I don’t ever recall reading anything about the time Hillary Clinton, as a young attorney, defended a child rapist and then laughed about the short sentence the man got as a result of her defense.  Maybe you actually came across the facts of the story in some article or on television or on the internet.  But not me.  Nope.  As I just said, I cannot recall ever reading anything about how the dastardly Hillary was so callous, so coldheartedly ambitious and just plain evil as to have 1) defended a child rapist, and 2) laughed about it. 

BUT I KNOW THE STORY.  I’VE KNOWN IT FOR YEARS.  But I can’t recall a single time that I actually read about or saw anything about this horrific act.  And isn’t that odd?  Sure, I’ve read tons about Donald Trump’s bankruptcies; about Anthony Weiner’s sexting; about Bill Clinton getting a blow job from Monica Lewinsky in the White House.  I can clearly recall reading about, hearing about and seeing reports of all three of these events.  But not about the dastardly Hillary’s laughing defense of a child rapist.

The only thing I can recall is thinking “Well, she was a public defender.  So defending her client to the best of her ability was her job.”  This, I think, might have been while listening to one of Rush Limbaugh’s “Libruls Are Destroying America” broadcasts one afternoon on WTOP here in D.C.  But that’s a guess on my part.  And this is only memory I can recall of being informed of the dastardly Hillary’s role in this atrocity.  What I do know for certain is that I have never researched this item, never Goggled “Hillary Clinton’s defends a child rapist” or spent any time or effort attempting to ferret out the truth of this allegation.

And yet.  I am very much aware that a Hillary Clinton once defended a child rapist and then laughed about the short sentence the man received due to her efforts.  

So I was intrigued this morning when the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler addressed this evil deed in his “Fact Checker” column.  It’s entitled “Yes, Clinton laughed, but not about lenient sentence.”  

The piece begins thusly:

“Hillary Clinton “defended an accused child rapist, then laughed about his lenient sentence.” – Line in a voice over of a cable/digital ad from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, May 13, 2016.”    

The alleged incident occurred 40 years ago when a 27 year old Hillary Clinton was running a legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville.  The 41 year old accused rapist of a 12 year old girl asked that his male public defender be replaced by a female one.  The judge in the case agreed to his request and asked that Clinton defend the man.   She reluctantly agreed and thus the genesis of the dastardly Hillary’s involvement.

This story resurfaced in 2014 when the Washington Free Beacon discovered a previously unpublished recording of an interview conducted by Arkansas reporter, Roy Reed, where the case came up and Clinton spoke freely about how she became involved, her feelings about the rapist and what an awful case it was. The article was never published. 

In the tape, Clinton can be heard laughing (four times) but not once about the lenient sentence the defendant received as a result of a plea deal.  She can be heard laughing about how the man passed a lie-detector test and Clinton laughed about how the results “destroyed my faith in polygraphs” forever.  About how she had to request that the judge order the prosecution to show her evidence that they had refused to do.  About how the presiding judge asked her to leave the room when he questioned the man to determine whether the facts supported the plea deal.  Clinton is heard saying to the judge in the case: “Judge, I can’t leave the room. I’m his lawyer.” to which the judge responded; “I know, but I don’t want to talk about this in front of you,” apparently out of deference to Hillary’s “female sensibilities.” 

The case fell apart due to a number of reasons, including investigators' mishandling of the young girl’s bloody underwear, thus the plea bargain to a lesser charge and sentencing by the judge in the case.

But here’s what the hit piece ad says about Clinton’s laughter picking up from a 2014 ABC News report:  

“Clinton is heard laughing as she describes how she succeeded in getting her client a lighter sentence, despite suggesting that she knew he was guilty.”

Now, this ad is much more like hit pieces brought to us courtesy of Judicial Watch or maybe Citizen’s United, both arch conservative 501(c) 3 tax exempt, charitable organizations that have had massive hard ons for Hillary for a couple of decades, rather than the Senate's Republican Senatorial Committee.  Recall, if you will, that it was a Clinton attack video that led to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision and remember Judicial Watch has filed 20 legal complaints against the Clintons over the years including the latest Hillary e-mail “scandal.” (None have succeeded.)

But the depiction of the “Hillary Defends Child Rapist And Laughs About Getting Him A Lighter Sentence” meme is just plain wrong.  It bears no resemblance to the actual, real world, factual event as it actually played out in real life and not in some parallel universe where there are no such things as facts.  Here’s Glenn Kessler’s conclusion about the dastardly Hillary’s evil deed in this case:

“This is a complex situation that has been reduced to a misleading sound bite.  Clinton did defend an accused child rapist, four decades ago, but at the request of the court – and she had an obligation to wage a solid defense of him.  The laughter [in the unpublished article] is open to interpretation; certainly some might find it disturbingly lighthearted.  But it’s a stretch to say she laughed about the sentence. “

Fact Checker awarded the National Republican Senatorial Commission Three Pinocchio’s.

Here's the Kessler piece.  HILLARY DEFENDS RAPIST

A few take-aways from this unsurprising deconstruction of another of the hundreds of reasons why Hillary is untrustworthy:

1.  Even though I – possibly like you – had never done any actual research over Hillary’s defending a child rapist or can recall exactly where or when it entered my brain, I was very much aware of it.  For years.  Aware that Hillary was being accused of – had committed - some criminal malfeasance and evil.  Odd.  Just part of the atmosphere, I guess.

2.   That Hilary defended an accused child rapist was not something she eagerly sought.  She was asked by a judge to defend the man.  Whatever the outcome of the case, she had a job to do and she did it.

3.  Given the number of scandals that keep popping up about the Clintons (beginning back with the election of hubby Bill in 1992) year after year after year, one has to wonder why this is so?  Just chance?  Coincidence maybe?  I think not.  This kind of junk does not simply occur due to the alignment of the planets.  It’s the result of the actions of people.

Fact Checker has pretty much destroyed this alleged evil action by Hillary Clinton.    So then are you still holding fast to the view that Hillary is untrustworthy?  Devious?  A liar?  Of course the demolishment of one of the scandalous charges against Hillary doesn’t necessarily negate all the others.  Does it?  And there are sooooooo many!  If you weren’t born back when Bill was President or weren't old enough to pay attention to the political world, you may be thinking: “But wait!  How can it be that with so many cases of malfeasance lodged against her, they can’t all be false!

Well, yes they can.  Think for a moment about the latest Hillary scandals:  Benghazi and e-mails.  Has either of these horrific accusations been followed by legal charges even after – in the case of Benghazi – years of Congressional hearings, investigations and testimony, years of public scrutiny, of FBI investigations?  The short answer is no.  The long answer will be “NO!” as well if history is any indication.  (See Total Bullshit Video Clip Below)

Check out the Clinton Scandals of the 1990’s.  Do some research.  Even Wikipedia will do.  White Water Gate, Gennifer Flowers Gate, White House Travel Gate, White House File Gate, Arkansas State Trooper Gate, Vince Foster Murder Gate, Paula Jones Gate, - there are more -   all alleging criminal activity by the Clintons.  But not a single one of these scandalous crimes has ever resulted in a single legal charge against either Bill of Hillary although all have been investigated.  (See below.)

What we do remember exceptionally well, is the impeachment of Bill Clinton over getting a blow job from Monica Lewinsky in the White House.  By this time some of us – perhaps most of us at the time – had become aware that what we had thought was Hillary’s delusional, paranoid, off-the-wall comment about how there was “a vast right wing conspiracy” out to damage her and Bill, was actually not so far fetched as we thought it was.  The Republican controlled House of Representatives and arch-conservative Special Prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, dragged the entire country through four years (1994-1998) of salacious, mind-numbing,  excruciating detail complete with daily press releases, endless hearings, numerous reports of Starr’s investigations into White Water, Paula Jones, Vince Foster and the rest of the passel of crimes, that in the end, amounted to exactly nothing.  NADA!  Zip(Does this sound familiar?)

Yes, Bill Clinton was impeached – only the second President in history to have been - for “lying” during his Grand Jury testimony (“I never had sexual relations with that women.”)  Apparently Bill did not think that the definition of “sexual relations” included blow jobs while Kenneth Starr did. 

Now think for a moment.  With all this history of the Clinton’s “crimes,”  is it that they are so corrupt, that Hillary is so evil, as to defy one’s imagination?  Does it not seem impossible to you that with all this scrutiny – and all conducted in the glare of the media over 20 years – that not one of the alleged crimes has proven to be true?  No.  This is not a rational conclusion unless you occupy the same universe as Rush Limbaugh. 

In fact, Bill Clinton’s popularity actually increased after his impeachment reflecting the public’s sentiment that he had been railroaded. 

What I conclude from all of this, is that Hillary was right back in 1998.

And, folks, this is why the “Hillary is untrustworthy” and “Hillary is callus” and “Hillary is ruthless” meme is still sticking tight.  But her “unfavorables” don’t reflect her experience, her accomplishments, or he history.   What they do reflect, is the continuing campaign by the right wing to destroy her as the National Republican Senatorial Commission’s ad so clearly illustrates. 

Don’t fall for this crap. 

Have a good, clear thinking day!

PS: I did not intend for this to be a Defense of Hillary piece but I get mad when I see this shit.  


Popular posts from this blog