Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately

  • Thread starter Thread starter lmachine
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Inisfallen said:
For Pete’s sake. As I’ve said here in this forum before, I’m not voting for Hillary Clinton for president. I didn’t vote for her for the Senate, in either of her races (I’m a New Yorker), whether in the primary or the general election.

I’m not *defending *Hillary Clinton. I’m objecting to the level to which the debate has sunk.

Because one opposes Hillary Clinton, it does *not *mean that one can throw the facts out the window. Facts are important. In the rape case under discussion, the prosecution mishandled the evidence. Not the defense, not Hillary Clinton (Hillary Rodham, then). It is not even remotely possible that she destroyed the evidence. It was in the possession of the prosecution.

Hillary Rodham acted as a court-appointed lawyer for an accused rapist. She did her job, as the canons of her profession require. A lawyer could actually be disbarred for representing his or her client less than zealously. She ended up getting a plea deal (not an acquittal) for her client.

The facts of this case are now widely and easily available to anyone. Reputable news outlets have gone over the transcripts and records of this case. There is no excuse for repeating the scurrilous fabrications of less-than-reputable non-news sources.
Click to expand...
By saying that “she was just doing her job” you seem to be defending to her. The case she built was extraordinarily sleazy and inhuman, and in my view there’s just no denying that. She used the lowest type of gutter tactics to go after and attack a child rape victim and to defend the man who attacked her. And she’s on tape laughing all about it, a’la, “We came, we saw, he died.” It tells us what type of person she is.

As I said, to know the Kathy Shelton case is to know Hillary Clinton.

That’s not to defend to defend Donald Trump, by the way, but we do need to put these different events in an honest perspective.
 
Exiled_Child said:
By saying that “she was just doing her job” you seem to be defending to her. The case she built was extraordinarily sleazy and inhuman, and in my view there’s just no denying that. She used the lowest type of gutter tactics to go after and attack a child rape victim and to defend the man who attacked her. And she’s on tape laughing all about it, a’la, “We came, we saw, he died.” It tells us what type of person she is.

As I said, to know the Kathy Shelton case is to know Hillary Clinton.

That’s not to defend to defend Donald Trump, by the way, but we do need to put these different events in an honest perspective.
Click to expand...
Look, many lawyers do court-appointed defense work. At the big law firms, it’s a requirement for young associates to do pro bono work for indigent litigants or defendants. I believe many state bar associations require some pro bono work of all lawyers (although I don’t know anything about the Arkansas bar requirements).

My father, who was the most honorable man I ever knew, and who was appointed to the Federal bench by George H.W. Bush, also defended an accused rapist as a court-appointed lawyer back when he was a young associate at a big New York firm (this would have been back in the early 60s). He actually got an acquittal (or possibly a dismissal, I can’t remember) for his client.

Ms. Rodham didn’t “build a case,” she broke down the prosecution’s case, which is exactly what a defense lawyer is supposed to do.

There’s another thread about this case in this forum. A poster (VisitingQuaker) went through the whole thing in great detail, explaining exactly what was going on during the case. I’m guessing he or she is a lawyer. His/her excellent (and quite non-partisan) explanations are well worth reading. It would be worth taking a little time to do so.

As I said, I’m not voting for her. There are plenty of reasons for not voting for her, but this isn’t one of them. She acted exactly as a lawyer should in this case. Lawyers are not supposed to be judge and jury for their clients, or represent only the demonstrably innocent. If that were the case, the entire justice system would fall apart, and our rights (yes, our rights, not just the rights of criminals) under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution would be rendered meaningless.
 
Oops! More lies exposed from trump accuser.

thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/trump-accuser-said-abusively-nudged-concert-never-happened/

McGillivray claims that when she was nudged in 2003, Trump and his wife Melania were engaged. But a quick Google search proves this is false: Trump proposed to Melania in April 2004. Why didn’t the Palm Beach Post or McGillivray check this obvious detail?

Perhaps because they never bothered to verify a Ray Charles concert at Mar-A-Lago even happened on January 24, 2003. A Getty Images search shows Trump and Melania posing with Ray Charles at Mar-A-Lago … in a photo by Davidoff Photos Studio, created on January 1, 2003, more than three weeks before McGillivray claimed she was “grabbed” at a Ray Charles concert. A Ray Charles concert chronology shows that on January 23, a Ray Charles concert in Seattle was canceled, but nothing was scheduled for January 24.
 
Mulligan2 said:
The speech by Michelle Obama today was very powerful. Very proud of our First Lady. 🙂
Click to expand...
As am I. I actually was watching clips of the speech by the FLOTUS today and “powerful” was exactly the word that I was thinking at the time.
 
Inisfallen said:
Look, many lawyers do court-appointed defense work. At the big law firms, it’s a requirement for young associates to do pro bono work for indigent litigants or defendants. I believe many state bar associations require some pro bono work of all lawyers (although I don’t know anything about the Arkansas bar requirements).

My father, who was the most honorable man I ever knew, and who was appointed to the Federal bench by George H.W. Bush, also defended an accused rapist as a court-appointed lawyer back when he was a young associate at a big New York firm (this would have been back in the early 60s). He actually got an acquittal (or possibly a dismissal, I can’t remember) for his client.

Ms. Rodham didn’t “build a case,” she broke down the prosecution’s case, which is exactly what a defense lawyer is supposed to do.

There’s another thread about this case in this forum. A poster (VisitingQuaker) went through the whole thing in great detail, explaining exactly what was going on during the case. I’m guessing he or she is a lawyer. His/her excellent (and quite non-partisan) explanations are well worth reading. It would be worth taking a little time to do so.

As I said, I’m not voting for her. There are plenty of reasons for not voting for her, but this isn’t one of them. She acted exactly as a lawyer should in this case. Lawyers are not supposed to be judge and jury for their clients, or represent only the demonstrably innocent. If that were the case, the entire justice system would fall apart, and our rights (yes, our rights, not just the rights of criminals) under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution would be rendered meaningless.
Click to expand...
Obfuscations. One doesn’t need to be related to a federal judge to understand the Kathy Shelton case. One simply needs a sense of decency.
 
Exiled_Child said:
Obfuscations. One doesn’t need to be related to a federal judge to understand the Kathy Shelton case. One simply needs a sense of decency.
Click to expand...
No, of course one doesn’t have to be related to a judge to understand the case. I was pointing out that I’ve personally known lawyers, very well, whose decency and integrity were beyond question, who have also defended (zealously and successfully) accused rapists.

There’s no obfuscation here. I am saying, without obfuscating, and quite clearly, that it is entirely ethical for a lawyer to use all available resources to defend a client. In fact, it would be unethical not to do so.

This whole thing bothers me because the right to effective counsel is one of the very foundations of the Bill of Rights. To attack it is to attack the Constitution. And without effective, energetic court-appointed defense lawyers, there would be no right to counsel for the poor.
 
Inisfallen said:
For Pete’s sake. As I’ve said here in this forum before, I’m not voting for Hillary Clinton for president. I didn’t vote for her for the Senate, in either of her races (I’m a New Yorker), whether in the primary or the general election.

I’m not *defending *Hillary Clinton. I’m objecting to the level to which the debate has sunk.

Because one opposes Hillary Clinton, it does *not *mean that one can throw the facts out the window. Facts are important. In the rape case under discussion, the prosecution mishandled the evidence. Not the defense, not Hillary Clinton (Hillary Rodham, then). It is not even remotely possible that she destroyed the evidence. It was in the possession of the prosecution.

Hillary Rodham acted as a court-appointed lawyer for an accused rapist. She did her job, as the canons of her profession require. A lawyer could actually be disbarred for representing his or her client less than zealously. She ended up getting a plea deal (not an acquittal) for her client.

The facts of this case are now widely and easily available to anyone. Reputable news outlets have gone over the transcripts and records of this case. There is no excuse for repeating the scurrilous fabrications of less-than-reputable non-news sources.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Inisfallen said:
No, of course one doesn’t have to be related to a judge to understand the case. I was pointing out that I’ve personally known lawyers, very well, whose decency and integrity were beyond question, who have also defended (zealously and successfully) accused rapists.

There’s no obfuscation here. I am saying, without obfuscating, and quite clearly, that it is entirely ethical for a lawyer to use all available resources to defend a client. In fact, it would be unethical not to do so.

This whole thing bothers me because the right to effective counsel is one of the very foundations of the Bill of Rights. To attack it is to attack the Constitution. And without effective, energetic court-appointed defense lawyers, there would be no right to counsel for the poor.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Exiled_Child said:
I’m not sure what you mean. She’s responsible for war crimes committed across Latin America and the Middle East, primarily Libya.

But rather than focus on a war criminal we’re supposed to be shocked that a womanizer objectifies women.

Which is about as shocking as discovering that a frat boy drinks to excess.

And when a twelve year old girl is raped so hard that she’s in a coma for five days and becomes infertile for life, and defense attorney Clinton attacks her saying she wanted it, and who then goes on to destroy evidence, blood and semen soaked panties, and afterward is recorded on audio tape laughing about it, well, some idiotic media ruse has to be created and relentlessly drummed up to draw away attention…
Click to expand...
False

snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
 
Inisfallen said:
No, of course one doesn’t have to be related to a judge to understand the case. I was pointing out that I’ve personally known lawyers, very well, whose decency and integrity were beyond question, who have also defended (zealously and successfully) accused rapists.

There’s no obfuscation here. I am saying, without obfuscating, and quite clearly, that it is entirely ethical for a lawyer to use all available resources to defend a client. In fact, it would be unethical not to do so.

This whole thing bothers me because the right to effective counsel is one of the very foundations of the Bill of Rights. To attack it is to attack the Constitution. And without effective, energetic court-appointed defense lawyers, there would be no right to counsel for the poor.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I 100% reject that line of thinking.

By your logic, these would be “decent, honorable” lawyers, too, just doing their job:

cbsnews.com/news/26-year-secret-kept-innocent-man-in-prison/

I expect nothing but silence, by the way.:rolleyes:
 
zaffiroborant said:
I might believe the doe-eyed sycophant if Trump himself didn’t admit he did exactly what the contestants said he did.
Click to expand...
I really didn’t have much doubt when I heard him bragging that he’d done something very similar to his bragging. Not necessarily as much as he claimed, actually probably not in the vast number of cases, but it seemed reasonable to believe he took liberties.

I also don’t find it at all surprising that these women didn’t come forward until now. Anyone who has gone through a similar incident might have written it off as isolated, unbelievable, or both.

Why now? First of all, because he actually said bluntly that he’d never done these things. That is a lot different than saying he did them and got away with it without turning a hair on his listeners. When he claimed that he never did them, the reaction is of course going to be: Whoa, wait, you admitted it, you even bragged about it, you need to own that you also did what you bragged about.

Secondly, victims of this kind of incident often feel as if the incident was isolated or that it couldn’t really have happened. You don’t believe it. Well, if you don’t believe it when you were the one groped, who is going to believe it when you say it? The whole situation is very different when the perpetrator is caught saying he did it and other people saying it was not just one isolated incident.

It is reasonable, then, that there is some truth that he did what he’s been bragging to Howard Stern and now to this other group that he did.

If he didn’t–well, he obviously lies to make himself look better, then. OK, that’s believable, too. To tell such wild and provocative lies, however, is also disqualifying.

It one sense, it hardly matters if he did what he said or if he didn’t or if the truth is somewhere in-between. When he wanted to impress one group, he wildly said he did these awful things–I mean trying to seduce a married woman and groping others without their consent–insulting lots of people in the process of trying to make himself look good. When he wanted to impress a very different group, he adamantly said he did not do the things he bragged about, deeply insulting a different group of people in the process of trying to make himself look good.

I don’t know how one votes for this man. That is too bad, because it would be far better to have a choice that meets the conscience test who is in some real danger of winning. I con’t see how that can be helped, though.
 
Exiled_Child said:
By the way, I recommend you don’t give Snopes too much credit, because it’s very likely some kind of intelligence agency front.
Click to expand...
Which agency, which country, and why do you think that? This conspiracy theory is entirely new to me.
 
I find this thread disturbing, I truly do. :sad_yes:

If you want to vote for Mr Trump because he’s less likely to worsen the culture of death, fine. The Church permits this. But to defend him like he is some innocent little victim is horrific. This man has done serious crimes against women. Look at the proof of his life actions. Atrocious! I have done terrible terrible things myself, but I’m not running for president now am I?!

When other celebrities have been convicted of the same terrible crimes (think Bill Cosby and Josh Duggar for starters) you were all but crucifying them with your accusations. I know I read them. But you defend Mr Trump like he is some victim, when in actuality he is the transgressor, just because he has the word “Republican” attached to his name. :rolleyes:Its just UNbelievable, it truly is.

Vote for Trump because of the fact he’s less likely to do any more damage to the culture of life. But don’t justify his horrific actions and ignore all the innocent people he’s transgressed against in his life. He is a bad man, he truly is. Until he proves otherwise (which it’s not looking good) don’t put him on some golden pedestal as one just baptized and cleansed from all sin. Please, please don’t.
 
Go back to the basic issues.

Let us not be distracted by accusations that all of a sudden come out of nowhere just a few days before a major national election.

Trump ALWAYS talks about the basic issues:

Keep visualizing the porous border, no more NRA. and much higher taxes.
  1. Supreme Court Justices … left wing appointees would permanently tilt the United States to the left.
  2. Southern Border is porous … right now there is no one stopping the flood of undocumented people AND HEROIN entering the United States. Hillary believes in open borders. Her good friend and supporter, George Soros is a firm supporter of open borders. Trump has been endorsed by Border Patrol and ICE. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
  3. The U. S. tax structure is the worst in the developed world. High tax rates discourage investment in jobs and facilities.
  4. Veterans are getting terrible treatment from the Veterans Administration. Trump has a many years record and reputation of actively supporting veterans.
  5. U.S. Foreign Policy is a disaster. [Most recent example: [-]$400/-] $1200+ MILLION in CASH flown to Iran under conditions of secrecy. If it was legitimate, they would do an electronic transfer. And that’s just the latest.]
  6. Radical Islamic Terrorism is uncontested.
  7. Second Amendment. Gun control only controls law abiding citizens. Inner city crime and gang crime and black-on-black crime is/are epidemic. Getting worse and worse.
  8. The economy. Record numbers of people on food stamps. People forced into part-time work owing to restrictions by government controlled medical legislation. Make participation in government controlled medical to be optional: if you can find a better and/or cheaper plan then take it.
  9. Restrictions on religion. Freedom of Worship instead of freedom of religion. Mandatory Islam lessons in schools [as now in places] [Example: Why should the Little Sisters of the Poor be forced to purchase contraception?] [Example: Why should someone who posted dissection of aborted babies be prosecuted? Remember David Daleiden.] … read p37 0f the DNC platform.
demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf
  1. Education: The United States ranks around 27th in math. WHY??? Cursive handwriting is being removed ! Education SHOULD be controlled by states and communities … there should be NO Federal control over education. Trump encourages inner city charter schools. Especially for African American students to improve their educational results. Inner city graduation rates and reading performance are terrible. See “Con Job”, below.
  2. U.S. Military is not being kept up to date. Navy is behind in technology and numbers and readiness. Aircraft are kept going using parts from the boneyard instead of buying new stuff. Troops are not training enough. Focus is on social changes instead of on training.
  3. Continued inner city collapse. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants were born to single mothers. In 2013, 72 percent of black infants were born to single mothers. Source: page 157, “Con Job” by Crystal Wright. “Con Job – How Democrats Gave Us Crime, Sanctuary Cities, Abortion Profiteering, and Racial Division”. Crystal Wright’s Web site is www.conservativeblackchick.com
Chicago is only one example of inner city murder skyrocketing.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Go back to the basic issues.

Let us not be distracted by accusations that all of a sudden come out of nowhere just a few days before a major national election.
Click to expand...
Did you not read my post?

I said vote for the guy cause he’s less likely to do anymore damage to the culture of life.

Fine, whatever. I’m not, but if you are the Church allows it in this situation.

Please don’t act like this man has never done anything terrible. Regardless if this particular accusation is true or false this man is guilty of some horrific things in his past. These accusations could easily be true as they coincide with his past actions. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top