Friday, June 20, 2014

Hillary Clinton's supporters trying to block tapes of her bragging about lying about a 12 year old rape victim...

Sometime in the mid-1980s, for an Esquire profile of rising political stars, Hillary Clinton and her husband agreed to a series of interviews with the Arkansas journalist Roy Reed. Reed and Hillary Clinton discussed at some length her defense of the child rapist, and in the course of that discussion she bragged and laughed about the case, implied she had known her client was guilty, and said her “faith in polygraphs” was forever destroyed when she saw that her client had taken one and passed. Reed’s article was never published. His tapes of the interviews were later donated to the University of Arkansas. Where they remained, gathering dust.
Again, that was her job, to be a zealous advocate for her client.  But that duty is tempered by not presenting any false information (that she knows is false) to the court.  And while Hillary may have done what she was supposed to for her client, it is at a minimum unseemly to talk about the rape of a 12 year old girl (by a person Hillary Clinton says she knew was guilty).
No matter your view of Hillary Clinton, no matter your position on legal ethics, the recording of the Reed interview is news. It tells us something we did not already know. It tells us that, when her guard was down, Clinton found the whole disturbing incident a trifling and joking matter. And the fact that so many supposedly sophisticated and au courant journalists and writers have dismissed the story as nothing more than an attorney “doing her job” is, I think, equally disturbing. Dana Bash to the contrary notwithstanding, Hillary Clinton was not forced to take on Taylor as a client. It was her choice—and not, for her, a hard one. Certainly that complicates our understanding of the former first lady as an unrelenting defender and advocate of women and girls.
Let’s even concede that Clinton was just doing her job. What makes that job exempt from inquiry and skepticism and criticism? Yes, Mumia, Bill Ayers, and child rapists have the right to legal representation. But that does not give the lawyers who represent them the right—the entitlement—to public office. If it is fair to attack a candidate because he used to travel with the family dog on the roof of his car, because he may have forcibly subjected a fellow student to a haircut, then it is entirely fair, it is more than fair, to attack a candidate for defending the rapist of a 12-year-old girl, and for laughing about it a decade later.

Instapundit: Hillary is imploding


  1. Expect some erasures on the next batch of tapes.

  2. Everybody talks about how google-eyed she looks.

    Any bets they're contacts doing the work of the specs she wore?

    Rove, you magnificent bastard.

    (had to...)

  3. legal ethics = oxymoron

    And in that recording she really does sound lak nowhar warried ahm ah bout nuttin'.....Bwahahaha.

  4. At this point, what difference does it make? /sarc


I had to stop Anonymous comments due to spam. But I welcome all legitimate comments. Thanks.