Clinton Under Attack For Serving As Counsel In Rape Case In 1975

Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_BenghaziThere is an interesting story that has been raging on conservative sites on the Internet but suddenly popped up on national television in a CNN interview. Conservatives are criticizing CNN host Carol Costello for abruptly ending a segment on Tuesday after a guest raised Hillary Clinton’s 1975 legal defense of an accused child rapist. I recently condemned an attack ad against Judge Jane Kelly (a widely respected former public defender) for representing a criminal defendant. The attack on Clinton is equally low grade and unfair.

The case involved the defense of a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl in 1975. Clinton was a court-appointed attorney for Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old accused of raping the child after luring her into a car. The suggestion of critics is that such people should not have court-appointed counsel or more importantly lawyers should not represent them (or face condemnation decades later).

The story drew life from the release of taped interviews where Clinton discusses the case and says that she used a a legal technicality to plead her client, who faced 30 years to life in prison, down to a lesser charge.

Hillary Rodham was just 27 when she moved to Fayetteville and was running the University of Arkansas’ legal aid clinic. Her work at the clinic is highly commendable and this is a standard request for such legal aid lawyers. Clinton later described it as “a fascinating case . . . a very interesting case.”

I think the thrust of the criticism of Clinton is unfair and inimical to the rule of law. It is impossible to believe in the rule of law without accepting core principles of the right to counsel and due process. This attack seeks to demonize lawyers for simply defending accused persons.

There is one aspect of the interview that does frankly bother me. Clinton says “I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” She also seems to suggest that Taylor was saved by the fact that the crime lab accidentally destroyed DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime. I find that problematic, particularly in suggesting that a polygraph supporting a former client was clearly wrong — and that he was by extension clearly guilty. Clinton could defend these words by noting that Taylor did plead guilty and thus she is not sharing anything confidential.

The former prosecutor has supported Clinton and tried to explain (what should be obvious) that this is a duty of lawyers, particularly when court-appointed. Indeed, the litigation experience of Clinton is a strength in my view to her qualifications as someone who have been exposed (even if on a limited basis) to the criminal justice system.

There is a particularly criticism of a July 28, 1975 court affidavit where Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.” However, the job of defense counsel is to challenge opposing witnesses including the accuser. They have a right to make such challenges in asserting their innocence. Clinton did precisely that in objection that the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

She also challenged the “evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff’s office” by questioning the chain of custody — a standard, if not uniform, attack for defense counsel in such cases.

She told the interviewers that her client “plea bargained. Got him off with time served in the county jail, he’d been in the county jail for about two months.”

In the end, Taylor pleaded to unlawful fondling of a chid and was sentenced to one year in prison,with two months reduced for time served. He died in 1992.

This is a case of a court-appointed attorney performing the most important function of an attorney in representing an accused person in a heinous crime. She clearly do so zealously and effectively as she sworn to do in taking an oath as a lawyer. There are many criticisms of Clinton that have been discussed on this blog. I have often joined in that criticism over such things as the refusal to release the transcripts from Clinton’s speeches. However, this is one criticism that is, in my view, beyond the pale — even in this poisonous political environment.

You can listen to the tape here.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/

82 thoughts on “Clinton Under Attack For Serving As Counsel In Rape Case In 1975”

  1. Karen, There are too many sleazeballs like Hillary that gloat about stuff like this. She is not alone. But, the good ones don’t gloat and don’t feel like gloating. They get sick to their stomach. But, they have a constitutional duty and do their job.

  2. The criticizms of Judge Jane Kelly who is a judge on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is one of the worst in decades. She had been considered by Obama for the Scalia seat on the Supreme Court. Yet because she was a former public defender she got dissed. Regarding the Supreme Court: we need justices who have experience as trial lawyers– not some dorks from Harvard and Yale who never tried a jury trial or never represented a human charged in a crime. Jeso.

    I think Hillary will nominate Obama for the spot when she gets elected. If not then I hope Jane Kelly gets consideration.

  3. Oh, and her politics have nothing to do with it. I would think that anyone caught giggling about getting off a rapist, and lying about the victim, would cause controversy.

    It is wrong to judge through political glasses.

  4. Tin:

    “He was sentenced to five years.” In the article above, Professor Turley stated he was sentenced to one year, less time served. In the audio recording, HC forgot that part and said he got off with time served. Regardless, he didn’t serve 30 years.

    Do you not consider her comments to be gloating, or inappropriate laughter? What about lying about the little girl who was raped and put into a coma? The whack job psychiatrist claimed that girls fantasize about romantic encounters, which must be taken out of context because how could that possibly apply to a little girl who was raped and beaten almost to death? The victim claims that HC never provided evidence or support for her claim that this girl had made false accusations before, a claim she vehemently denies.

    Is it OK for lawyers to lie about victims of sexual assault in order to get their client off? It does seem to happen a lot, which is a barrier to victims coming forward. Why is that? Is it just considered a legitimate legal defense to make things up? I know they come up with imaginary fantasies to explain evidence, but what about actually lying about the victim? Isn’t there some line that lawyers are not supposed to cross?

    This obviously disturbs many people.

  5. RWL: I’m a spokesman for the facts. I’m not going to falsify HC’s role in a case 40 years ago simply because I don’t care for her political views today.

  6. @bam bam

    Of course the victim is traumatized by what happened to her, and she has every right to speak out. But in reading her own words, it is clear that she doesn’t really understand the process. She says HC lied about her, apparently not understanding that HC was quoting a psychologist’s assessment and not attributing her comments to the victim. She also says that HC should have helped her, not the “two guys who raped her.” Again, it was HC’s job to defend her client, not the victim. She also complains that ‘those two guys should have gotten more time.’ She doesn’t seem to understand the the second man wasn’t even charged, and the one year in prison on perp no. 1 was imposed by the Judge, not HC. The judge had discretion to give him five years, but she somehow blames HC for the short sentence.

    This woman has suffered a lot, but I think her lack of education and drug use have left her confused about the legal process that she went through as a child. And I believe she is being used for political purposes by people who don’t give a damn about her. Essentially being re-victimized. Yes, she absolutely did not get justice. But the blame for that rests first on the men who brutalized her, and second on the incompetent crime lab, and third on the lenient judge. Unlike the victim, I recognize that it is not the role of the defense attorney to advocate for the victim. That would most certainly be a conflict of interest.

  7. Tin,

    You do know that you’re HC tattoo is showing? As Karen stated: ‘Why are you so emotional?’

    Are you the spokesperson for HC? Chelsea Clinton?

  8. Tin

    The purpose in copying the articles was to give the readers a glimpse into what the victim had to say with regard to this matter. JT conveniently and unexpectedly leaves that out of his brief opinion, including the manner in which Hillary conducted herself in interviews after the matter was concluded. Far from idiotic. We have no idea as to how the victim was unfairly maligned in the process other than to read her own words, which I presented. As much as you may deem the article idiotic, is the victim equally idiotic? Are her claims that Hillary conjured up falsehoods about her reputation and prior actions idiotic, as well? There should be no glee in any defense attorney in releasing a known child rapist back onto the streets and no joy in destroying the life of an innocent 12 year old. The competent representation of a defendant doesn’t demand that. This isn’t about an attorney doing his or her job. There’s far more to it, but, then, again, you have to have a heart, a conscience and a soul to be that idiotic and to comprehend that Hillary, who touts herself as a champion of women, is anything but that. Karma, however, is a b@tch. God watches and waits.

  9. And bam bam, your second article is equally idiotic. “The police lost the DNA evidence…” DNA in 1975? Who knew?

  10. @bam bam: The article you cite discredits itself because its author isn’t interested in the facts: 1. The defendant “got off with time served….a paltry two months.” No. He was sentenced to five years. The JUDGE sentenced him to one actual year in prison with credit for time served, which was two months, and four years probation. 2. Your story goes on to state that HC carried her client’s bloodstained underwear to NY for examination by an expert, which resulted in “charges being effectively lifted.” So, if charges were lifted, why did the guy spend a year in jail and four years on probation? The screwball writer is all over the place with his hatchet job. But not to annoy you with the facts, but there was no blood stain on the underwear she took to NY. The state crime lab had cut that fabric out. And there is something wrong with a defense attorney requesting a lab test of the evidence? It would be malpractice not to make such a request. Oh, unless you’re HC. In fact, since the crime lab lost the evidence, maybe HC should have had her client provide some more. And she should have gone to Home Depot and bought a rope to hang her client.

  11. In the NFL, an individual celebration like spiking the ball is OK after a TD, as long as it isn’t in the face of an opponent. If spiking is done to show up an opponent, it is a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty. If the spike is done spontaneously, it will be allowed after a touchdown. Spiking while the game clock is still moving and not subsequent to a TD could get you a delay of game 5 yard penalty. Now, to get deeper into the weeds, coordinated celebrations w/ one or more teammates, are also penalized. So, if you and a teammate both hold the ball and spike, you’ll probably get flagged.

    One of the biggest a-hole NFL refs is from your neck o’ the woods. His name is Ed Hochuli and he is an attorney in Phoenix. He loves to show off his “guns” and gives lawyer like explanations of all his calls.

  12. Public Defenders are not properly funded like Prosecutors, so the system is rigged by design to produce unjust outcomes at every level. We underfund the defense side and overfund the prosecution side.

    There will always be persons prone to crime, but we also don’t provide quality education, good jobs, job training and equal police protection to many poor neighborhoods. It’s not race based, it happens in places like Harlem or in Appalachian mountain country. We are creating most of our own crime.

    In my area, there are modern schools with good teachers in the suburbs and less then 10 miles away in the inner city schools are falling apart, teachers must buy their own supplies and it’s dangerous for kids to walk to school.

    Education, from grade school to college education, is cheaper than one year to house a prisoner. Good jobs create payroll taxes and stimulate the economy.

  13. In my quick review of the comments, I do not see anyone claiming criminal defendants should not be provided competent representation. JT, and a few others have tried to make that the issue. It is not. The issue is gloating. I know attorneys think their right to gloat is inalienable. But, there are consequences for being an a-hole. I know, not among members of the bar. But, in the real world there are.

    1. Nick – I am not a big sports fan but don’t teams get penalized if a player spikes the ball?

      1. My reply is to all who find it so morally reprehensible that HRC was gloating or laughing or whatever She was doing. First because Karen S or is it Nick, comment is right above this box, I am responding to her specifically. To the Media,GOP and many others, this woman hasn’t done anything right since She was born. Some give Her a bit of slack and don’t attack until after She’s in college. So 60 plus years of being the vilest sleazeball college student, wife, lawyer, mother advocate politician on earth. As a wife, She was responsible for her husband cheating with a series of women. I am sure some of you saw her inside her home with Bill encouraging him to have these affairs; I mean that’s why its her fault right? Being a women’s advocate Hillary wasn’t advocating for rights of these women to continue to sleep with her husband or anyone else’s husband, so She is no longer an advocate for women? It is my belief (and as someone who has been cheated on) we all respond to the threat of the end of our relationships in amazingly different ways. Amazingly most wives attack verbally and physically the other woman instead of the husband. There are those women who like most men put the man out end of relationship don’t care the reason.There are those will not see it, ever. There those who believe what they the couple have is more than the sex he had with the other woman, and then there are politicians wives and others in the intense media spotlight Who will ever forget Sen David Vitter caught in the Washington Madame scandal standing at the podium with his wife who looked for all the world ready to murder him on camera. She still hasn’t left and the embarrassment got even worse this past election season. What’s amazing no one is calling her sleazy no one is blaming her for her husband paying for prostitutes, why not? Wow, what did the Clintons specifically Hillary Clinton have to do with Watergate; I think you will find She was safely ensconced in Arkansas during that time, but then to some there isn’t anything that She hasn’t been involved in. As far as the attack in Benghazi and four Americans died, it happened and She was the SofState but what about hundreds killed while G.W Bush was in office and his S of State They don’t matter because we can’t blame HRC? The emails are silver lining, did you watch any of the hearings?

        I initially just wanted to respond to upset, freak out about HRC gloating, laughing etc about this particular rape case she handled. I don’t know what everyone’s professions are here but there is what would be seen as gallows humor unseemly behavior in all professions. I know as a retired Police Officer, things I have made jokes about or listened to and laughed within our group would sicken people in other professions. Lawyers do it, Coroners do it, Doctors do it. I hope you get my drift but we all try and I’ll admit Lawyers may be a bit different, to keep it under wraps only being ghoulish with others who will understand. This was probably a self inflicted wound by HRC to open herself up to this type of criticism but look what She got just being a Defense Attorney. We all want to be seen or proven to be the sharpest knife in the draw, this is no different its just that its Hillary Rodham Clinton!

        1. Bunniie – HRC probably was responsible for Bill have 100s of affairs. Bill Morris broached the subject first, but walked it back. I think he had signed a no disclosure and he had disclosed. He posited that Hillary was a lesbian and Bill had a very high sex drive. Since then there has been talk about Hillary and Huma being a couple. This could be why Huma is so worried about the server emails. Did the FBI get any of the private emails between Huma and Hillary? And if they did, are they going to expose them? Of course, she is also at risk as one of the ones sending the most State Dept emails to Hillary, so she is sending secret and top secret stuff on an open server.
          Several of Bill’s ex-girl friends are talking and the head of the Bimbo Eruption squad is on the road making speeches. She isn’t around to stop them.

          1. Paul writes, “Bunniie – HRC probably was responsible for Bill have 100s of affairs.”

            Uh, I see you’ve evolved into a feminist, Paul. Now that’s progress!

            Best regards.

              1. Paul, I never knew you were into dominance and submission.

                1 Corinthians 14:34-35

                Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

                1. stevegroen – I am not into either dominance or submission. As an agnostic I do not concern myself with Corinthians. I have always considered girls/women to be equals

  14. A co-worker recently told me he would vote for Hillary, even if she was indicted. My question was, “Can she be swore in as a felon and then pardon herself?”

  15. Tin, I have a good friend who was a Public Defender in KC. He won the prestigious Lon Hocker award as a young criminal defense attorney back in the 70’s. He would get guilty criminals off, or very good plea deals. Never once did he laugh about it. NEVER. He did express guilt, but understood his duty.

  16. Rape Victim: Hillary Clinton ‘Took Me Through Hell’

    Guy Benson

    Posted: Jun 20, 2014 1:02 PM

    A brutal-to-read follow up to my Monday post regarding newly-released audio of Hillary Clinton reflecting on a 1975 criminal case in which she represented an accused child rapist whom she believed to be guilty. On the tape, Mrs. Clinton recalls a catastrophic error made by the police, who lost DNA evidence implicating her client — a man she’d taken on as a client as a favor to a local prosecutor. Court documents reveal that Clinton took steps to challenge the victim’s credibility and emotional stability by requesting a psychological evaluation.* To that end, she cited unsourced representations that the then 12-year-old girl had a history of making baseless allegations of assault (representations that the victim vehemently denies to this day). Clinton also quoted the opinion of an expert who argued that adolescent girls from broken homes are prone to “exaggerate” and “romanticize” sexual behavior.” In doing so, Hillary appeared to be maneuvering to tee up an attack-the-victim legal strategy, while potentially calling into question the veracity of an entire class of victims of sexual assault. Critics may wonder how these actions coincide with or impact Clinton’s carefully-cultivated image as a champion of women and girls. The audio recordings also capture Hillary chuckling about her efforts to exploit the local authorities’ mistake, which ultimately allowed the her client to get off with an extremely reduced sentence on lesser charges. Her laughter over decidedly unfunny developments is strange and off-putting. A legal expert quoted by the Washington Free Beacon, which published the original story, also questioned the ethics of Clinton revealing the results of her client’s polygraph test. She told a reporter that the accused man passed the test, which “forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” a clear indication of Hillary’s opinion of her client’s guilt. The Free Beacon piece did not quote the victim extensively, saying that the woman (now 52 years old) declined an interview. She did, however, express a “deep and abiding hostility” toward Mrs. Clinton. In the wake of the audio’s release, the Daily Beast managed to land an interview with the victim, who comes across as a troubled woman who remains furious with Hillary:

    In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings. “Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said. The Daily Beast agreed to withhold her name out of concern for her privacy as a victim of sexual assault. The victim said if she saw Clinton today, she would call her out for what she sees as the hypocrisy of Clinton’s current campaign to fight for women’s rights compared to her actions regarding this rape case so long ago. “I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ‘75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”

    The victim, who remains anonymous, says Hillary’s claims about her supposed history of unfounded accusations were flat-out lies:

    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.”

    She also says that listening to the clip of Hillary discussing her case reduced her to tears and compelled her to speak out at greater length:

    For the victim, the tapes prove that while Clinton was arguing in the affidavit that the victim could have some culpability in her own attack, she actually believed that her client was guilty. Taylor’s light sentence was a miscarriage of justice, the victim said. “It’s proven fact, with all the tapes [now revealed], she lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good at the time…. She wanted it to look good, she didn’t care if those guys did it or not,” she said. “Them two guys should have got a lot longer time. I do not think justice was served at all.” “When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”

    Based on her experience, the woman does not believe Hillary Clinton would make for an honest president:

    “I think she wants to be a role model being who she is, to look good, but I don’t think she’s a role model at all… If she had have been, she would have helped me at the time, being a 12-year-old girl who was raped by two guys,” she said. “She did that to look good and she told lies on that. How many other lies has she told to get where she’s at today? If she becomes president, is she gonna be telling the world the truth? No. She’s going to be telling lies out there, what the world wants to hear.” The victim is concerned that speaking out will make her a target for attacks but she no longer feels she is able to stay silent. “I’m a little scared of her… When this all comes about, I’m a little worried she might try to hurt me, I hope not,” she said. “They can lie all they want, say all they want, I know what’s true.”

    This woman may sound like she has an axe to grind. Hell yes, she does. She was raped at a very young age, and Hillary Clinton called her a liar at the time, then laughed about how her guilty client eluded justice years later. According to the Daily Beast report, the victim was a virgin at the time of her attack, and has struggled with addiction and depression throughout her adult life. We’ll see if the Clintons unleash their patented “nuts and sluts” attack machine against this victim of child rape. As I mentioned in my previous post, one news report dredged up this story in 2008 — and its author alleges that it was “buried” at the time by his editor. The story said the victim did not hold any residual resentment against Mrs. Clinton (which she now hotly disputes), and it quoted a spokesman for Hillary dismissing the decades-old episode. Among other things, the spokesman claimed that Hillary was “appointed [to the case] by the Circuit Court of Washington County.” Clinton’s own account from the recorded interview, however, indicates that she chose to accept this particular client as a favor. Meanwhile, the Washington Free Beacon has been banned from the University of Arkansas’ public library, where reporter Alana Goodman uncovered the Hillary audio. The wagons-circling, punitive decision was detailed in a letter from the dean of the libraries, who happens to be a Hillary Clinton donor. The WFB’s attorney fired off an irate and incredulous reply (italics original, other emphasis mine):

    Your claim that the Free Beacon violated “the University’sintellectual property rights” is equally perplexing. You have notdemonstrated or even asserted that the University owns the copyright inthese recordings. And even if the University did own the copyright, the Free Beacon’s use of the materials undoubtedly would constitute fair use. As you know, the newsworthiness of information greatly increases the likelihoodthat its republication constitutes fair use. It is hard to conceive ofinformation that is more newsworthy than details about the career one of thenation’s most prominent political figures. Additionally, when determining whether a publication constitutes fair use, courts heavily weigh the effect ofthe use on the market for the copyrighted work. To our knowledge, there is no “market” for this material, as university libraries do not typically sellaccess to their collections. Any reference to a claim based on your“intellectual property” is patently frivolous. Your demand that the Free Beacon “[i]mmediately remove the audio recordings” from its website is entirely unprecedented and particularly troubling. Post-publication restraints on the press are among the most pernicious intrusions on free speech. In addition to lacking absolutely anylegal basis, your demand flies in the face of the values that we expect from our libraries…Your purported suspension of my client’s journalists from your public library for the sole reason that they published audio recordings is similarly invalid and highly inappropriate. You cite absolutely no policy that gives you the unilateral authority to exclude journalists from a public library based on the content of the material that they publish. In addition to clearly violating the First Amendment, this suspension is contrary to Arkansas state law.

    The library’s disturbing and heavy-handed response has even earned the scorn of some left-leaning media figures:

    What else might the Clintons and their acolytes prefer to stay buried?

    *This post has been updated to more precisely

  17. Tin, I, and most all intelligent people who understand criminal trials did not consider Cochran, Shapiro, et al. “brilliant.” We considered the prosecution incompetent. Cochran was a ham n’ egger attorney. Shapiro the same. Barry Scheck was good. NONE of the “dream team” were heroes.

    1. Nick writes, “Tin, I, and most all intelligent people who understand criminal trials did not consider Cochran, Shapiro, et al. ‘brilliant.’ We considered the prosecution incompetent. Cochran was a ham n’ egger attorney. Shapiro the same. Barry Scheck was good. NONE of the ‘dream team’ were heroes.”

      I have to agree with regard to Shapiro, who Marcia Clark said later “had no clue” in criminal court. He was the only attorney who didn’t want to use the race card, by the way.

      Lee Bailey didn’t impress me at all other than in his appearance as a hard ass, but I think anyone can act like that if he or she drinks enough to float a building.

      Alan Dershowitz probably provided lots of legal knowledge, but I’ve never seen him try a case.

      Carl Douglas I’d guess did a lot of the legwork on whatever assignment they gave him, but I’ve never seen him try a case.

      Scheck, maybe good, but not polished at all. He just stuck to the forensic evidence, LAPD investigation protocol lapses, and drilled it all home during cross examination. His closing argument was not what I would consider refined.

      Cochran was a master of summation and prose. He knew LA and what an LA jury wants. That kind of refined yet relax presence takes years of experience, which he got as a DA.

      Together, by shear numbers and lots of money in trust to bill against, they put together what I would consider a “brilliant” defense under the circumstances which more than anything really was about proving executive agency mistakes from lying criminologists to lying detectives to poor, “reckless,” blood-storage protocol by the lead investigator himself, Philip Vannatter, to the DAs’ decisions on which evidence to offer up.

      Although Marcia Clark also said later she thought the case lost after reading the jury questionaire, I think it was lost by LAPD, With the limited budge and tools the LA DA’s office had, I think they did a fairly good job against a machine that would capitalize on every mistake made in the prosecution..

  18. The Hill
    June 16, 2014, 04:44 pm
    What does Hillary’s laughing rape defense audio mean?

    By Rick Manning, contributor

    Hillary Clinton laughed her way through an early 1980s taped interview surrounding her getting a 41-year-old Arkansas man off on charges that he raped a 12-year-old girl in 1975.

    The Washington Free Beacon has the story in a great piece of investigative reporting, where you can hear Hillary giggling through explaining how her faith in polygraph tests was forever broken due to her client’s ability to pass one in connection to the rape.

    Nowhere does the “child” advocate express any concern about the girl. Nowhere does the “women’s” advocate express any concern about future victims of this sexual predator who she got off with time served — a paltry two months.

    This case wasn’t about an attorney doing her job. In fact, Clinton went so far as to carry her client’s underwear (blood-stained evidence) on a trip to Brooklyn, N.Y. to meet with an expert in the forensic field. As she coldly notes, the forensic lab had cut out a swatch of the underpants that contained the evidence of blood and other fluids, created a report, and then lost the swatch.
    Due to Hillary’s diligence in carrying her client’s underwear to New York, the charges ended up being effectively lifted.

    A few short years, she laughed about it on the audio tape. Unfortunately, the victim of the crime still is not laughing almost 40 years later.

    The cold, callous voice on the audio reveals that the “What difference does it make?” shriek before Congress is the real Hillary Clinton.

    Clinton’s main appeal is based on gender. The first female president aspirant needs millions of women to vote Hillary as a legacy rather than due to a close examination of her accomplishments.

    The audio tape with her voice laughing about getting a child rapist off for two months time-served is likely to decimate her political fortunes in 2016. Perhaps, if justice is served, the now 52-year-old victim will get her day to tell the story that was denied through Hillary’s wranglings. When this occurs, it won’t be her long-deceased rapist on trial, but his lawyer.

    If the victim speaks today, the jury will be millions of women who will have to reconcile the heartless, chuckling Hillary Clinton heard on tape with the version they have been fed by the media all these years.

    Hillary’s friends will rightly argue that the defendant in the 40-year-old rape case deserved a defense, but Hillary doesn’t make that argument in talking about it, instead she is enamored by her own cleverness at setting a rapist free. Hillary Clinton may ultimately be undone by her own need to brag about her legal prowess in a six-minute audiotape created in the early 1980s unearthed by Washington Beacon reporter Alana Goodman.

    If so, a woman in Springdale, Ark., her life scarred forever living with that long ago horror just might finally get closure, and at long last, justice.

    Manning (@rmanning957) is vice president of public policy and communications for Americans for Limited Government. Contact him at rmanning@getliberty.org.

Comments are closed.