SubscribeLawyer Hillary Vs The Allegedly Raped Child
Apparently I am not the only person on earth who has actually read some of Mrs. Clinton’s ghostwritten autobiography, “Living History.”
From Newsday:
An early look at how Clinton deals with crisis
BY GLENN THRUSH
February 24, 2008
In a presidential campaign focused on the future, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama spend a lot of time talking about their pasts.
Both lean heavily on tales of early, formative experiences - she running a law clinic in Arkansas, he as a community organizer in Chicago - to show they understand the problems of average people…
Hillary Rodham Clinton often invokes her “35 years of experience making change” on the campaign trail, recounting her work in the 1970s on behalf of battered and neglected children and impoverished legal-aid clients.
But there is a little-known episode Clinton doesn’t mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant…
In May 1975, Washington County prosecutor Mahlon Gibson called Rodham, who had taken over the law clinic months earlier, to tell her she’d been appointed to represent a hard-drinking factory worker named Thomas Alfred Taylor, who had requested a female attorney.
In her 2003 autobiography “Living History,” Clinton writes that she initially balked at the assignment, but eventually secured a lenient plea deal for Taylor after a New York-based forensics expert she hired “cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff’s office.”
However, that account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to a Newsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.
Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader’s honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out “older men” like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed “Hillary D. Rodham” in compact cursive…
The victim, now 46, told Newsday that she was raped by Taylor, denied that she wanted any relationship with him and blamed him for contributing to three decades of severe depression and other personal problems.
“It’s not true, I never sought out older men - I was raped,” the woman said in an interview in the fall. Newsday is withholding her name as the victim of a sex crime.
With all the anguish she’d felt over the case in the years since, there was one thing she never realized - that the lawyer for the man she reviles was none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“I have to understand that she was representing Taylor,” she said when interviewed in prison last fall. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.” …
During her first few months on the case, Rodham fired off no fewer than 19 subpoenas, affidavits and motions - almost as much paper as was typical for a capital murder case that year, according to case files on microfilm.
She successfully petitioned to obtain Taylor’s underwear for independent testing after the state medical examiner found traces of semen and blood. She also secured Taylor’s release on $5,000 bond after getting his boss at the factory to vouch for him.
But the record shows that Rodham was also intent on questioning the girl’s credibility. That line of defense crystallized in a July 28, 1975, affidavit requesting the girl undergo a psychiatric examination at the university’s clinic.
“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” wrote Rodham, without referring to the source of that allegation. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body.”
Dale Gibson, the investigator, doesn’t recall seeing evidence that the girl had fabricated previous attacks. The assistant prosecutor who handled much of the case for Mahlon Gibson died several years ago. The prosecutor’s files on the case, which would have included such details, were destroyed more than decade ago when a flood swept through the county archives, Mahlon Gibson said. Those files also would have included the forensics evidence referenced in “Living History.”
The victim was visibly stunned when handed the affidavit by a reporter this fall. “It kind of shocks me - it’s not true,” she said. “I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life.” …
The judge granted Rodham’s request for the exam, but the results, like the other prosecution files, were apparently lost in the flood.
By the fall of 1975, the prosecution’s case was crumbling under pressure from Rodham and other factors relating to the evidence and the witnesses…
Rodham was paid a $250 retainer for her services, minus 10 percent for court costs, records show. In her book, Hillary Clinton says the case spurred her to create the first rape hotline in Arkansas…
Here, for the record, his Mrs. Clinton’s account of this case, from “Living History” page 90:
One day the Washington County prosecuting attorney, Mahlon Gibson, called to tell me an indigent prisoner accused of raping a twelve year-old girl wanted a woman lawyer. Gibson had recommended that the criminal court judge, Maupin Cummings, appoint me. I told Mahlon I really didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request.
When I visited the alleged rapist in the county jail, I learned that he was an uneducated “chicken catcher.” His job was to collect chickens from the large warehouse farms for one of the local processing plants. He denied the charges against him and insisted that the girl, a distant relative, had made up her story.
I conducted a thorough investigation and obtained expert testimony from an eminent scientist from New York, who cast doubt on the evidentiary value of the blood and semen the prosecutor claimed proved the defendant’s guilt in the rape. Because of that testimony, I negotiated with the prosecutor for the defendant to plead guilty to sexual abuse.
When I appeared with my client before Judge Cummings to present that plea, he asked me to leave the courtroom while he conducted the necessary examination to determine the factual basis for the plea. I said, “Judge, I can’t leave. I’m his lawyer.” “Well,” said the judge, “I can’t talk about these things in front of a lady.” “Judge,” I reassured him, “don’t think of me as anything but a lawyer.” The judge walked the defendant through his plea and then sentenced him.
It was shortly after this experience that Ann Henry and I discussed setting up Arkansas’s first rape hot line…
(By the way, this is the only mention of “semen” in “Living History.”)
But to fully appreciate just how thoroughly Mrs. Clinton has mischaracterized her legal efforts, you have read the full Newsday article, which includes many more details of the case.
Still, even just from the excerpt you should get the drift of her actions, and perhaps also a lifetime supply of irony.
For what is Hillary Clinton but the self-proclaimed lifelong defender of children everywhere? (Though, it’s hard to come up with an instance of her ever actually helping a child.)
But sadly, this comports with two other cases Mrs. Clinton “won,” which we have previously discussed.
In her first legal case Mrs. Clinton successfully defended evil corporate interests against a plaintiff who claimed to have found a rat’s hindquarters in a can of pork and beans.
The champion of the little guy, Mrs. Clinton argued that the rodent parts had been sterilized in the canning process and “might be considered edible” in certain parts of the world. She thereby managed to convince the jury to award the man only a token amount.
And in another case not long after, Hillary defended a three-hundred-pound man who was charged with assaulting his girlfriend.
Prosecutors had viewed the case as open and shut, as the woman had been severely beaten according to the police.
Yet somehow the great champion of women’s rights found a way to convince the judge to drop the charges — on a technicality.
So, yes, Mrs. Clinton has always been a woman of very high principles.
Related Articles:
- The New York Times Writes Hillary's Obituary
- Hillary Says "Shame On You, Barack Obama!"
- Hillary Camp: Media Is Gang Raping Hillary
- Hillary Says She Risked Her Life As First Lady
- Hillary's Ultra Radical "Middle Class Values"
- Hillary's First Law Case: "Let Them Eat Rat!"
- Lest We Forget - Hillary's $100K Cattle Scam
- The Hillary Clinton Guide To Good Pet Care
- Remember Hillary Clinton's Vaccine Fiasco?
19 Responses to “Lawyer Hillary Vs The Allegedly Raped Child”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
February 24th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
By the way, note that Mrs. Clinton was 27 years old when she was attacking this 12 year old’s credibility.
The same age as that the poor defenseless “child” Chelsea is.
February 24th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
SG;…” Mrs. Clinton was 27 years old when she was attacking this 12 year old’s credibility….”
Win at any cost is the way the Clintons play. By no means is she out of this presidential race yet.
February 24th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Taking no prisoners and destroying lives of women seems to be a pattern with Hillary, no matter the age of the woman.
February 24th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
“I negotiated with the prosecutor for the defendant to plead guilty to sexual abuse.”
Depends on what the definition of rape is.
Good point about 27 years old. Older than Monica.
February 24th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Bye the bye, is Media Matters for America out of business? I haven’t received anything since 2/19.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
U NO HOO;…”Good point about 27 years old. Older than Monica…..”
No smarter though.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
“Hillary Rodham Clinton often invokes her “35 years of experience making change” on the” night shift at the Billy Burger Bonanza Drive-Thru where Manic Monica got the pizzas.
Getting rammy, verry, rammmy. . .
February 25th, 2008 at 8:46 am
A tradition she has continued with Juanita Broadderick.
I say he did it, and I beg the peckerslurp to sue for libel.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
“However, that account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to a Newsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.”
Typical Clinton defense stragetgy.
February 25th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
As I responded to you when you left this link over on my blog, by no means do I support Hillary. Beyond my personal distate for the woman, I’m a life-long very conservative Republican. However, I don’t see what the problem is. The man’s entitled to a defense. He is entitled to have the best possible defense.
I represented a few sex offenders when I practiced law. My job was to do my job, the prosecutor’s job was to do his job, and the judge’s job was to do his job. I would have much more of a problem if Hillary didn’t mount an aggressive defense. That would tell me that she compromised her professional responsibility and the interests of her clients for the sake of a political or social agenda.
Though we cannot know all of the evidence in the case, a) because the records do not exist; and b) because the memories of anyone involved are at least 33 years old. I’d hate to impugn the credibility of the victim again, but she was being interviewed in prison. If her imprisonment is due to any sort of crime related to a lack of honesty you might have to take that character trait into consideration.
Taking that into consideration, what would you suggest a more appropriate defense strategy would have been? Clearly she demonstrated to the prosecution that they might have trouble taking this to trial, so they offered a plea agreement.
The tone of this sounds like, “Not only is Hillary Clinton a bad person, she a lawyer.” As much as it pains me to defend Hillary, it appears that she acted appropriately and channelled her concerns into the rape hotline, after the conclusion of the case.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
” I don’t see what the problem is. The man’s entitled to a defense. He is entitled to have the best possible defense.’
You are right of course, But given Hitlary’s unethical past, I for one doubt she was out for justice.
Few lawyers seem to be in my opionion, winning is more important than truth or facts.
Maybe thats why most poilticians are lawyers.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Kudos Sol, spoken like a true attorney. Obviously, you have received the best legal education that money can buy, and it definitely shows.
By your own admission, the current evidence is “missing”, yet, it is indeed interesting how quick you are to defend Hillary with no exculpatory evidence whatsoever.
And my oh my, how convenient that records involving Hillary are so prone to mysteriously disappearing without a trace. Much like the records involving Whitewater, Vince Foster, cattle futures, Ron Brown and Hillary’s personal records from her WH days. I suppose that microfilm and secure storage were unknown practices in “those” days?
You may “hate” it, but you still did it. You are impugning the credibility of the victim in this case by circumstances that occurred 30 plus years after the fact. Sadly, just for the defense of Hillary, a fellow lawyer.
Sorry counselor but I have no sympathy for a**hats that rape 12 year old girls, or the litigators that choose to defend them.
February 25th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
” Sorry counselor but I have no sympathy for a**hats that rape 12 year old girls, or the litigators that choose to defend them.”
BRAVO Gila!
February 26th, 2008 at 12:06 am
” Sorry counselor but I have no sympathy for a**hats that rape 12 year old girls, or the litigators that choose to defend them.”
Just a quick drive by because this is something near and dear to me. Dez….I’m just using your quote because it’s the last one, not because I’m picking on you.
You are all missing the point here and I’ll tell you why. Sol is spot on in his assessment of what went on 33 some year ago whether it was Hillary Clinton as the Defense Attorney or someone else and I’ll tell you why.
In heinous cases such as this, especially when involving a child, not only had the public defender better be damn good, but so had the prosecutor. In fact, the case doesn’t depend on the ‘evidence’ as much as the prosecutor presenting it. And no matter the quality of the evidence or the prosecutor, if the defense isn’t solid gold, doing everything in their power and using every cheap trick in the book, even though the defendant may be convicted at trial there is a huge opening to drive a semi-truck of an appeal through that will probably be upheld.
As distasteful as a good defense for a child molester, rapist, killer or kidnapper is, it’s absolutely essential to putting guilty people behind bars for a long time. If the prosecutor isn’t up to the task of not being outwitted by someone as young and inexperienced as a Hillary, then shame on the state, not the defense.
I’m not a lawyer, not would I ever aspire to be. But believe me, as some of you know, I’m very experienced in matters of child molesting, raping, torturing, kidnapping and murder. When you lose a grandchild to it, you become very knowledgeable indeed.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Hola all.
I have to agree with WI and Sol.
Although I can’t stand lawyers (I was a cop after all) I am married to a prosecuter and plan to become one, the law is the law. Even the most vile and evil of suspects deserve the best defense possible. The state must put on their best to counter it.
Its called Justice.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Well, Bust my buttons, WI is back.
WI as you may have noticed I said sol was right about the defendant deserving the best defense possible, I just see to much win at all costs on both sides of trial lawyers regardless of guilt.
I never want to see the innocent incarcerated, And I sure as hell never want to see scum walking the streets to prey again just to put a notch in a lawyers belt.
Maybe I have become jaded, but I think most lawyers have confused winning with being right.
And WI, Damn man, Glad to see you back.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:38 am
“I am married to a prosecuter and plan to become one, the law is the law. Even the most vile and evil of suspects deserve the best defense possible. The state must put on their best to counter it. Its called Justice.”
Read the article, which I only excerpted.
Hillary’s “defense” would probably get her disbarred today.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Any body ever see the film The Devils Advocate?
A young lawyer knows his client is guilty, but does his best to set him free.
Yes its fiction, Its also how to many lawyers seem to think.
The difference between winning and justice are blurred to the point of being homogenised.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Sorry it took so long to get back . . .
Gila Monster:
You act as thought there is something wrong with being an attorney. And it hardly takes the best legal education to see this.
Or how quick you are to condemn Hillary based on hearsay and prior (or this case, future) bad acts. Neither would be admissible in court, but then you seem to have contempt for the legal process anyway, so why doesn’t that surprise me.
That’s what makes it so bad, isn’t it. It’s bad enough that I’m defending Hillary. No one should ever do that under any circumstances. But to make matters worse, I’m a fellow lawyer doing it. The disgusting shame of it all. Funny thing, when I read the whole article the victim was in prison for a crime of dishonesty. I’m sure you can impugn Hillary based upon future demonstration of bad character, you don’t mind me doing the same with the victim in this case.
It shows. You would prefer that someone would make you judge and executioner. (There’s clearly no need for a jury in your system.) Apparently, your view is that if someone is accused of a crime, especially a sex crime, and especially a sex crime involving a child, it’s better to just string ‘em up. After all, who’s heard of a 12-year-old ever lying? And to ever suggest that - why that would be impugning the credibility of the alleged victim. It’s much better than an innocent man be sent ot prison than the truthfulness of a 12-year-old ever be challenged.
DEZ:
I always assumed my clients were guilty. What’s been blurred in your mind it the responsibilty of the defense vs. the responsibility of the state. A defense attorney’s job is never about justice. It is about zealously defending his client. The prosecutor’s job is about justice, which is why he must give the defense any exculpatory evidence. The judge’s job is about justice. A defense attorney’s job is, and always has been, winning or achieving the best possible outcome for his client.
SG:
Thank you for prompting a read of the whole article. I am much more convinced of the arguments I have made here. What makes you think her defense would get her disbarred? I can’t see anything that she has done wrong.