New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

When liberal causes collide....

connieb

Senator
The attorney for one of the rapists in the Rockville case, is now saying that the charges should be dropped and that the encounter was consensual. MD law does infact allow 14 year olds to engage in sex as long as the person they are having sex with is not more than 4 years older than them. At least one of these illegals is not actually 4 years older than the girl...

So, where does a liberal come down on this issue... poor maligned illegal who should not have criminal record and be allowed to stay and continue his sexual conquests here in the US.. OR.. is this victim blaming - not believing the women who says the sex was non-consensual? Isn't this the biggest no no of all the no-no's in the Feminist world to not believe the person crying rape???? Even in instances where, unlike here, there is no visible trauma indicating forced sexual activity, its the biggest no-no of all.

Now, I get it that this lawyer is just doing what they do.. vigorously defending his POS client... That is cool, that is our system.. and that is why I have no problem with in a rape case the defendant challenging the sexual history and credibility of the accuser. The sexual past of that person is an indication of their behavior and anyone accused of rape has the right to paint the accuser as a liar - if that can get them off and its believeable.

I don't think it will fly in this case.. apparently the girl was completely hysterical and traumatized after the encounter and there is evidence that the sexual contact was pretty brutal and aggressive.. if there is a 14 year old signing up by choice to be used the way this girl was used... I think she needs he head examined...

But, it does explain part of the story that did not make sense to me.. I always thought it odd that they passed this random girl in the hall, asked her to have sex. Even Latinos who I find in general to be rather aggressive with their come-ons it would still be aggressive even for them to just say that to a random person. And, I wondered how they were able to force her into the bathroom in the middle of the day with other students and teachers around and no one noticed.

This little tid-bit makes me think the story went down more like this.... Girl texting with one of the rapists, agrees to have sex with him and a friend. She goes to meet them and either has already gotten cold feet and tells them so OR gets cold feet as they begin. She says no, stop whatever, But she is already isolated in the bathroom. They - being promised sex - do not head her demands to stop and rape her.
http://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2...awyer-messages-point-to-consensual-encounter/
 
The attorney for one of the rapists in the Rockville case, is now saying that the charges should be dropped and that the encounter was consensual. MD law does infact allow 14 year olds to engage in sex as long as the person they are having sex with is not more than 4 years older than them. At least one of these illegals is not actually 4 years older than the girl...

So, where does a liberal come down on this issue... poor maligned illegal who should not have criminal record and be allowed to stay and continue his sexual conquests here in the US.. OR.. is this victim blaming - not believing the women who says the sex was non-consensual? Isn't this the biggest no no of all the no-no's in the Feminist world to not believe the person crying rape???? Even in instances where, unlike here, there is no visible trauma indicating forced sexual activity, its the biggest no-no of all.

Now, I get it that this lawyer is just doing what they do.. vigorously defending his POS client... That is cool, that is our system.. and that is why I have no problem with in a rape case the defendant challenging the sexual history and credibility of the accuser. The sexual past of that person is an indication of their behavior and anyone accused of rape has the right to paint the accuser as a liar - if that can get them off and its believeable.

I don't think it will fly in this case.. apparently the girl was completely hysterical and traumatized after the encounter and there is evidence that the sexual contact was pretty brutal and aggressive.. if there is a 14 year old signing up by choice to be used the way this girl was used... I think she needs he head examined...

But, it does explain part of the story that did not make sense to me.. I always thought it odd that they passed this random girl in the hall, asked her to have sex. Even Latinos who I find in general to be rather aggressive with their come-ons it would still be aggressive even for them to just say that to a random person. And, I wondered how they were able to force her into the bathroom in the middle of the day with other students and teachers around and no one noticed.

This little tid-bit makes me think the story went down more like this.... Girl texting with one of the rapists, agrees to have sex with him and a friend. She goes to meet them and either has already gotten cold feet and tells them so OR gets cold feet as they begin. She says no, stop whatever, But she is already isolated in the bathroom. They - being promised sex - do not head her demands to stop and rape her.
http://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2...awyer-messages-point-to-consensual-encounter/
I think the precedence was set by Hillary Grand Dame of the Democrats herself when she blamed and demonized the little 12 year old who was raped in such a way that she had to have surgery and could never have children after that rape.......... but.......according to Hillary it was that child's fault and the rapist got out of jail free.

Democrats will side with the rapist on this one too. Democrats love their illegal immigrant rapists.
 
I think the precedence was set by Hillary Grand Dame of the Democrats herself when she blamed and demonized the little 12 year old who was raped in such a way that she had to have surgery and could never have children after that rape.......... but.......according to Hillary it was that child's fault and the rapist got out of jail free.

Democrats will side with the rapist on this one too. Democrats love their illegal immigrant rapists.

WTF are you talking about. Hillary did not blame the victim, did not demonize the victim. There wasn't a trial, the client pled guilty and he was not an immigrant.
 
Last edited:
WTF are you talking about. Hillary did not blame the victim, did not demonize the victim. There wasn't a trial, the client pled guilty and he was not an immigrant.

Always at the ready to defend pig in pant suits aren't you........

WTF--"Do you kiss your wife with that mouth" (as you ask Tor)

lib hypocrisy at it's finest
 
WTF are you talking about. Hillary did not blame the victim, did not demonize the victim. There wasn't a trial, the client pled guilty and he was not an immigrant.
She demonized the victim by LAUGHING when admitting when the rapist had somehow passed the polygraph test by saying it forever destroyed her faith in p0lygraphs. Yet she still represented him. The victim said Hillary put her through hell.
 
She demonized the victim by LAUGHING when admitting when the rapist had somehow passed the polygraph test by saying it forever destroyed her faith in p0lygraphs. Yet she still represented him. The victim said Hillary put her through hell.
Leftists wouldn't believe the truth if it slapped them upside the head.
 
Not that any sort of proof will convince you if you choose to believe and herald a lie......... but here you go. Not sure what other incoherent thing you were saying there so never mind about that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-evidence-callously-laughing-knew-guilty.html


Wow...did you actually listen to that clip? "She has a long history" of one case. She laughed about the system that screwed up the evidence. The clip also verifies that the guy pled guilty. And no evidence that Hillary "demonized" the victim.

As I said before there was no trial because the mother of the victim didn't want one.

Does the truth matter at all to you?
 
She demonized the victim by LAUGHING when admitting when the rapist had somehow passed the polygraph test by saying it forever destroyed her faith in p0lygraphs. Yet she still represented him. The victim said Hillary put her through hell.

Funny thing...the victim never went to a trial. So when was she demonized? Hillary submitted an affidavit justifying a psychiatric interview with the girl..which never happened. The girl certainly didn't read it.

Clinton had no choice. She was appointed by a judge. Refusing that appointment would not have been acceptable to the court.
 
Wow...did you actually listen to that clip? "She has a long history" of one case. She laughed about the system that screwed up the evidence. The clip also verifies that the guy pled guilty. And no evidence that Hillary "demonized" the victim.

As I said before there was no trial because the mother of the victim didn't want one.

Does the truth matter at all to you?
No.
 
Funny thing...the victim never went to a trial. So when was she demonized? Hillary submitted an affidavit justifying a psychiatric interview with the girl..which never happened. The girl certainly didn't read it.

Clinton had no choice. She was appointed by a judge. Refusing that appointment would not have been acceptable to the court.
Apparently you missed the part where Hillary says she "got him off"...... of course he never went to trial. It was that little girl's "fault". And Hillary laughs.
 
Apparently you missed the part where Hillary says she "got him off"...... of course he never went to trial. It was that little girl's "fault". And Hillary laughs.

There was never a trial because the mother didn't want one. The guy pled guilty and due to the lack of evidence (which had been inadvertently destroyed by the prosecution) the judge allowed a plea bargain. Remember that the prosecution had to agree...yet you blame Hillary....And what would you have done?

1. Refuse to accept the court appointment?

2. Do nothing to actually defend your client?

Who said anything was the little girl's fault?

Don't let facts get in the way of a good anti-clinton rant.
 
Last edited:
The only time rape is illegal to a leftist is when the leftist or one of their special groups is caught doing it.

Do you have any evidence to back up that opinion? Nah...another factfree post from Ridge.
Where do get the idea that something like half of the country approves of rape?
 
The attorney for one of the rapists in the Rockville case, is now saying that the charges should be dropped and that the encounter was consensual. MD law does infact allow 14 year olds to engage in sex as long as the person they are having sex with is not more than 4 years older than them. At least one of these illegals is not actually 4 years older than the girl...

So, where does a liberal come down on this issue... poor maligned illegal who should not have criminal record and be allowed to stay and continue his sexual conquests here in the US.. OR.. is this victim blaming - not believing the women who says the sex was non-consensual? Isn't this the biggest no no of all the no-no's in the Feminist world to not believe the person crying rape???? Even in instances where, unlike here, there is no visible trauma indicating forced sexual activity, its the biggest no-no of all.

Now, I get it that this lawyer is just doing what they do.. vigorously defending his POS client... That is cool, that is our system.. and that is why I have no problem with in a rape case the defendant challenging the sexual history and credibility of the accuser. The sexual past of that person is an indication of their behavior and anyone accused of rape has the right to paint the accuser as a liar - if that can get them off and its believeable.

I don't think it will fly in this case.. apparently the girl was completely hysterical and traumatized after the encounter and there is evidence that the sexual contact was pretty brutal and aggressive.. if there is a 14 year old signing up by choice to be used the way this girl was used... I think she needs he head examined...

But, it does explain part of the story that did not make sense to me.. I always thought it odd that they passed this random girl in the hall, asked her to have sex. Even Latinos who I find in general to be rather aggressive with their come-ons it would still be aggressive even for them to just say that to a random person. And, I wondered how they were able to force her into the bathroom in the middle of the day with other students and teachers around and no one noticed.

This little tid-bit makes me think the story went down more like this.... Girl texting with one of the rapists, agrees to have sex with him and a friend. She goes to meet them and either has already gotten cold feet and tells them so OR gets cold feet as they begin. She says no, stop whatever, But she is already isolated in the bathroom. They - being promised sex - do not head her demands to stop and rape her.
http://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2...awyer-messages-point-to-consensual-encounter/

They will choose the consensual story because it does less damage to the idea that the borders should be open.

Besides what difference does it make........Hillary Clinton went out of her way to destroy the woman who accused Bill Clinton of rape and feminist groups still voted for her in droves.........
 
Do you have any evidence to back up that opinion? Nah...another factfree post from Ridge.
Where do get the idea that something like half of the country approves of rape?

Read the news, every time a person from one of these special groups is accused of a crime the left always has an excuse for it, but if a non-group member commits a crime the left wants them hanged from the nearest tree without a trial.
 
Read the news, every time a person from one of these special groups is accused of a crime the left always has an excuse for it, but if a non-group member commits a crime the left wants them hanged from the nearest tree without a trial.

What news are you reading? Gotta be Breitbart or NewsMax. In the real world that isn't remotely true.

Find one person excusing the Tsarnaev brothers. How about someone offering an excuse for Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik?
 
WTF are you talking about. Hillary did not blame the victim, did not demonize the victim. There wasn't a trial, the client pled guilty and he was not an immigrant.

He was not an immigrant...it's called illegal. So technically you are right.
 
What news are you reading? Gotta be Breitbart or NewsMax. In the real world that isn't remotely true.

Find one person excusing the Tsarnaev brothers. How about someone offering an excuse for Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik?

Find one...Ok but you can bet it will be a liberal. Wanna take that bet?
 
Apparently you missed the part where Hillary says she "got him off"...... of course he never went to trial. It was that little girl's "fault". And Hillary laughs.
Hillary was fired from her law job when she was 27 for being a LIAR. So there's that proof of how honest she isn't.
 
Back
Top