• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

‘Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,’ Rape Victim Says

Status
Not open for further replies.

CrazyDude

Member
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 would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”

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.”

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. 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.”

“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.”

The victim’s second main grievance with Clinton stems from the newly revealed audio recordings, which were taped in a series of interviews of Clinton with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed, who was researching an article on the Clintons that was ultimately never published. The Free Beacon found the tapes archived at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, amidst thousands of pieces of Clinton history that are being periodically released for public consumption.

On the tapes, Clinton, who speaks in a Southern drawl, appears to acknowledge that she was aware of her client’s guilt, brags about successfully getting the only piece of physical evidence thrown out of court, and laughs about it all whimsically.

“He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Clinton says on the recording, failing to hold back some chuckles.

She then describes how she discovered that investigators had cut out and lost a section of the suspect’s underwear that they said contained the victim’s blood. Clinton brought the remaining underwear segment to a Nobel Prize-winning blood expert in Brooklyn, NY, she explained, in order to convince him to lend his heavyweight reputation and influence to her defense case.

“And so the, sort of the story through the grapevine was, if you get him interested in the case, then you know you had the foremost expert in the world willing to testify so that it came out the way you wanted it to come out,” Clinton said.

Clinton told the judge that the famous expert was willing to testify. Instead of the original charge of first-degree rape, the prosecutors let Taylor plead to a lesser charge: unlawful fondling of a child. According to the Free Beacon, Taylor was sentenced to one year behind bars, with two months reduced for time served. The second attacker was never charged.

“Oh, he plea bargained. Got him off with time served in the county jail, he’d been in the county jail about two months,” Clinton said on the recording, apparently not remembering the sentence accurately.

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.”

The office of Hillary Clinton did not respond to a request for comment. In a 2008 article in Newsday written by Glenn Thrush, now at Politico, Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson defended her conduct in the case.

“As she wrote in her book, ‘Living History,’ Senator Clinton was appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas to represent Mr. Taylor in this matter,” he said. “As an attorney and an officer of the court, she had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law. To act otherwise would have constituted a breach of her professional responsibilities.”

In that book, Clinton gave vague details about her actions in the case and said that shortly thereafter, she helped set up Arkansas’s first rape hotline.

According to Thrush’s article, the victim didn’t fault Clinton for her defense of the attacker during their 2008 interview, which took place in the prison where the victim was serving time for drug-related offenses, in the presence of the warden. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job,” he quoted the victim as saying. After all, everyone has a right to be defended in court. And 1975 was a lifetime ago.

But the victim now claims she was misquoted. She didn’t even know Clinton was the lawyer who defended her attacker until Thrush showed her Clinton’s book and she had no other information about what had happened behind closed doors in that courtroom when Thrush approached her, she said. Thrush declined to comment.

“If I had known that day what I know now I would have told him exactly what I’m telling y’all today,” she said.

After she was released from prison in 2008, the victim read more about Clinton’s involvement in her case, but she never planned to confront Clinton about it.

“I started seeing where I had really been stomped in the ground. I didn’t really know what to do about it. I just figured life would have to go on and I would have to live with it,” she said.

But after hearing the newly revealed tapes of Clinton boasting about the case, the victim said she couldn’t hold her tongue any longer and wanted to tell her side of the story to the public.

“When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”

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.

The victim was put through several forensic procedures, including a lie detector test. At first, she failed the lie detector test; she said that was because she didn’t understand one of the specific sex-related questions. Once that question was explained to her, she passed, she said. The victim positively identified her two attackers through one-way glass and they were arrested. But that wasn’t the end of her ordeal.

She described being afraid of men for years and dealing with anger issues well into her adulthood. At one point, she turned to drugs, a path that ultimately led her to prison. Now 52, she has never married or had children. She said she has been sober for several years and has achieved a level of stability, although she remains unemployed and living on disability assistance.

“I’m living life in Arkansas, I go to Church sometimes, and I’m doing good… Being on disability I don’t get much income but I’m happy where I’m at. I’m doing really well,” she said. “[Clinton] owes me a big apology, [but] I’ll probably never get anything from her.”

The victim doesn’t remember ever meeting Clinton in 1975; she says her memories from that ordeal are spotty. But she does recall feeling exasperated by the law enforcement and legal proceedings to the point where she told her mother she just wanted it to be over so she could try to resume her childhood.

“I had been through so much stuff I finally told them to do whatever,” she remembered. “They had scared me so bad that I was tired of being put through it all. I finally said I was done… I thought they had both gotten long-term sentences, I didn’t realize they got off with hardly nothing.”

Whether or not Clinton was just doing her duty as a defense lawyer, for the victim, Clinton’s behavior speaks to her character, her ambition, and her suitability to be a role model for women or president of the United States.

“I think she wants to be a role model being who she is, to look good, but I don’t think she’s a role model at all… If she had have been, she would have helped me at the time, being a 12-year-old girl who was raped by two guys,” she said. “She did that to look good and she told lies on that. How many other lies has she told to get where she’s at today? If she becomes president, is she gonna be telling the world the truth? No. She’s going to be telling lies out there, what the world wants to hear.”

The victim is concerned that speaking out will make her a target for attacks, but she no longer feels she is able to stay silent.

“I’m a little scared of her… When this all comes about, I’m a little worried she might try to hurt me, I hope not,” she said. “They can lie all they want, say all they want, I know what’s true.”

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

GraveRobberX

Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
BENGHAZI!

Also looks like the political cycle is starting and dirt is being dug up
 

Jackpot

Banned
On the tapes, Clinton, who speaks in a Southern drawl, appears to acknowledge that she was aware of her client’s guilt, brags about successfully getting the only piece of physical evidence thrown out of court, and laughs about it all whimsically.

“He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Clinton says on the recording, failing to hold back some chuckles.

Leak those tapes.
 
I'm not going to critisize a defense lawyer for doing their constitutional job, however if true this is disgusting:

On the tapes, Clinton, who speaks in a Southern drawl, appears to acknowledge that she was aware of her client’s guilt, brags about successfully getting the only piece of physical evidence thrown out of court, and laughs about it all whimsically.

“He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Clinton says on the recording, failing to hold back some chuckles.
 

zoku88

Member
Yea, the only thing bad about this is laughing about it.

Otherwise, kinda doing what she is supposed to do as a defense attorney, seemingly.
 
As she wrote in her book, ‘Living History,’ Senator Clinton was appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas to represent Mr. Taylor in this matter,” he said. “As an attorney and an officer of the court, she had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law. To act otherwise would have constituted a breach of her professional responsibilities.”

This is the truth. Sounds like a gross case but it was her job.
 

Jarmel

Banned
She was a lawyer. Seems like she did her job correctly. Now if those tapes are true, and the tone is probably vastly different than how it's being portrayed, then she shouldn't have been so callous about it but she's not the only lawyer or doctor to have talked like this.

I also love how this shit always comes out when the election cycle heats up.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Welp, I guess this proves who's really waging the War on Women.

All hail President Todd Akin in 2016.
 
not surprising, didnt Laura Bush kill another person in a car crash because she ran a stop sign? gotta keep that spirit alive with first ladies with sketchy pasts lol.
 

foxtrot3d

Banned
Dunno about those comments in the tapes but she was a criminal defense attorney, her job was to get the guy off or with the least minimum sentence possible.
 

riotous

Banned
Lol, why am I not surprised?

Well they are the source of the audio; I know nothing about them.. took a few seconds of google searching to find the tapes.

Listening to the tapes... I don't get the controversy. She's bringing up the case.. she has a mostly serious tone.. just laughs a little at the "faith in lie detectors" part.

And the guy took a plea deal and did short time. Sounds like the prosecution didn't do a good job.. and she was.. doing her job.
 

Loofy

Member
Dunno about those comments in the tapes but she was a criminal defense attorney, her job was to get the guy off or with the least minimum sentence possible.
Is that in the Lawyercratic Oath or something? Defend someone even if you know theyre guilty?
 

riotous

Banned
Is that in the Lawyercratic Oath or something? Defend someone even if you know theyre guilty?

They can't reveal anything the client says, unless it would potentially cause someone else future harm... and yes, they are required to give a competent defense, even if the person gruesomely details the crime to their lawyer.
 

thefit

Member
I'm hoping all this pre 2016 Hillary carpet bombing continues it means the right is gonna blows millions on anti Clinton fud leading up to the DNC and when she reveals she's not really running its gonna be time and money well spent on the republican side a far as the rest of the democrats are concerned and still the republicans wont win the presidency.
 

MartyStu

Member
Pretty much a hatchet piece.

Clinton comes out looking kinda shitty, but defense lawyers pretty much always look shitty.

Not their fault. Just the way the game is played.
 

smurfx

get some go again
wow the prosecutors really screwed up that case. they had a bloody pair of pants so they cut off the part with blood to send it to the lab and instead they sent the pants with the hole in it.
 
Is that in the Lawyercratic Oath or something? Defend someone even if you know theyre guilty?

Yes, actually. They are obligated to vigorously defend their guilty clients even if they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty, if that is the strategy their clients insist upon. This is one of the central pillars of our entire system of justice.
 

Slayven

Member
I'm hoping all this pre 2016 Hillary carpet bombing continues it means the right is gonna blows millions on anti Clinton fud leading up to the DNC and when she reveals she's not really running its gonna be time and money well spent on the republican side a far as the rest of the democrats are concerned and still the republicans wont win the presidency.

I just want another Karl Rove melt down.
 

CDX

Member
People have a right to a defense attorney, even if they are charged with crimes people don't like.
 

Mononoke

Banned
The one thing Hillary has gotten more right than anything, is that there is a vast right wing conspiracy.

Isn't both wings a big machine trying to move things in their direction? This is nothing new. The right has been a lot better at slinging up dirt though.
 

Future

Member
It was her job.

It was almost 40 years ago.

Can't wait for presidential elections 40 years from now when old twitter and facebook posts from now are used to forever crucify candidates
 

whytemyke

Honorary Canadian.
Isn't the reason the DNC wants Hillary to run is because she's a ruthless bitch when she needs to be?

She did her job. Which is exactly what she'll do if she's elected President, I would assume.

That being said... she probably could have gone without boasting about it lol
 
Yes, actually. They are obligated to vigorously defend their guilty clients even if they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty, if that is the strategy their clients insist upon.

That's not true. You can ask to be removed from the case, for one thing.
 

remist

Member
Disgusting. So what if she's doing her job, that doesn't mean she's not a slimeball for the way she went about it.
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.”

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.”
Keep in mind this is about a 12 year old girl.
 

foxtrot3d

Banned
Is that in the Lawyercratic Oath or something? Defend someone even if you know theyre guilty?

Yes, you're supposed to defend someone even if you "know" they are "guilty" if you don't like that idea then don't become a criminal defense attorney. Everyone has the right to a defense, hell check out this recent article in the Washington Post. It's about a guy who was on death row, now executed, for killing a mother and her child. The defense attorney basically knew he was guilty but fought to his execution, even though this attorney actually believes in the death penalty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...44c6a6-f7ea-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html

Everyone deserves a right to a defense.

That's not true. You can ask to be removed from the case, for one thing.

You can ask that doesn't mean the judge will grant it. A judge will likely force you to defend the client and if you give sub-par performance you can get sued for malpractice.
 

Balphon

Member
That's not true. You can ask to be removed from the case, for one thing.

You won't get far as a criminal defense attorney if you refuse to represent anyone you know to be guilty.

Likewise, getting leave from the court to withdraw isn't automatic.
 
While I find the comments ugly as I said before, it's worth noting that the GOP still hasn't learned it's lesson from 2008. They carpet bombed Obama burning the primary with Rev Wright and Rezko, and while his negatives increased he still won the nomination. And once the general election started all that negative stuff became old, irrelevant news.

Hillary Clinton's negatives have increased, but that's to be expected. The problem for the GOP is that she's still going to waltz through the primary as Obama did, and when the general starts what will they have to attack her with? They're blowing their load early.

It shows how scared they are of her IMO.
 

royalan

Member
Disgusting. So what if she's doing her job, that doesn't mean she's not a slimeball for the way she went about it.

Keep in mind this is about a 12 year old girl.

This seems like pretty standard stuff a defense attorney would have to bring up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom