My open letter to SNOPES regarding their OPINION about Hillary laughing about getting a child rapist off the hook

Recently I’ve become annoyed with people citing Snopes opinion that Hillary Clinton laughing about getting a child rapist she knew was guilty off the hook as “mostly false”

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/#!

The author Kim LaCapria, somebody who is googling or making phone calls like the rest of us, deemed this “mostly false” and went out of the way to deceive people that Clinton didn’t laugh about getting the person she knew was guilty off the hook. Or the fact that Clinton needlessly attacked the victim subjecting her to unneeded psychological examination and suggest that the victim sought out older men and sought out this predator. Hillary Clinton suggests that Donald Trump never apologizes but did she apologize to Kathy Shelton who was left barren and traumitized from this incident? This sequence of events ruined that persons life, unlike Trump the Clintons have real victims.

Well here it is.

This is such an abuse of the position of “fact checker” that it’s no wonder everyone with reading comprehension no longer takes this site seriously. Let’s look at the claim you presented

“Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case.”

Was that not laughter while she was discussing this case where she did successfully defend a child rapist?

There is clearly laughter while she is discussing the tape where the did successfully defended an accused child rapist. She successfully defended him because a pleabargin that got him a year versus 30+ years. Pretty successful to me.

Instantly you are lying when you claim this as mostly false.

There was laughter more than 2 times which is what Trumped mentioned, where’s the snopes on that?

Your claim to suggest that she was not trying to attack the victim in this case is absolutely despicable in my opinion and is purely defending her for no reason. Hillary is the one who filed the affidavit. She signed it. She’s the one who subjected the victim to additional abuse and accused her of seeking out her abuser. That would be one thing but she clearly knew the guy was guilty. There are a lot of legal experts that would say that her attacking of the victim of the case while knowing the defendant was guilty is going above and beyond of their legal duty.

The Truth About Clinton’s Handling of Kathy Shelton Rape Case

You act like she didn’t go out of her way to get him off. She brought a pair of underwear that a 12 year old was raped in on her trip to New York? WTF

As for if Hillary could’ve gotten out of the case in the tape she called it a “favor” so I’m going to go with that use Occam’s razor on her fall back that she was just begging to get out of it. I say I’m using Occam’s razor because she has a proven track record of telling the public different things than she’s found to believe. It’s more likely she’s covering up after the fact for her casually mentioning that the case was a ‘favor’ on audio tape. She was even using her fake southern accent while bragging about her legal strategy yea it was such a “fascinating” case!

I don’t know what’s sadder how you can rate this “mostly false” even though she did laugh about the case and knew he was guilty or that people can justify that a person with less moral fabric than Saul Goodman would make decent president. That perfectly nice people can logically loop around the fact that she attacked this 12 year old victim and believe her rhetoric about women and children is mind boggling, but not as mind boggling as this article claiming this as “mostly false”. Yes it’s an ARTICLE and you’re on a power trip about being any kind of “fact checker”

I sincerely hope you at least change the status of this to “half true” or something since more people are becoming aware of this topic in the recent days it’s going to look like you’re going out of your way to defend child rape enabler Hillary Clinton’s actions in attacking a 12 year old victim and her laughing about basically freeing the child rapist she knew was guilty. That is to people who read past “mostly false” and aren’t in Borg group think about Hillary Clinton.

PS you might have somewhat disproved a little bit of that meme but you went above in beyond to defend terrible actions that may hint at the true character of Hillary Clinton.

 


 

that concludes it.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Western Surrender, The Strategic FAILURE in the “War On Terror”

America and its allies have been fighting its War of Terror…I mean “War on Terror” for almost a decade and half. I’m gonna take the notion of the “War on Terror” seriously for a second and assume its not mostly for certain people‘s enrichment and look at it strategically.

Advanced countries that suffer terrorist attacks very rarely are fighting to ensure that Islamic motivated terrorist attacks do not hit their civilians*.

Now they are fighting Terrorists, as in somebody who wishes to invoke “terror” to achieve a political objective.

So in the “War on Terror” Jihadists are using terror as a tactic to achieve their strategic aims.

Terrorism is a tactic that has several purposes which can include but is not limited to killing innocent civilians(showing that you will), damage infrastructure(showing that you can), create a sense of fear in the population(that eats at their moral) and to create a sense of loss which can be a symbol like the Twin Towers or the loss of love ones. There are some countries where terrorist attacks are so bad that the average person has probably lost someone they know to a terrorist attack.

So when you are a collection of countries that value “freedom” and are fighting a “War on Terror” it would make sense to not do things that advance the strategic aims of the enemy. Like say canceling large annual events like Brussels canceling of their annual New Years fire works display. Something that advances the sense of fear and continues to wear at the morale of the populace.

Tactically it is stupid because if the “enemy” wished to do a terrorist attack they would have an easy time making a list of crowded places.

Strategically it is stupid because it advances the cause of the “enemy.”

 

*In my opinion it’s more about economic infrastructure, but let’s go with what the politicians say.