Aug 22, 2016

No I'mm Not A Druuunking Lywyer... I'm In Perfec Health An Still have my Lywyer License

An reddy to be Precidentee of my Kinkdom....

Her words are nearly always deceptive or outright lies, but true facts and a picture ....... 

Are worth a thousand self serving words

She is ready... but are we?

Rape case young Lawyer, Hillary took as a favor to the Judge who set the rapist free... with Hillary's help.

Snopes' admittance  of vital facts, which were obviously true in a rape case in which Hillary Rodham was a young attorney representing the 42 year old accused rapist of a 12 year old girl, makes the man's guilt undeniable to any unbiased reader. Snopes' investigation of the case, themselves being Liberal Democrats, was a typical duplicitous Democrat exercise. The several points acknowledged by them as "WHAT'S TRUE" outweigh their flimsy, hollow  points which they label as "WHAT'S FALSE".

The following is not the girl's or boy's version of 

what happened but that of Snopes, Hillary and the 



WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later.
WHAT'S FALSE: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant's lawyer, she did not laugh about the case's outcome, she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story," she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not "free" the defendant.
Snopes says of this case, in which a 42 year old man had sex with a 12 year old girl, that she "reluctantly took on the case". If she "reluctantly" agreed to represent the man, that infers` she had a choice and decided to take the case. (This Democrat Judge who had asked her to "do him a favor and take the case" agrees with Hillary's version of events). The question is, Why was she "reluctant" to take it even if it wasn't rape but consensual sex between a 42 year old man and a 12 year old girl? Which the girl, and a witness, said it was not, and even if it was, it is still rape under our laws. Second question: Why did the man "plea bargain" to guilt of sex with a 12 year old girl if it hadn't happened at all? Obviously she was so damaged by the man that he could not deny the fact that he had indeed had sex with her. And if she was so damaged, it is also obvious that from the first pain she experienced, she would have tried to stop it, and did scream for him to stop, according to the boy.... but  the man obviously didn't. How Hillary can now say she had doubts about his guilt is ridiculous. RB
Here, in part, are obviously twisted facts of the case which Snopes discovered or devised, and yet branded the charges as "Mostly False". (Blue letters are my comments, RB)
The case, [Hillary] quickly learned, was hopelessly convoluted, hinging on the accounts of three people — Taylor, the girl and a 15-year-old boy.... Sometime around midnightthe girl was sleeping over at a friend’s house in Springdale when Taylor and his 20-year-old cousin walked in, asking if anyone wanted to take a drive.  (Girls little friend, who lived there did not go ...Is this kind of man capable of rape?) The sixth-grader, who says she was bored and wanted to buy a soda, jumped into Taylor’s beat-up red 1963 Chevrolet pickup truck. (The Ignorance of innocence).
Soon after, they picked up the 15-year-old boy and drove to a liquor store, where Taylor bought a pint of Old Grand-Dad whiskey, which he mixed for the girl in a cup of Coca-Cola,(Is this kind of man capable of rape?) according to the boy, now a 48-year-old Army veteran. (Newsday is withholding the boy’s name because he was charged in the case as a juvenile offender.)
After a few hours (2, 3, 4AM ?) at a local bowling alley, the foursome crammed into Taylor’s truck and drove to a weedy ravine off a busy two-lane highway connecting the sister cities of Fayetteville and Springdale, according the sheriff’s department account.
Taylor and the older man went off for a walk (strange), leaving the 12-year-old and the teenager alone in the cab. In a statement to police, the 15-year-old said he removed his pants and admitted to having sex, revealing the encounter only after being pressed by investigators.(Remember the Coke and whiskey)

Moments later, he said he left and Taylor approached the truck, climbing on top of the girl. The girl let out a scream, according to the police report, and he claims to have seen Taylor hitching up his pants.
The victim, the boy reported, turned to both of them and yelled, “You all planned this, didn’t you?”
At 4:50 a.m., the girl walked into a local emergency room, badly shaken. The doctor’s report noted that she had injuries consistent with rape.
Taylor was a tight-lipped client, never wavering from his claim that he’d driven all the passengers home that night without stopping in the ravine, according to Dale Gibson. (Taylor was less guarded around his 15-year-old companion, who recalls the older man whispering “Let’s keep our stories straight” when the two met in county jail.) Was this man capable of rape?
Under Hillary Clinton's handling of the case, the defendant pled guilty rather than going to trial and asserting his innocence. Why would an innocent man plead guilty to such a crime, and have to live with it for the rest of his life ... even if it shortened his time in prison? Hillary's explanation is ludicrous. A jury would have sent him to prison for life but the Judge and Lawyers decided the verdict. 
Here is the Snopes page with their biased version of what happened
including Hillary's obviously slanted, and self serving version, as defence attorney for the accused, long before her law license was suspended in 2002. 

Tape of Hillary's usual lying explanation, of her actions, years later.

No comments: