dalesql: (Dale badge)
[personal profile] dalesql
So it seems Hillary's defense of rapists by discrediting the rape victim was something she had been doing for decades. It's sad that this is being published in a british paper, I guess the american news apparatchiks don't want to break ranks in their support of Hillary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729466/Child-rape-victim-comes-forward-time-40-years-call-Hillary-Clinton-liar-defended-rapist-smearing-blocking-evidence-callously-laughing-knew-guilty.html

Date: 2016-10-17 01:44 am (UTC)

Date: 2016-10-17 11:55 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] donnad.livejournal.com
Do you not believe in the consitiution? Do you not believe that everyone deserves a fair trial, guilty or not?

HRC was assigned to defend that person. She did not choose it nor request it. Should she have refused because he was guilty? Doesn't that go against the constitution? If she had refused, it probably would have been held against her (Oh look HRC doesn't believe in the constitution and that everyone should get a fair trial, she's not fit to be President.) and her career would have suffered.

I can't believe people are still beating that dead horse.
This is old news, if you really want to call it news.
Edited Date: 2016-10-17 11:56 am (UTC)

Profile

dalesql: (Default)
dalesql

August 2017

S M T W T F S
  123 45
6789101112
13141516171819
20 212223242526
27282930 31  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 09:54 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios