Posted on 06/20/2014 8:26:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
A few days ago, the Free Beacon published an old interview with Hillary Clinton from the 1980s, in which she described pro bono work she did as a court-appointed attorney for man accused of raping a twelve-year-old girl. Clinton described how she attacked the prosecution’s handling of key evidence and won a light sentence on reduced charges for a man she knew was guilty — which is what defense attorneys do. However, her laughter and clear delight in retelling this story provided a discordant note to Hillary’s claim to be a defender of women, and some questioned whether Hillary employed an “attack the victim” defense that would make that claim even more hypocritical.
The Daily Beast’s Josh Rogoin took a break from his national-security beat and tracked down the victim in that crime, now 52, who alleges that Hillary Clinton did attack her as part of the defense, and much more. In the exclusive interview, Rogin reports the woman’s accusation that Hillary Clinton lied in court documents to portray her as a sex-crazed spoiled brat who threw herself at older men and then accused them of rape:
The victim’s allegation that Clinton smeared her following her rape is based on a May 1975 court affidavit written by Clinton on behalf of Thomas Alfred Taylor, one of the two alleged attackers, whom Clinton was appointed to defend.
“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Clinton, then named Hillary D. Rodham, wrote in the affidavit. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
Clinton also wrote that a child psychologist told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” especially when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”
The victim vigorously denied Clinton’s accusations and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never accused anyone of attacking her before her rape.
“I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying,” she said. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.”
It’s not the first time this case and Clinton’s conduct in it has come up in her political career. Glenn Thrush wrote about it in 2008 for Newsday, although it got lost in the shuffle of the campaign. At the time, the victim hadn’t seen the court documents or heard Clinton’s interview, and told Thrush, “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.” Hillary’s team told Thrush that “she had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law.”
That’s certainly true, and also why courts appoint lawyers to represent indigent clients. Everyone deserves a full and competent defense. However, that does not include making false representations to the court as statements of fact. ”I have been informed” does not suffice as a dodge of that responsibility, either. Hillary would certainly have had the resources to research whether the victim had ever accused anyone of rape in the past before making that claim to the court. And it’s beyond bizarre how Clinton even conceived of an argument that a rape victim of twelve might just be “romanticizing sexual experiences.”
Attorneys represent clients, and it’s dangerous to attack lawyers for clients of their choosing, or in this case not of their own choosing. But how they represent them matters — especially for a lawyer seeking the Presidency as the next banner-carrier in the War On Women.
Addendum: It’s worth noting that the Free Beacon has been banned from the University of Arkansas library archives after making the audio of the interview public. That decision, Alana Goodman reports, was made by a donor to … Hillary Clinton.
SHA2 (Standard Hillary Answer #2): “What difference does it make?”
The hillabeast is a bimbo...a lying bimbo...a grifting lying bimbo...a grifting lying bimbo who was fired for what would a felony to we working folks (Watergate committee).
Really, I eagerly await the time when some brave press reporter would give that wench the extended finger she deserves.
How in the world do we let such untalented and dishonest folks who really cannot do anything useful become elected officials? (Oh, never mind...that’s the very definition of elected officials.)
Hillary Clinton and Ethics are two ships passing in the night - one in the Atlantic Ocean, the other in the Pacific.
“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” - AKA the Bill Clinton Defense.
Any prosecutor worth his salt would move to strike such a hearsay, self serving affidavit as that. It would have no relevance and would probably violate most State rape-shield statutes.
According to another article on this subject, swillery was not “appointed” to defend the rapist. She volunteered to do it.
Reminded me of the Ira Einhorn case.
A continuation of the leftist war on women and children.
Maybe this is the genesis of the “nuts and sluts” defense.
For a minute there,I thought this might be a “realative”of Juanita Broaddrick??(”You Might Want To Put A Little Ice On That”)?????
I’ve seen plenty of people, even here on FR, who say that this is what a good lawyer does, defends the client to the max. I’m not a lawyer so have no concept of lying and getting the guilty “off” as an ethical and decent defense.
It wasn’t about right or wrong, it was about winning at all costs and this is the motto of the rat party to this day.
Hillary has some nerve claiming the Bible is her favorite book - I don’t see a conscience there - just a lifetime of being an arrogant power hungry witch.
It could come out today that she was a serial killer and she would still get the nomination. Democrats cater to the lowest of the low voters. Character and morals are not what they are looking for in a president. They are looking for free government hand outs or a politician that will carry on Obama’s immoral policies like queer “marriage”.
It is no surprise...Hillary threatened the women her husband the pervert raped telling them they would be ruined if they opened their mouth about her rapist husband...
Hillary is a modern-day incarnation of the Biblical Jezebel.
It don’t matter s long as I get my Hillary check and free Hillary phone!
Sarc/off
Not to mention that the defendant at the time of the rape was 12 years old! To make an allegation that she was already pretty “skilled” as a 12 year old should have been thrown out by the judge, and the defense should have been given a look at that so-called evidence. Sounds like this whole case was a Hillary promotion. I realize that the lawyer wants to win every case, regardless of the guilt of the client, but it is cases just like these that have put sex offenders back on the streets to rape other 12 year olds. Once a perp has been given a soft sentence, they tend to feel that nothing is going to really stop them. This case needs to get wings.
To give proper context here, the sentence should have been completed as such:
she was already pretty “skilled” as a 12 year old at being raped
By definition, ANY sex with a 12-year-old constitutes rape.
What the Hell kind of wording is that for a legal document?
No identification of who informed her of this or of their qualifications or knowledge to make such a judgment or accusation.
Doesn't even rise to the level of hearsay. Why would a judge even permit such drivel to go into a legal argument?
Is this another of those attempts by the Clintons to get the bad stuff out there way ahead of time so that when the time is right, they can claim it is “old news”?
I wish the RNC had to guts to put this double victim in a TV advertisement against Hillary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.