The Hillary Tapes

I have to way in on this one, I don't like Hillary Clinton, but also I don't see the hypocrisy. From the article here's what we know. The prosecution's witness is vulnerable and could be easily discredited. The physical evidence was destroyed by the lab and therefore could not be presented. Hillary could have taken it to trial and most likely won, or have the charges dismissed. Knowing he was guilty, she plea bargained which resulted in a guilty verdict. The fact that the sentence was time served only speaks to the weakness of the prosecution's case. Had she pushed and actually gotten him off, then you might have a case for hypocrisy, but she didn't.

 

I'm not arguing the aspects of the case. I applaud Hillary, as a lawyer, for using every shrewd or clever legal maneuver she possibly could.

The hypocrisy is in the fact that she knew the child rapist was guilty, defended him and yet advocates for children. Let me map it out:

1. Lawyers defending child rapists: OK

2. Lawyers advocating for children: OK

3. Lawyers defending child rapists yet advocating for children: Hypocritical

 

It isn't that you are not being clear enough about your stupid beliefs, it's just that they are stupid beliefs to begin with.
I could even buy ironic or coincidentally or even unfortunately but just not buying hypocrisy.

 

Remember the last time the right wing idiots tried this stupid tactic of tainting defense attorneys with the crimes of the people they are defending? Here, let me remind you.....

Conservatives Turn Against Liz Cheney - As Bad As McCarthy

The backlash is growing against Liz Cheney after she demonized Department of Justice attorneys as terrorist sympathizers for their past legal work defending Gitmo detainees -- and now it's coming from within deeply conservative legal circles.

On Friday, the conservative blog Power Line put up a post titled, "An Attack That Goes Too Far." Author Paul Mirengoff, called Cheney's effort to brand DoJ officials the "Al Qaeda 7," "vicious" and "unfounded" even if it was right to criticize defense lawyers for voluntarily doing work on behalf of Gitmo detainees.

Reached on the phone, Mirengoff offered an even sharper rebuke, contrasting what Cheney is doing to the anti-communist crusades launched by Sen. Joseph McCarthy and, in some respects, finding it worse.

"It could be worse than some of the assertions made by McCarthy, depending on some of the validity of those assertions," Mirengoff said, explaining that at least McCarthy was correct in pinpointing individuals as communist sympathizers. "It is just baseless to suggest that [these DoJ officials] share al Qaeda values... they didn't actually say it but I think it was a fair implication of what they were saying."

Mirengoff isn't alone among conservative legal theorists who think the ad campaign by Cheney's group, Keep America Safe, is distasteful. In a statement to the American Prospect, John Bellinger III, a former legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, called the effort "unfortunate."

"It reflects the politicization and the polarization of terrorism issues," Bellinger said. "Neither Republicans nor Democrats should be attacking officials in each other's administrations based solely on the clients they have represented in the past."

 

I've concluded that you just can't read. That's it. It has to be. Or else you just can't comprehend.

 

Oh, I and everyone else here seems to have comprehended the point you and your cut and paste nonsense are trying to make. In fact, it wasn't that long ago that demon seed Liz Cheney tried to make exactly the same stupid argument about several Justice Dept lawyers. It didn't fly then and it won't fly now. That's what I've concluded.

 

Let's listen to what the victim has to say:

Alleged child rape victim reportedly says Hillary Clinton lied about her in '75 case

June 20, 2014

A woman who says she was raped as a 12-year-old girl by an Arkansas man who was defended by a young novice defense attorney named Hillary Clinton says the future presidential candidate smeared her to get her attacker off with a light sentence.

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, the now 52-year-old woman, whose name was withheld by the publication out of concern for her privacy, said she still harbors anger toward Clinton.

“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said.

The victim in the 1975 sexual abuse case that became Clinton’s first criminal defense said she wants to speak out after hearing Clinton talk about her case onnewly discovered audio recordings from the 1980s, unearthed by the Washington Free Beacon and made public this week.

The woman told The Daily Beast Clinton intentionally lied about her in court documents, went to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledged - even laughed - about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings.

If the victim could speak to Clinton, she said, “I would say, ‘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’s claim that Clinton smeared her following her rape is based on a May 1975 court affidavit Clinton wrote on behalf of Thomas Alfred Taylor, who Clinton agreed to defend after being asked by the prosecutor. Taylor had specifically requested a female attorney.

“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.”

The victim denied Clinton’s claim she had ever 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.”

The newly-revealed audio recordings, which were taped in a series of interviews with a reporter whose story was never published, were uncovered by The Free Beacon at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, amid thousands of pieces of Clinton history.

On the tapes, Clinton seems to acknowledge that she was aware of her client’s guilt, boasts about successfully getting the only piece of physical evidence thrown out of court, and laughs about it all whimsically.

“He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Clinton says on the recording, failing to hold back some chuckles.

Instead of the original charge of first degree rape, prosecutors let Taylor plead to a lesser charge: unlawful fondling of a child. According to the Free Beacon, Taylor was sentenced to one year behind bars, with two months reduced for time served.A second attacker was never charged.

“Oh, he plea bargained. Got him off with time served in the county jail, he’d been in the county jail about two months,” Clinton said on the recording, apparently not remembering the sentence accurately.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ly-says-hillary-clinton-lied-about-her-in-75/

 

Smearing Hillary Clinton with nonsense like this isn't going to help you losers in 2016. She is still the most respected woman in the country and has been for over 10 years. Good luck. Your white males just seem to keep getting indicted.

 

Who is "smearing" anyone? The lady, as a 12-year-old girl who was raped, is saying that Hillary lied. Are you saying this lady is lying?

 

Listen to what you're saying for a moment. A 12-year old traumatized girl is saying 40 years later that Hillary lied in a court case defending her client?
What is it with your ilk calling everyone but your own ilk liars? You don't seem to care one iota if the people you support lie through their teeth but if you are told by the lying-est cable program ever to air that one of your political foes lied, you can't let go as if it justifies all the bald faced lies your own side tells endlessly. And you wonder why we couldn't possibly lend your opinions any credibility.

 

It's not what I'm saying; it's what the victim is saying. I simply posted her words here for all to read. I'm asking whether you believe the victim is telling the truth or whether you believe she's lying.

 

.......... still waiting.

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz............

 

You're not answering the question I posed to you. Somehow, I doubt you ever will.

 

I thought what I already posted was pretty obvious. I have no idea what a traumatize 12 year old girl might remember 40 years later. Neither do you. The difference is that I see her as a victim of a terrible tragedy while you see her as a hammer to pound your political opponents with. Never let a tragedy go to waste eh? Can you say Benghazi?

 

I have no reason to doubt the words of a now-52-year-old victim. Do you doubt what she's saying?

 

Nor do you have any reason, basis, or factual way to determine if she is telling the truth. Well, you always have your Obama derangement syndrome, your rabid partisanship, and your head up..... Well you know.

 

The lady isn't disputing anything Hillary did, in fact, she's verifying that Hillary did what she said. However, was it in the best interests of the then-12-year-old girl who had been raped? No it wasn't, according to the victim herself. And, really, who should know what happened to her better than the victim herself?

 

BTW, why was this thread moved to the Political Forum instead of the Chatter Forum where I had placed it originally? It has nothing to do with politics.

 

Since this isn't addressed to anyone in particular, it would seem that anyone who has an opinion on the matter can rightfully respond.

The description of the "Chatter" section is as follows:

Only a sap would believe that the clear political agenda of the Washington Free Beacon and Fox News had nothing to do with their reasons for running with this story. Hillary Clinton is a politician, and the story is politically motivated.

Now, you may wish to pretend that the topic of this thread is "not controversial enough to argue about," but it's a fact that pretty much all of its posts are argumentative. I think the management of this site made the right decision.