- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 9,540
- Reaction score
- 0
You are lying again. You need to find some principles that mean something to you and stick by them.
Hillary was acting as a defense lawyer. As a lawyer, she requested a psychological exam to be conducted (at the defense's expense) of the accuser, by a child psychologist.
The child psychologist was the one who came to the conclusions about the girl's mindset.
The psychological exam was never conducted. Hillary only requested it be conducted, and the reasons she gave for doing this were reasons she made up, and gave up no evidence for. Hence why the judge denied her request.
Can you do us a favor and please go read about the case behind a sponsored Snope's article. You are getting incredibly basic facts wrong. This case has been discussed to death over the course of the election. I can't fathom how anyone can still be this ignorant about it.
You can disagree with the conclusion of the case. But to attack a young defense lawyer for accepting a case to which they were assigned, and doing their job, is completely anti-6th amendment.
Go read the constitution beyond the 2nd amendment. There's more!
I'm not attacking her for accepting the case, you dimwit. I'm attacking her for sleazy tactics during the case. It is not a defense attorney's job to get a guilty man off free. Its their job to help the guilty man navigate the legal process, protect his rights as the accused, and make sure the prosecutor and judge are playing fair. Trying to discredit a 12 year old girl who was clearly raped, and who Hillary herself believed was raped, by saying she had older men fantasies, or because she slept with a 15 year old crush, is fucked up.