- FrontPage Magazine -
http://www.frontpagemag.com -
4 Disgusting Ways Liberals are Defending Hillary Clinton’s Smear of a 12-Year-Old Rape Victim
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On June 21, 2014 @ 5:24 pm In The Point | 8 Comments
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.
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine:
http://www.frontpagemag.comURL to article:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/4-disgusting-ways-liberals-are-defending-hillary-clintons-smear-of-a-12-year-old-rape-victim/
