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.
Spot on. We have attorneys like this in Chicago courtrooms, too. They’re not talented and don’t know the law. Instead, they court judges via lunches, dinners, “conferences”, sports tickets and donations. They don’t argue the facts or merits, they manipulate. Rulings are by friendship, not facts. I suspect the more we look the worse this case will get.
Corruption in government is universal. Hillary, our Chicago versions, and some third world attorney all have that in common.
In the business world, I quickly learned that wherever and whenever someone uses the passive tense, they are either avoiding responsibility or lying.
It's a shame that a legal bulldog like Lynne Abraham isn't running for our first woman president. She fought that lying, egocentric, woman killing b*****d Einhorn for years over land and over sea, until she finally brought him down.
If you've never seen the movie Idiocracy, and most especially the courtroom scene, you haven't lived.
And, of course, you know WHO defended him.
The fake republican from PA.
Self ping
I do recall that it initially was "Benedict" Arlen.
Yep.
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.