Guess we won’t be seeing that on a bumper sticker any time soon…but according to a newly discovered interview tape, we should.
Recent stories of Hillary Clinton whining about her and Bill coming out of the White House so “dead broke” that rock bottom for her was being forced to borrow $1.35 million dollars from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe to purchase one of her mansions aren’t even the most disgusting ones you’ll find out there lately.
(Side note: you know it’s bad when Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel — who has earned the monicker “The Godfather” — calls you out publicly for being…a tad dishonest about how you publicly represent yourself.)
No, this is much more disgusting.
Back in 1975, when then just Hillary Rodham was a 27-year-old public defender, she apparently worked ferociously to get a 41-year-old man named Thomas Alfred Taylor who was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl a nice, fat plea bargain.
Tape has surfaced of an interview a decade later when Clinton discussed the lengths she went to in her zeal for “justice”. For starters, she is heard laughing about how she never trusted polygraphs after she gave her own client one according to The Washington Free Beacon:
“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she added with a laugh.
You can listen to the whole recording below:
She obviously feels her client is guilty here. Chilling doesn’t begin to describe it.
Conveniently, none of the demeanor of Clinton’s interview about the case — and a lot less detail — made it into her book Living History.
The Beacon goes on to recount what happened to the victim in this case Clinton is heard laughing about winning:
The girl had joined Taylor and two male acquaintances, including one 15-year-old boy she had a crush on, on a late-night trip to the bowling alley, according to Newsday.
Taylor drove the group around in his truck, pouring the girl whisky and coke on the way.
The group later drove to a “weedy ravine” near the highway where Taylor raped the 12-year-old.
Around 4 a.m., the girl and her mother went to the hospital, where she was given medical tests and reported that she had been assaulted.
Clinton laughs periodically throughout her retelling of Taylor’s defense and how botched handling of evidence in the form of his bloody, semen-stained underwear helped her secure his plea bargain.
But let’s back up a sec, because Clinton didn’t stop there. Oh no, she went above and beyond with a strategy that also included blaming and shaming the victim.
In a court affidavit, Clinton wrote that she had personally been informed that the 12-year-old victim had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing” and that the girl was “emotionally unstable”:
“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,” Clinton said. (Source)
That’s how far Hillary took it — the 12-year-old rape victim wanted to be raped.
If the prosecution truly did lose track of the evidence and botch its own case, that last move seems particularly cruel, dishonest and morally repugnant to say the least.
For someone who could have received 30 years to life in prison, Taylor only got a year for pleading to the lesser charge of unlawful fondling of a child, which included two months for time served.
Go ahead and say every defendant deserves a lawyer and it’s a defense attorney’s job to defend even if he/she knows the client is guilty of the crime; the Sixth Amendment and I wholeheartedly agree with you. Where I stop agreeing with where that argument is going, however, is the part where the defense attorney already has a case in the bag due to a technicality and then still goes to great lengths to dishonestly disparage the character of not just an alleged victim, but a traumatized little girl by basically saying the child wanted to be raped.
How traumatized? The Beacon went on to report that the victim, now 52, is divorced and was in prison a few years back for forging checks to pay for her meth addiction, and she basically feels the attack screwed up her whole life.
So go ahead and add this to Clinton’s callous and flat-out dishonest response to the Benghazi attacks, her cackling with glee when she found out Gaddafi had been murdered, her unbridled joy at the thought of bombing Iran and starting World War III, in addition to a list that could surely fill a 1000-page (Stephen King) novel.
And yet, there are people who get all mushy inside at the thought of finally electing Hillary the first woman president (you know, after Obama finishes up his eight-year stint wrecking the country).
Why?! Because she’s so…honest? Because she’s such an advocate for women?
WHAT FREAKING PLANET ARE YOU PEOPLE LIVING ON?
And secondly, while I’ve heard the statement that presidents aren’t really elected but selected these days, is there really no other people besides the Bushes and Clintons we can get to pretend to run this place for the corporation that is the United States of America, Inc.? (You know, rather than whoever is next in line from the unofficial American dynasties that are the Bushes and the Clintons?)
Clinton’s behavior here is (once again) sick and twisted. It speaks for itself; how anyone could even think of letting this woman get anywhere near the oval office absolutely horrifies me.
Anyone who would enthusiastically plaster his or her car with a “Ready for Hillary 2016!” bumper sticker either isn’t paying any attention at all whatsoever (read: the lowest information voter possible), or they are masochists with a really warped sense of reality.
It’s been made abundantly clear, time and time and time again, that Hillary Clinton’s ruthless desire to win — at all costs — throws any sense of truth, justice, societal safety and simply what is right completely out the window.
Just by the way, it’s worth noting that before this rape case happened, Clinton was fired from her position as a staff attorney on the Watergate investigation for the House Judiciary Committee according to her then-boss Jerry Zeifman, “Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
Ah yes. Just who we want to be the next president.
Become an insider!
Sign up for the free Freedom Outpost email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.