Hillary supporters......."We will BURN that slut down to save Hillary!!"y!!"

4 Disgusting Ways Liberals are Defending Hillary Clinton’s Smear of a 12-Year-Old Rape Victim
June 21, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.



After the release of a tape in which Hillary Clinton can be heard laughing as she discusses how she got a child rapist off the hook, even though she knew he was guilty, the woman he had raped and beaten into a coma while she was a 12-year-old girl spoke out.

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.”

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.

“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.

“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said.

“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.”

In response to these revelations, liberals reacted with 5 disgusting defenses of Hillary Clinton.



1. Attacking a Rape Victim as a Liar – Following up Hillary Clinton’s attack on a 12-year-old rape victim, in which she accused her, in legal language, of being a mentally ill slut, Hillary’s supporters said that the rape victim shouldn’t be believed because she is “lower class”, an “alcoholic” and a “drug addict”.

Considering that the woman had been beaten into a coma as a little girl, left infertile and had to watch her rapist walk away thanks to a woman who is now running for the presidency on a feminist platform, it’s not surprising that she’s had some issues. But the facts of the case are a matter of public record.

Clinton supporters are rerunning their attacks on any of the women harassed by Bill Clinton, “trailer park” and “loony tunes”, but…

Hillary Clinton clearly believed that her client as guilty as hell. It’s on the tape. So it’s not as if this is even a viable argument.



2. Claiming the Rape Victim has been Paid by Karl Rove/the Koch Brothers – This one isn’t even worth talking about. It’s a sign of how demented and conspiracy-ridden the Democratic Party has become.

The woman was sought out by a journalist working for the Daily Beast, which bought Newsweek, it’s well to the left and certainly no Koch Brothers front.

Some on the left are feebly trying to push an Israeli conspiracy theory which shows how really demented they are.



3. It’s Old News – This is the latest argument of the bunch, but it appears to be a tested talking point. “It’s from 1975. It’s old news.”

Apparently it’s not old news for the woman who was raped. And it’s not old news because the woman who smeared her is running for the White House on a platform of protecting women and girls.

Meanwhile the media thought that Romney’s dog story and supposed haircut were important campaign issues. Not to mention Laura Bush’s car accident and what George W. Bush was doing during Vietnam.



4. Why did the rape victim come forward now?

She didn’t come forward now. She became news after the release of the Hillary tapes. When Hillary went after her, she had a different last name and the girl was badly traumatized at the time and had barely been able to handle the situation. She had been brutally raped and had been in a coma.

So it’s not surprising that she didn’t actually know that Hillary had been her rapist’s lawyer. It’s even less surprising that she didn’t know what Hillary had been doing behind the scenes.

“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…

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.”

That’s not an unusual experience for a child caught in the criminal justice system. Especially after a horrifying traumatic event.

Finally the Clintons have a reputation for viciously targeting critics.

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.”

The initial attacks on her only prove her point.





5. Hillary Clinton was doing her job/every defendant is entitled to a total defense

This is the most common talking point being used to defend Hillary Clinton for calling a 12-year-old rape victim a mentally ill slut.

But while every criminal may be entitled to a lawyer, not every lawyer is obligated to take every case. Hillary Clinton had no obligation to take this case, especially since the child rapist already had a lawyer.

Once she took the case, she did not have the obligation to make false claims or otherwise engage in unethical behavior. Public defenders routinely try to get the best deal for guilty clients. There is a very specific type of lawyer that puts on a full court press for a guilty defendant using any and every tactic in the book with no regard for any concept of right and wrong.

It’s usually a lawyer on the radical left who sympathizes with criminals and has political aspirations. That description fits Hillary to a tee.

Finally, lawyers don’t have a different set of morals than anyone else. Nuremberg established that doing your duty in a profession does not free you from basic human moral standards. You can’t gun down civilians because ‘that’s what soldiers do’. You can’t lie about a 12-year-old rape victim because ‘that’s what lawyers do’.

There are lawyers who do it. There are also soldiers who massacre civilians. There are doctors who involuntarily euthanize patients and cops who plant evidence at the scene of crimes.

They don’t represent the majority of profession, but it’s certainly not unheard of.

Hillary Clinton can’t hide behind being a lawyer. Lawyers are part of an adversarial system, but there are limits to what they can do and what they should.

By smearing a 12-year-old rape victim with false accusations, Hillary Clinton was not being a good lawyer. A good lawyer doesn’t do everything possible to win. Just as a soldier or a police officer doesn’t do everything possible to win.

There are things that we don’t do to win. Those who don’t understand that aren’t good lawyers or good soldiers or good cops.

They’re sociopaths.

 

I think there is a difference between a lawyer vigorously defending their client by raising gray areas and lying to defend your client.

I don't think anyone is surprised by this with Hillary, the western left is just so thoroughly cynical regarding how the right is evil that they will support pretty much anyone and almost anything to try and win.

 

I think you're right. When we see radical feminists who compose the Hillary inner circle.....supporting militant Islam(which they have by wearing the burqa)......we know all reason has vacated the discussion.

 

I guess some reserve judgement, and other grasp at whatever allegations serve their agenda.

"She spoke to a Newsday reporter in 2008, and was quoted as saying she was 'sure Hillary was just doing her job'.

Hillary would not be my choice for President, and I've consistently rated Obama as a mediocre one, but the seething, hyperbolic ninnies are just too silly.

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC QUOTE AND REPLY REMOVED >>>

 

I get that she was a lawyer. I don't fault her for defending this guy. In fact he had just as much right as anyone else to an attorney. What I can't respect though is her lying and about the victim and defaming her. Their was no reason for that all.

 

I guess some defend the indefensible when so ordered. And what changed since 2008? Oh, right, she heard the tape of Hillary Clinton laughing about "just doing her job."

The liberal war on women who dare to cross them continues, Natty. Hey, it worked for Bill, didn't it. We all remember James Carville and the famous comment about what crawls out if you drag a 100 dollar bill through a trailer park.

I'm sure you don't rate Obama high. He's doing the best he can, poor thing, to destroy American but he isn't doing enough to suit you.

 

Why do some size upon undocumented accusations by anonymous sources long after an event when it comports with their transparent agenda?

There are ideological zealots who clearly hate Hillary Clinton, but her acting as a defense attorney nearly 40 years ago for a client who was found guilty of a lesser crime than the rape of an underage girl that the anonymous woman alleges happened does not make her the monster some like to believe she is anyway. All defense attorneys are legally bound to act on behalf of their clients, often extremely unsavory characters. In the US, those charged with crimes are entitled to competent defense, just as those alleging to have been victims are entitled to competent prosecution.

If Hillary is now on virtual trial for having participated in one of decades past, we must dismiss all would-be jurors that exhibit a prejudicial bias that destroys their objectivity and renders them impervious to factual analysis.

There are slimeballs who are not content to merely be upset that Americans elected Barack Obama twice with a majority of the popular vote and are critical of his policies. In their alienation, they delve into the realm of "birther" fantasies. mince around with depictions of him as an African witch doctor, and conger up blood-curdling diabolical agendas. Now, with the prospect of Hillary Clinton as their next president, they pick up where they left off last time when she killed Vince Foster. Now, she's a brain-damaged, criminally-lax security expert for every US overseas installation, and even worse if they indulge themselves shamelessly.

I regard such gutter tactics as deleterious to the nation, and I hope that slimeball politics proves impotent yet again. As with the story of her having been a semi-successful defense attorney in recollection of a trial when she was in her 20s as well as in all such contests, presenting competent opposition is the proper recourse.

Where was it in 1975?

Where will it be in 2016?



.

 

And laughing about it.

 

Natty Bumpo: "Why do some size upon undocumented accusations by anonymous sources long after an event when it comports with their transparent agenda?"

Why do people who don't know the difference between an anonymous source and an unnamed source insist on trying to play. When Sen. Reid, Democrat, lied about receiving a phone call from an anonymous source saying Gov. Romney went ten years without paying taxes that was an anonymous source. It was a source that no one knew because they didn't exist.

In this case, Hillary Clinton knows who the source is. The reporter who interviewed Hillary Clinton knows who the source is an talked to her. The judge in the case knows who the source is and there are records of who the sources it. Her name isn't being published right now to protect her from the vicious attacks that would be bound to follow from the Clintons and liberals. The liberal War on Women is not to be trifled with.

And, the source of the information that Hillary Clinton talked about the smear and laughed isn't anonymous. It's the reporter and a tape of Hillary Clinton.

 

are folks suggesting that lawyers not vigorously defend their clients?

 

Hillary won't even run in 2016, so all this chitter-chatter is just much ado about nothing.

She polls poorly with women.

She polls poorly with African Americans.

She doesn't have the same rabid, nonsensical 'cult of personality' that Barack Obama was blessed with.

Her attractiveness and sex-appeal are long-gone.

She has the stink of Benghazi all over her,

and,

She has a credibility problem.
Nobody from either side of your political spectrum believe a single word that comes out of her mouth.

It is my prediction that her political advisors, and key members of the Democrat Party (the same folks who ditched her back in 2008 for Barack Obama, remember?) will suggest to Hillary, in only the kindest and gentlest terms, that it would be best for her to retired gracefully.

And then the Democrats will be free to concentrate on crafting, grooming, and campaigning for the next sexy, rock-star Presidential hopeful.



That is my prediction.

 

Hillary is possessed by a god complex. And no amount of reason is going to keep her from pursuing her divine right to be an empress.

 

No, but I really wish there were rules enforced about lying in court, suborning perjury, destroying evidence, obstructing justice.

 

good straw man argument, but sadly it was just that a straw man argument. very few if any are out raged with HRC for defending the pedophile rapist. what the out rage is about is the unethical tactic she used as a defense. the tactic of attacking smearing and lying on a 12 year old child victim basically calling that victim a crazy slut. A child victim that was put in a coma for 5 days and will never be able to have children of her own caused by the vicious rape and beating by the very pedophile rapist she put back on the street that can partly be contributed to that unethical tactic. a pedophile rapist her self hinted that she thought he was guilty. then lets not forget her inhumanly laughing about the case years later in a interview
and this isn't the first time the HildaBeast showed us unethical behavior in her career as a lawyer she was thrown off the Watergate committee for just that unethical behavior
so keep trying to defend her your putting yourself in the same category as her unethical

 

Hillary is a spiteful person possessed with deep seeded resentment for the succession of failures which define her political career. As CIC she'll be out for political blood.


HillaryCare
Humiliation of the Lewinsky Scandal
Being forced to take a back seat to Obama in 08
A lack luster stint as Secretary of State
Benghazi incompetence and excuses

 

you think there aren't?

 

You can believe that even without attribution if you wish and, apparently, you desperately wish.

You have an undocumented accusation by an anonymous accuser nearly forty-years after it allegedly occurred. With many questions to be addressed such as: Where was the prosecutor in this adversarial adjudication? Did he utterly fail to fulfill his assigned role, unlike the defense attorney?

Some may be eager to lap it up, but others need verifiable facts first.

If you are amongst the former, so be it.

 

fact is HRC made those unfounded allegations in an affidavit turned into the courts with no proof of them if HRC had proof she was obligated by law to give it

 

Did Hillary herself not discuss the matter in her book? I am asking because I haven't read her book. I outgrew Mother Goose Fables a long time ago. Has she not admitted she got a rapist off on a reduced charged by making false allegations against the 12 year old girl he raped?

It seems the desperation is in your hip pocket.

 

And don't forget he also beat her into a coma. Hillary found that particularly funny.

 

I would think most brain dead folks would find it funny.

 

When was your allegation that you claim is "fact" ever proven and how did the prosecutor fulfill his responsibility is challenging her allegations?

 

No, that "she got a rapist off" is not something she ever stated. Was she a defense attorney fulfilling the responsibilities of every defense attorney in defending a defendant? Again, was the prosecutor fulfilling his responsibilities in refuting any unwarranted assertions by the defense, the normal practice of any criminal adjudication?

It seems apparent that all that are in a tizzy over the rumours surrounding this case of forty years ago were Hillary haters beforehand.

I just recognize that she's a typical politician, neither saint nor demon, and don't pretend to know the details of this trial that all the knee-jerkers seem to think do not matter.

 

Her exact words..."Oh he plea bargained! Got him off with time served in the county jail, he'd been in the county jail about 2 months"

Go to the 5:50 min mark.

[video=youtube;e2f13f2awK4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4[/video]

 

So, she did not say, "she got a rapist off" as alleged, and she did act on behalf of her client as all defense attorneys are obligated to do.

If Hillary haters want to fixate on this adjudication of long ago, they'll really need to explain whether the prosecutor and judge were duly diligent, instead of pretending that one defense attorney was allowed to succeed in her role with no restraints or opposition.

Facts matter, even when they don't comport with a blatantly partisan agenda.