• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN Cuts Off Segment After Mention of Hillary's Accused Child Rapist Defense...

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
CNN host Carol Costello abruptly ended a segment Tuesday after a guest brought up Hillary Clinton’s 1975 legal defense of an accused child rapist.

Appearing on “CNN Newsroom With Carol Costello” on Tuesday, Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg, who supports Donald Trump said, “When you get one-on-one, especially if it’s Hillary, Donald Trump will go places nobody is willing to go — where the media at this point isn’t willing to go: Bringing up Clinton’s women who say they were intimidated by Hillary. Having them come forward and speak. A litany of issues that you can’t even imagine.” (RELATED: Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Admires Trump)

Costello then interrupted, “I’m thinking that might not be a winning argument for Donald Trump right at this moment.”

CNN Host Ends Interview Over Hillary's Defense Of Rapist | The Daily Caller
 
CNN host Carol Costello abruptly ended a segment Tuesday after a guest brought up Hillary Clinton’s 1975 legal defense of an accused child rapist.

Appearing on “CNN Newsroom With Carol Costello” on Tuesday, Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg, who supports Donald Trump said, “When you get one-on-one, especially if it’s Hillary, Donald Trump will go places nobody is willing to go — where the media at this point isn’t willing to go: Bringing up Clinton’s women who say they were intimidated by Hillary. Having them come forward and speak. A litany of issues that you can’t even imagine.” (RELATED: Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Admires Trump)

Costello then interrupted, “I’m thinking that might not be a winning argument for Donald Trump right at this moment.”

CNN Host Ends Interview Over Hillary's Defense Of Rapist | The Daily Caller

That could surely leave a mark on the ol' girl.
 
More than a few people have pointed out that Hillary worked to silence and discredit woman. The fact that the media is has done a lot to downplay Hillary's flaws just shows how much they're in the tank for her.
 
She did the job of a defence lawyer. When guests become emotionally incontinent, it's normal to cut to the ads. That's why radio phone in callers are on a delay.
 
A lawyer will literally get disbarred for not doing their best in the defense of their client. I don't see what the issue is.

Bad people have rights too.
 
More than a few people have pointed out that Hillary worked to silence and discredit woman. The fact that the media is has done a lot to downplay Hillary's flaws just shows how much they're in the tank for her.

Absolutely!

She did the job of a defence lawyer. When guests become emotionally incontinent, it's normal to cut to the ads. That's why radio phone in callers are on a delay.

Yep...can't let the real truth be told, can we?

A lawyer will literally get disbarred for not doing their best in the defense of their client. I don't see what the issue is.

Bad people have rights too.

Innocent people have rights...bad people should have no rights! ............and bad people go to Hell!
 
A lawyer will literally get disbarred for not doing their best in the defense of their client. I don't see what the issue is.

Bad people have rights too.

You bet.
You should speak to her ad team to get the details of the story into a 60 second spot for her campaign.
 
She did the job of a defence lawyer. When guests become emotionally incontinent, it's normal to cut to the ads. That's why radio phone in callers are on a delay.

It's not that she "did the job". It's that she did the job in a morally despicable way, and then thought it was funny that she'd gotten a child rapist off.
 
Innocent people have rights...bad people should have no rights! ............and bad people go to Hell!

Here's the thing:

That bad person is innocent until they are proven guilty in a court of law.

We think that guy is a bad guy because we think he was a child rapist. But was he? They weren't able to prove it in court. Some evidence that supposedly would prove guilt was mishandled and became inadmissible. (i think they actually lost it). What the OP calls "a technicality," I call "compromised evidence." There's a reason we don't allow such evidence in court. What if it was tampered with? What if an overzealous officer fabricates evidence about someone? Or a prosecutor? Do you really trust the government so much that you'd want to allow that? "Yeah we totally had this evidence that proved MickeyW is guilty of murder... but we threw it away. Take our word for it, on faith. He's a murderer. We're the government, we'd never lie."

The reason we have Due Process of Law in the first place is that a percentage of accused people really are innocent, and any one of us might find ourselves on the stand some day for a crime we didn't commit.

Bad people have rights. Guilty people have those rights taken away. After Due Process.
 
Innocent people have rights...bad people should have no rights! ............and bad people go to Hell!

I don't think you understand how rights work. Are you claiming accused criminals are not entitled to a defense?
 
CNN host Carol Costello abruptly ended a segment Tuesday after a guest brought up Hillary Clinton’s 1975 legal defense of an accused child rapist.

Appearing on “CNN Newsroom With Carol Costello” on Tuesday, Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg, who supports Donald Trump said, “When you get one-on-one, especially if it’s Hillary, Donald Trump will go places nobody is willing to go — where the media at this point isn’t willing to go: Bringing up Clinton’s women who say they were intimidated by Hillary. Having them come forward and speak. A litany of issues that you can’t even imagine.” (RELATED: Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Admires Trump)

Costello then interrupted, “I’m thinking that might not be a winning argument for Donald Trump right at this moment.”

CNN Host Ends Interview Over Hillary's Defense Of Rapist | The Daily Caller

So...is it the law - and American tradition - that ALL those accused of crimes (no matter how heinous) have the right to legal representation at a fair trial? Yeah, it is. So that means that in YOUR view, any lawyer who takes up the case for the defense of the accused is automatically assumed to believe and be sympathetic towards his or her client, and so is automatically unfit to be president. Just think - if what MickeyW apparently believes were true, defense attorneys would be comprised only of the most unethical, money-grubbing social misfits out there.

In other words, you've got a LOT to learn about the law. Yes, there are lawyers who are truly the lowest pond scum in the sewage treatment plant of humanity...but just like the rest of humanity, most are good, regular people doing their doggone job.
 
It's not that she "did the job". It's that she did the job in a morally despicable way, and then thought it was funny that she'd gotten a child rapist off.

No, she did the job in the way she is legally obligated to do it.

As for the "thought it funny" part, I would suggest you should actually listen to the tape but your perception has already been poisoned.

She laughed about the polygraph. She laughed because the child rapist passed a polygraph, and this destroyed her faith in polygraphs. She then also laughed about a mistake of the investigators. Here's what happened:

There was a bloody pair of underpants in evidence. A test was run on the blood. The lab cut out a piece of the underwear for the testing... and then sent back the underwear with the hole in it as evidence. She laughed because they sent the wrong piece back.

That's what she laughed about. Not about a child rapist getting off.
 
No, she did the job in the way she is legally obligated to do it.

No, she was legally obligated to defend her client. She wasn't legally obligated to attack the child.

As for the "thought it funny" part, I would suggest you should actually listen to the tape but your perception has already been poisoned

Concur that I have a bias when it comes to Hillary (as do you), however, she seems to be pretty clear in thinking that this whole thing is funny, and either doesn't get or doesn't care that she enabled a victimizer.

Which fits neatly with her attacks on the Bimbos'.
 
CNN host Carol Costello abruptly ended a segment Tuesday after a guest brought up Hillary Clinton’s 1975 legal defense of an accused child rapist.

Appearing on “CNN Newsroom With Carol Costello” on Tuesday, Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg, who supports Donald Trump said, “When you get one-on-one, especially if it’s Hillary, Donald Trump will go places nobody is willing to go — where the media at this point isn’t willing to go: Bringing up Clinton’s women who say they were intimidated by Hillary. Having them come forward and speak. A litany of issues that you can’t even imagine.” (RELATED: Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Admires Trump)

Costello then interrupted, “I’m thinking that might not be a winning argument for Donald Trump right at this moment.”

CNN Host Ends Interview Over Hillary's Defense Of Rapist | The Daily Caller
Still reading the Daily Caller and believing it to be truth I see, my my you are on a roll today, just remember rolls get stale sooner or later.
 
A lawyer will literally get disbarred for not doing their best in the defense of their client. I don't see what the issue is.

Bad people have rights too.

So why would Hillary and those who support and defend her be so embarrassed by this case? Seems puzzling to me that if the matter was entirely honorable a person needs to shun and hide it.
 
No, she was legally obligated to defend her client. She wasn't legally obligated to attack the child.
Credibility of a witness? Yeah, that's part of her job too.

Concur that I have a bias when it comes to Hillary (as do you), however, she seems to be pretty clear in thinking that this whole thing is funny, and either doesn't get or doesn't care that she enabled a victimizer.
No, she doesn't at all "seem to be pretty clear" on that. Obviously you didn't actually listen to the tape.
 
Still reading the Daily Caller and believing it to be truth I see, my my you are on a roll today, just remember rolls get stale sooner or later.

So Hillary didn't get a child rapist off and laugh about the fact he passed a polygraph?
 
So why would Hillary and those who support and defend her be so embarrassed by this case? Seems puzzling to me that if the matter was entirely honorable a person needs to shun and hide it.

Journalists are under no obligation to let you spout nonsense on their show. This idiotic idea that "balanced journalism" means giving equal time to false claims needs to go.
 
So Hillary didn't get a child rapist off and laugh about the fact he passed a polygraph?

No, she laughed at her own remark about faith in polygraphs.
 
So Hillary didn't get a child rapist off and laugh about the fact he passed a polygraph?
It was her JOB, some are cut out to be attorneys and some are not, I see there are several here that are not. All lawyers celebrate their wins, even DA's that punt an innocent person behind bars di it, it is called winning. She will do it again in November, just ignore it.
 
Journalists are under no obligation to let you spout nonsense on their show. This idiotic idea that "balanced journalism" means giving equal time to false claims needs to go.

I agree - seems they do it all the time, however. But it's clear that the media, CNN a prime example, does not broker any attempts to besmirch their Democrat nominee, as was witnessed with Obama the past two Presidential elections.

I was simply responding to your post that she only did what the law required her to do and wondered why this was such a fuss if she was only acting honorably? I've seen lots of defense attorneys who are quite proud of the work they do for those who are innocent until proven guilty. We have a very famous female defense attorney here in Toronto who's being crucified by the victim industry because she successfully defended a famous male against three charges of sexual assault and managed to prove, on the stand, that the three females were and are pathological liars. And yet the victim industry claims that all women who cry sexual assault must be believed unconditionally and this female attorney has somehow acted badly. Could it be that Hillary knows all to well how those she associates with would view such a history if it was widely known?
 
Yes, there are lawyers who are truly the lowest pond scum in the sewage treatment plant of humanity...but just like the rest of humanity, most are good, regular people doing their doggone job.

Agreed.

Quite simply it would seem that Hillary Clinton is of the "lowest pond scum in the sewage treatment plant of humanity" variety.

Here's her "blame the victim" defense of a child who had been raped:

In a July 28, 1975, court affidavit, Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”

“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior,” Clinton said.

Clinton said the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

Whether she had a professional obligation to defend the guy, or whether the prosecution was ultimately unable to prove his guilt as the result of a technicality, notwithstanding, the fact that Clinton, even back then, would blame the 12-year-old victim of a violent rape for the fact that she was raped is unethical, immoral, and utterly reprehensible.

I might hire that kind of snake to defend me at trial, but I wouldn't share a meal with such a person or elect such a person to represent me in any capacity.

This is a testament to what kind of person Hillary Clinton is, and while she might have, however briefly, been an effective lawyer she is also a piece of human garbage, "the lowest pond scum in the sewage treatment plant of humanity" to use your words.
 
I agree - seems they do it all the time, however. But it's clear that the media, CNN a prime example, does not broker any attempts to besmirch their Democrat nominee, as was witnessed with Obama the past two Presidential elections.

I was simply responding to your post that she only did what the law required her to do and wondered why this was such a fuss if she was only acting honorably? I've seen lots of defense attorneys who are quite proud of the work they do for those who are innocent until proven guilty. We have a very famous female defense attorney here in Toronto who's being crucified by the victim industry because she successfully defended a famous male against three charges of sexual assault and managed to prove, on the stand, that the three females were and are pathological liars. And yet the victim industry claims that all women who cry sexual assault must be believed unconditionally and this female attorney has somehow acted badly. Could it be that Hillary knows all to well how those she associates with would view such a history if it was widely known?

Show me someone claiming that all women must be believed unconditionally or just drop the nonsense and discuss reality. Your choice.
 
Show me someone claiming that all women must be believed unconditionally or just drop the nonsense and discuss reality. Your choice.

Hashtag on social media related to the case I referred to - #IBelieveSurvivors

Here's an article on the case and the reaction from women's groups - this isn't the subject of this thread, but I appreciate you have no answer for why Hillary and/or her supporters would be embarrassed and want to hide her involvement in defending an accused in such a case.

Marie Henein, Jian Ghomeshi's lawyer, denies she has betrayed women - CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News
 
Hashtag on social media related to the case I referred to - #IBelieveSurvivors

Here's an article on the case and the reaction from women's groups - this isn't the subject of this thread, but I appreciate you have no answer for why Hillary and/or her supporters would be embarrassed and want to hide her involvement in defending an accused in such a case.

Marie Henein, Jian Ghomeshi's lawyer, denies she has betrayed women - CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News

Didn't see anything about believing women unconditionally. Help me out.
 
Back
Top Bottom