Page 29 of 38 FirstFirst ... 19252627282930313233 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 379
Like Tree13Likes


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #281
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Obama Caught In Failed Agitprop Operation Over Benghazi Video

    In previous reports, has provided readers with more than enough evidence to establish probable cause that the Obama administration was involved in the production of the anti-Muhammad video it attempted to blame for the Benghazi attacks. The filmmaker has confessed to being a Muslim and was confirmed to be an agent for Eric Holder's Justice Department

    We have established motive, glaring inconsistencies, timelines, and a connection to Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the U.S. Government. Still missing is how a two-bit, third-rate video was made to go viral.

    This video – especially when viewed in conjunction with what we've already proven – may help to answer those questions:

    Obama, schooled in agitprop by agitpropist extraordinaire and Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member Frank Marshall Davis, knows all about agitation and propaganda. He learned from the best in Davis.
    Paul Kengor, a professor of political science and expert on all things Davis, wrote the following about the CPUSA member's exploits in the newspaper business after moving from Chicago to Hawaii, where he would later be introduced to a young Barack Obama:
    WHEN FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS sold the Star in 1948, he suddenly made his way to Hawaii, a move almost certainly dictated by the Party. There, as his declassified 600-page FBI file shows, his bread would be buttered by Harry Bridges' Communist- controlled International Longshore and Warehouse Union. The ILWU bankrolled a Communist newspaper called the Honolulu Record, for which Davis immediately began writing a regular column that lasted through 1957. Those columns picked up where Davis left off at the Star, with the same incendiary pro-Soviet themes and Party agitprop.
    The above video may help to explain the "how" when you talk about the Obama administration and its attempts to keep its fingerprints off the production of "Innocence of Muslims" but how about the "why"?
    While co-chairing a meeting in Istanbul, Turkey on July 15, 2011, with the Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was christening "The Istanbul Process." It would be the first in a series of meetings intended to launch a sustained assault on the first amendment.
    That's what the video was specifically intended to help accomplish, as reported shortly after the attacks. Two Muslim men in Egypt – Wisam Abdul Waris and Nadder Bakkar – were instrumental in ginning up Muslim hatred against the video in the days before Benghazi.
    Both men made appearances on the filmmaker's YouTube channel as well (though not seen in the video above):

    YouTube Channel of anti-Muhammad video filmmaker.
    As reported, Hillary tipped her hand as to how the Obama administration would use an anti-Muhammad YouTube video as agitprop after the Benghazi attacks. Her statement revealed how the administration planned…

    "…to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don't feel that they have the support to do what we abhor."
    The sick irony is that the Obama administration's agenda involved changing societal norms – to transform – in order to get the people themselves (useful idiots) to implement its real agenda for them. In so doing, the Obama administration was simply implementing its agenda via stealth and deception.
    Via… agitprop.
    It had help too. The Muslim Brotherhood is heavily invested in this very same agenda. Obama's envoy to the OIC – a Muslim Brotherhood infiltrator named Rashad Hussain – echoed Hillary's sentiment earlier this year, at the 2014 "Istanbul Process" summit, as reported. Here is what Hussain said, in part:
    Relying on governments to ban certain speech often ignores the root causes of bigotry, and many religious communities have found that improving education, interfaith dialogue, and media awareness are effective tools for combatting (sic) intolerance. The Istanbul Process that we are here participating in today is meant to promote implementation of those important measures.
    Let's also not forget that another Muslim Brotherhood infiltrator was on the distribution list of the September 14, 2012 email that instructed Susan Rice to blame the video for the attacks, as first revealed.

    Why did Alhassani receive 'Smoking gun' email?
    The Obama administration has an agenda to censor speech by creating the perception that a grass roots movement causes it. Isn't that exactly how this administration conducts business generally?
    *Ben Barrack contributed to this article.
    Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.


  2. #282
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Liberal Asks Hillary Clinton if She's a Liar, a Hypocrite or Both

    By Onan Coca / 14 June 2014 / 304 Comments

    Hillary Clinton is a political animal. We all know and understand this, and just as President Obama “evolved” on gay marriage… so has Mrs. Clinton. However, if we can all think back to the 2008 election… how many people truly believed that President Obama and Mrs. Clinton were “really” against gay marriage? That may have been their public position but NO ONE really bought it.
    We all knew, Republicans and Democrats alike, that given the chance, both Obama and Clinton would back gay marriage. Do you think any gay marriage supporting Democrat would have voted for either of them if they truly believed that they were “anti-gay marriage?” No way.
    But Democrat politicians usually get a pass for things like that… so Hillary Clinton was super-surprised when a liberal radio host at NPR asked her the obvious question.
    “Are you a really big hypocrite and liar… or is it just coincidence that you came around to the gay marriage side when it was politically expedient?”
    Needless to say, Hillary was not happy with the question… or the persistence of the interviewer, NPR’s Terry Gross.

    Partial Transcript:

    NPR’s Terry Gross: “So what’s it like when you’re in office and you have to do all these political calculations to not be able to support something like gay marriage, that you actually believe in. Obviously you feel very committed to human rights and you obviously put gay rights as part of human rights but in doing the calculus you decided you couldn’t support it. Correct me if I’m reading it wrong.”
    Hillary Clinton: “I think you’re reading it very wrong. I think that, as I said – just as the President has said – just because you’re a politician doesn’t mean you’re not a thinking human being. You gather information, you think through positions, you’re not one hundred percent set, thank goodness, you’re constantly re-evaluating where you stand. That is true for me. We talked earlier about Iraq, for goodness sakes. So for me, marriage has always been a matter left to the states and in many of the conversations I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists to work state-by-state. In fact, that is what is working and I think that being in the position that I was in the Senate, fighting employment discrimination which we still have some ways to go, was appropriate at that time. As Secretary of State, I was out of domestic politics and I was certainly doing all I could on the international scene to raise the importance of the human rights of the LGBT community. And then leaving that position, I was able to very quickly announce that I was fully in support of gay marriage and that it is now continuing to proceed state-by-state. I am very hopeful that we will make progress and see even more change and acceptance. One of my big problems right now is that too many people believe they have a direct line to the divine and they never want to change their mind about anything. They’re never open about new information and they like to operate in an evidence-free zone. I think it’s good if people continue to change.”
    Gross: “So you mention that you believe in state by state for gay marriage. But it’s a Supreme Court too. The Supreme Court struck down part of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevented the federal government from recognizing gay marriage. That part is now struck down. And DOMA was actually signed by your husband when he was president. In spite of the fact that he signed it, were you glad at this point that the Supreme Court struck some of it down?”
    Clinton: “Of course. And you know, again, lets…we are living at a time when this extraordinary change is occurring and I’m proud of our country, I’m proud of the people who have been on the front lines of advocacy, but in 1993, that was not the case. And there was a very concerted effort in the Congress to make it even more difficult and greater discrimination and what DOMA did is at least allow the States to act. It wasn’t going to yet be recognized by the federal government but at the state level there was the opportunity. And my husband was the first to say, that you know, the political circumstances, the threats that were trying to be alleviated by the passage of DOMA, thankfully, were no longer so preeminent and we could keep moving forward and that’s what we’re doing.”
    Gross: “So, just to clarify, just one more question on this, would you say your view evolved since the 90s or that the American public evolved allowing you to state your real view.”
    Clinton: “I think I’m an American, I think that we have all evolved, and it’s been one of the fastest, most sweeping transformations that I’m aware of.”

    Gross: “I’m pretty sure you didn’t answer my question about whether you evolved or was the America public the change –”
    Clinton: “Because I said I’m an American so of course we all evolved and I think that’s a fair conclusion…”

    Gross: “So that’s one for you changed your mind?”
    Clinton: You know I really, I have to say, I think you being very persistent, but you are playing with my words and playing with what is such an important issue.”
    Gross: “I’m just trying to clarify so I can understand -”
    Clinton: “No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify. I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that’s just flat wrong. So let me just state what I feel like I think you are implying and repudiate it. I have a strong record. I have a great commitment to this issue and I am proud of what I’ve done and the progress were making.”
    Gross: “You know I’m just saying, I’m sorry – I just want to clarify what I was saying – no, I was saying that you maybe really believed this all along, but, you know believed in gay marriage all along, but felt for political reasons America wasn’t ready yet and you couldn’t say it. That’s what I was thinking.”

    Clinton: “No. That is not true.”

    Folks, this is Hillary Clinton (and Barack Obama) for that matter. They blow with the wind. They are hypocrites of the highest order, turning lying, cheating and manipulating into an art form. And Democrats love them for it…


    What???? Who like's to work in an evidence free zone "Too many People" You mean married people???? Again Hillary who are they, those too many with strong beliefs "people"!! Those too many people who think the school system has no right to teach their children about what a homosexual is???? The same "too many people" who think the educational system in our Country is supposed to teach reading, writing and arithmetic, those too many people, Hillary???

    Again who is it that likes to ignore facts again, it couldn't be the "Benghazi Butcher" and her followers could it????
    This sly devil just loves to double speak doesn't she, kind of like her Hubby knowing what "IS IS"...oh well "What difference does it make" once a liar always a liar!!!
    Last edited by kathyet2; 06-15-2014 at 11:36 AM.

  3. #283
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Jokey Emoticons: The Best Response to Child-Rape Stories!

    BY: Sonny Bunch // June 16, 2014 10:38 am

    Image via our very own Rae Lynn Ziegler

    The Decadent and Unethical Anti-Clinton Website that Shall Not Be Named published a story last night about Hillary Clinton’s efforts as a defense attorney to get a 41-year-old man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl off the hook. The newsiest part of the piece wasn’t the case itself—Glenn Thrush wrote about it back in 2008, though his editor buried it because it “might have an impact” on her run for the presidency—but newly unearthed audio tapes of Hillary discussing the case. The most chilling bit?
    Describing the events almost a decade after they had occurred, Clinton’s struck a casual and complacent attitude toward her client and the trial for rape of a minor.
    “I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she added with a laugh.
    Clinton can also be heard laughing at several points when discussing the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime.
    My two favorite responses to the story, by far, were these:

    Erin Gloria Ryan @morninggloria Follow
    Hillary Clinton tapes from the mid 80s. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) tbh …
    8:33 PM - 15 Jun 2014
    The Hillary Tapes

    Newly discovered audio recordings of Hillary Clinton from the early 1980s include the former first l

    Free Beacon @FreeBeacon

    joshuafoust @joshuafoust Follow ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ …
    8:35 PM - 15 Jun 2014
    The Hillary Tapes

    Newly discovered audio recordings of Hillary Clinton from the early 1980s include the former first l

    Free Beacon @FreeBeacon

    I imagine a conversation with these two on the topic would be fascinating:
    Did you hear about that time Hillary Clinton was literally laughing about the rapist of a 12-year-old girl going free?
    You don’t think it’s noteworthy? Or at least interesting?
    I mean, I get the argument that defense attorneys have to defend their clients. I don’t think she did anything unethical here—though discussing the case with a reporter seems a pretty clear violation of attorney-client privilege, don’t you think?
    And, look, I’m open to the argument that the system, in order to function, needs semi-sociopathic people who are able to compartmentalize.

    But do we really want those dissociative sociopaths to be president? Not sure that’s the best thing for the republic.

    Considering all the chatter about “rape culture” in recent weeks, you’d think the left would be kind of upset by the fact that Hillary Clinton used the judicial system to smear a girl—to say, in essence, she was either asking for it or that she was making it all up.
    Good point. I mean, it’s not like Hillary did something really despicable like shave the head of a kid in high school.
    I dunno, I guess I shouldn’t expect much more from Mr. Foust, given his habit of casually (and inaccurately) tossing around accusations of rape threats. I do expect a bit more from Miss Ryan, the news editor at Jezebel, though. Hannah Horvath’s favorite site is usually pretty interested in the intersection of politics and rape culture.
    Then again, they’ve got real news to focus on.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ …

  4. #284
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    June 16, 2014

    Hillary's Hardest Choice

    By Doris O'Brien

    The best way to justify Hillary’s barnstorming across the country while pretending not to be on the campaign trail is for her to write a book. Even before Hard Choices hit the stands, Hillary Clinton was madly making the rounds, amassing enough celebratory sashes to mount her own Ms. America contest. Now she can justify her supposedly non-campaign stops by capping them off with book signings.

    Canny Ms. Clinton has come up with a hands-on excuse for her constant public appearances, one she hopes will sufficiently mask her true intentions. If there are voters out there who may wonder how such a peripatetic politician found the time to even write a book, perhaps she didn’t. Time is hardly a consideration when there’s a stable of speechwriters, pens or laptops poised.

    In recent months, Hillary has been experimenting with rearrangements of her hairstyle. Now comes another experiment: rearranging history. A different twist here, a change of part there, and so forth. Tone down the brash color. Tease the troublesome strands of her past a bit to make the lady seem more caring and less calculating.

    Book critic Michiko Kakutai of the New York Times, wrote, “The rollout of Clinton’s new book, ‘Hard Choices’… has all the subtlety of a military operation ramping up to full speed.” Others judged it to be more soporific than terrific, Mike Allen of Politico calling it “a newsless snore, written so carefully not to offend that it will fuel the notion that politics infuses every part of her life.“

    Still, the intent of the book is not to get tongues wagging, but to calm them down, maybe even silence them. Mrs. Clinton’s underlying purpose for bringing forth her latest literary tome, however boring and “newsless,” is to anticipate and thus deflect the avalanche of criticism that is bound to gain momentum when she declares her candidacy, which she will. It is clearly an attempt to jump the gun on her opposition. All the sincere protestation is nothing more than vintage Clinton.

    The underlying thrust of Hard Choices is to soften Hillary’s image. By concentrating on “choices,” she seeks to portray herself as just another conscientious person, like you and me, who must grapple with decisions in our daily lives. For anyone who might suspect that Hillary’s decisions were selfishly arrived at in order to advance her vaulting ambition, her latest book offers the alternative of a kinder, more even-handed and less polarizing figure whose choices were dutifully centered on family and country, rather than around herself.

    There is the possibility that the general public will tire of Hillary even before the 2016 campaign season gets officially underway. It’s a chance she takes. But the Clinton camp is betting on the opposite effect: that by then she will have become such a ”popular” figure – i.e. being so well known to the public -- she will already seems back in the White House. The hardest choice of Hillary’s life, perhaps, will be to make her election appear inevitable.

    In the meantime, she’s everywhere. I came across her recently at our mutual college reunions, which always take place in the same cycle on the Wellesley campus. Under Secret Service protection, she took her place in the audience that listened to a talk by another alumna and former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who spoke engagingly about her signature pin collection. Hillary received a rousing ovation when she was introduced. But she did not show up the following morning to march in the alumnae parade; her appearance would likely have been too disruptive in that crowded, open venue. As it is, she and Madeleine generally suck the oxygen out of all other reunion events.

    One of her many returning fans had a different take on this, insisting that Hillary Rodham Clinton couldn’t dare appear in the parade, since her opponents would immediately read something nasty into that, such as an attempt to drum up votes. Yet how can that be so, when Hillary’s not even running for president? Besides, she can’t easily march and sign books at the same time, can she? Well, can she?


  5. #285
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    The Disgusting Shamelessness of Hillary Clinton

    By Onan Coca / 16 June 2014

    A group calling itself “Faith Voters for Hillary” just tweeted out this disgusting image of what can only be called the most shameless political quote of all time.

    That’s right Hillary Clinton actually said…
    “The Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking. I was raised reading it, memorizing passages from it and being guided by it. I still find it a source of wisdom, comfort and encouragement.”
    If the Bible guides her thinking, then she has obviously misunderstood the passages about homosexuality, marriage, murder and lying.
    As one of the chief proponents for abortion in the Democrat Party, she has helped to murder millions of helpless innocent children.
    As a leader in the fight for gay activism, she has brought about the degradation of the American family and the perversion of the Biblical definition of marriage. God in the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman and Himself. It is a supernatural union created by God to teach humanity about our Creator and to express the truths of who God is.
    Hillary Clinton and her cronies in the Democrat Party are perverting the very truth of what God teaches in Scripture.
    So it surprises me to hear her say… “The Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking. I was raised reading it, memorizing passages from it and being guided by it. I still find it a source of wisdom, comfort and encouragement.”In fact, this whole thing makes me very angryOne more thing… “Faith Voters for Hillary?” Give me a break.

    The Democrat Party abandoned “faith” a long time ago… anyone remember when the Democratic National Convention BOOED God in 2012?


  6. #286
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Hey, Hillary: America Doesn’t Need a Hag-in-Chief

    Written by Pete Parker on June 16, 2014

    The very last thing America needs (at this most critical juncture in its history) is an odious and sinister hag to be commander-in-chief.

    Yeah, I’m talking about you Hillary.

    The woman who rode a semen stain to political stardom is a hateful and evil witch who not only stridently supports late term abortions–but also allowed four Americans to be sodomized and then slaughtered due to her towering incompetence.

    Remember it was Ambassador Stevens who, on numerous occasion–requested added security for the Benghazi consulate via State Department cables. But, sadly–then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ignored them all.

    And lest we forget: It was Hillary who–out of morbid political expediency and rabid capitulation to the Muslim world–blamed the attack on an obscure video that poked fun at the Prophet Mohammed.

    Well, as we all now know–that was a freakin’ lie.

    But, beyond her ability to engage in the most outrageous and vile mendacities–lies a question that just begs to be answered: What has Hillary ever accomplished?

    The answer, in a word–nothing.

    I challenge even the most dogmatic, left-wing ideologues to proffer one single accomplishment that Hillary has produced either as a litigator, first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the United States, senator, or Secretary of State?

    Truth is–they won’t be able to, because–she has zero accomplishments.

    That’s right–Nada!

    Fact is–during her days as a lawyer, and then senator– Hillary never authored a single piece of substantive legal or legislative doctrine.

    But, don’t despair–the one thing Hillary has in abundance is failures.

    From staying with a man who publicly humiliated her (and her daughter) on the world stage to running a State Department that supported the “Arab Spring,” the Muslim Brotherhood, the Syrian Rebels, the Taliban Five, lifting sanctions against Iran, demonizing Israel, fecklessly withdrawing from Iraq, negotiating with terrorists, “Reset” diplomacy with Russia, refusing to list Boko Haram as a terrorist organization and creating a terrorist state in Libya.

    And that’s just to name a few.

    In the final analysis–Hillary is a highly vacuous and unaccomplished individual whose sense of unfettered entitlement drives her presidential ambitions.

    But, given the facts on the ground concerning her sordid history–there is only one adequate response to her ambitions: Hey, Hillary–America doesn’t need a Hag-in-Chief.

    Image: Courtesy of:


  7. #287
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Our Next President? Hillary Clinton: A Review

    Written by Andrew Linn on June 16, 2014

    This past Monday, Hillary Clinton did an interview on ABC regarding her new book, Hard Choices. In addition, she deflected criticism over the Benghazi attacks, claiming responsibility while stating that she was ill-informed of the situation (particularly on security measures). But the biggest issue surrounding her interview was her claim of the Clintons being “dead broke” when they left the White House.
    I don’t buy that at all.

    The Clintons did owe a large amount in legal fees (between $2.3 million and $10.6 million) but they were not broke despite these debts, nor were they broke when they bought an expensive house in New York after Hillary was elected Senator in 2000. In fact, their assets were $781,000 and $1.8 million. That’s not broke, regardless of their legal fees being more than their assets, especially when you factor in the presidential salary ($200,000 annually) which would total up to $1.6 million, and any other money the Clintons might have gotten during Slick Willy’s time in office.
    Fundraisers, Hillary’s salary, book deals, and speaking fees were just a few ways in which the Clintons paid off their debts. In addition, the Clintons charged rent to the Secret Service agents who protected them after leaving the White House. How the Bush Administration was unaware of this, and if so, why it allowed it to happen, is quite unclear. And of course, it was discovered that the Clintons stole various items when they left the White House (and only returned some of them). Perhaps they sold the items which they chose not to return.
    Of course, Hard Choices is not the only book Hillary wrote. Other works written by her include her infamous senior thesis “There is Only the Fight….”: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model (keep in mind that Hillary kept this work hidden from the public while her husband was President, not to mention the fact that Barrack Obama is also an admirer of Saul Alinsky), It Takes A Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us, and Living History. Pro-Clinton books include her husband’s My Life.
    These books not only advocate the Clinton’s political agenda, but they are also an attempt to gain sympathy from the public, which is probably why Hillary made her “dead broke” claim. Thus, sympathy will result in more votes should Hillary choose to run for President in 2016.
    Meanwhile, books which are critical of the Clintons include the counterarguments to My Life and Living History (Because He Could and Rewriting History by Dick Morris), Barbara Olson’s Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Edward Klein’s The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She’ll Go to Become President, Robert “Buzz” Patterson’s Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America’s National Security and Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undermine Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our National Security, and Richard Miniter’s Losing Bin Laden. These books not only discuss the Clinton’s scandals and indifference to protecting America- they also reveal the type of people the Clintons really are: warm and charming on the surface, but cold-hearted on the inside (Hillary in particular).
    In conclusion, Hillary would be wise not to run in 2016. And if she does, she will not win, no matter how much sympathy she tries to get, nor how much she tries play the gender card.
    Image: Courtesy of: civilrights-com/


  8. #288
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Terrifying Video Sheds More Light on our Future

    By Onan Coca / 17 June 2014

    A few weeks ago we showed you a video that should terrify every American. College age young people who support Hillary Clinton and yet have NO IDEA WHY.
    Well folks, things haven’t gotten any better in the last month.

    Intrepid videographers Danielle Saul and Carmela Martinez interview some Hillary Clinton supporters at a book signing in Arlington, Virginia

    I think you’ll be amazed by the thoughts of the people who are choosing the leaders of our nation.
    Do I even need to say that we’re in more than a bit of trouble? This is scary stuff, folks…

    About the author: Onan Coca

    Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in the Atlanta area with his wife, Leah. They have three children and enjoy the hectic pace of life in a young family. Onan and Leah are members of the Journey Church in Hiram, GA.


    The dumbing down of America is complete wouldn't you say?????

  9. #289
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Clinton Camp Downplays Hillary Tapes

    Journalists, legal experts describe Hillary’s behavior as ‘disturbing,’ ‘in bad taste’

    BY: Alana Goodman
    June 17, 2014 1:25 pm

    The Clinton camp is brushing off newly released recordings from the mid-1980s that reveal Hillary Clinton laughing while discussing her successful legal defense of an accused child rapist who she believed was guilty.

    The recordings, first published by the Washington Free Beacon on Sunday evening, are part of over five hours of taped interviews Arkansas reporter Roy Reed conducted with Bill and Hillary Clinton between 1983 and 1987.

    On the tape, the then-first lady of Arkansas candidly discusses the most significant criminal case of her legal career: her defense of a 41-year-old man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl in 1975.

    Clinton suggests on the tape that she believed her client was guilty. She can also be heard laughing at several points when discussing the prosecution’s accidental destruction of crucial DNA evidence and her use of this mistake to secure a very favorable plea bargain for her client.
    While Clinton spokesperson Philippe Reines has yet to comment, the former secretary of state’s supporters dismissed the recordings as a “distraction” from her record.

    “This is another desperate and shameful attempt by the right to distract from Hillary Clinton’s strong record,” Correct the Record spokesperson Adrienne Watson told Talking Points Memo. “Hillary Clinton went on to fight for groundbreaking justice for rape victims.”

    Correct the Record is a pro-Hillary Clinton organization that pushes back on unflattering news reports about the former first lady.
    However, the recordings drew criticism from segments of the legal and media worlds.

    Defense attorney Gerald Shargel called the tapes ethically troubling in an interview with the Daily Beast.

    “It is in bad taste,” said Shargel. “A lawyer has an obligation to do no harm to a client and that obligation continues after the disposition of the case. To destroy the guy in the court of public opinion may run afoul of [legal ethics]. Finally, laughing about a client who got away with it? The better discretion suggests you say nothing.”

    GQ political correspondent Lisa DePaulo called the recording “beyond disturbing,” the Daily Beast reported, and former Washington Post reporter Ruben Castaneda said it appeared Clinton was “laughing about how clever she was as a defense attorney.”

    Clinton was able to secure a plea bargain for her client, 41-year-old Thomas Alfred Taylor, which reduced his charges from rape in the first degree to fondling a child. He served less than one year in prison, despite initially facing 30-years to life for the rape charges.

    According to court documents, Clinton said the 12-year-old victim appeared to have had a history of seeking out older men and romanticizing relationships.

    Clinton said in the tapes that her client’s ability to pass a lie detector test while denying the rape “forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” She also laughed when discussing how the prosecution lost custody of DNA evidence that was central to the case against her client.

    Washington Post reporter Melinda Henneberger wrote that Clinton’s “glee is audible about the prosecution’s big mistake in the case, when it accidentally discarded key evidence. Some are writing off the remarks, as one fellow journalist put it on social media, as ‘typical gonzo defense lawyer talk.’”

    “It is not, however, typical talk for a lifelong defender of women and children,” Henneberger added.

  10. #290
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Hillary Clinton Claims The American Political System Is The Worlds Most Brutal

    By Steve Straub On June 15, 2014 · 780 Comments

    Hillary Clinton thinks the American political system is the most brutal in the world. I cannot even imagine where she gets that from. Ask the people of Venezuela, Cuba, or Iraq if they think the American political system is the most brutal. My guess is they would laugh in your face.

    Watch as Hillary Clinton shows how clueless and out of touch she is:

    More proof that Hillary Clinton is out of touch and clueless about how the world works.
    If Hillary Clinton was elected President do you think she would be equally as big a disaster as Barack Obama has been?

    Who said a women has to run...Especially "this" one!! LOL definitely not a "hard choice" for me!!!!!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts