I recently saw a meme making rounds on Facebook about Hilary Clinton defending a rapist and getting him off scott free. I read fact checker and another article. Fact checker told me she got him dinged and lauged at unusal facts in the case-or at least this is what I understand. Can someone fill me in more and help me understand this more throughly? And what is the real truth?
It was a case of an older man raping an underaged girl, and HRC knew he did it, but she managed to get him off because there was a pair of the girl's panties as evidence. But they were apparently mishandled in the lab and she was able to use that, and with lack of evidence, they couldn't really "prove" he did it. Instead she blamed it on the girl by saying she fantasized about older men to the point that she made the whole thing up.I;m pretty sure this is the case in a nutshell, but I'm sure there's many more details.
It's one thing to have to do your job because you're assigned it (though I THINK she took this case by choice. Don't hold me to that), but it's another thing to laugh about it later. The least she could do is show remorse, not fucking laugh.
Did she really laugh or is that more of a rumor?
I think defense lawyers should try as hard as they can to get their clients off or minimum sentences even in cases like this, it is the other lawyer's job to convict them.
It was on a recording of her talking about it years later, which, after watching it again she actually wasn't laughing about the fact that "oh, I got someone I knew was guilty off scot free" but it was because he passed the polygraph test and it "made her lose all faith in polygraphs" and that's what she chuckled at. So my mistake. Well, so far. I haven't finished the rest of it because of a short attention span, but as of now, I was incorrect about her laughing about it.