Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 32 Share on Twitter 4 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
General News   

A Clue to Trump's Attack Plan if Clinton is Nominee: Hillary's Ugly 1975 Child Rape Case

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   20 comments
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Ralph Lopez
Become a Fan
  (12 fans)

(Image by commons)   Details   DMCA

There come times in a reporter's life when a story makes him or her ill, and we would rather not write about it. However, sometimes the story is too important, and this is not an option. All criminal defendants are entitled to a "vigorous defense," in the words of the legal profession. But does a vigorous defense mean lying about a 12-year-old rape victim, and claiming she was enticing older men?

CNN reported on the case in 2014, a 1975 case in Arkansas when Clinton was a young defense lawyer, who was asked by a judge to defend a man who, it turns out, she knew to be guilty. The CNN report runs audio which had been unearthed of Clinton saying that the man took a polygraph test which "forever destroyed her faith in polygraphs." Clinton is heard giving off a number of, perhaps whimsical, laughs.
The Daily Beast interviewed the victim, who after the release of the audio stepped forward. The Daily Beast reported in 2014:
The victim's allegation that Clinton smeared her following her rape is based on a May 1975 court affidavit written by Clinton on behalf of Thomas Alfred Taylor, one of the two alleged attackers, whom 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 Daily Beast further reported:

The victim vigorously denied Clinton's accusations and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never 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."
Clinton won her case after she learned that the section of the victim's underwear with bloodstains on them had been lost by investigators, and she flew to New York to have a world class expert agree to testify in her client's behalf. The girl was permanently damaged, and unable to have children afterwards. The accused was found guilty of a much lesser charge and released with essentially "time served" while awaiting trial.
A vigorous defense yes. But does that include outright character assassination of a 12-year-old girl, as the victim maintains?
Now as gutter fighter Donald Trump unveils his new nickname for Clinton, "Crooked Hillary," after his cryptic comment that "the Clintons have a lot to hide," we get a glimpse of where he may be going to eviscerate Clinton's 10 point lead in head-to-head matches conducted by the polling media, compared to Sanders' nearly 20 point lead. "Crooked Hillary" is along the lines of his "Little Marco" Rubio, or "Low Energy Jeb."

As the Wall Street Journal noted:

Mr Trump plays his own game. For example, when Mrs Clinton was readying the sexist meme against him, Mr. Trump took it away from her by bringing up the Bill Cosby-style allegations of rape and sexual misconduct against hubby Bill Clinton...
Of course politics is not the point here. The deep injustice which may have been done to a child victim is. But no observer can fail to see that Clinton has questions to answer. Thus far her position on the case, expressed in recent years, is that her client was entitled to the best defense possible. When interviewed by a British network on the case in 2014, she said:
"I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did."
One word is missing. Especially when it comes to such a grave crime involving a young child, we should say the best ethical defense possible. If the victim's allegations that Clinton's tactics had no basis in fact, certainly a critical moral compass is missing. Clinton's response to the case is glib, partially true, and incomplete. And there is no doubt that Donald Trump knows it.

(Article changed on April 18, 2016 at 17:30)

(Article changed on April 18, 2016 at 20:46)

Valuable 5   Must Read 4   Well Said 2  
Rate It | View Ratings

Ralph Lopez Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linked In Page       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Ralph Lopez majored in Economics and Political Science at Yale University. He writes for Truth Out, Alternet, Consortium News, Op-Ed News, and other Internet media. He reported from Afghanistan in 2009 and produced a short documentary film on (more...)

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Wikileaks Soldier Reveals Orders for "360 Rotational Fire" Against Civilians in Iraq

Why Obama Will Not Veto NDAA Military Detention of Americans: He Requested It.

McChrystal Trying to Tell Us Something? "We're F%^*king Losing This Thing"

BoA Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On Taxpayers, Super Committee Looks Away. Seize BoA Now.

Obama Lied: Taliban Did Not Refuse to Hand Over Bin Laden

Arrests at White House Over NDAA Military Detention of Americans, Occupy Wall Street Joins Fight.

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend