Exclusive: 'Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,' Rape Victim Says

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Skyfloating

Now that’s an interesting point. Because this may be a hit on Hillary. That is probably the case.

This woman may have been put up to say this by some secretive GOP guys in the back ground. That’s why this thread can be pregnant with issues.

It sounds and feels like a muckraking GOP hit-piece. But its desperate and makes GOP look bad. If you want to dig up stuff on her (and you probably can) it should have more substance and not be a little newer.

a reply to: Skyfloating
You know what REALLY sounds desperate? Getting caught doing some unethical things that run contrary to what you claim to be about and then saying "It's a frame up!"
It's not a "hit job" if you did it!

a reply to: abe froman

The GOP folks are wearing their brown pants over Hillary. The entire Republican party is shattered into numerous factions all vying for control of the party. Divided the way they currently are, they don't stand a chance against Hilary -- and they know it. These folks are doing everything and anything they can to make her look as bad as possible. Even if this story is true, it's pretty old and I don't see how it relates to her running the Executive branch of the government.

No one is perfect, and I'm sure there is as much dirt on each of the GOP candidates as well.

originally posted by: buster2010
This woman does know Hillary was a defense lawyer right? It was her job to either get him off or as light a sentence as possible. This involves dragging people through the mud if it works in their favor. That doesn't make it right but that is the way our justice system goes. And seeing how their is no name how can this be fact checked to see if it is even true?

Yup, this is central to our justice system. The state's case must be challenged at every turn by a smart and rigorous defense. Hillary was doing her job.

Although the victim claims Clinton told lies, she also admits to having a "spotty memory". She doesn't even recall meeting Clinton. She also went on to become a drug addict and served time in prison. Her credibility isn't fantastic.

Whatever one thinks of Hillary, this story doesn't feel like it has legs. It's doubtful anyone would be surprised that Hillary Clinton was a hard-nosed defense attorney.

originally posted by: Moresby
It's doubtful anyone would be surprised that Hillary Clinton was a hard-nosed defense attorney.

However, still...what is so funny about child rape? Its Hillary's laughter thats the issue in the spotlight right now.
Was that part of her "job" too? New recordings were released under a FOIA.



Yep, she is a scumbag. A woman scumbag, but a scumbag all the same.

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
Meh...this was back in 1975. I'm sorry but I'm not going to hold this against her. It was almost 40 years ago. Heck I've done things from just 10 years ago that I regret and have learned from. She had a job to do and unfortunately you will not last long as a defense attorney unless you get downright dirty.

Sure, but this just means she was really good at spinning BS 40 years ago. Imagine how good she is now. Why would you vote for someone that is professional liar and spin doctor by trade. Are you masochistic or something?

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Moresby
It's doubtful anyone would be surprised that Hillary Clinton was a hard-nosed defense attorney.

However, still...what is so funny about child rape? Its Hillary's laughter thats the issue in the spotlight right now.
Was that part of her "job" too? New recordings were released under a FOIA.


Yep, she is a scumbag. A woman scumbag, but a scumbag all the same.

Laughing about the accuracy of polygraphs is laughing about child rape?

I will be writing in Gumby, again.

a reply to: burntheships

I listened to that whole audio...what makes her a scumbag?

Sounds like the prosecutor screwed up the evidence, and instead of pushing to have all charges dropped or go through the trial with the prosecutor having zero evidence, she negotiated a plea bargain so the rapist didn't get totally off and at least had to serve some time.


All I see in this thread is desperation and fear. Not looking good for the GOP in 2016.

a reply to: buster2010

It is funny how the progressive hypocrites at daily kos were all over this back in 2008 when it served their master, Obama.

But now...not a peep. I guess they were only feigning outrage.

Wow, Clinton Attacked 12-Year Old Rape Victim's Credibility

In a breathtaking story published today in Newsday, details of Hillary Clinton's involvement in a decades-old rape case in Arkansas comes under close scrutiny.

It is really worth reading the whole well-sourced article, but here is the upshot:

Two years into her career of making change and having Day One-readying experience, 27 year old Hillary Rodham was appointed a public defender in a rape case, and played out deep in the gray areas of morality by attacking the 12-year old victim's credibility. Though nobody involved in the case can recall a shred of evidence that the victim had any sort of history of making false claims, Hillary argued it as a centerpiece of her case anyway. And conveniently omitted this aspect of the case from her 2003 book, "Living History."


www.dailykos.com...

The whole rotten bunch of the bastards need replacing with honest and honourable people who care about America...and its constitution.....
I haven't honestly seen any of the current crop of phonies in office do much for anyone but themselves.....

Another example of why American Politics is the dumbest, least intellectual, and least entertaining of all American TV shows. This weeks episode is shaping up to look more like a Mexican telenovella than a governing body.

I wish they would cancel it, even if it is mid season.

originally posted by: abe froman

It's not a "hit job" if you did it!

She did her job...lawyer. She did it 1975.

Why is this story suddenly coming up? It was dug-out by someone. By who? By someone who wants to find dirt on her.

It`s too obvious. What I am questioning here is that you have to go back 40 years to find something.

a reply to: Skyfloating

Dude, that was like 40 years ago. What difference does it make.

It is not suddenly coming out. It was brought up by democrats back when Hillary was Running against Obama.

Yep, she is a scumbag. A woman scumbag, but a scumbag all the same.

But, clearly, that's not a new opinion on your part. In order for stories like this to have any real political impact, they have to change people's mind. Generally, they do this by reinforcing a negative stereotype about the politician.

The perception of Hillary as a hard-nosed pro isn't generally seen as a negative. And this story has trouble getting much beyond that.

If Clinton runs, and that's a big IF, she will mop the floor with the GOP.

It's not actually that Hillary will win....but the Republicans will Lose unless they can mount some reasonable type of campaign. Currently they are eating each other alive and the dembs are doing a happy dance.

a reply to: Moresby

Hmmm...then why did the Hillary peeps ban the Journalists from
the archives after they found this and published it?

freebeacon.com...

If it really did not make any difference...why ban them?

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: buster2010
It gets hard to take someone seriously when you ALWAYS see them pop up to blindly support a certain political party. That person doesn't even need to post anymore because everyone already knows what they are going to say. Regardless of common sense. I will not goosestep behind you,thanks.
In response to your post,yes we all know lawyers are scumbags, but how much of a scumbag do you have to be for the other scumbags to go " wow you are too big of a scumbag even for us?"
The answer: a Hillary Clinton level scumbag.

Who asked you to goosestep behind anything? You choose to blindly believe an article with no name attached to it so this could even checked out to see if it is even true. I believe the saying is innocent until proven guilty.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Moresby

Hmmm...then why did the Hillary peeps ban the Journalists from
the archives after they found this and published it?

freebeacon.com...

If it really did not make any difference...why ban them?

Because they didn't follow the rules? From your link.

“I am very disappointed in your willful failure to comply with the policies of Special Collections,” she wrote. “The University of Arkansas takes great pride in making materials, such as the Roy Reed Collection, available to researchers from around the world. The University, however, does not tolerate the blatant and willful disregard of its intellectual property rights and policies.”

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Moresby

Hmmm...then why did the Hillary peeps ban the Journalists from
the archives after they found this and published it?

freebeacon.com...

If it really did not make any difference...why ban them?

Are you new to politics? That's just SOP. All the major players do that.

I have no dog in this hunt.

But if the GOP thinks they're going to get any mileage out of re-ligating a 40 year-old rape case, based on the accusations of recovering drug addict who admits to having a "spotty memory" (accusations which don't go much beyond painting Hillary as a zealous pro) more power to 'em.

But it looks to me like an utter waste of time.

It's fun to watch all this. Presidential politics is an entertaining spectator sport. But as most ATSers realized a long time ago. It has little bearing on our lives. We get the same crappy policies whoever "wins".