Hillary’s sisterhood questioned again as rape victim speaks out
Just a lawyer, or is there a pattern here?
This story could have legs.
From Josh Rogin at The Daily Beast, Exclusive: ‘Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,’ Rape Victim Says:
Hillary Clinton is known as a champion of women and girls, but one woman who says she was raped as a 12-year-old in Arkansas doesn’t think Hillary deserves that honor. This woman says Hillary smeared her and used dishonest tactics to successfully get her attacker off with a light sentence—even though, she claims, Clinton knew he was guilty.
The victim in the 1975 sexual abuse case that became Clinton’s first criminal defense case as a 27-year-old lawyer has only spoken to the media once since her attack, a contested, short interaction with a reporter in 2008, during Clinton’s last presidential campaign run. Now 52, she wants to speak out after hearing Clinton talk about her case on newly discovered audio recordings from the 1980s, unearthed by the Washington Free Beacon and made public this week.
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 think A.F. Branco captured Hillary’s problem perfectly:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Hillary Clinton is known as the champion of Hillary Clinton.”
There. Fixed.
Totally off topic, but umm..All OK by you Professor J.?
Photo: Authorities responding to scene of truck crash at restaurant in downtown Ithaca, NY – @SerinoNews
http://www.breakingnews.com/
As to HRC, she’s Lizzie Bor..Warren, without the Cherokee “high cheek bones”.
The criminally accused have a right to good representation.
But I could not defend…under any circumstances…an accused rapist of a child. Or a woman. I have daughters. I know I could not be objective.
But here, Hill-larry went FAR outside merely providing this rapist a vigorous defense. According to what I’ve read, she made herself a witness (which I don’t understand) by swearing out an affidavit reciting information smearing the victim. Information nobody can answer how she came by.
That SEEMS to establish a pattern she would employ…is still employing…to shield men from the consequences of their actions.
” Information nobody can answer how she came by.”
A good indication that the information is either bogus or illegally acquired.
She had no business “testifying”, according to my modest understanding of criminal law.
She should have had her sources…assuming there were any…execute affidavits. But her doing it…??? That seems like pure hearsay.
That tape is going to be hard to explain, but I’m sure the MSM is working on the explanation right now. Disgusting people.
As much as I hate to say anything favorable about Hillary, this story is pure bullshit. Hillary defended her client by attacking the prosecution’s witness (the rape victim) and by attacking the weakness in the prosecution’s case. That is exactly what she was supposed to do.
As to the claim that Hillary violated attorney-client privileges by disclosing the polygraph test results, I disagree. If the defendant had FAILED the test, then he probably did not want that publicized. But he PASSED — he would want that information released, and Hillary did not violate any privilege by stating that he had passed the test.
Is Hillary complete sleaze? Yes, undoubtedly. But did she do anything wrong in this particular case? I have not seen anything that suggests that.
The problem is laughing about it. Defending someone you know is guilty is one thing. If the tape demonstrated she felt remorse for having to do that, it would be a non-issue. She laughed about getting a guy off that she knew was guilty. That’s the issue.
Have to disagree with you. Hillary didn’t just say that her client had passed the polygraph. She also said that the fact that he passed had caused her to never trust polygraphs again! IOW, she essentially accused her client of lying on the polygraph. In addition, she was expressing her opinion that her client was guilty of the rape. It’s hard to imagine a client charged with child rape who would waive attorney-client privilege and consent to allow his lawyer to make such damaging statements about him in public.
Hillary Clinton is very lucky that the interview wasn’t published at the time she made the comments, and that her client didn’t find out what she’d done before he died. Otherwise, she probably would have lost her Arkansas law license a lot sooner than she did.
My belief in my client’s guilt is NOT a confidential attorney-client communication. Hillary did not say that the client admitted to her that he committed the rape, or that he told her that he lied on the polygraph exam, or that her belief was based on any communication from her client.
Years after the fact, I might be willing to admit that I did not believe that a specific criminal defendant was innocent; especially if I got them off (or got a favorable plea bargain) on an evidentiary technicality. Some [very few, of course!!] of my criminal clients are in fact guilty of some of the charges against them (although they have usually been grossly overcharged by prosecutors and are not in fact guilty of most of the charges). That is no secret.
Uh, I am pretty sure your comment was non-responsive to Observer’s comment. He/she said that the statement (with laughter) meant that she believed her client lied on the test. He/she further opined that no client would ever have consented to have his attorney talk like that about him.
For you to view this as if it is only a legal question is to miss the point that an attorney represents the client and not the attorney. If the attorney cannot represent the client without reservation (such as having a conflict of interest with the client’s interests), withdrawal is the only remedy available to the attorney.
Not running off at the mouth. Not to put too fine a point on it but no attorney should be telling identifiable war stories without the client’s (or former client’s) permission.
“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she added with a laugh.
_____________________________
The clear inferences from Clinton’s statement are that (1) she believed her client lied on the polygraph, and (2) she believed he lied because she believed he was guilty. No, she didn’t explicitly state that he lied, just like she didn’t specifically state that she believed her client had raped the child, but people can, and do, make reasonable inferences, an obvious fact that is recognized in Arkansas’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
Maybe there’s more to Rodham’s quote from the link, but who informed her about the girl in the following from the link? It doesn’t say the girl was interviewed by a psychiatrist, only that one told her about children in general from the way the quote is written.
“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.
Let’s cut to the chase. Clinton is just as sleazy as her husband and she is the type of attorney who gives the profession a bad reputation. This is a moral failing and is just as much a violation of professional conduct rules as stealing from clients is.
Hillary is going to run for president with the argument that she is going to be good for women in this country because she is a women and because she cars about women. This tape blows her argument away because it shows that she can abuse women just like some men.
As far as I know the defendant did not pass the test. The tested cloth was cut from his underwear and we do not know what the test results were. Hillary’s interview with a forensic specialist that there was not enough evidence on what was left of the underwear is surely correct.
Mike,
A vigorous defense is needed – but that’s not what I take issue with.
Hilary said the alleged victim had made false accusations previously – that’s highly relevent to the case at the time. It’s claiming the alleged victim had a history of either perjury or making false statements to the police.
She made several claims that were factually without merit.
I say this, by the way, as a guy who was falsely accused of rape in college. The guy (this scum rapist) does deserve the BEST defense she can provide – but she provided fabricated “evidence” (her testimony) of false factoids that had a bearing on the outcome.
Is old Hildog using a southern accent in that tape? Sounds a bit like that to me.
She sounded like she was doing her best Fred Thompson let-me-regale-you-with-stories-from-my-vault-of-courtroom-experience impression.
Anyone who knows Hillary Rotten Clinton would know that Hillary Rotten Clinton is true liberal statist ideologue, the epitome and embodiment of arrogance, corruption, subversive activity, insidious odious insatiable greed and lust for power, let alone hypocrisy, who has a history of leftist parasitic political poisonous malfeasance, who is the silencer enforcer for Bill Clinton, and will remove, literally, anyone who dares to threatens their hold onto power.
“Hillary Clinton Fired From Watergate Committee for Fraud, Ethics Violations”
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/252624 via digital journal by Johnny Simpson APR 2, 2008
Hillary for President? Over my Dead Body, OOPS..
THE CLINTON BODY BAGS
5/28/2013 by IbJensen
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3024701/posts
Hilary is and has completely bought into the elitest mindset. And why not? It’s worked for her and come true for her.
She wanted all sorts of “freedoms” for children – such as abortion without parental consent for 12 year olds – meanwhile, she would not let HER daughter, Chelsea, even get her EARS pierced until she was 16.
She wants to impose rules and be a ruler over people she sees as beneath her. And, again, it’s worked for her and be reinforced for her for the last 30 years (Governor’s wife, Pres’s wife, Senator, and so on).