Search Box

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Still more on Hillary: her laugh

Hillary Clinton -- that great feminist -- once, as a young lawyer, got a child rapist off the hook. Here is a clip of her boasting about how she did so. Note her laughter when she talks about how her client passed a polygraph, and how that forever destroyed her faith in polygraphs. (Meaning, she knew her client was guilty.)

And here is an article in the Daily Mail about the woman who was raped -- at age 12 -- by the 41-year-old drifter whom Hillary defended. Hillary evidently smeared the 12-year-old by questioning her credibility, and by suggesting that she sought out older men. 

Some have questioned how could Hillary have defended a child rapist, as if that in itself is an unethical act. To be fair, a lawyer's job is to provide the best representation possible to whomever their client may happen to be. Hillary was in private practice at the time, so theoretically could have turned down this case. But young lawyers in a large firm are expected to work on whichever case is assigned to them, at least if they want to keep their jobs.

The code of ethics that Hillary did violate was the legal one, by talking about the case afterward and indicating her client's guilt (by saying his having passed the polygraph forever destroyed her faith in them). There's a reason you don't hear criminal defense lawyers saying afterward that they knew their client was guilty, but they got them off anyway. It violates the client confidentiality rules.

Did you ever hear Johnny Cochrane quoted as saying, after the OJ trial, "Yeah, I knew the Juice had killed Nicole, but did you see the snow job I pulled at that trial? That stupid bitch Marcia Clark didn't know what hit her. I got the brother off and everybody knew he was guilty" -- and then laughing about it? No, you didn't, because, as sleazy as Cochrane was, at least he observed the legal code of ethics, unlike the even sleazier Hillary.

What was even more telling than Hillary's indiscretion -- from a psychological point of view -- is the way she laughed about the case. What exactly was funny about having gotten that rapist off?

Here is a clip of Hillary boasting and laughing about having killed Muammar Gaddafi. She says, "We came, we saw, he died," and then laughs.

Now, Gaddafi was unquestionably a horrible guy. He was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, among other things, and probably deserved to die. But Hillary's joke, a slight twist on the "Veni, vidi, vici" boast, was, truth be told, not all that funny.

So what was all the laughing about?

I wrote back in 2010 about how one of the surest signs of narcissism is to laugh at one's own jokes. this tends to go beyond an innocent "I crack myself up" laughter at a funny joke one is repeating. It's more, "Laugh with me in exultation about the way I pulled off this great coup!" Narcissistic laughs tend to have an aggressive, staccato quality to them. Just like Hillary's.

But as I outlined four days ago, Hillary is a sociopath, a far scarier diagnosis than mere garden variety narcissism. And what's really telling about Hillary's laughter is that only a sociopath finds other's misfortunes funny

Schadenfreude is universal: we all feel a certain satisfaction in seeing someone we hate get hurt, even if we don't admit it. We may even enjoy a quiet inner smile. But actually finding it laugh out loud funny is altogether different. Only a sociopath would laugh when he sees someone he doesn't even know crash his bicycle into a wall, or take a bad fall. Stitches have him in stitches, so to speak. It's a distinct sociopathic tell.

Someone ought to ask Hillary what she found so funny about those incidents. 

22 comments:

Anthonyhehasnoname said...

It's clear Bernie Sanders actually would have won, but the secret powers in the democratic party and other places merely used him but had Hillary only in mind. I wonder what Bill's role is in this too. But its clear that games are going on that should never have been!

Lucian Lafayette said...

Only vaguely on subject:

The nomination of HRC reeks of conspiracy and I hope someday that someone will really open up about this and not have a sudden case of involuntary suicide.

The directed appointment of Debbie Schultz as head of the DNC to ensure HRC's nomination even gets some traction with snopes.com which, for them, might as well be an endorsement of the idea.

http://www.snopes.com/tim-kaine-dnc-deal/

Normally, I think that conspiracies can be explained by stupidity and greed. This may be one that in fact, is based on hubris and greed.

Luke.

John Craig said...

Luke --
Wow, I hadn't realized that Wasserman Schultz had replaced Kaine. Now it all makes more sense. Yeah, it does stink.

Anthonyhehasnoname said...

"In recent news, reporter (insert name) was found dead with 43 50.cal gunshot wounds in the chest and groin and 20 in the head. The cause of death was ruled as being from AIDS after spending a weekend in Cambodia."

Anonymous said...

W/respect to Sanders, conspiracies, etc., a lawyer once said to me, "It's possible to frame a guilty man." Meaning, of course there was a conspiracy but Hillary's southern black support put her 3 million votes ahead of the lefty Jew from Vermont.

Back to Hillary, you read my mind about her laugh. It's a tic that's gotten worse as the years pass. Whenever she deals with a pointed question (occasionally the press does do that) she does the throaty laugh thing. I cannot stand it.

She should have been disbarred for discussing the case, and her laugh about polygraphs indicates a distorted mind. She shouldn't have talked about the case at all, but if she did, it should have been in tones of rueful regret.

I totally agree with you about how awful a Hillary presidency would be. Look at her kneejerk reaction to Charlotte, before knowing any facts whatever. This will be her presidency. I've been reading about Keith Lamont Scott and it turns out he was a career criminal, a real thug. The black cop who shot him is an upstanding citizen. Who does she side with?

Devastating:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264278/protest-thugs-and-real-evil-charlotte-daniel-greenfield

It's almost as if she wants this country to burn. Bill, whatever his other faults, did not. He knows race, he did everything he could to tamp down the fires. But she's following in Obama's footsteps. What does she think, that when she gets into office, she'll pivot and all of this will dribble away?

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Yes, but we're actually talking about two different laughs. There's the laugh you describe, which is meant to laugh away any serious questions and make light of them, as if the accusations are nothing but a joke. And I agree, it's incredible annoying and also deceptive in its intent. Then there's the laugh I was talking about in this post -- which you also mention -- the one that comes after describing a horrific event, like getting a rapist off after he raped a 12 year old girl, or someone's gruesome death (even if he deserved to die).

Both laugh are indicative of her sociopathy, but in two different ways.

That's a great article you linked about Keith Lamont Scott and the BLM protesters. And it's so telling that Hillary has sided with him rather than the decent black cop who shot him. And the truth should be obvious to everybody. even despite the MSM's best attempts to obscure it.

Lucian Lafayette said...

Tim Kaine was on a TV news show early this afternoon. His answers were typically smooth with an air of practiced spontaneity with one telling exception: when asked about HRC's honesty in the upcoming debate he stuttered very badly before going into his answer. He also broke eye contact with the camera and looked down. Now, for all the amateur (and maybe some serious) psychologists out there, what can we make from this interesting reaction to the question of HRC's honesty by someone who knows her pretty well?

John Craig said...

Luke --
Great catch. Yeah, sometimes body language is everything. Kaine obviously thinks the same thing we do......

Anonymous said...

John,

Is it really a different laugh to brush off a question, or to make light of something?

The Snopes article needs to be read carefully. They are trying to say, "Nothing to see here, move along." I told you - they are a partisan pro-Obama outfit.

I would love to know her real relationship with the Obamas. They hate each other. Neither has forgotten or forgiven 2008.

Puzzled

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
I didn't mean a different laugh in the sense of pitch, or intonation, anything like that. I meant in their purpose. The laugh that grates on everybody all the time is the one which she uses to dismiss pointed questions, to make it seem as if the criticism is so silly that it's nothing but a joke to her. That, I agree, is wearing awfully thin.

The laugh that I was trying to emphasize in this post -- and I guess I should have been clearer about this -- is actually more of a natural laugh, if "natural" can be attributed to anything Hillary does. And as a response which seems to have less of a purpose, it's actually more telling. I've known sociopath who'll howl with laughter when they see someone take a bad spill; they'll laugh the way normal people do after hearing a good joke. And Hillary laughed when talking about getting the 41 year old rapist off, and killing Mummer Gaddafi; only a sociopath would find those things actually funny. And again, don't confuse this with schadenfreude, which we all feel. It's a matter of finding others' misfortunes funny, which I've always found to be a sociopathic tell.

Agree, Snopes can't be trusted anymore.

And yes, by all accounts, the Clintons and Obamas hate each other. Bill Clinton has reportedly said in private that he hates Barack Obama more intensely than he's ever hated anyone in his entire life. And you know Hillary feels the same way. I wrote about that in 2012:

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2012/02/with-apologies-to-abigail-van-buren.html

And again, more seriously, here:

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-much-does-hillary-hate-barack.html

Anonymous said...

LOL, I read the two posts and I was amused to see that in the Dear Abby one you had Hillary sign off as "puzzled". I swear, I didn't get my little nickname from that.

Puzzled

Anonymous said...

https://chicago.craigslist.org/sox/mis/5798059128.html

"You might be a sociopath if - w4m

You lie to women to get them to like you. You lie about being married or not being married depending on what you think they want to hear. If you like to hurt people to "get off." If your so afraid of the truth getting out that you pay someone 100 bucks to "keep quiet." Then if that doesn't work you go to the police with some bogus claim that the person is stalking you to try and scare them into "keeping quiet." Then you show up in their town at the store they are shopping at for no reason at all except to try and scare them into being quiet. If you hold a grudge for over 13 years and wait to "exact your revenge" and then when you do get your revenge, you don't care that it doesn't only mess up the object of your revenge's life, it also messes up their spouse and their kids. You know you might be a sociopath if you enjoy having a job with power attached to it just so you can make other's lives hell. But wait, you might just be a sociopath if your wife leaves you and moves 3,000 miles away. Even though she was in on the "revenge" the whole time. Go on. Buy a truck. Drive the rest of your life away. Spend all that quality time with the only person in this world you care about. Yourself. I have a really awesome picture of you I'd like to post with this but because of your job I won't. Both of you deserve what you get. "

0ff hillary svbj3ct bvt st1LL...

====FAK3 BABA

John Craig said...

Puzzled --
Thanks for reading those. I had forgotten that I'd signed the "Dear Abby" one as Puzzled. (But that actually is the way a lot of the people who used to write to those advice columnists would sign their letters: with an adjective to describe their particular form of consternation.)

John Craig said...

FAK3 BABA --
That's actually a pretty good description of sociopathic behavior. They are the most vindictive people on earth.

Anthonyhehasnoname said...

I can't help but feel some people sorta chose to become sociopaths. They just keep doing stupid crap until their brains melt into goo.

John Craig said...

Anthony --
It's something that's set early in life. We can choose to do bad things, but we can't choose to be sociopaths.

Mark Caplan said...

Right-of-center blogger Ann Althouse spotted an odd discrepancy or dishonesty in a NY Times fluff piece about Hillary's performance in a mock interview on the "Funny or Die" website. The Times reporter remarks on Hillary's "loud laugh" when, in fact, if you watch the interview, she was totally deadpan. Quoting the Times:

Hillary Clinton, a candidate who has gone to great lengths to showcase the playful side of her personality, apparently wanted to prove that she can take not only a joke but a full interview of nonstop lampooning when she appeared on the mock celebrity interview show “Between Two Ferns.”

While Mr. Obama had playfully laid into Mr. Galifianakis during his 2014 interview — “What’s it like for this to be the last time you ever talk to a president?” — Mrs. Clinton appeared mostly deadpan, letting her host do most of the comedic legwork....

At one point, she was actually asked a policy question. But while she was explaining her hopes for improving the economy, she was interrupted by a Trump ad. Mrs. Clinton played along: “Why would you play a commercial from my opponent in the middle of our interview?”

“He paid me in steaks,” he replied, adding a scatological joke. (This is the one that got a loud laugh out of Mrs. Clinton.)

You can watch the Mrs. Clinton interview, including one or two funny bits, and read Ann Althouse's commentary about it here:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/09/a-deadpan-hillary-clinton-visits.html

John Craig said...

Mark --
Just watched the segment. Boy was that awkward, though I guess that's to be expected given that Galafianakis seems to specialize in that sort of humor. (It wasn't bad, though.) Surprised Clinton agreed, given that she must have all material cleared with her people ahead of time. I guess the point was to show that she's a good sport.

Yes, the NY Times, reporting accurately as always. The debate tonight will be interesting, and the spin afterward from the media will be almost as interesting. Luckily, most people seem to be able to see through the spin these days.

gambino dellacroce said...

Wow, just watched Between Two Ferns. Clinton is either very sick, or has the charisma of a lead pencil (I actually suspect it's both). Painful to watch.

John Craig said...

Gambino --
I thought in 2012 that I wouldn't be able to stand four more years of Obama; and as it is, I haven't been able to watch a State of the Union speech in at least six years. Hillary will be even worse.

Anonymous said...

"To be fair, a lawyer's job is to provide the best representation possible to whomever their client may happen to be. "

I would buy this explanation if HRC's life had been dedicated to criminal law. The real reason she took the job was to curry favor with a powerful judge. This guiding principle, making a decision not based on morals, but on whether it will help her access power, is present in one way or another in her whole life, from her marriage to Bill to her vote on the Iraq war.

It is her north star.

I am a registered Dem and I won't be voting for HRC. Of course, in my state, it will not matter.

-Gardner

John Craig said...

Gardner --
I hadn't known that about the case, interesting.

"North star," well put.

I know a fair number of Dems who don't plan to vote for Hillary. Unfortunately, also know a fair number of Republicans who won't be voting for Trump. So the odds still seem to be with Hillary.

Nice to hear from you.