TRUMP is seriously dangerous

[82_28]

[seemslikeadream]

It's strange not to follow up with the piece of history often used in feminist critiques. In 1975 Clinton defended the 42-year old rapist of a 12-year old girl, used expert testimony that claimed she was asking for it, and later on in interviews about the case laughed about certain aspects. I mean, this was 10 years after she had campaigned for the segregationist Goldwater so we might have to give her some benefit of the doubt that she's not a total Randian.

oh I thought SHE had raped someone.......


40 years ago she did this?

would someone please link to some news story so I can read exactly what happened?

[seemslikeadream]

Clinton’s 1975 Rape Case
By Ilana NathansPosted on June 17, 2016


Share4.6K
Q: Did Hillary Clinton volunteer in 1975 to defend a rapist, who was found not guilty, and laugh about it in an interview in 1980?
A: Clinton defended an accused rapist, but she did not volunteer. He pleaded guilty to a lesser offense. She laughed when recalling unusual aspects of the case.
FULL QUESTION

Did Hillary Clinton volunteer to defend a child rapist in 1975, accuse the 12-year-old victim of fantasizing about older men, later state that she knew he was guilty but got the charges dropped and laugh?
FULL ANSWER

In 1975, Hillary Clinton — then known as Hillary Rodham — taught at the University of Arkansas School of Law, where she founded the University of Arkansas School Legal Aid Clinic. It was during this time that she defended Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl.
In her book “Living History,” Clinton recalls that Mahlon Gibson, a Washington County prosecutor, told her that the accused rapist “wanted a woman lawyer” to defend him, and that Gibson had recommended Clinton to Judge Maupin Cummings. “I told Mahlon I really didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request.”
Gibson corroborated Clinton’s story in a 2014 interview with CNN.
CNN, June 25, 2014: Gibson said Clinton called him shortly after the judge assigned her to the case and said, “I don’t want to represent this guy. I just can’t stand this. I don’t want to get involved. Can you get me off?”

“I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don’t jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn’t remove her and she stayed on the case.”

In a separate 2014 interview, Clinton said she had an “obligation” to represent Taylor. “I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did,” she said.
In her book, Clinton writes that she visited Taylor in the county jail and he “denied the charges against him and insisted that the girl, a distant relative, had made up her story.” Clinton filed a motion to order the 12-year-old girl to get a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing … [and] that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,” according to an affidavit filed by Clinton in support of her motion.
Clinton also cited an expert in child psychology who said that “children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to such behavior,” Clinton wrote in her affidavit.
Ultimately, expert testimony from a scientist “cast doubt on the evidentiary value of the blood and semen the prosecutor claimed proved the defendant’s guilt in the rape,” Clinton writes in her book. Clinton negotiated a plea deal and Taylor was charged with “Unlawful Fondling of a Child Under the Age of Fourteen” and was sentenced to one year in a county jail and four years of probation, according to a final judgment signed by Cummings.
In 2014, the Washington Free Beacon published the audio of an interview that Arkansas reporter Roy Reed conducted with Clinton in the 1980s. In the interview, Clinton recalls some unusual details of the rape case, and she can be heard laughing in three instances, beginning with a joke she makes about the accuracy of polygraphs.
Clinton: Of course he claimed 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. [laughs]

At another point, Clinton said the prosecutor balked at turning over evidence, forcing her to go to the judge to obtain it.
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 [laughs] before it was presented.

Clinton then said that the evidence she obtained was a pair of the accused’s underwear with a hole in it. Clinton told Reed that investigators had cut out a piece of the underwear and sent the sample to a crime lab to be tested, and the only evidence that remained was the underwear with a hole in it.
Clinton took the remaining evidence to a forensic expert in Brooklyn, New York, and the expert told her that the material on the underwear wasn’t enough to test. “He said, you know, ‘You can’t prove anything,'” Clinton recalled the expert telling her.
Clinton: I wrote all that stuff and I handed it to Mahlon Gibson, and I said, “Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.” [laughs]

The emails we have received about this case contain some misinformation. Some have claimed, for example, that Clinton volunteered for the case and the accused rapist was found not guilty. That’s not accurate, as we just explained. But Clinton did laugh in the retelling of some unusual aspects of the rape case, and we leave it to others to decide whether her laughter was appropriate or not.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clinto ... rape-case/


yes this certainly makes her the worst person in the world.....now lets get to Trump who is actually accused of rape



again ....pick the poison you want....a lawyer who defended an accused rapist 40 years ago...or a person that is accused of rape

there are only two choices

one of these people is going to be president....and that's the reality






Trump Rape Accuser to Refile Suit in New York
By JOSH RUSSELL

MANHATTAN (CN) - A lawsuit filed by an anonymous plaintiff accusing Donald Trump of raping a teenager in the 1990's and threatening to kill her family, will be re-filed with an additional witness on board, the woman's attorney revealed Thursday.
Thomas Meagher, attorney for the Jane Doe plaintiff said they plan to re-file the complaint, accompanied by a new witness afidavit, as soon as the end of next week.
The original lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on September 16th.
The June 20, 2016, complaint accused the Republican presidential nominee and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein of rape, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts, sexual abuse, forcible touching, assault, battery, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress, duress, false imprisonment, and defamation.
It also included two declarations of support of the Jane Doe plaintiff's request for protective order.
The first declaration, signed by Jane Doe herself, detailed Trump's alleged "savage sexual attack" on the then-13-year-old plaintiff.
The plaintiff claims she was raped by Trump during a 1994 summer party thrown by billionaire Jeffrey Epstein at an Upper East Side mansion on East 71st St.
The Jane Doe plaintiff claims Trump ignored her loud pleas to stop, struck her with an open hand and threatened to harm, if not kill her and her entire family if she ever revealed details of the assault.
The second declaration was signed by pseudonymous Tiffany Doe, who said she was hired by Jeffrey Epstein throughout the 1990s to recruit adolescent women to attend the billionaire's parties.
Tiffany Doe claims she convinced the then-13-year-old plaintiff to attend the parties as a means to break in to New York's professional modeling world.
In her declaration, Tiffany Doe says she witnessed four sexual encounters in which Jane Doe was forced to have sex with Trump, and two encounters involving the plaintiff and Jeffrey Epstein.
The Tiffany Doe declaration included Epstein's threats against her and her family for disclosing the details of any sexual abuse of minors by Epstein and his party guests, swearing under penalty of perjury that she understands that her and her family's lives are "now in grave danger."
The complaint asserts that because the litigation involves highly sensitive matters of very personal nature, identification of the anonymous plaintiff "would pose a risk of retaliatory physical harm to her and to others."
The plaintiff says after initially filing her complaint in California last spring, she received threatening phone calls. That lawsuit was later dismissed.
Meagher's law office is located in Princeton, New Jersey.
Alan Garten, executive vice president and general counsel for the Trump Organization, told Courthouse News via email that Meagher's allegations "are completely frivolous and appear to be politically motivated."
"Accordingly, we have warned Mr. Meagher that in the event he decides to refile his complaint we will seek to have him sanctioned," Garten said.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/09/2 ... w-york.htm

[Luther Blissett]

Jill Stein for president.

[seemslikeadream]

it is intriguing to live in a world where Jill would have a chance to be president ....she will not ....and that is reality

it is nice to clear conscience by a simple vote....if that does it for you..good

now spend the rest of your life building that green party so they can have a real chance ...do the dirty work of a clear conscience

[82_28]

I think the whole thing with voting for her is to get her and the Greens up over 5%. I live in a solid safe state so I will be voting my conscience. Jill Stein.

[seemslikeadream]

I think the whole thing with voting for her is to get her and the Greens up over 5%. I live in a solid safe state so I will be voting my conscience. Jill Stein.

but if the green party is ever to be viable they have to have members down ticket everywhere...that will take more work than most people will undertake....they take the easy one vote every 4 years and nothing else...let everyone else do the dirty work...no sacrifice...easy conscience

hard unending work...lots of sacrifices ...lots of donations...anyone here doing that or are you letting someone else do it for you so you can clear your conscience by taking the easy way out?


when I was a little catholic girl we would go to the confessional and confess our sins to the priest...it made me all better again...pretty easy that was

[Cordelia]

Nice image/message for a potential president to convey to the macho male voters population, Don. Fuck you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA2vdayzxo0

[Nordic]

I think the whole thing with voting for her is to get her and the Greens up over 5%. I live in a solid safe state so I will be voting my conscience. Jill Stein.

but if the green party is ever to be viable they have to have members down ticket everywhere...that will take more work than most people will undertake....they take the easy one vote every 4 years and nothing else...let everyone else do the dirty work...no sacrifice...easy conscience

hard unending work...lots of sacrifices ...lots of donations...anyone here doing that or are you letting someone else do it for you so you can clear your conscience by taking the easy way out?


when I was a little catholic girl we would go to the confessional and confess our sins to the priest...it made me all better again...pretty easy that was

There actually are people in the Green Party trying to do exactly what you describe.

You might want to look into it.

[seemslikeadream]

You might want to look into this Nordic.....that's me and Cynthia McKinney at the Green Party Convention ...you have no idea who you are talking to...so quit fucking judging me....YOU have NO idea...period

I think the whole thing with voting for her is to get her and the Greens up over 5%. I live in a solid safe state so I will be voting my conscience. Jill Stein.

but if the green party is ever to be viable they have to have members down ticket everywhere...that will take more work than most people will undertake....they take the easy one vote every 4 years and nothing else...let everyone else do the dirty work...no sacrifice...easy conscience

hard unending work...lots of sacrifices ...lots of donations...anyone here doing that or are you letting someone else do it for you so you can clear your conscience by taking the easy way out?


when I was a little catholic girl we would go to the confessional and confess our sins to the priest...it made me all better again...pretty easy that was

There actually are people in the Green Party trying to do exactly what you describe.

You might want to look into it.

[Harvey]

I'll say it again.

Trump or Clinton?

I reject the premise.

[82_28]

Hey guys and I know you know I love you all, shit ain't gonna get any easier. So nothing personal is my vote in and of here.

[brekin]

So R.I.

Stephen King Says Donald Trump Is Actually Cthulhu, Ruining Cthulhu’s Future in the Republican Party
http://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/ ... tanntp_edu

See, this is exactly the kind of partisan infighting that will guarantee none of the Elder Gods ever make it on a major-party ticket.
Author Stephen King tweeted Monday, “Breaking News: Reliable sources reveal that Donald Trump is actually Cthulhu. The absurd hairdo isn't absurd at all. It hides the tentacles.” Cthulhu, either a fictional deity created by writer H.P. Lovecraft or one of an ancient race of omnipotent beings born before the existence of calculable time, swiftly issued a denial.
Waking from some kind of eternal death that is not death from his city of stone R'lyeh, Cthulhu’s official campaign Twitter/parody account claims that, despite the fact that looking upon either of them could drive a human being mad, he is much less petty than Donald Trump. Too bad.
While everything we know about Cthulhu comes from the incoherent scribblings of the perverse or insane, those non-Euclidean geometries could have been a huge help sorting out this mess of an election year.

[8bitagent]

For some reason, no Hillary supporters across social media can seem to answer two things:
1. How come, if she's "absolutely going to win", and ahead in the polls, she gets virtually noone at her rallies. And the crowds don't seem too fired up.
Yet you look at Bernies rallies, or any of Trumps rallies, and theres so many people they have to turn away people. Tonight Trump spoke in Florida a
and they had to turn away a lot of people

2. How come she is doing so poorly with people under 35, if even Bernie Sanders is urging his supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton?


Also HELL YES for Cynthia Mckinney. Proudly voted for her in 2008, and met her at an LA rally in 2008. Ive been voting female third party the last two elections(Mckinny and Stein)
and plan to vote Stein again.

Over confidence is a big danger. If I was a Hillary campaign staffer or fan, I wouldn't be too cocky "winning" the first debate. Again Reagan v Mondale 84 or Obama v Romney 2012.
What she needs to do is find some whopper of an October Surprise to damage him, as Trump seems like a freight train out of control. Some people are comparing this year
to 2000's election, but I'm not sure I'd be calling Hillary the Al Gore of 2016

[seemslikeadream]

Trump is a FUCKING PIG


Did I say Trump is a FUCKING PIG....yea TRUMP is a FUCKING PIG...who wants to have his little tiny fucking hands on the nuclear button.....



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHbjX9eoPa8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_916BBsxUPc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rfG7BN17w0

CNN Trump Surrogate Kayleigh McEnany Compares Miss Universe To Terror Suspect
She was defending the GOP nominee for fat-shaming a former pageant winner.
09/28/2016 02:13 am ET
Ed Mazza

Kayleigh McEnany, one of CNN’s in-house Donald Trump surrogates, recently drew parallels between former Miss Universe Alicia Machado and a terror suspect.

The pageant winner has been critical of Trump, saying he called her “Miss Piggy” after she gained weight and “Miss Housekeeping” because of her Latina heritage.

But speaking on “Anderson Cooper 360” Tuesday, McEnany defended Trump and attacked Machado, noting she was accused of threatening a judge in Venezuela in 1998. Machado was never charged with a crime.

Although Cooper’s other guests pointed out that Machado had to pass a rigorous background check to become a U.S. citizen, McEnany was not impressed.

“It’s not very tough because we had two refugees, one setting off bombs here in New York City, so it can’t be that rigorous,” McEnany said.

Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kay ... aad9b7e643

oh and yea he is also a fucking idiot

No, Mr. Trump, the U.S. is not turning over control of the Internet to Russia and China
trumpcruz
Joining together to foment a myth about the Internet: Donald Trump and his new endorser, Ted Cruz, seen here during a GOP campaign debate in February. (Associated Press)
Michael Hiltzik Michael HiltzikContact Reporter
Technologies too complex to be easily understood by the layperson can be playgrounds for unscrupulous politicians. That’s become the case with the Internet’s internal digital plumbing, which has come into the crosshairs of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Donald Trump.

Cruz and Trump, along with a passel of other Republicans on Capitol Hill, have decided to throw a conniption fit over a routine, if complicated, transition in the technical governance of the Internet scheduled to take place Saturday — if a last-ditch maneuver in the House of Representatives doesn’t block it.

Cruz and Trump are just spouting nonsense.... A very complicated technical policy problem has been politicized.
— Lauren Weinstein, Internet pioneer
The politicians say the transition will give nefarious countries such as Russia, China and Iran the power to take control of the Internet and impose censorship on users in the U.S. and around the world. Trump is hoping to use the issue as a weapon in his presidential campaign by blaming the scheme on President Obama and “Hillary Clinton’s Democrats.” But he and Cruz are wrong — the proposal they’re fighting, not the status quo, is what really will protect free speech on the Internet.

“Cruz and Trump are just spouting nonsense,” says Lauren Weinstein, a networking expert who helped develop the ARPANET, the Internet’s predecessor, as a computer science student at UCLA. “A very complicated technical policy problem has been politicized by people who either don’t know what they’re talking about or are purposely misrepresenting the facts.”

SNAP Video
Are you scared yet? Sen. Ted Cruz issued this fantasy-laden ad attacking President Obama for giving away "control of the Internet" to Russia, China and Iran last summer.
Their target is a plan originally developed in 2014 to end the formal relationship between the U.S. Department of Commerce and a key Internet governance group. The governance group is the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, which is headquartered in the Playa Vista section of Los Angeles and serves as the traffic manager of Internet site names and addresses; its roles, essentially, are to ensure that Internet addresses aren’t duplicated, and to supervise the management of domains such as the traditional .com and .edu and the creation of novel domains such as .biz or .xxx.

The government’s plan is to allow a contract giving the Commerce Department nominal oversight of ICANN to lapse Sept. 30. To the average Internet user, the transition will be undetectable; the Web will operate entirely as before.

In policy terms, however, the transition is significant. The U.S. government’s relationship with ICANN has increasingly caused friction with the Internet’s multitudinous stakeholders, including other governments, businesses and the technical community.

Maintaining the contract didn’t seem worth the hassle. Commerce couldn’t exercise effective control over ICANN — any effort to strong-arm the organization would have inspired a global uproar. ICANN has no authority over Internet content or government policies within borders; it can’t stop Russia or China from imposing censorship on their own citizens, and they’re unable to export censorship externally. ICANN manages technical standards, but it’s unable to shut down websites or make it easier for them to launch.

As Jonathan Zittrain, an Internet expert at Harvard who has served on an ICANN advisory committee, observed in 2014 after the Obama White House issued its transition plan, ICANN had virtually no authority over how Internet users behaved online. You could register the website www.gap.clothing “through an ICANN-approved process,” he wrote; but ICANN would have no jurisdiction if you “sell fake Gap clothing on your website goodclothes.clothing.”

The organization’s own board is multifaceted, comprising business executives, engineers, government aides, and public advocates; its chairman, Steve Crocker, was one of ARPANET’s original architects.

It’s worth observing, too, that the U.S. government’s very role in the network’s management was sort of an accident of history, reflecting more the informality of Internet governance in its early days than any plan for permanent control.

SNAP Video
Internet pioneer Vint Cerf remembered Jonathan Postel, the Internet's original record-keeper, in this 1998 video obituary. (Internet Society)
In that era, the network’s builders realized that even though the network was growing slowly as a system linking academic and technical computer departments, it would be a good idea to keep a master list of names and numbers and conventions that were part of the infrastructure. That task fell almost by default to a graduate computer science student named Jonathan Postel, who performed it largely manually as a “side task” to his work at the Information Sciences Institute of the University of Southern California. To Postel, who is little known to the public but is a hero to the first generation of Internet builders, the job was “much more one of coordination than of control,” he told a congressional committee in 1997.

By then Postel had become the de facto chief record keeper of the Internet. When he died suddenly in 1998, authorities scrambled to replace him. Again almost by default, the Commerce Department ended up as the agency recognizing ICANN as the new keeper of the root records. The agency reached an agreement with ICANN “spelling out certain minimal responsibilities — and a nominal way for the U.S. government to pull the plug if something went terribly wrong,” Zittrain recalled.

That role is now an anachronism. The goal of true Internet freedom, the online community recognizes, is served by governments having “a say but not a veto or control,” says Chris Calabrese of the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology. That means decoupling ICANN from the U.S. government.

What would happen if the transition is blocked? Internet advocates fear that control would end up in the hands of a United Nations agency, which would leave governments in a dominant role and could subject decisions to more political interference, not less.

Whether Cruz and Trump understand this, or even care, is doubtful. It’s more likely that they’re exploiting public ignorance to promote a conventional nationalistic agenda. In other words, they’re pandering.

The Trump campaign’s statement last week aligning itself with Cruz gave the game away. “The U.S. created, developed and expanded the Internet across the globe,” it said on its website. “U.S. oversight has kept the Internet free and open without government censorship.”

Well, no. The Internet expanded globally without any help from the U.S., but precisely because it detached itself from government control. The U.S. role in developing the Internet doesn’t give it any right to control this global network in perpetuity.

U.S. oversight hasn’t had any success in keeping the Internet free from government censorship within such countries as Russia and China, and blocking the transition won’t improve the situation one tiny bit. But it could very well make things worse. Do Cruz and Trump care so little about that that they’re willing to allow it just to advance their own political careers?
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... story.html