Monday, June 16, 2014

Hillary Clinton Haunted By Old Interview About Child Molestation Case

A nearly 30-year old recorded interview of Hillary Clinton has surfaced in which she discusses a criminal case she handled when she first moved to Arkansas with her new husband involving an accused child molester. It reveals much about Clinton. The first thing I observed was the noticeably fake southern accent  in which the Park Ridge, Illinois native educated at Wellesley College in Massachusetts and Yale Law School in Connecticut spoke. She apparently lost her accent as soon as Bill and her set their sights on the national political scene. Clinton laughs as she tells the interviewer that she lost all confidence in lie detector tests after one showed her client, who she was convinced was guilty of molesting a 12-year old girl, was telling the truth. Clinton boasts of a mistake made by the prosecution in the handling of evidence that allowed her client to escape more serious felony charges and be released from jail after spending only a short time in jail on misdemeanor charges.

A Daily Mail story on the newly-discovered recordings recounts an old Newsday story in which Clinton had accused the 12-year old girl of making up the allegations against her client and claiming that the girl often fantasized about having relations with older men. That's reminiscent of the war she has waged to discredit all of the women who have come forward to accuse Bill of extramarital relationships, sexual harassment and even rape over the years. Clinton spoke light-heartedly about the case during the interview, laughing on several occasions, particularly about the destruction of key blood evidence collected by the state from her client's underwear. Well-known legal ethics expert Professor Ronald Rotunda questioned whether Clinton's open discussion of her client's case didn't violate the attorney-client privilege. "You can't do that," Rotunda said. "Unless the client says, 'You're free to tell people that you really think I'm a scumbag, and the only reason I got a lighter sentence is because you're a really clever lawyer."

Clinton's client was accused of plying the 12-year old girl with whiskey and coke before raping her in his car. According to Clinton's account, the forensic lab that tested the blood cut out a part of the underwear tested and returned them to the evidence room after throwing away the part of the underwear it tested. Clinton claimed she took the returned underwear herself to a renowned expert in New York, who determined the underwear lacked enough blood evidence to test. I'm not sure how she was able to do that without breaking the chain of custody for the evidence, but that's the story she told.


Marycatherine Barton said...

Hillary Clinton exposed, again! And yet, she is the frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination for President, and recent polls indicate that she will easily win.

Anonymous said...

The duty of an attorney is to represent their client. She had an ethical obligation to give her client the best representation possible. And she did.

Even those accused of the most heinous of crimes deserve competent legal representation, and the historical record demonstrates this by future President John Adams as he defended the soldiers who committed the Boston Massacre.

Nice try, but this isn't a story at all, it's just a distraction by those who oppose the Clintons.

Gary R. Welsh said...

The criticism isn't directed at her defense of her client if you bothered to read it. She breached her client's confidences. And if she knew he was guilty, then why would she file court arguments claiming the girl fabricated the story and sought the attention of older men given the legal argument she had on the botched gathering of forensic evidence?

Gary R. Welsh said...

Lest we forget the reason Hillary was fired by the House Judiciary Committee:

"The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.


“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
This isn’t exactly news. When her lachrymose performance arguably won her New Hampshire, Zeifman tried to tell people about Hillary’s duplicity. Patterico noticed the effort, but few others picked it up. Zeifman wrote at his website:

After hiring Hillary, Doar assigned her to confer with me regarding rules of procedure for the impeachment inquiry. At my first meeting with her I told her that Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, House Speaker Carl Albert, Majority Leader “Tip” O’Neill, Parliamentarian Lou Deschler and I had previously all agreed that we should rely only on the then existing House Rules, and not advocate any changes. I also quoted Tip O’Neill’s statement that: “To try to change the rules now would be politically divisive. It would be like trying to change the traditional rules of baseball before a World Series.”

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee’s then most recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas."

Anonymous said...

This is not molestation. This is rape which caused the victim to bleed. It was also child endangerment, corrupting a minor and probably kidnapping.