Hillary Clinton professes that she is an advocate for women and children (“it takes a village”), but could that be just political double-speak? Tapes from the 1980s have recently surfaced of interviews in which Ms. Clinton discusses the most significant criminal case that she was part of during her legal career. It is quite apparent that she knew the 41-year-old rapist she defended was guilty, yet Hillary laughed repeatedly during the interview, in utter disregard for the suffering of the 12-year-old girl who was raped.
Hillary Clinton laughed about getting him off with a plea bargain, despite clear evidence of his guilt. Court records show that she accused and attempted to discredit and shame the victim.
The case was in the year 1975 – the same year that she married Bill Clinton. Hillary had been asked if she would take the case of accused rapist Thomas Alfred Taylor as a favor to the prosecutor. Taylor had asked for a woman lawyer, for reasons unknown.
Taylor was accused of luring a 12-year-old girl into his car, reports the PolitiChicks , and he and two other males took her to an isolated area where Taylor raped her.
The evidence in the case included witness testimony, medical evidence that the girl had been assaulted, and a pair of bloody, semen-soiled underwear, according to court documents .
In a court affidavit, Hillary Clinton did as many typical attorneys would do, attempting to discredit the victim, calling her “emotionally unstable.” Hillary’s rape-shaming included accusations of the young victim having a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.” And Clinton didn’t stop there:
“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior.”
The physical evidence linking the accused to his victim was a pair of underwear. The lab testing them cut out a hole in the cloth in order to test the part which had the most evidence. The lab results indicted Taylor. But somehow, that piece that was cut out got lost or thrown away.
Though Hillary Clinton was, at the time, an Arkansas attorney, she traveled all the way to New York City to consult with a forensics expert for advise on how to invalidate the clear and damning evidence against her client. Her endeavor proved successful. Upon Clinton’s return, she was able to convince the judge to settle for a plea bargain. The rapist got off with time served already in jail, for raping a pre-teen girl.
This all may be par for the course in an attorney whose job it is to get her client off the hook, no matter what. What some may find truly disturbing, however, is the callousness and casualness with which the woman who wants to be President can be heard discussing and laughing about the rape case in the tapes that have surfaced.
The Clinton tapes are “part of more than five hours of unpublished interviews conducted by Arkansas reporter Roy Reed with then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and his wife in the mid-1980s,” reports the Washington Free Beacon. “The interviews, archived at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, were intended for an Esquire magazine profile that was never published.”
It was a “really interesting case” according to Hillary Clinton. “I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” As she says this, Hillary can be heard laughing about it.
Clinton’s tone is more serious as she confides, “You know, what was sad about it was that the prosecutor had evidence, among which was [Taylor’s] underwear, which was bloody.” But moments later, Hillary Clinton and her interviewer laugh like they are sharing the biggest inside joke when she tells about cornering the judge, “Well, this guy’s ready to come from New York to prevent this [snicker] miscarriage of justice! [full on belly laugh].” Hillary sounded positively triumphant at the end of the tape when she proudly proclaimed that she got him off for time served in jail.
So perhaps the comment about Benghazi, “ What difference does it make ?” when taken in the context of Hillary Clinton’s past history, isn’t out of character at all. Will this newest revelation of insight into the former first lady’s character affect Hillary Clinton’s bid for the 2016 Presidency? That remains to be seen.
[image via bing]