Hillary Clinton is no warrior for women and women’s rights. She has been exposed this week, not only as a defender of a child rapist, but ten years later laughed about it in an interview. She stood by her husband when he called Monica Lewinsky and a slew of other women liars. Why would the liberal, progressive, left choose this woman as their general in the battle on what they deem is a War on Women by Conservatives?
The Washington Free Beacon produced a taped interview this week of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton snickering about defending a child rapist. She knew he was guilty and stated so in the interview when laughingly she said “I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” A lot of details have come out about the case and Hillary’s attack on the twelve year old victim.
In 1977 Attorney Hillary Rodham founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families (AACF). Its mission statement is “to protect and promote through research, education and advocacy the rights and well-being of Arkansas children and their families, to assure that they have the opportunity to lead healthy and productive lives.” Where was this ‘Hillary’ when she was defending a child rapist?
It is important to continue exposing the hypocrisy of these people and the liberal media that supports them, no matter what.
War on Women is an expression used in United States politics that characterizes certain Republican Party policies as a wide-scale assault on women’s rights . . .
Newly discovered audio recordings of Hillary Clinton from the early 1980s include the former first lady’s frank and detailed assessment of the most significant criminal case of her legal career: defending a man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl.
In 1975, the same year she married Bill, Hillary Clinton agreed to serve as the court-appointed attorney for Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year-old accused of raping the child after luring her into a car.
The recordings, which date from 1983-1987 and have never before been reported, include Clinton’s suggestion that she knew Taylor was guilty at the time. She says she used a legal technicality to plead her client, who faced 30 years to life in prison, down to a lesser charge. The recording and transcript, along with court documents pertaining to the case, are embedded below.
The full story of the Taylor defense calls into question Clinton’s narrative of her early years as a devoted women and children’s advocate in Arkansas—a narrative the 2016 presidential frontrunner continues to promote on her current book tour.
Her comments on the rape trial are part of more than five hours of unpublished interviews conducted by Arkansas reporter Roy Reed with then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and his wife in the mid-1980s.
The interviews, archived at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, were intended for an Esquire magazine profile that was never published, and offer a rare personal glimpse of the couple during a pivotal moment in their political careers.
… And yet, looking over the treatment of Goodman’s scoop over the past week, I can’t help thinking that the reaction to “The Hillary Tapes” is just as newsworthy as the tapes themselves. That reaction has been decidedly mixed. Not long ago, in 2012, the Washington Post ran an extensive investigation into the “troubling incidents” of Mitt Romney’s prep-school days, whereupon the media devoted hour after hour to the all-important discussion of whether Willard M. Romney had been something of a child bully. Here, though, we have a newly unearthed recording of Hillary Clinton laughing out loud over her defense of a child rapist—and plenty of outlets have ignored the story altogether. The difference? As the Newsday editor said: It might have an impact.
No matter your view of Hillary Clinton, no matter your position on legal ethics, the recording of the Reed interview is news. It tells us something we did not already know. It tells us that, when her guard was down, Clinton found the whole disturbing incident a trifling and joking matter. And the fact that so many supposedly sophisticated and au courant journalists and writers have dismissed the story as nothing more than an attorney “doing her job” is, I think, equally disturbing. Dana Bash to the contrary notwithstanding, Hillary Clinton was not forced to take on Taylor as a client. It was her choice—and not, for her, a hard one. Certainly that complicates our understanding of the former first lady as an unrelenting defender and advocate of women and girls.