[Ammi]

...hmmm, I feel as though I might have to give a little absence note explanation here...I've been working and although I had seen the thread title and watched the OP vid, I haven't really had time to look further and like Jamie, it's not the sort of vid that I would comment on, on face value without looking into it a bit more because it seems very much contrived and slanted by the 'anti Hilarys'....and yes there is lots to be anti Hilary about as there is lots to be anti Trump about but I don't see the correlation between this vid and the one recently posted with Trump's conversation because they're entirely different circumstances...

...Donald Trump admitted his comments and he tried to justify and excuse them as 'locker room banter'...sexual assault and finding it amusing and abusing his 'star quality' is just the average locker room banter and represents males.../well no, it doesn't not one little bit...

...with Hilary and this vid...?...the vid itself seems to be a distortion so isn't accurate of the title 'rape enabler'...she was a young prosecuting lawyer and she did voice reservations about taking the case but it wasn't ultimately her decision, she was appointed by the judge because apparently she helped run a legal aid clinic at the time, so her name came up and Thomas Alfred Taylor had specifically asked for a female to defend him...Thomas Alfred Taylor was a grim person, an awful person...defence lawyers have to defend some pretty horrendous people..rapists/murderers and even though their thoughts may be of guilt with that person and even though they might be appalled at what they've done...they still have to defend them to the best of their abilities because everyone until guilt is proven in a court of justice, is entitled to that...there is often a whole team of investigators involved also and if errors are found that could reduce a sentence for the client etc, then a job wouldn't be done properly and to the best of their ability if that wasn't used...unpleasant maybe/the thought of that with someone like Thomas Alfred Taylor...but it's what defending attorneys have pledged to do..again to represent to the best of their ability...there seemed to have been mistakes made..and those mistakes are really what are accountable for the unfortunate sentencing and that 'proper justice' wasn't served for the victim...I completely understand the victim's feelings about it and her feelings directed toward Hilary, how could she not feel the way she does and has felt over the years...those flaws in a judicial system just shouldn't happen/it's all wrong but it does happen though..we hear of it so often sadly...with the laughter..?...that's the only thing to me that seems questionable in this and the original vid seems too paint a different thing completely in that Hilary's laughter seems ironic laughter at the judicial system and how things like the polygraph said he was telling the truth when she strongly suspected he was guilty and of forensic mistakes...I mean how ironic for her that she is forced to represent in a case that she doesn't want in the first place../a tough case where a guilt outcome and appropriate harsh sentencing are pretty much certain, so a case she's pretty certain that she's going to lose...and mistakes made and complete false 'truth indicator' in a polygraph meant that justice wasn't served...that to me seemed to be where her lughter was coming from.../the irony of it all...obviously that's just my own interpretation and my own perspective to it but it's definitely not a perspective of any slant of favour toward Hilary...they're both grim, Hilary and Trump, they're both grim in different ways...I just don't think that this is one of those ways for Hilary and represents what it's suggesting....she had a responsibility under her oath to represent and defend to the very best of her abilities and she did because even the most grim of grim people are entitled to a fair representative and fair trial ....