Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised

Fact checked
Snopes has been caught lying again, proving that it has a political and partisan agenda and that it is willing to mislead and deceive its readers in order to advance the cause of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment.

Snopes has been caught lying again, proving that it has a political and partisan agenda and it is willing to mislead and deceive its readers in order to advance the cause of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment.

Earlier this year Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton Super PAC, admitted they are spending millions of dollars to employ an army of trolls to “correct” and “push back” against internet users who criticize Clinton.

Correct The Record’s “Barrier Breakers” project admitted in a press release that it pays people to pretend to be Clinton supporters, and claims that thousands of unsuspecting social media users have already been “addressed” by the PAC’s mercenary social media warriors – with the promise that many more will be “corrected” in the near future.

Given that Snopes entered the political fact checking game around the same time, and began publishing more political articles than ever before – most of which display a clear Clinton bias – it is legitimate to ask if Snopes is also on the Correct The Record payroll.

Ethics Alarms reports:

Ethics Alarms has been tracking the increasing political bias exhibited by Snopes, once the definitive “Urban Legends” web source to identify false stories on the internet, e-mail hoaxes and other pollution of public information.

The website has made the disastrous decision to wade into political topics and to hire some new social justice warriors and wanna-be Democratic Party operatives to cover them, resulting in the site becoming a bad imitation of PolitiFact.

The disturbing trend really established itself this month, but it was in evidence earlier. For example, Snopes rushed to defend Hillary Clinton when the story of her defense of a child rapist was used to smear her. (Ethics Alarms explained, correctly, unlike Snopes, what was unethical about the attacks on Clinton—all defendants deserve a zealous defense, no matter what the charge, and a lawyer isn’t endorsing or supporting a client’s crimes by doing her professional duty.)

The Snopes defense, in contrast, was dishonest and misleading. Quoth Snopes, via its primary left-biased reporter, Kim LaCapria:

Snopes lies

Notice that the TRUE and FALSE sections don’t match the claim. That’s because Snopes is playing the logical fallacy game of moving the goalposts and using straw men. The claim, as stated by Snopes, is 100% true.

Clinton did successfully defend her client; very successfully, in fact. Getting a beneficial plea bargain that is the best outcome a client can hope for is a successful defense. LaCapria is displaying her ignorance. Acquittal isn’t the only successful defense outcome.

Clinton also laughed about the case. What would you call this? (from FactCheck.org)

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]

That is certainly laughing about the case. Then Snopes tries equivocation, saying that Clinton didn’t laugh about the outcome of the case. I see: she laughed (three times!) while talking about the case, but wasn’t laughing about the case’s outcome, just…the case.

Ridiculous.

Similarly ridiculous is Snopes’ claim that Hillary “did not assert that the complainant ‘made up the rape story.’” She pleaded that her client was not guilty, meaning that she argued in court that he didn’t rape the victim. Hillary claimed that her client was not guilty of rape while the victim was saying he raped her. Again from FactCheck.org:

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.

If Snopes is arguing that Hillary didn’t use the precise words ‘made up the rape story,’ that’s deceit. Obviously her defense was that the child said there was rape when there wasn’t one. In the meme Snopes was using in its post, “made up” is reasonable short hand for “falsely claimed that she was raped.”

Contrary to Snopes’ denials, Hillary also made it clear, in her quotes in the interview, that she thought her client was guilty. What else could “I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs” mean?

No, she didn’t volunteer for the case, and saying that she “freed” him is self-evidently sloppy in describing any criminal defense representation. Judges, juries and prosecutors free defendants; no defense lawyer has that power. Did Clinton’s efforts on behalf of the rapist make him a free man long, long before he would have been without Clinton’s efforts? Unquestionably. He was sentenced to just one year in a county jail and four years of probation, according to the final judgment signed by the judge.

Conclusion: Snopes was dishonestly spinning for Hillary, even though what she had done in this case was simply competent lawyering, and entirely honorable.

As I explained here, there was nothing wrong, unethical or hypocritical about Clinton’s work in this case. Her laughter in the interview is a little unsettling, but Hillary’s laughter is often unsettling. She did her job as a defense lawyer, ethically, and well. The accusation that what she did was unethical is ignorant, but Snopes’ deceitful and misleading denial of what she did is just partisan spin.

In June, Snopes decided that the outrageous news story about a school calling the police to grill a fourth grader about something he said at a class party warranted undermining. After all, we can’t have people thinking that our schools abuse students based on hysterical political correctness and race-baiting. Snopes then titled its post, dishonestly: “Police Called Over ‘Racist’ Brownies?

No news reports claimed that the police were called because of the brownies. None. Police were called because a student made some statement about brownies that another student deemed racist, and the school staff called the police. It’s really easy to debunk a claim that was never made. Does the Snopes story prove that the story is false in any way? No. Why was it written then?

In July, we learned that the trend was no aberration. Snopes apparently felt that the inspiring Facebook post by officer Jay Stalien needed to be discredited, so it had LaCapria write this, which suggested by the inherent innuendo of presenting such a post on a hoax-exposure site that readers should be skeptical. The Stalien post expressed anti-Black Lives Matter sentiments. And Kim couldn’t prove that Stalien exists.

Come to think of it, I can’t prove that Kim exists.

When did Snopes start fact-checking Facebook opinion posts? It started when the site decided to choose sides, that’s when.

Last week, several sources, all so-called “conservative” news media, noted that the American flag was conspicuous by its absence on the set of the Democratic National Convention on its first day. Liberal media went into full-spin mode, scoffing at the criticism. Ethics Alarms concluded that the omission was intentional, at least to some extent.

Then Snopes, in full spin mode, issued a rebuttal of the no-flag observation, complete with a couple of photographs showing when the flag appeared in digital form, a bunch of flags stuffed away somewhere, and a few individual Democrats in flag-themed garb. I expressed my skepticism about Snopes’ “proof.” It turned out that the rebuttal was worse than I suspected. The site was just busted by The Daily Caller, which checked the photos.

The DC’s findings: the photos offered by Snopes consisted of a screenshot from PBS’ coverage of day one, taken during the pledge of allegiance at the very beginning of the convention, before the physical flags were removed, and a screenshot of C-SPAN’s day two coverage. Snopes falsely claimed that photo was from day one of the convention. Mallory Weggemann, the paralympic swimmer who gave Tuesday’s pledge of allegiance, is seen to the left of the C-Span logo, sitting in her wheelchair as the flag-bearers walk past her…

Snopes lies

The verdict: Snopes lied. It deliberately presented a Day 2 photo as being taken on Day 1, because it was desperate to disprove the claims by “right wing sites” that the Democrats were minimizing the presence of the American flag.

That’s the end for Snopes. Even one example of bias-fed misrepresentation ends any justifiable trust readers can have that the site is fair, objective and trustworthy. Snopes has proven that it has a political and partisan agenda, and that it is willing to mislead and deceive its readers to advance it.

Can it recover? Maybe, but not without…

…Getting out of the political fact-checking business.

…Firing Dan Evon, who used the misleading flag photos, as well as Kim LaCapria.

…Confessing its betrayal of trust and capitulation to partisan bias, apologizing, and taking remedial measures.

With all the misinformation on the web, a trustworthy web site like Snopes used to be is essential. Unfortunately, a site that is the purveyor of falsity cannot also be the antidote for it.

I’ll miss Snopes, but until it acknowledges its ethics breach and convinces me that the site’s days of spinning and lying were a short-lived aberration, I won’t be using it again.

Baxter Dmitry

Baxter Dmitry

Baxter Dmitry is a writer at The People's Voice. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.
Email: baxter@thepeoplesvoice.tv
Baxter Dmitry

285 Comments

  1. Sorry, lost your credibility with me when you chose to insult real progressives who are looking for equality by calling them SJWs. 

    • Does it matter to you that Snopes adopts a political, partisan agenda? That’s actually the issue here. I personally find it disturbing that a site I thought was generally neutral has started tooting the Hillary horn under my nose. If they’re taking sides I’d much prefer they respect their viewership and at least release an official endorsement. It’s about INTEGRITY, not EQUALITY- at least not this time.

    • It matters to me that the folks accusing Snopes of that have a very clear partisan political agenda of their own. I call bullshit on this article and this website.

    • LOL.  So you’re calling “bullshit” on this site because it is “partisan” but not calling “bullshit” on Snopes which is clearly partisan.  You just can’t make up stuff as funny as this….

    • The fuck are you babbling about?

      Everyone KNOWS Snopes is just a couple in an apartment, this has been known for years.They are no more a reliable source than the homeless guy on the corner

    • So the biased people have moved along to here to try to disprove this site as well?  There are other reputable sites that back up what this author wrote above.  Just wanting something to be wrong in your mind does not make it wrong.

    • “Everybody knows,” the absolute conservative fallback when they have no proof and thus are forced to try and bluff their way through with BS. Similar examples are, and Trump and especially Fox News use this ALL the TIME, “some people say,” “people say,” “some have reported,” but then never name those “people” or “some” because it is BS.

    • Wow, and you just proved a post I just made where the poster said “Everybody knows,” which is of course BS and here you go claiming ” There are other reputable sites,” but didn’t name any.

    • It’s not the first time and won’t be the last.  When snopes started quoting MSM as evidence of proof, they fell down a rabbit hole they will never climb out of. 
      Bye Snopes, you Heartbreakers you!

  2. The reason for Snopes and why it seems biased is the overwhelming amount of bullshit the right pumps out each day.

  3. Kim LaCapria is a New York-based content manager and longtime snopes.com message board participant. Although she was investigated and found to be “probably false” by snopes.com in early 2002, Kim later began writing for the site due to an executive order unilaterally passed by President Obama during a secret, late-night session (without the approval of Congress). Click like and share if you think this is an egregious example of legislative overreach.

    • So you are saying that pres Obummer issued a royal decree (executive order) that Snopes must allow Ms. LaCapria write for their website, or else? That is a stretch, even for Obummer.

    • This is what it says on her bio. It’s a satire of the ridiculous crap that is daily noted to be real news by people who have discernment skills of a toddler.

  4. This article is more sloppy than Snopes and straight out lies when it claims the snopes article about Jay Stalien would suggest that he doesn’t exist.

  5. Anyone who claims that a plea of not guilty is equivalent to saying the crime did not happen or the defendant did not do it does not understand how the law works. Almost all felony defendants plead not guilty at first. The plea is not a denial of the charge. It just means “prove it!” Nine times out of ten the case ends up with a guilty plea to some crime and prison or jail time. I have done criminal defense for decades and know whereof I speak

    • Do you consider that it is ethical for an attorney to make a motion, and that motion being based on her “information,” 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…”, all the while apparently knowing that her defendant is actually guilty, is also just “how the law works”?

    • Any good defense attorney would do the same thing. It doesn’t matter whether or not the defense attorney knows the client is guilty. The attorney’s job is to get the client the best result possible, be that dismissal of the charges or reduced charges. If the attorney’s conscience bothers him because he knows the client is guilty, he can request to be removed from the case.

    • Actually by making a *plea* of “not guilty” a defendant is in fact saying they did not commit the crime with which they are charged. There are legal ethics essays about the issue of allowing a defendant to plead “not guilty” when you know they did it – are you knowingly allowing perjury? (Which is why defense attorneys generally do not want to hear you say whether or not you committed the crime)

      Often what happens is that what the defendant is saying “not guilty to the specific crimes with which I am being prosecuted.” For example if the DA brings charges of first degree murder but the defendant really didn’t have any specific intent, then they are pleading “not guilty” to murder, though they are guilty of manslaughter. 

      You are probably thinking of the *verdict* of “not guilty.” In that case, it’s true that many people think it means “the defendant is innocent” when it really means “the prosecution did not prove their case.”

    • So what you are saying is Hill was NOT bothered by the fact her client was guilty, seems about Right for someone that has zero ethics or compassion.  

    • For goodness, what a naïve understanding of the court system.  If you don’t like it, find another puppet to blame.  Get out there and change what is a very horrible system for all involved!

    • I plead “not guilty.” I plead “I didn’t do it.” What the hell is the difference?  But no, it is not a denial; it really means “Prove it.”  Maybe whereof you speak is why so many people despise lawyers and the legal system. 

    • So basically based upon what you wrote, if you are ever tried for something, you want your lawyer to, if they “know” you are guilty, to not make any claims against your accuser or plaintiff?

      You seem to forget, and it doesn’t surprise me at all, that our system of justice is “innocent until proven guilty,” and it is the obligation of the prosecution to prove guilt and of the defense to do everything, within the law and judicial procedures, to prove innocence or at least show that their client is not “guilty beyond reasonable doubt.”

      But I guess haters gotta hate.

    • Why do you think all attorneys are considered to be scumbags?  They are supposed to make the victims look guilty enough to get their own clients off

    • Wow, “fantasizing”? her client damaged this child so badly she would never be able to bear children. “Romanticizing sexual relationships? Hillary managed to get evidence thrown out that the little girl was a virgin at the time. She would use this same nuts and sluts defense twenty years later against the women her husband sexually assaulted. They were either mentally unstable, or trash, that no one should believe. This is the great defender of women and children’s rights.

  6. The links to the full Snopes article are in THIS article. Look at the full articles, then make a decision about if Snopes was lying because the writer of this article is intentionally leaving information out.

    • I read the full Snopes article and agree. Right off the bat this article doesn’t show the original email meme that Snopes was responding to.  Once you see the meme you see Snopes did an excellent job of refuting the lies in the meme, providing sources to show the truth.   The far-right needs to disprove the fact-checking sites because they’re afraid their followers will finally realize they’re being fed a diet of raw propaganda garbage.

      First they tell them they can’t trust the “liberal” media, now they’re telling them the fact-checking sites can’t be trusted.  Leaving them with only one alternative:  to believe the lies they churn out. 

      Here is original meme:

      http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/clinton-rape-meme.jpg

    • The US is in real trouble for voters to get honest and clear information.  Snopes do an excellent job on topics I investigate, and I use multiple sources for more complex topics.    I think the author on ‘yournewswire’ has moved the goal posts and used a strawman to support his republican or whatever agenda.  Writers who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    • Obviously you have problems with reading comprehension. Typical of low IQ libturds who lie and love to support Obama and Hillary.

    • Snopes has been protecting Democrats for 10 years.  Every Democrat slam was always defended as being false or mostly false.  Every Republican slam was always true or mostly true.  It’s only possible if the site harbors bias.

  7. This site is ridiculous. Kim is the conservative fact checker hired to provide balance after criticisms of left wing bias.

    • just one really just 50 but that’s okay you blind fools that think hillary is anything but a proven liar (by the FBI) cheater (by her own e-mails) Thief (by US court records) need your heads examined 

  8. Just one instance doesn’t prove a pattern … but keep at it, need more of this sort of thing …

  9. I don’t like Hillary Clinton but this article is pointless. The author, Baxter Dmitry, seems to believe that Snopes created a fake journalist to lie with malicious intent on behalf of Correct the Record in this article:

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

    The claim is that “Hillary Clinton is an advocate for rapists” and “Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case”.
     


     

    Baxter comes to the conclusion that “what she had done in this case was simply competent lawyering, and entirely honorable.” and “there was nothing wrong, unethical or hypocritical about Clinton’s work in this case”.
     

    There are legitimate reasons to dislike Hillary Clinton but she didn’t go out of her way to defend a child rapist and laugh about it. Baxter even admits this. His claim is that her SuperPAC paid Snopes to create a fake journalist and write that article. Even if Correct the Record were involved in the Snopes article, there would be nothing unethical about debunking a claim that Hillary is some sort of child rapist loving maniac.

  10. So if Kim LaCapria is a “left-biased reporter,” I assume you will acknowledge that you are a “right-wing extremist biased reporter.” I’ll be waiting.

  11. I wouldn’t contend that casting aspersions upon a rape victim that you expect is telling the truth to necessarily be unethical subjective to US legal procedure, but I could easily condemn it as objectively immoral.

    • Average people know that Mr. Trump “makes up stuff” and castigate him for it.  The same can be said for attorneys.  We know they are to defend people, some of whom may be guilty. Blue Cupcake makes the point they can always withdraw if they know the client is guilty.  That is not the point being made by Gold Fan.  Gold Fan objects to the unethical actions of the defense attorney who “makes up stuff” and smears the victim.  This is why we have a plethora of attorney jokes in the US and why they always rate in the bottom of credibility polls.  When Trump “made up stuff” about Ted Cruz’s father the public was shocked, and correctly so.  I think the public expects judges and juries to ascertain the truth of a matter and not be frustrated in its efforts by the obfuscations/omissions/downright lies of attorneys for the prosecution or the defense.  A Gallup Poll taken this year showed that only 9% believed in our legal system.   

    • Be you are of below average intelligence to say Trump makes up stuff. Go get a late term abortion so Planned Parenthood can sell your unused brain.

  12. People are saying “that’s what a good defense attorney does”….which is why lawyers are fucking scumbags.

  13. This is stupid. Any lawyer, whether the accused did it or not, is going to DO THEIR JOB and defend the person they are representing.

  14. It’s common knowledge on the Internet that Snopes is often wrong.   The only people who don’t know it are people who use it as their “fact” checking source and don’t bother to check other sites.

    • Teabilly freedumbateer bumblefuks often think that. It’s only because teabilly freedumbateer bumblefuks are dumb fukswho are already bbrainwashed with lies and propaganda. 

    •  You obviously are a low IQ libturd who needs to go to Planned Parenthood and be a late term abortion so they can sell your unused brain.  You are too stupid to be on a computer, so go back to your mother’s basement and continue pleasuring yourself to Killary’s naked pictures. 

  15. time to shut down Snopes. If you can’t believe them on these kind of issues, why should we believe anything they say? Why is it that ALL liberal newspapers and liberal sources LIE all the time? Why can’t they tell the truth and be proud to be the one that everyone trusts, instead of accruing a name of dishonesty and deceit for themselves. I find this disgusting. Shut them down.

  16. What scared me was: “claims that thousands of unsuspecting social media users have already been “addressed” by the PAC’s mercenary social media warriors – with the promise that many more will be “corrected” in the near future.”   
    I sure hope The media users’ life insurance in paid up,  I don’t want the run the risk of being “corrected” by any of Hillary’s goons, I mean supporters.

  17. I’ve known this for almost 8 years now…. just search Snopes for something controversial Obama has said – like “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” (just an example of Obama saying something controversial, not an actual Snopes entry I’ve searched.)….. and for every controversial utterance of Obama’s – you can see Snopes deny deny deny he ever said it……. then you can cruise over to YouTube and search it – and watch the fool say it for himself in video.

  18. It is Hillary who stated not long ago that ALL rape victims MUST be believed. Except when she is involved, … or Bill.

  19. Let’s not forget the Snopes LIE about Killary being fired from the Watergate investigation which Snopes claimed as false!

    • How can one be “fired” from a job when the course of your duties has reached the end? And how can you be “fired” by someone who didn’t even have the authority to make such a decision?

  20. The NWO 1%ers will stop at nothing to elect a candidate they own….  Snopes is just the latest in a long line of independents (Fox, Newsmax, Libertynews) purchased by big $$ and made to change their reporting….

  21. And who can vouch for yournewswire.com , the post here ? Not so sure of their validity or if they have an agenda. What I see of their other articles, seems they are going for sensationalism.

  22. I could fertilize a hundred acres with all the bullshit in that article.  It was pretty funny to watch the author trip over his own illogic.

  23. This article is absolutely a matter of bias; a distortion of information…. Either the writer is an idiot who thinks himself clever, or he is purposefully misleading the case.  Shameful in either case

  24. Um… she was the guys DEFENSE attorney! Her JOB is to DEFEND HIM and make him appear to be innocent! She laughed about saying she lost her faith in polygraphs because it was interesting/humorous that a lawyer would lose trust in those! This article is stupid! A Trump supporter probably wrote it!

  25. Did you notice how many ads you have to scroll through to read these false stories?? The are making money off the number of times this gets shared. The more sensational the story, the more shares. They don’t like Snopes.com, because the truth doesn’t sale.

  26. This article is BS grasping at straws. Im a conservative and not a Hilary supporter in least-but this is BS, some of these right wing Memes are just straight hyperbole spreading , don right false and asinine assumptions  just as many of the left are.  Clinton did her job and provided a defense here, plain and simple. She want best friends with rapist nor did she happily defend the guy..no proof of this garbage whatsoever-grow up and stop just making up petty lies to support your agenda as a conservative you make ME look like a idiot with your BS Clinton and the rest f these fools do enough real crap on their own without making this crap up..take the high ground and stop acting a damn fool. 

  27. Snopes is run by liberal Democrats! The story is true! There’s a video of her bragging that she knew he did it, and even laughed when she stated she got him off!

  28. Snopes, just another group of “I’ll do anything to get the lying untrustworthy Hillary Clinton elected” bunch. Too many times I’ve found by cross-checking with other debunking sites that Snopes puts their own agenda before the truth

        • Two out of many examples:
          1.
          “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.”

          She is not “laughing about the case”. She is laughing at the absurdity of having to go to a standing judge and convince him that she had “a right to see the evidence.” It’s called “Discovery” and apparently Judge Maupin either did not believe in discovery, did not believe the prosecutor had to turn over the evidence (as he needed to be “convinced”) or possibly a combination of both. She was not laughing at the case, she was laughing at the circumstances with the judge.

          2.
          “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]”

          “That is certainly laughing about the case. Then Snopes tries equivocation, saying that Clinton didn’t laugh about the outcome of the case. I see: she laughed (three times!) while talking about the case, but wasn’t laughing about the case’s outcome, just…the case.”

          Snopes is 100% correct. She was not laughing about either the case ITSELF, or the FACTS related to the case. Instead, she was referring to evidence she had gathered that she took to a forensic expert, who in turn was willing to testify about that evidence.
          “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.”

          So yes this article is not posting the ENTIRE context of why she was caught “laughing three times”. In every instance, she was laughing at absurd legal maneuverings within the case, not about the actual case itself. Meaning the horrific rape of a 12 year old girl. Note the bias the author of this article shows “Her laughter in the interview is a little unsettling, but Hillary’s laughter is often unsettling.” Really, unsettling to who?

          • Oh, so you ARE an idiot.

            Or you’re paid to be an idiot.
            Laughing while talking about a case is laughing about the case. Every event she laughed about was directly tied to the case, therefore, ding ding ding! You guessed it! She laughed about the case.

          • Okay try to follow along here, which I realize from your comment is highly unlikely. There is a MAJOR difference between “laughing while talking about a case” and “laughing ABOUT the case”. The “case” in this article was the raping of a 12 year old girl. THAT is the case. And nobody, including Mrs. Clinton were laughing about it.

            As I stated previously “In every instance, she was laughing at absurd legal maneuverings within the case, not about the actual case itself.” If you have any lawyers who are friends of yours, or for that matter doctors, maybe with pictures and very small words, they can explain the difference to you.

          • you conveniently left out episode number one, which cannot be spun. She laughed about the guy passing a lie detector while admitting she knew he was lying about the rape (saying she lost her faith in lie detectors because of it is clearly stating she believed him to be a rapist)

          • Didn’t think it was relevant if you look at the OVERALL context of my comment. But fine, let’s address that as well if it will make you feel better. As I stated previously, and which you obviously have a hard time comprehending.
            There is a MAJOR difference between “laughing while talking about a case” and “laughing ABOUT the case”. The “case” in this article was the raping of a 12 year old girl. THAT is the case. And nobody, including Mrs. Clinton were laughing about it. The fact that she was joking about the lie detector tests does not mean she was condoning the actions of the client she was paid to defend. She was laughing at the results, NOT the case circumstances. Context is everything. I have worked with several lawyers and doctors in previous jobs and they would tell you the exact same thing I just did.

          • Any physician, whether patient’s names are given or not, if discussing a case/procedure/patient, without it being a clinical discussion with peers, has violated HIPAA and should have their license revoked.

          • Let’s see now, Ron … How about a verbatim quote from one of YOUR (special emphasis added) comments: ” I have worked with several lawyers and doctors in previous jobs and they would tell you the exact same thing I just did.” You referenced physicians, not I. Memory failing you?

          • Do you know what “in context’ means? I never stated a physician said anything. What I DID say is that the context of a statement is everything. And that BOTH physicians and lawyers would agree. You are trying to create a false scenario here. See if you can logically determine why.

          • The body of the text, of your comment, dealt with talking about cases and how certain individuals would laugh when regaling incidents and tales. You brought physicians into the act, which one would assume (if they were logical) that attorneys-at-law and physicians would laugh while regaling tales. I did not create any “false scenario”. You created said “scenario”. Let’s see if you can logically determine why.

          • I was hoping not to have to simplify this for you, but obviously it has become necessary to do so. I SPECIFICALLY mentioned physicians and lawyers because they frequently discuss cases amongst themselves. The CONTEXT which for whatever reason escapes you, is that if a physician is talking about a particular case, he or she will do so in the CONTEXT of whatever is appropriate. They might joke about the case, they might be pissed off about the case, or sad about the case, or whatever. But when they talk about the case, they will do so in context and based on what can legally be said WITHOUT breaking patient confidentiality.

          • You’re flailing and floundering, Ron. The referenced Clinton laughing was NOT with colleagues. Rather, it was an interview. I hate to simplify this for you, Ron, but obviously it has become necessary to do so. Again, Clinton was not having a conversation with a peer or colleague. It was an interview. Therefore, her laughing about the case, as you referenced attorneys-at-law and physicians do … is a major fail. Obfuscation is obviously not one of your strong points. I had not laughed at you, until this point. Now, I find you exceedingly humorous.

          • You are twisted and everything you say is non-sequitur. You rant on but it’s just illogical and arbitrary with no facts or even logical thinking. Go back to middle school.

          • You better quit smoking that stuff before you hurt yourself. Talk about being paid to spin yarn into gold. You’re the prime candidate.

          • Alright, time to put that “context” (that you copy pasted from something akin to a Buzzfeed article) of yours into context.

            First: I noticed that you left out her little laugh about the outcome of the polygraph test that the rapist took.

            Second: “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]”
            What miscarriage of justice? Obviously one she’s trying to prevent. A rapist being punished for his crimes? That’s awfully funny indeed, I can see why she would laugh at that though.

            Third: “In every instance, she was laughing at absurd legal maneuverings within the case, not about the actual case itself.”
            And now you’re just straight up lying, and if that line was copy pasted from Snopes, then so is Snopes.
            What is conveniently not pointed out here is that she was just as likely to laugh at her own absurd legal maneuverings and the fact that they worked to get a rapist off easy, as those of the prosecution.

          • First off, I sited my source, which was related to previous replies. “Snopes is 100% correct.”

            Secondly in this comment string, I also addressed the polygraph BS. But for your reading enjoyment, I have re-posted it below.

            “Didn’t think it was relevant if you look at the OVERALL context of my comment. But fine, let’s address that as well if it will make you feel better. As I stated previously, and which you obviously have a hard time comprehending.
            There is a MAJOR difference between “laughing while talking about a case” and “laughing ABOUT the case”. The “case” in this article was the raping of a 12 year old girl. THAT is the case. And nobody, including Mrs. Clinton were laughing about it. The fact that she was joking about the lie detector tests does not mean she was condoning the actions of the client she was paid to defend. She was laughing at the results, NOT the case circumstances. Context is everything. I have worked with several lawyers and doctors in previous jobs and they would tell you the exact same thing I just did.”

            Third, that “line” was my own and was not copied from any source. Which is why it is NOT in quotes. And there is no “lie” involved here. The reality is that there is no laughing about the actual CASE, (i.e. the horrific rape of the little girl). Hang out with doctors and lawyers for a while and you will see that context is everything.

          • This is exactly like their out of context hoax regarding Hillary’s remarks regarding Benghazi. These people are wastes of space.

          • They play the “scandal” card to perfection when it comes to motivating their uninformed and willfully ignorant base. It has worked for decades now, so why stop?

          • Exactly. Closeted, scandalous reprobates. And, like cheating spouses, they accuse everyone of what they’re doing. The “I am, so they must be too” mentality.

          • Notice how it’s worked for Trump so far. Every time, almost without exception, when his obvious corruption is mentioned, he tweets out a response specifically designed to detract from it.
            The problem he has now however, is that Mr. Mueller will not be tweeted away into the sunset. But I guarantee you if the evidence that is evidently piling up against him ends with his resignation and imprisonment, his supporters will never agree that he was corrupt. They will blame the “liberal media” and Republicans in Congress who obviously hate Trump’s guts.

          • For real. Deflect, redirect, and avoid. If we’re going to acknowledge it at all, it’s everyone else’s fault. (Rolling my eyes)

  29. You don’t seem to understand how the justice system works. A defence lawyer has to do their best to defend their client. Otherwise, they have no business in law.

    • Yea the writer said as much. What’s wrong is Snopes attempting to hide something that doesn’t need to be hidden.

      • It’s the context of the accusation. People were painting a picture that Hillary was laughing about the actual rape. Snopes could have worded their finding better, but they were clearly showing that Hillary was not laughing about the rape or the victim. Her “laughter” was over some procedural issues during the case and things she learned during the proceedings. It is the context that matters and the characterization of the “laughing” as somehow mocking a rape victim that was the problem with the memes and email chains that went around. And before I get bashed, I’ve already voted and it wasn’t for Hillary… I’m just a guy who believes in honesty and doesn’t get his information from conspiracy blogs and click-bait sites like this.

    • The explanations by the author in response to “questionable” Snopes answers are specifically worded to support his claims only by that choice of words, exactly what he accuses Snopes of doing. He isn’t challenging their FACTS, he’s challenging the WORDING, which, like statistics, any clever writer can choose to support or challenge any statement without addressing or including facts.

    • Did you miss the part of the article that said that very thing?
      “As I explained here, there was nothing wrong, unethical or hypocritical about Clinton’s work in this case. Her laughter in the interview is a little unsettling, but Hillary’s laughter is often unsettling. She did her job as a defense lawyer, ethically, and well. The accusation that what she did was unethical is ignorant, but Snopes’ deceitful and misleading denial of what she did is just partisan spin.”

      I guess you are one of those people who are ready to jump in and defend Shillary no matter what. Why bother reading the whole article when you can jump right to the comment section and spew your opinion after reading just the first paragraph!

    • How exactly is it a requirement to feel happy and seem funny that her client is guilty and she allowed him to go free?

      I understand that a lawyer has to defend its client, even if its guilty. But feeling happy for letting a guilty go and then making fun of the victim is the mentality of a sociopath, not a lawyer.

      • Sociopath / Lawyer….many are capable of being both. Laughing about the results of the polygraph, specifically, is also laughing because he passed it and she understood the irony that her defense of a guilty man would benefit from the results. That would certainly be considered laughing at the outcome of the case by a prudent individual.

    • just because you don’t like the answer, doesn’t mean it’s a lie. That’s Trump’s schtick and he looks like an idiot for doing it.

          • Of all the people in this world to talk, you’re the last one in this world with any room to do so. I’m sorry that you’re insecure about my non-photoshopped picture, little man. But it sure beats your non-existent picture when it comes to bring “real”, lol.

      • You are correct, and it’s words you also live by. They actually were lies. They were caught spinning or just outright covering up. It’s not about “not liking the answer”.

        • Scott D
          You mean like Trump, on the daily? Or the whole Benghazi thing?

          They didn’t outright lie at all. They simply laid out the facts. It’s hilarious that you people love it when Trump speaks his mind, but hate it when anyone else does.

          In fact, there is more. The prosecution lost and destroyed evidence. The victim’s mother was pushing the DA to make a plea deal. She didn’t want to wait for trial, it would slow down her life with a new love interest, in a new trailer park. The only person in the whole situation that didn’t like any of it was Hillary Clinton, who was required by the court to represent him, and he demanded a woman lawyer to represent him. Not that you’d know a whole lot. You just drool when you think Faux News had a gotcha moment. In fact, they didn’t. But you’re probably still wasting oxygen about Benghazi, uranium, and Hillary’s death count. Fake news, brah. Go back to Breitbart, troll.

          • There’s our little robi, once again, humiliating herself. NO one forced her to take the case. Listen to the audio, if you have the intellectual capacity to understand (which is seriously doubtful). The prosecutor specifically made a request, to Clinton, to take the case. She was not a public defender. She was not ordered by a judge to take the case, pro bono OR paid. She took the case because the prosecutor requested that she do so, as a favor. She was under NO legal obligation to take the case. Why, little robi, must you continually humiliate yourself, you poor dear little thing?

  30. Does anybody ever read the full article? It’s seriously annoying to see comments by people who clearly skipped over the majority. Snopes has been biased for a VERY long time so I’m glad people are seeing it and not trusting the supposed “fact checking” site.

          • Oh goodness, there’s our little robi again. TOO funny. Simply hilarious. It is SO much fun watching her humiliate herself.

          • It’s actually more fun watching you guys humiliate yourselves, licking Putin’s boots and fawning over your orangutan. Achmed. An apt name for you.

          • Thanks, little robi. You, humiliating yourself, was bringing large bursts of laughter. It may seem cruel, but I have had SO much fun laughing AT you.

          • You, madam, really are quite amusing but I would recommend avoiding a career in late night comedy. You really aren’t that funny, you do not lie half so well as Snopes and in comparison to your lesbian lover Hillary Clinton and your Butt-buddy William J. Clinton you are almost as innocent as a newly partial birth aborted infant whose head is on the table while the rest of you is stuck deep inside your mother’s uterus. Best stick to being a troll. I know, Soros only pays minimum wage, but you get a raise every time you give birth to another whelp from an unknown father. Keep it up young lady.Your mama clearly loves keeping you in her basement.

          • Still crying, troll? Sad when you have to cry and tattle, just because you’re wrong.

            Go spend your food stamps and be quiet.

          • You’re still lying and still whining like a little snowflake troll. You are the one that said you didn’t have time for me yet as soon as you get out of prison, probably for sexual congress with a minor, here you are, back again.

            You know zip about me. I’m now a proud Conservative but even when I was a registered member of the American Communist Party, I mean Democrat Party, I’ve never been on food stamps. I have my own businesses, hire people i trust and you are NOT one of them and never will be. #WalkAway, I did. Freedom is good and I feel a lot better not needing to carry around all that hate you are burdened with. God bless Justice Kavanaugh, God bless President Trump and God bless the United States of America!

          • You’re a flat out liar, and a troll, you moron. I’ve never been in prison a day in my life. I take it that you have.

          • You aren’t that entertaining so have fun responding to this, my last comment. You’re correct, I do recognize people from the inside of a prison because I was the one that put them there. That’s what i used to do for a living, moron. So you like little boys you spastic little Commie bastard? Still living in your mom’s basement and coming back to two year old posts is your only form of entertainment. You have fun playing with yourself you little twerp. If you can find it…ROFLMAO!

          • And truly, trumpanzee, I know everything I need to know about you. And I’m sure you’re projecting, when you talk about sex with minors. What do you like? Little boys? Bet you’ve got a store of child porn save up to, you dick little pervert. So many of you people are like that.

          • Listen, kid. Your state full of idiots, and you seem to be their ringleader.

            Thankfully, there are also nice smart people there as well. I know, I used to live there.

          • I’m old enough to be your father, little boy. One thing I’ve learned in my long life is how to spot an idiot.. and you’ve been spotted.

          • Spotted you, and the trumpanzees, first.

            What’s next? “I’m rubber, you’re glue”” gtfu.

          • When you moved out, robi, it raised the collective Stanford-Binet score by more than a few points.

          • If you had any clue what life was outside of your mommy’s basement, that might be a worthwhile comment. Do you have anything besides ad hominems? Ivan?

          • I see you’ve married yours. I’m unavailable to you, so you shouldn’t worry if I’m single. Unlike you, I’ve maintained a marriage for thirty years. Maybe you should hire out as a Catholic priest.

          • You apparently forgot if you are going to believe a simple accusation with zero evidence and no court finding then that means you also have to accept the fact that Hillary Clinton is a murderer and a traitor. You can’t have it both ways based on nothing but your own obvious bias.

          • Number one, I haven’t forgotten anything of the kind. You people did. And after years, and half a billion tax dollars, you still never got it through your heads. Much less the fact that Hillary Clinton was not in command of the military to begin with.

            There is more than enough proof, staged deniability, and collusion thus far already. So that’s out the window. Your man is, literally, a creep, an adulterer, and a letch. Sorry about it, much less a commie lover, and you people have become that as well, just to support that fraud, after your party has done nothing but cry about commies and communism for decades. Hypocrites. And now, you people just cry about socialism instead. Partyline sheep.

          • You sir (I’m being facetious) are an idiot. You simply assume what I am talking about. Let this dial into your addled brain. I was a mid-level IT manager working under contract for both the DoD and DoS from 1998 to 2012. During that period I had the duty to report, assist in the prosecution as a witness and eventually watch as a few people were sentenced for up to 20 years in Federal prison for engaging in the exact same criminal behavior as Hillary Clinton engaged in although far less profligantly. Behavior she does not deny, behavior of which there is physical evidence. She is guilty of so many felonies it is beyond comprehension. You are in denial of facts. I’m not a party-line anything. You are a troll, a shill and a blatant liar. Bottom line…you are little more than a brainwashed reprobate and assuredly morally bereft of common Sense and critical thinking skills. Say whatever you want, it means absolutely nothing to me, you are a zero sum equation.

          • There’s little robi, once again, showing that she has the intellect of an aphid. Adultery, by definition, requires a party to be married. Ergo, even if we buy into the false allegations, Moore was not married at that time. Once again … PROVING that you, little robi, simply ain’t the sharpest machete in the shed. You poor, poor, dear little thing.

          • In all actuality, you’re mirroring your own insecurities, and projecting them upon others. I’m sorry you feel as insignificant as a bug, but I’m sure someone in your small world likes you. Chin up, buddy!

          • This is SO good. Conference call laughter, all directed at you. PLEASE continue to humiliate yourself. You poor, poor, dear little thing.

          • Well hello, little trebbi. You poor, poor, poor pathetic little thing. I’m SO glad that you decided to join in and HUMILIATE yourself. It is SO much fun laughing AT you. And, as they say, laughter is the best medicine, little one.

          • By the by, you reveal yourself. I wasn’t referring to Moore, the pedo, I was referring to the orangutan in the white house. You’re batting 0 and 2. Shoot for strike three, fool.

          • Oh this is so good. I have fifteen people following this stream, just to watch you humiliate yourself. It’s been nothing but uproarious laughter .. watching you humiliate yourself, time after time, after time. PLEASE continue, oh little robi.

    • I read every word. I especially like how this article tried to use factcheck.org to refute snopes and they pretty much say the exact same thing in regards to the rape case. She did represent him. A PD really doesn’t get to choose cases. And she did laugh about not trusting lie detectors.
      Then the Brownie thing… which makes no sense whatsoever. This article says 4th grader, it was a third grader, and the snopes article makes no determination other than there are not enough facts to come to a conclusion and that the story was being told by the kid who was in troubles mother and that is generally not a reliable source as far as unbiased opinions go.
      I could keep going, but I am not going to change your mind am I?

      • The big thing to me was that there is an audio recording of her laughing and saying Snopes clearly states that she never laughed about the case’s outcome. She clearly laughed about the getting off a pedophile. If she truly cared, she would have fought to have him executed.

        • To do as you say would be an absolute travesty. As the article pointed out Hillary Clinton was doing her job. Yes, at times, criminals win (or in this case get off with a reduced sentence) because of stupidity or malfeasance on the part of the prosecution. But it was her job and she did it correctly. The first question any defense lawyer asks the accused is “Did you do it?” and it is done with the full understanding that the defense lawyer is going to do everything possible to provide a good defense. I can’t stand Hillary Clinton but in this particular regard it is nothing other than her being a good lawyer, that sometime means they make piss poor human beings. Think about that. Then answer this…Why do we want so many piss poor humans in charge of our government and then why are we surprised when our government turns out to be just as nasty morally as this single rape case?

          • Hi, joni. You seem to forget that Clinton requested a psychological and/or psychiatric analysis of the victim. She (Clinton) requested said analysis when that child was laying in a hospital, from the brutal beating that she received from the rapist. “… History of fantasizing …”, when there was none, Clinton actually made that up.

          • Achmed, please don’t get the idea I was defending Hillary Clinton. I most certainly was not. If you have read any of my earlier responses to that wee little girl named Robi you would clearly see that. No, I was simply stating the fact that as a defense attorney she would be derelict in her duties if she worked with the prosecution to get him executed. I do not for a moment deny that there was an excess of zeal in her defense of a child rapist.

          • John, I apologize. I was simply disputing what an honorable defense attorney would do, as opposed to Mrs. Clinton. First, she was NOT “appointed” to the case. Every one that tries to lay claim to such has never heard the interview, regarding this case, with Mrs. Clinton. In her words (paraphrased) the prosecutor asked her to take the case as a special favor to him. Some (read this thread) claim that she was a public defender. Mrs. Clinton was never a public defender. When she requested the psychological profile, of that little girl, she (little girl) was in the hospital, in and out of a coma, from the vicious beating she received during the attack. The DnA …. If it cannot be produced for the defense’s experts to analyze, there is no evidence. I cannot take any exception with her for that. However, it’s against ethics canon to lie about any victim. Mrs. Clinton fabricated the story of her (little girl) fantasizing about sex with older men. There was NO (special emphasis added) evidence of any thing along those lines. As referenced, in the previous comment, “History of fantasizing …” when there was none. That lie is blatantly against ethics canon (if you can find an ethical attorney-at-law). Truly, her laughter throughout the interview .. nothing legally wrong with that, it just shows the type of person that Mrs. Clinton is. However, her making up terrible tales about a helpless little girl, laying in a hospital bed, that DOES violate ethics. Moreover, she should have been sanctioned, at the very least, if not charged (and it is a criminal offense).

          • Nothing is wrong with Hillary doing her job as a Lawyer. Its how she claims to fight for the women and little girls when that clearly is NOT the case. She will fight for the highest bidder.

      • Hi, Manuel. Clinton was never a public defender. The prosecutor stated that the alleged perpetrator wanted female counsel and said prosecutor personally asked for her to take the case. She admits that she “reluctantly” took the case. Where in the world do you get off spouting such lies as Clinton having been a “PD”. Do you really like lying or are you pathological?

        • You’re drunk. She was appointed by the judge as his PD, reluctant as in “I don’t want to represent that creep”, and where do you get off spouting such lies?

          • And, little robi, are a buffoons buffoon. Listen to the tape. She was NOT a public defender, as that is a salaried position. She was NOT appointed by any magistrate or judge. In her own words (again, listen to the tape if you are able to comprehend) the prosecutor asked her, as a favor, to take the case. Where do you get off spouting such lies? Oh, I forgot .. You seem to LOVE humiliating yourself.

  31. This article is “spinning the facts” badly. Your attempt to smear Snopes won’t work because we’ve seen Snopes is unbiased and this website is just Neo-Nazi shills. Shill on.

  32. Check out what they say on Oct 2 . About jason spiels, the Democrat that signed up 19 dead people in Virginia. They say as of October 2 , Noone had been charged , so it’s fake. But on Sept 29 . The guy admitted to doing it . Snopes is nothing but hillary pawns

    • What did they say about the Republican election official arrested for flipping votes? Or the broad who voted for Dump twice, because other people cheat?

          • There’s our little robi, humiliating herself again. You are such an erudite little thing, aren’t you? Your mommy must be VERY (special emphasis added) proud of you. TOO funny. Simply hilarious!

    • Yeah right. You notice I don’t hear you yammering about the election official arrested and charged with flipping votes for Trump.

  33. But the Dems push these get out the vote drives to register low-information voters who’ll vote on very superficial understanding, or just the fact that the Dems gave them something for free at one point.

  34. She didn’t technically “volunteer” for the case but in that audio recorded interview she clearly says she accepted the case as a “favor” to a friend. Snopes tried to cover her on that by saying she requested to be removed from the case but I call BS on that.
    I wonder if she would’ve thought it was funny if her daughter had been raped and the pedophile who did it passed a polygraph.
    I’m guessing no on that one as well…

    • You should actually read the article, the factcheck,org AND the snopes site. She chuckled about not ever believing a lie detector again. Never about the outcome of the case. I think you will also find Factcheck and snopes basically say the same thing.

      • Fact-check and Snopes are both liberal biased websites who’ve been proven wrong in the past. I can clearly hear the words come out of Hillary’s own mouth in the audio recorded interview that was conducted before her book was even written.
        She admits to accepting the case as a favor for a friend. If you can’t hear that you’re either deaf, or you’re listening to the edited version. There is a 6 minute recording on youtube, listen for yourself

      • Hello again, Manuel. Did you listen to the audio? It is still available and she did laugh, multiple times, within that taping (yes, that’s old enough that it was actual tape). Not the sharpest machete In the shed, are you Manuel?

        • Sure thing anonymous internet racist commenting on a year old comment. Maybe make your comments private so people can’t see your vile patterns.

          • Why are you humiliating yourself, manny? Speaking of “vile”, what’s with your avatar?

    • She was appointed to the case. Her “friend” referred her. She did try to get out of it, and the judge declined to release her. You have to know how all this works in real life. This sort of thing goes on every day.

  35. Seriously, who takes Snopes seriously? They aren’t credible and have no better idea about the facts than we do. Everything I have ever read form them is strongly pro-government. Not a source I would ever utilize.

      • If it was the Koch brothers paying off Snopes and Politifact, the bias would be way different.

      • The fact that you use the Koch Bros as an example proves you are a sheep for the left and the MSM. The KOch Bros are small fish compared to the democratic donors but the media made it seem as if the Koch bros run the RNC. The Koch bros aren’t even in the top 10 list of political donors, a list dominated by democrats from Wall St. But yeah, go ahead and continue parroting the mainstream. Having pride and knowing what you are talking about clearly is not a priority to many these days, too bad.

  36. ‘a bad imitator of politifact’?

    Politifact is every bit as biased and incorrect as snopes. They have been imitating Politifact quite well.

  37. I used to go to “Snopes” for fact checking, but over time I sensed that they were biased in their reviewes, sooooo… no more. Take note sponsors!

  38. Clinton was being an Honorable Lawyer?

    I completely disagree.

    Blood evidence had been cut from a pair of underpants, tested, found to be incriminating. And the piece cut out was destroyed in the testing process, leaving just the underwear without blood.

    Hillary recognized this, requested the evidence be re-tested by a higher power, knowing it would be impossible. This resulted in the evidence being disregarded by the court.

    That was not “good defense”. It was system gaming. Not the same thing.

    Good lawyers in a just system should try to figure out the truth of a matter, and the appropriate punishments. It’s not a game where you try to hide evidence and spin things to help clients get away with rape or other crimes that you know they are guilty of. Hillary was being manipulative and frankly psychopathic, and it allowed a child rapist to avoid punishment.

    I understand that many consider this “normal” in today’s world, and I suppose it is. Sickness and psychopathy are commonplace. And Hillary is a prime example.

    That doesn’t mean I think Trump is any better.

    Voting for either is just a way to trick people into aligning with evil.

    • You’re right… Why people keep putting up with this deep continuing corruption I can’t fully fathom… I know some of why they think it is normal, but still it boggles my mind that they do think this is normal, that they keep putting up with it… how bad do things have to get before people say “enough!” ???? I guess things haven’t gotten bad enough for people to react. Sad, because psychopaths prey on people and if this is considered normal that means most people are thinking/ acting as prey by allowing the psycho-predators to continually act without punishment or consequence…

  39. Snopes is just truthful enough about many things of non importance that they can take a strong liberal slant on issues of real importance. Pitiful.

  40. What an absolutely outrageous fake story. You did not “outsnope” snopes at all. In fact, they told the story accurately, and you have not done so. Read the court records, idiots.

  41. There is no proof one way or the other of Pizzagate, Yet Snopes calls it fake even though the owners facebook page and other questionable child perversion art is displayed would suggest quite a lot of circumstantial evidence exists including satanic Spirit Cooking Parties. I guess Snopes ignores the obvious?

  42. So what part of this report isn’t verifiable? Snopes, and fluoride, lead to a dependency on authority.

  43. Can I pick and choose which bits of an article I use and selectively answer the comments with misleading and deceitful answers and still consider myself a “truth teller”? Baxter Dmitry does.

  44. They aren’t trolls when they are telling the truth in response to repugnatard lies. Now, let’s talk about the Republican and Russian trolls, shall we? We can include Breitbart, Bannon, and Jones with them.

    • Not a single piece of evidence to back up the Russian for a year of independent investigating, but you say “truth”!

      Trolls covering for Hillary is proven, and Snopes has actually been caught lying for democrats, you say “response to repugnitard (you do realize thats not a word and makes you sound even more unintelligent, right) lies”.

      So, in your eyes, republicans can’t even hope to win one. You should examine your own personal bias.

  45. Several years ago when there were NOT many fact checkers I trusted Snopes. Then I began checking the fact checkers and found that they all have a bias. The bias is generally found in their choice of who to defend against false and almost false info, and who to let the vicious internet dogs devour. Hillary, Bill and the Clinton Foundation get lots of sympathy from Snopes and is not to be trusted if you’re looking for truth.

  46. excellent. A web site that lies and doctors pictures to change opinions is basically instrumental to totalitarianism.

  47. You realize, this site has been indentified as a top site that is helping spread propaganda for the Russian government, right? It’s on the watch list.

  48. How can anyone “miss Snopes”, they’re self proclaimed know it alls that have ties to felonious liars doing their research… Busted Bitches, just like Hillary Rotten Clinton.

  49. This article is what is misleading. Snopes presented everything above the board. This is just retarded at this point.

  50. Hillary Clinton is the purest form of Evil that has ever existed on this planet Ever!!!!!!! That kind of Evil needs to be Eradicated Immediately!!!!!! Or it can infect even further!!!

  51. Snopes is a joke. They twist facts and use second hand information (lies) to support their left wing agenda. They are no longer a viable source for “fact checking”.

  52. I will never trust this site again. I am done. Back in the day, it was reliable and trustworthy, not anymore. Biased is biased, and cannot ever regain my trust.

      • Haha so does every single Libtard that puts their party before their Country. Libtards haven’t had a good idea in 30 years. 1 month with Joe and gas is higher insulin is higher crime rates higher border crumbling. Only Democrat that was worth a shit was killed by his own party in 1963. Most libtards are dog shit communist.

  53. I just asked snopes if the owner spent 100,000 dollars on hookers. No results for some reason.

  54. naturally like your web site however you need to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very bothersome to tell the truth on the other hand I will surely come again again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.