Originally posted by vivify
You realize that her lack of faith in polygraphs are only her opinion, right? Should she, based on her opinion, not have done her legal duty in pointing out the mishandled evidence?

While you chew on that, it's worth pointing out that you're no longer claiming Hillary laughed about a rapist going free, defending a rapist, or any variation of that. Now th ...[text shortened]... t use such falsehoods due to the video being right in the OP....that's one mission accomplished.

You asked what the issue with her laughter was--- since you can't seem to figure it out for yourself--- and you were given the same.
Opinion?
What in God's name are you on about?
She's laughing at taking polygraphs seriously because her client--- who couldn't have passed it if they actually were reliable--- passed one.
She is taking the matter light-heartedly: no big deal.
THAT is the issue with this sociopath's behavior.
She KNOWS that a 12 year old girl was raped (at least, she is convinced she was) by her client... and is laughing about various aspects of the same.

No one is condemning her for doing her job (although there may be some who do)... the REAL issue here is:

She knew her client was guilty and instead of acting appropriately, she behaved in a callous, cavalier fashion--- as though a 12 year old girl who Clinton believed was raped didn't deserve justice.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I don't simply claim it is flat, I've proven it is, as well.
Detractors such as yourself can level all manner of ad hominem attacks otherwise, but unless and until you're able to refute the plain-as-day realities of facts related to the same, you're just another meaningless voice in a chorus of indoctrinated, unthinking fools.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

In the same scientific journal which purports to offer unfiltered, unaltered actual photographs taken by NASA--- or any other space agency--- which depict the earth from any distance.
Oops!
There are none.
Or the same journal which can explain the visibility of objects which mathematically ought to be beyond (over) the horizon.
Oops.
Again, there are none.

Huh.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
She knew her client was guilty and instead of acting appropriately, she behaved in a callous, cavalier fashion--- as though a 12 year old girl who Clinton believed was raped didn't deserve justice.

You do see the logical disconnect in your statement, right?

She laughed at the weakness of polygraphs because an accused rapist passed one....and you conclude this shows she doesn't believe a rape victim didn't deserve justice.

You truly don't see how this is comparing apples to chewing gum?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Do the words "there are none" mean anything to you?
Do they suggest there might exist a journal which has published either the photographs discussed or the explanations indicated?
When I said no journals exist which have published either, does that give you an indication that such journals do, in fact, exist--- when I've already said they do not exist?
How is this so difficult for you to wrap your mind around?

Originally posted by vivify
You do see the logical disconnect in your statement, right?

She laughed at the weakness of polygraphs because an accused rapist passed one....and you conclude this shows she doesn't believe a rape victim didn't deserve justice.

You truly don't see how this is comparing apples to chewing gum?

The disconnected logic is yours.
She laughed derisively at the reliability of polygraph tests because her client--- whom she knew to be guilty--- passed one with respect to the rape charge.
Her demeanor throughout this interview, coupled with her conduct during the proceedings, give plenty of indication that her only goal was to win.
Now lightweights such as those who have chimed in here would suggest her job was to protect her client to the best of her ability and that anything less is cheating her client.
That is a lightweight view of the justice system... er, sorry: legal system; it's been established that justice isn't part of the equation.
Why?
Because Clinton's "best" including cheating the system.
So in not cheating her client, she offered her best, which was cheating the system.
How?
By concocting a baseless fabrication of a fantasy life of a 12 year old, as though this charge was nothing more than the 12 year old's modus operandi bearing fruit.
What did Clinton base this claim on?
Literally: nothing.
So she lied about the girl's character, knowing her client's character and then years later, laughs about the same.
Chuckle, chuckle.
What an amusing anecdote, Hilary.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
She laughed derisively at the reliability of polygraph tests because her client--- whom she knew to be guilty--- passed one with respect to the rape charge.

And?

Her demeanor throughout this interview, coupled with her conduct during the proceedings, give plenty of indication that her only goal was to win.
Now lightweights such as those who have chimed in here would suggest her job was to protect her client to the best of her ability and that anything less is cheating her client.
That is a lightweight view of the justice system... er, sorry: legal system; it's been established that justice isn't part of the equation.
Why?
Because Clinton's "best" including cheating the system.
So in not cheating her client, she offered her best, which was cheating the system

So in doing her job to the best of her ability, she "cheated" the system, though nothing she said or did was illegal. Gotcha.

How?
By concocting a baseless fabrication of a fantasy life of a 12 year old, as though this charge was nothing more than the 12 year old's modus operandi bearing fruit.

Though we don't know where Hillary based her claim that the girl had a history of making up claims, we do have PLENTY of evidence of her doing so as adult, about this rape case. There's no evidence that Hillary did or didn't pull this claim out of thin air, but there is evidence that she was right.

So she lied about the girl's character

Now that's a baseless assertion; and one there's more evidence against.

knowing her client's character and then years later, laughs about the same.

....laughed about not trusting polygraphs. You're trying your best to tie Hillary's laughing to callousness about rape, but you're swimming without a paddle here.

Originally posted by vivify
And?

[b]Her demeanor throughout this interview, coupled with her conduct during the proceedings, give plenty of indication that her only goal was to win.
Now lightweights such as those who have chimed in here would suggest her job was to protect her client to the best of her ability and that anything less is cheating her client.
That is a lightweight vie ...[text shortened]... to tie Hillary's laughing to callousness about rape, but you're swimming without a paddle here.

I don't know of anyone who swims with a paddle, so your analogy is about as cock-eyed as your logic.

She fabricated the girl's character flaws... thus, she lied.

She knew her client was guilty, and laughed at the results of a polygraph which said otherwise.
Years later, she still shows contempt for the purported aim of the system.
She is calloused.
She is a sociopath to consider ANY aspect of that case anything other than tragic.
The fact that she KNEW her client was guilty besides finding his passing the polygraph amusing?
He was still sentenced.
Didn't hear any regret from her about an innocent man getting tagged with a false charge of rape, did you?
The complaint--- in case you missed it the first time it was sent your way--- is her callousness in laughing at any aspect of the case.
A person with any conscience at all would be lashing out at the incompetence of the prosecutor, at the lax standards and ridiculously missing protocols--- she should be incensed at the outcome.
But what do we hear?
Casual.
Unaffected.
Laughter.
One of two things happened in that case.
Either a 12 year old girl was raped and her rapist was not held accountable; OR
a man was accused of raping a 12 year old girl and instead of being exonerated, his attorney was so incompetent in the face of overwhelming incompetence, he was forced to accept a lesser plea.

Damn, that s*** is funny, ain't it?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't know of anyone who swims with a paddle, so your analogy is about as cock-eyed as your logic.

She fabricated the girl's character flaws... thus, she lied.

She knew her client was guilty, and laughed at the results of a polygraph which said otherwise.
Years later, she still shows contempt for the purported aim of the system.
She is calloused. ...[text shortened]... ming incompetence, he was forced to accept a lesser plea.

Damn, that s*** is funny, ain't it?

Whoops, that phrase is "up a creek without a paddle".

Notice how many hoops in your long post you have to jump through to try and claim Hillary laughed at rape? That should tell you something.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The disconnected logic is yours.
She laughed derisively at the reliability of polygraph tests because her client--- [b]whom she knew to be guilty--- passed one with respect to the rape charge.
Her demeanor throughout this interview, coupled with her conduct during the proceedings, give plenty of indication that her only goal was to win.
Now lightwei ...[text shortened]... d then years later, laughs about the same.
Chuckle, chuckle.
What an amusing anecdote, Hilary.[/b]

You were already informed in the other thread of the basis for Hillary's motion for a psychiatric examination of the alleged victim but continue to pretend that it was based on "nothing". The document is here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084/State-of-Arkansas-V-Thomas-Alfred-Taylor at p. 34.

No lawyer ever knew their client was guilty, so you are being ridiculous. The system isn't "cheated" when a defense counsel presents a vigorous defense; it is cheated when they don't.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You were already informed in the other thread of the basis for Hillary's motion for a psychiatric examination of the alleged victim but continue to pretend that it was based on "nothing". The document is here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/229667084/State-of-Arkansas-V-Thomas-Alfred-Taylor at p. 34.

No lawyer ever knew their client was guilty, so you a ...[text shortened]... n't "cheated" when a defense counsel presents a vigorous defense; it is cheated when they don't.

I have to agree with you on this had laws not been broken for the rapists defense. That doesn't mean there is not a lot to learn about Hillary in the provided recording. Hillary got put on the case because someone was doing the defendants family a favor. Somehow the lab throws away the evidence and nothing is left for the defense. She knew there would be no evidence before she asked for it. Then she further had a third party confirm there was nothing left of the evidence and the defendant won. She did not say it but when she described what was on the underwear at the lab she knew he was guilty ( which explains her comment on lie detector tests) and when she laughed the second time on the recording was not directly at the victim but at defeating the victim. Hillary apears to have been part of a conspiracy against the victim and the legal system in seeking justice. Not much has changed has it.

Originally posted by joe beyser
I have to agree with you on this had laws not been broken for the rapists defense. That doesn't mean there is not a lot to learn about Hillary in the provided recording. Hillary got put on the case because someone was doing the defendants family a favor. Somehow the lab throws away the evidence and nothing is left for the defense. She knew there would be ...[text shortened]... spiracy against the victim and the legal system in seeking justice. Not much has changed has it.

Where are you getting this "information"? There is nothing in the trial documents or any source I have seen supporting your wild claims.

Hillary was on a list of assigned counsel and as someone only a couple of years out of law school and with little experience in criminal defense, the idea that the defendant got her by pulling strings of some sort is far-fetched. In the end, the defendant pled guilty to a lesser charge and went to jail, so this grand conspiracy didn't work all that well.