I agree the laughter was inappropriate but certainly not directed at the victim but at the system. That said the part where she laughed at 4.50 was a bit disturbing as it seemed she was suggesting that the 'miscairage of justice...' referred  to was so, by name only.

We would be in a bit of a mess if anybody who had any financial dealings with Saudi Arabia or Qatar was to be treated as a pariah. Frankel was owned by a Saudi and aren't we off to play a World Cup in Qatar in 2022 ?
The Clintons are not my favourite people either but the visceral hatred that they seem to attract from some people extends to there being one law for them and another for everybody else.

This is the transcript from the mid-1980s ten years after the event. There is no talk of a judges order to have to do the case which appeared in the media with no evidence 2 decades later.

Also rule 6.2 of the American Bar Association is very clear..

Rule 6.2: Accepting Appointments
Public Service
Rule 6.2 Accepting Appointments
A lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to represent a person except for good cause, such as:

(a) representing the client is likely to result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

(b) representing the client is likely to result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer; or

(c) the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer's ability to represent the client.

So even if she was 'forced' to take the case she could have got out of it if she thought defending a child rapist was repugnant. But she was not forced. She said herself she took the case as a favour to the prosecutor. And why is the prosecutor recommending to judge who would be the defence lawyer? She would not have been disbarred (like Bill Clinton) for not doing this favour.

The transcript shows she was very zealous at the defence. She laughed in two points. One saying she no longer trusted polygraphs and one saying 'miscarridge of justice'. Does that sound like someone who thought their client was innocent? It shows she was doing her job with no empathy or emotion for the girl. A good lawyer maybe. A champion of womans and girls rights? I dont think so.

Is this the worst thing the Clintons have done. Of course not. It is just an example of her promoting one thing and doing another.

Full transcript....

Roy Reed:
You said awhile ago you've done some criminal work. Can you tell me a little about that? What sort of..

Hillary Clinton:
Oh I didn't, I didn't do much but I taught criminal law and criminal procedure at the university. I some, you know, I never did a criminal trial. I did a, you know, jury trial. I did a, you know, probable cause hearings and other cases. I had some really tough clients. I had one appear, a prosecutor called me years ago, said that he had a guy who accused of rape.. and the guy wanted a woman lawyer..

Roy Reed:
Mmh, Why?

Hillary Clinton:
Would I do it as a favor to him..

Roy Reed:
That's really odd.

Hillary Clinton:
Terrible case. Do you remember that cases where I represented that guy? It was a fascinating case. It was a really interesting case. This guy was accused of raping a 12 year old who was the daughter of the family he was living with in Springdale. And the guy was from Green Forest where his family still had a little farm. And he was one of these.. rottless folks who.. wasn't going to make a living on the land and he was kind of around.. ended up in Springdale. Of course he claimed that he didn't. All this stuff.

He took a lie detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs [laughter].

But you know what was sad about it was that the prosecutors had evidence, amoung which was his underwear.

Roy Reed:
His what?

Hillary Clinton:
His underwear, which was bloody. Sent it down to the crime lab. The crime lab took the pair of underpants, neatly cut out the part that they were going to test..tested it..Came back with the result of what kind of blood it was, what was mixed in with it, then sent the pants back with a hole in it as evidence.

Roy Reed:
[laughter]

Hillary Clinton:
So I got an order to see the evidence and the prosecutor didn't want me to see the evidence. I had to go to Maupin Cummings and convince Maupin that yes indeed I had a right to see the evidence before it was presented.

So they present the underpants with a hole in it. I said 'what kind of evidence is that!?' You know, a pair of underpants with a hole in it. Course the crime lab had thrown away..

Roy Reed:
Oh..

Hillary Clinton:
..the piece that they'd cut out. It was really odd. I mean I plea bargined it down because it turned out they didn't have any evidence.
But I took. I happened to be going to New York and I took the underpants with me, I got a special court order. And I went to Brooklyn, where this man whose name I now cannot remember who had shared the Nobel Prize for his work on the RH factor and was one of the real premiere investigators who deal with blood, who had retired from Sloan-Kettering or some place up there.

He still live in the same house where his father had been born and now had a huge fence around it. It was sort of this bombed-out section of Brooklyn. And he had taken a real interest in forensics work, and so he would analyze blood stains if he got interested in the case. And so the, sort of the story through the grapevine was if you get him interested in the case then you know you had the foremost expert in the world willing to testify so that it came out the way you wanted it to come out. So I wrote him and got an appointment to see him and took a taxi over to this section of Brooklyn I had never heard of, never seen before. Got through the gates, got into his office, and he had a little.. he had a basement just absolutely packed with detective magazines and things like that.

Roy Reed:
[laughter]

Hillary Clinton:
And he sat at his little desk and I pulled out my underpants you know, gave it to him and he started analyzing, looking for fibers, you know magnifying glass and all that stuff.

He said, you know "can't prove anything!" Can see a slight trace but it wouldnt be enough to test, all that. So I wrote back told Mahlor Gibson that I had..well, sorry I can't remember his name but I cut out who's who and I wrote al that stuff and I handed it to Mahlon Gibson and I said, "Well this guy's ready to come from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice!" [laughter]

So we were gonna plea bargin. So I went before Maupin Cummings to present the plea, and Maupin said "What.. what is this one.. case.." "Well, first degree rape" and uh, but you knowm he's dropping the charges, he was dropping it to. I can't remember, soemthing like five years, something..

So Maupin had to, you know under law he was supposed to determine whether the plea was factually supported. Maupin asked me to leave the room while he examined my client so that he could find out it was factually supported. I said "Judge I can't leave the room I'm his lawyer!" he said "I know but I dont want to talk about this in front of you."

Roy Reed:
Oh god! Really?[laughter]

Hillary Clinton:
That was Maupin. Had alot of fun with Maupin.

Roy Reed:
The old.

Hillary Clinton:
But anyway, I did some of that.

Roy Reed:
How did it turn out? What..

Hillary Clinton:
Oh he plea bargined! Got him off with time served in the county jail, he'd been in the county jail about two months.

Trump lawyers given court date over lawsuit alleging rape of 13-year-old

Heard that the Republican Party has quit campaigning for Trump in some states - forget which but it was on the BBC so I guess it's true.

Federal judge sets December hearing for lawsuit accusing Trump of raping 13-year-old girl: report

SHE WAS NOT ORDERED TO TAKE THE CASE until her name was put forward on the list of women willing to take the case which she agreed to as a favour to the prosecutor. Her own words......

Hillary Clinton:
Oh I didn't, I didn't do much but I taught criminal law and criminal procedure at the university. I some, you know, I never did a criminal trial. I did a, you know, jury trial. I did a, you know, probable cause hearings and other cases. I had some really tough clients. I had one appear, a prosecutor called me years ago, said that he had a guy who accused of rape.. and the guy wanted a woman lawyer..

Roy Reed:
Mmh, Why?

Hillary Clinton:
Would I do it as a favor to him..

Roy Reed:
That's really odd.

.........


SHE did it as a favour to the prosecutor. That is the information she herself gave in the 1980s in an interview. Dave you quoted a report from an interview 20 years later after Bill Clinton became President. Are you now claiming that Hillary never said the transcript above?

I'm claiming that

a) she was not on a "list of women willing to take the case".  There were only 6 female attorneys in the county, she being one of them.  The judge selected her from that list of female attorneys.  Why on earth would she put herself on a list of women who would take the case and then have to be persuaded to take the case?  Or do you think that the prosecutor compiled the initial list of females lawyers after calling each one personally and persuading them to go on a list?  And if there were only six female attorneys in the county, how long could the list possibly be?  The whole idea is absurd and it is far more likely that the judge simply got a list of the six female attorneys and selected Clinton - (Occams razor in action).   

b) She didn't want to take the case, but was advised by the prosecutor that she couldn't refuse the judge (her saying that she did as a favour is neither here nor there to anyone applying basic logic to the situation - I imagine she just glossed over the list and judge's selection. The actual prosecutor is a neutral witness and says that it was a judge's order and that she didn't want to take the case).

c) Claiming that the case was repugnant and asking to be excused, would apply to every lawyer and thus leave the man with no defence (presumably ppl of your ilk don't agree with the principal of a fair trial, certainly trump doesn't).  Of course I do concede that if Trump asked her to defend him in his upcoming rape and sexual assault trial, she would have a basis to refuse.

Your entire attack on Clinton over this comes down to the fact that you hate the idea of a fair trial for those charged with abhorrent crimes.  I can just see you a few hundred years ago in the robes of the Spanish Inquisition, applying justice with racks and branding irons.  Funnily Trump thinks they same way


In October 2016, during his campaign to be president, Trump said he still believes the Central Park Five were guilty and their convictions should never have been vacated. Trump told CNN: "They admitted they were guilty. The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same."[83] Trump's statement attracted criticism from the Central Park Five themselves[84] as well as others, including Republican U.S. Senator John McCain, who condemned Trump's "outrageous statements about the innocent men in the Central Park Five case" and cited it as one of many causes prompting him to retract his endorsement of Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case

Come on Dave. She said herself what happened. She took the case as a favour. She was not a public defender. Its there on the tape what happened. Are you are claiming the tape was a fake or she lied on the tape?

I would have thought it was rather easy. We certainly sell arms to SA,we have no intention of withdrawing from the World Cup,we welcome Khalid Abdullah with open arms.
I don't care for the Clintons,they are dodgy politicians like most of them. But there have been a lot like them ( Bushes,Blairs )Trump is in a different league altogether.

And vice versa, if Clinton ran against any other Republican she would lose by a landslide too.

and you'd have to be blind not to see that FBI director Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch are huge Clinton cronies.  The decision to whitewash Hillary's crimes obviously came from the top down and people in those respective departments/organisations wouldn't be happy at the miscarriage of justice.

She used a private email server for classified government business.

The use of a private e-mail server was stupid rather than criminal but as she is even older than me I have some sympathy if she got confused about IT. If she deleted e-mails as you say then I certainly agree that should be looked into. But at best that is one "crime "

* or President..

Where did you get that? The media? The polls?

Or have you been out on the ground talking to people?

No.

Old style polls no longer mean anything. If you go through them you will find a max of 1000 people are sampled. There are major statistical problems with them, especially telephone polls. For instance these type of Polls in the Brexit vote regularly had remain 10 points clear.

When you have a heavily biased media commissioning polls you have a serious problem in them being reliable. The US media is very biased. For instance the head of CNN has allegedly banned any mention of Bill Clinton's son. CNN editted out President Clinton's comments on Hillary frequently falling.

The media uses the news and polls to reinforce Trump cannot win or Brexit will not happen.

there are many varieties of friendship, just as there are many varieties of betrayal.