Realize that posting in big red letters is not going to keep people from reading your shitty sources. Here are the real groundbreaking objective points from your alternative fact checker:
- 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. So you disagree, and?
- 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. Hillary defended her client, who chose to plead "not guilty". I'm pretty sure that's what defense lawyers do. Wait. What are we talking about again?
- Conclusion: Snopes was dishonestly spinning for Hillary, even though what she had done in this case was simply competent lawyering, and entirely honorable. So Hillary was just doing her job, but snopes was "spinning" for using a neutral interpretation of events? Well now I'm REALLY convinced.