Chelsea Clinton Energetically Saws off Branch of Family Tree She is Sitting On

….wishes her Grandmother had had access to Planned Parenthood.

Not the sharpest scalpel in the drawer. Particularly, when she, who is rich as Croesus, stoops down to provide uplift by informing the toiling slobs that she really doesn’t care about money.

If it doesn’t mean anything to her, perhaps she should give some to the victim of pedophile rape her mom smeared and laughed about. She wouldn’t have to cough up much. Maybe just 30 pieces of silver.

"From Jonathan Liedl's piece:Hittinger defines malignant technology as “the systematic application of tools to culture, ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?
"Hmmm... I'm having a difficult time deciding the right way to reply because I think ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?
"Lewandowski, another sociopath Catholic who flaunts his faith - like Paul Ryan, Steve Bannon, Kellyanne ..."

Our Post-Satire Age
"Comment keeps getting deleted. Will try one last time...See Russell Hittinger's essay "Christopher Dawson on ..."

Is Technology Morally Neutral?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • wlinden

    You seem to be going off on weird tangents for the sake of attacking That Woman. Is you point that someone charged with a crime you consider particularly heinous should not have the right to a lawyer? Or that lawyers should only represent people they are convinced are innocent? That Rumpole that “old legal taxI”, is a moral monster? Or is this just for lawyers you already dislike?

    • Hezekiah Garrett

      Can you not read? I mean, you can obviously write, so I don’t get how you can’t read.

  • Eve Fisher

    Our judicial system says (in the immortal words of Hunter S. Thompson), “even a werewolf deserves counsel.” It may be repugnant and disgusting, but everyone in this country (including child molesters and mass murderers, rapists and bankers) is entitled to a professional legal defense. And thank God for it. It is one of our basic rights, and without it, it’s all too easy to end up in a prison for life without any hearing, trial, or redress of any kind. It used to happen all the time. It’s still happening around the world. Even if you can’t stand Hilary Clinton, please don’t descend to the lowest level and attack lawyers for doing a job that keeps us all safe.

    • D.T. McCameron

      “doing a job that keeps us all safe.”

      *cough* In principle. That same job is just as likely to see justice subverted and the guilty let loose to prey upon the innocent.

      • Eve Fisher

        Very true, because money and might exist. (Short of unhackable robots running the justice department, it will happen.) But the principle itself is terribly important: abandoning principles and the laws that back those principles up does nothing to protect the innocent. Instead, it simply unleashes more opportunities for justice to be subverted.

  • Falls Church Resident

    It wasn’t that she defended him.
    — She later recorded an interview saying that, if she hadn’t gotten DNA evidence thrown out by hiring an unscrupulous expert, she would have done a smear campaign and went on to say exactly what they had on the victim: messy broken home, sought company of older men.
    — She laughed about how she knew perp to be guilty. If you’re so concerned about his rights, you should be concerned that she broke lawyer-client ethics by publicly saying he was guilty. Yes, she managed to both coldly smear the victim and break her obligations to the perpetrator.
    — She brags that the expert was known to argue whichever way you wanted.

  • Marthe Lépine

    I agree with some of those comments. A lawyer’s job is to defend her client to the best of her ability. It could have been that Ms. Clinton, in her eagerness, as a relatively new lawyer, just wanted to make a good impression to her superiors, As well, I get the impression that in that particular case, the prosecutors were not too keen on getting a conviction either. However, trying to smear the victim of a rape had been standard practice for a very long time, so much so that it seemed that the trial was more often than not the trial of the victim, not the abuser. If it was not possible to prove that the victim had been a paragon of sexual virtue all of her life (and it was deemed appropriate to go through every detail of her life to avoid making that proof), it was concluded most of the time that she must have been “willing” and that the suspect was not guilty. Things began to change when the feminist movement started to make waves in the 70’s (“feminism” was not all bad). I don’t know exactly what the laws are in your country, but that was one of the reason to modify my country’s laws in that respect. I am not knowledgeable enough to give you a lot of details, but I remember some of the discussion, since our current government, in it’s quest to appear “tough on crime”, has wanted to make some changes that would have brought back that previous way of prosecuting rape in our country,

    • Marthe Lépine

      And for a graphic (although obviously extreme) description of what could happen to a defence lawyer who failed to act as if he totally believed his client (a violent sexual offender) was not guilty, I would suggest you go and rent a copy of the movie “Cape Fear”.

  • PalaceGuard

    Has anyone ever asked HC how many abortions she’s had?