Here Is Hillary Clinton’s Testimony Smearing a 12-Year-Old Rape Victim

By DOUG IBENDAHL • October 10, 2016

 

By now you’ve probably heard about the case of the 12-year-old girl who was violently raped by 41-year-old Thomas Alfred Taylor in Arkansas in 1975. Hillary Clinton (then Hillary Rodham) was the court appointed attorney for Taylor.

 

This is the case Hillary was still laughing about years later as she recalled how her obviously guilty client was somehow able to pass a lie detector test.

 

Hillary scored a big “victory” in the case by getting the rape charge against the child rapist dropped. Taylor eventually pleaded guilty to “unlawful fondling of a child under 14” and his punishment was limited to time served, which meant he served less than a year in jail.

 

Keep in mind, this was a rape so violent it left the young girl in a coma for days and doctors doubted she would ever be able to have a child of her own. The victim is now 54, and unsurprisingly, her life to a large degree has in fact been ruined by the rape.

 

Hillary’s lackeys repeat the mantra “oh she was just doing her duty as a good defense lawyer.”

 

It’s true of course that even monsters like Thomas Taylor are entitled to legal representation and everyone deserves a competent defense, no matter what the alleged crime. But fair play in our criminal justice system is supposed to be a 2-way street.

 

The victim and society as a whole have a stake too.

 

In that vein let’s look at HILLARY’S OWN TESTIMONY in the case.

 

As a general rule, an attorney in a case isn’t allowed to testify in that case. Evidence must be introduced by witnesses, and an attorney is there as an advocate, not as a witness.

 

There are narrow situations where an attorney can file an affidavit in her or his own name (an affidavit is a form of sworn testimony legally equivalent to oral testimony given in a courtroom), but any matters sworn to have to be based on personal knowledge. And if an attorney is swearing in an affidavit as to evidentiary matters, there has to be a specific reference to a document or other evidence in the record.

 

An attorney would typically only testify by affidavit as a means to verify that a document or other form of evidence obtained from an actual witness is in fact genuine. An attorney’s affidavit would specifically cite such evidence and state the name of the witness who is the source of that evidence.

 

Affidavit of Hillary Rodham (Clinton) dated July 28, 1975

Affidavit of Hillary Rodham (Clinton) executed on July 28, 1975. (Click on image to enlarge.)

With that in mind, take a look at the affidavit Hillary wrote, signed, and filed with the court in that 1975 case. Specifically take a look at paragraph 4 of the Affidavit of Hillary Rodham, dated July 28, 1975.

 

Under penalty of perjury, Hillary herself swears that the 12-year-old girl “is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.”

 

Translation: the child was asking for it, according to Hillary.

 

Hillary goes on to claim she’s been “informed” that the victim “has in the past made false accusations about persons claiming they had attacked her body.”

 

In a final slam of the 12-year-old girl, Hillary says “she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

 

Note none of these claims refer to any evidence in the record. These are nothing but Hillary’s own bald-faced accusations which are completely unsupported by anything in the record. Hillary failed to cite a single piece of evidence in support of her claims. She also failed to provide the name of a single witness who might actually be in a position to credibly testify on such matters.

 

This kind of unsupported testimony by the lawyer would not pass muster in any court in Illinois, and it shouldn’t in any jurisdiction, even in Arkansas.

 

The suggestion that “it’s what every lawyer does” is completely false. In truth not every lawyer manufactures their own “evidence” for the specific purpose of shifting all the blame to the rape victim and smearing her in public.

 

At least the lawyers who want to remain lawyers don’t conduct themselves that way.

 

But Hillary got away with it. It’s the first documented example we have of Hillary smearing an individual, with no concern about the facts, in order to accomplish her objective.

 

In 1975 Hillary learned how easy it was to smear a 12-year-old girl and destroy her reputation. Hillary discovered she had a knack for the politics of personal destruction, and judging by her giddiness in recounting how she allowed a child rapist to largely escape justice, she obviously enjoys it.

 

What we see on display this year is someone who has been honing her one and only true skill on a regular basis in the decades since her big court “win.”

 

Doug Ibendahl is a Chicago Attorney and a former General Counsel of the Illinois Republican Party.

 

Share

Tags: , , , ,

Comments are closed.