty man. Every person deserves a trial, and is innocent until proven guilty. It's the foundational tenet of our criminal justice system. Nothing wrong there.

2. The prosecution (or at least the lab) mishandled the evidence, effectively destroying their own case. What would you have the system do? Should we be handing out heavy sentences without evidence now? The integrity of the system is essential to justice, even if that means the guilty sometimes get off. It would be a far greater harm to have more innocent people punished for something they didn't do, which is what would happen if evidence we allowed to be mishandled like this.

3. They plea bargained, so he admitted his guilt despite the fact that they didn't have evidence to stand on to prevent the case from going to a jury trial, where a prosecution who mishandled evidence ran a very real risk of losing the case. Besides, something like 90% of criminal cases end with a plea bargain in the US. I didn't look up the specifics of what he plead guilty to, exactly, but if it were a sexual charge then he would be placed on the sex offenders registry and be subject to continued monitoring by law enforcement, restrictions on where he could work, live, or even walk.

Bottom line, I'm afraid your thread title is a blatantly negative spin on what actually happened. I'm not a huge fan of HRC (nor am I a huge fan of any other politician, tbh), but this is really grasping at straws.

And I'm not a Democrat, since that seems to matter.

I like a good dogpile. Of course the last time I got dogpiled someone involved had the courtesy to come back two months later and point out that developing circumstances had demonstrated that I had been right all along, which isn't going to be the case for civman unless the constitution is about to be overturned.

Somebody admitted they were wrong on the internet? I hope you gave them a cookie

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And I'm not a Democrat, since that seems to matter.

Well, the entire purpose of the thread is to politicize the rape of a child, so one has to expect that to be what matters.

 

[Bootstoots]

Moderator Action: This is really nothing but a troll thread, and no civil discussion appears likely to happen. Closed.