Hillary Clinton claims to be the defender of women’s rights but when you look at her history, well …not so much. We’ve already presented how she treated Juanita Broaddrick who claimed she was raped by former president Bill Clinton.
But lets not forget how she treated a 12-year-old rape victim when she defended the assailant in 1975. Acting as a court-appointed attorney in Arkansas, 27-year-old Hillary attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl to get the rapist “off” with a light sentence.
Drawing from court files, Politico’s, Glenn Thrush, then a political reporter for Newsday, described the facts of case in 2008. He explained that the victim had joined Thomas Alfred Taylor, and two male acquaintances, including a 15-year-old boy who she had a crush on, on a late-night trip to a bowling alley. Taylor drove the group around in his truck, feeding the girl whisky mixed with Coca-Cola on the way. The group later drove to a “weedy ravine” near the highway where Taylor raped the 12-year-old girl.
Later, at about 4 a.m., the girl and her mother went to the hospital, where she was given medical tests and reported she had been raped. The doctor who examined her said her injuries were consistent with being raped. Despite this, using an evidentiary mistake made by the lab, Hillary negotiated a plea deal. Her client plead guilty to a lesser charge and got off with time served (two months).
Thrush reported that:
“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…”
Hillary Clinton, or any defense attorney for that matter was ethically required to do anything she could to protect her client. However it seems disingenuous for a candidate whose campaign plank includes fighting for the rights of women to attack the credibility of a girl who was raped when she was only 12-years-old.