Hillary Clinton is supposed to be so wonderful and ethical. I remember that, back when her husband was president, they claimed his would be “the most ethical administration in history.” Barack Obama’s supporters have made the same claim for his administration, but it started with the Clintons.
She even gets amazing praise from Republicans about how she would be “a very strong candidate.”
But what if she is just a sleazy lawyer?
The Washington Free Beacon has audio that sounds like she is confessing that she is indeed a sleazy lawyer.
“It was a fascinating case, it was a very interesting case,” Clinton says in the recording. “This guy was accused of raping a 12-year-old. Course he claimed that he didn’t, and all this stuff” (LISTEN HERE).
Describing the events almost a decade after they had occurred, Clinton’s struck a casual and complacent attitude toward her client and the trial for rape of a minor.
“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she added with a laugh.
Clinton can also be heard laughing at several points when discussing the crime lab’s accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime.
She also used a clichéd strategy of attacking the victim’s credibility to get her client off. Regarding the raped twelve-year-old:
In a July 28, 1975, court affidavit, Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”
“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior,” Clinton said.
Clinton said the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
It turned out that her attack on the twelve-year-old was not necessary. The loss of the evidence put the prosecution in a bind. She got them to charge him with a much lesser crime.
It was her job to defend him, but it is eerie to hear her laugh about successfully keeping a child-rapist out of jail. Not exactly heroic, presidential material.