Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Daily Beast: Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,' Rape Victim Says


Wrong Direction

Recommended Posts

Holy cow.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/20/exclusive-hillary-clinton-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html

 

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.

...

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. 

...

In her interview with The Daily Beast, she recounted the details of her attack in 1975 at age 12 and the consequences it had for both her childhood and adult life. A virgin before the assault, she spent five days afterwards in a coma, months recovering from the beating that accompanied the rape, and over 10 years in therapy. The doctors told her she would probably never be able to have children.

 

 

More at link...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Which aligns her with every defense attorney in history.

 

I just don't find anything terrible in a young attorney being potentially overly vigorous in defending her client...in 1975. That was before rape shield laws even existed in most states. (It could be any states to be honest).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which aligns her with every defense attorney in history.

 

I just don't find anything terrible in a young attorney being potentially overly vigorous in defending her client...in 1975. That was before rape shield laws even existed in most states. (It could be any states to be honest).

 

Wow. I actually expect this thread to go in a different direction as it grows. We'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.  Hillary Clinton, when she was an attorney, when specifically asked by a prosecutor, agreed to defend an accused rapist who Clinton thought was guilty. 

 

Having said that, though?  Yeah, this will hurt her.  Especially if it gets lots of coverage.  (And we all know that it will get lots of coverage.) 

 

Edit: 

 

I remember, during the OJ trial, an interview with F Lee Bailey. 

 

He was saying that his childhood hero was Parry Mason.  (I reflect that the same statements apply to Ben Matlock.) 

 

Every client he ever defended was innocent.  He never once defended a guilty client. 

 

He won every single case.  He never took a plea bargain.  And never gambled in court, and then had to watch his (innocent) client get hauled off to prison.) 

 

And the way he won his cases.  He didn't get the evidence thrown out.  He didn't smear the testimony of the witnesses. 

 

No, he figured out who the real murderer was.  Then put them on the stand.  And then maneuvered the real killer into confessing, under oath, on the stand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you guys read the article? The woman is not just alleging that Hillary is guilty of providing a vigorous. She's alleging that Hillary is guilty of lying about her to get her client, who she knew as guilty, off. Are there no ethics in defense? This was a 12 year old girl who was viciously beaten and raped to the point she was in a coma for 5 days. Then, later, Hillary is on tape laughing it off. 

 

My god people. If this was Scott Walker, there would be 15 pages on it already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.  Hillary Clinton, when she was an attorney, when specifically asked by a prosecutor, agreed to defend an accused rapist who Clinton thought was guilty. 

 

Having said that, though?  Yeah, this will hurt her.  Especially if it gets lots of coverage.  (And we all know that it will get lots of coverage.) 

 

It will get lots of coverage from the Right. The left and most of the center will simply dismiss it as right wing witch hunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this isn't true, but it's a huge story if it is and the allegation is coming from the principal in the case.

 

 

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.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abhorrent, but she was doing her job. I'm sure Cochran knew OJ was guilty as well. Hate to say it but I agree with WD's Scott Walker point.

 

That being said I am never surprised when people who have obtained as much power as Hilary are shown to be morally bankrupt.

 

I wasn't alive in 1975 but I get the impression that rape was taken like 1% as seriously then, which could be totally wrong but just the way it seems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you guys read the article? The woman is not just alleging that Hillary is guilty of providing a vigorous. She's alleging that Hillary is guilty of lying about her to get her client, who she knew as guilty, off. Are there no ethics in defense? This was a 12 year old girl who was viciously beaten and raped to the point she was in a coma for 5 days. Then, later, Hillary is on tape laughing it off. 

 

What would The Daily Beast have her do? Mount a less vigorous defense for her client? I'm sure they would be praising her if she provided a shoddy defense for a man accused of rape.

 

As for the accusation that she was lying about the girl....again....that puts the victim in alignment with nearly every crime victim ever dealing with a defense attorney. Unfortunately, attacking the credibility of the victim is still the most effective defense technique - if some of these tactics would not be permitted in a present-day court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you guys read the article? The woman is not just alleging that Hillary is guilty of providing a vigorous. She's alleging that Hillary is guilty of lying about her to get her client, who she knew as guilty, off.

I agree that's what she's alleging.

The article doesn't really prove that claim. (Doesn't deny it, either.)

(And it does seem to at least really imply that the event doesn't exactly traumatize her, decades later.)

And I agree with you. Defense attorneys, in our system, sometimes do some really despicable things.

(And no, I'm not offering that as an excuse or justification, either.)

----------

I wasn't alive in 1975 but I get the impression that rape was taken like 1% as seriously then, which could be totally wrong but just the way it seems.

Observing that this was supposedly the forcible rape of a 12 year old, which I think Arkansas treated pretty seriously, back then.

But I have no doubt that the laws have changed a whole bunch, since then, in terms of protecting victims and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that's what she's alleging.

The article doesn't really prove that claim. (Doesn't deny it, either.)

(And it does seem to at least really imply that the event doesn't exactly traumatize her, decades later.)

And I agree with you. Defense attorneys, in our system, sometimes do some really despicable things.

(And no, I'm not offering that as an excuse or justification, either.)

 

Actually, I think we can pretty easily conclude the claim made by the victim is likely false.

 

Hillary didn't claim the victim DID those things.  Hillary doesn't even claim she has good evidence that the victim did those things.

 

Hillary simply is stating that somebody informed her that the victim did those things.  She doesn't even say who, how, or when, or why they informed her of those things.

 

Reading the file, the defendant appears to have had (family) support (e.g. a relative filed documentation supporting the release of the person on bail and agreed to let the person live with them) so that SOMEBODY (which would include the defendent) would bad mouth the victim to his attorney (possibly due to questions by the attorney) isn't surprising.

 

In other words, I suspect that Hillary didn't do anything illegal (like lie in an affidavit) and was playing her role in the legal system as required by the legal system at the time and under the circumstances.

 

And that was/is providing the best defense possible for her client, which she's actually legally required to do.

 

And I don't like Hillary Clinton.

 

And I can completely understand why the victim doesn't like what happened, doesn't like her laughing about the case, and is speaking out.

 

But that doesn't mean she's being objective, reasonable, or is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Observing that this was supposedly the forcible rape of a 12 year old, which I think Arkansas treated pretty seriously, back then.

But I have no doubt that the laws have changed a whole bunch, since then, in terms of protecting victims and so forth.

 

Yeah, I don't disagree. I am probably hung up on the callous tone she seemed to have. But this is just my immediate feeling about an out of context quote. I do not really know her thoughts, and I would have been hanged in the court of public opinion a long time ago if some of what I've said in my life was recorded and released. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which aligns her with every defense attorney in history.

 

I just don't find anything terrible in a young attorney being potentially overly vigorous in defending her client...in 1975. That was before rape shield laws even existed in most states. (It could be any states to be honest).

Did you read the flipping article? This is messed up man. It's indefensible. I'm really disillusioned by our political structure and how quickly people are to forgive any act if the person committing it happens to belong to the same political party as themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the flipping article? This is messed up man. It's indefensible. I'm really disillusioned by our political structure and how quickly people are to forgive any act if the person committing it happens to belong to the same political party as themselves.

 

I read the article. It's single-sourced and that source states that a defense attorney lied in 1975 without any further proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

holy f*** i am tired of threads like this.   Hillary Clinton was a defence atty, and defended her client.  it is what defence attorneys HAVE to do, or else our system of justice is completely useless.

 

Everybody knows this.

 

kill the thread, and go watch a rerun of hill street blues for the blathering debate of why we need defence attys, and save us all the time and effort.

 

I will say, I'd be curious to hear the tape and the context of her laughing.

 

But in terms of what was posted, and I looked through the file of the court documents, I'd like to see somebody that thinks Hillary did the wrong thing, explain what she should have done?

 

Legally, what could she have done differently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do get it.

 

This country is stuck with a million injustices. Everything from racist sports team names, to not providing enough jobs to socio-economically disadvantaged people, to women's pay, to not giving job interviews to people with black or jewish names, to blaming the rape victim and on and on and on.

 

It's a terrible thing, and the people who are perpetrating these wrongs on our society are fair game for any number of accusations of racism, to sexism, to elitism and on an on. Unless that person is Hillary Clinton.

 

The hypocrisy is staggering. I don't just mean that from message board posters who (myself included) are going to be prone to supporting "their side" on an issue. I mostly mean that with Hillary, champion of women's rights, Clinton. 

 

I guess I should just take it as fact that she has found her moral compass somewhere in between those audio tapes and now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I think we can pretty easily conclude the claim made by the victim is likely false.

 

Hillary didn't claim the victim DID those things.  Hillary doesn't even claim she has good evidence that the victim did those things.

I understand that. But I've seen a whole punch of liars try to get away with lying by prefacing their lie with "I have been told that . . . ".

(Or similar disclaimers, like "well, some people believe".)

When you say something like that, even when prefaced with such a disclaimer, you're also putting your own credibility behind the claim, too. What you're really saying is closer to "I have been told (and I believe) that . . . " Because, if you don't believe it, you wouldn't be quoting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the article. It's single-sourced and that source states that a defense attorney lied in 1975 without any further proof.

 

And again, the lie claimed by the victim:

 

“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,”

 

Hillary didn't say she had made false accusations.  Hillary said that she was informed that she had mad false accusations.

 

She doesn't say who did it, why they did it, when they did it, that the person would testify in court that they did it, or that Hillary would have the person testify in court.

 

Just that somebody had informed her of that.

 

Does the victim really know that Hillary didn't ask her client, has the victim ever made a false accusation before that you know about?

 

And her client didn't say, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say, I'd be curious to hear the tape and the context of her laughing.

 

But in terms of what was posted, and I looked through the file of the court documents, I'd like to see somebody that thinks Hillary did the wrong thing, explain what she should have done?

 

Legally, what could she have done differently?

 

Seems like nothing. To me this article is only useful in what it may say about her personally. In this thread I have already made a likely unfair judgment on her. It is difficult to judge people's statements from 1975 through the lens of 2014. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...