Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Arkansas child rape victim comes forward after 40 years (Bombshell)

  1. #1

    Arkansas child rape victim comes forward after 40 years (Bombshell)

    Oh Snap

    This was Hillary's very first case, she defended the rapist of a 12 year old girl, and laughed when she got him off.



    Trump needs to bring this up at the debates, don't let her hide from this.

    And the media says nothing, if that isn't the biggest load of bias ever.
    Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Better that than being accused of raping a 13 year old girl yourself.
    The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.

    I do not suffer from Trump Rearrangement Syndrome. Sorry if that triggers you.

  4. #3
    http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinto...ghed-about-it/

    CLAIM: Hillary Clinton successfully defended an accused child rapist and later laughed about the case.

    MOSTLY FALSE
    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.

    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.

    ORIGIN:In May 2016, the image macro shown above began circulating on Facebook, holding that back in 1975 a young Hillary Clinton (then Hillary Rodham) had "volunteered" to represent a 42-year-old man (Tom Taylor) who was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, that Clinton told the judge in the case that the complainant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about older men, that Clinton "got [the] rapist freed," and that Clinton later admitted she knew the defendant was guilty and "laughed about" the outcome of the case. Although Hillary Clinton was indeed involved in a case of this nature, the aspects of the case presented in the image were largely inaccurate or exaggerated.

    As Hillary Clinton wrote in her 2003 biography Living History, she didn't volunteer to represent the defendant, but rather was appointed to the case by the judge:

    [Prosecuting attorney Mahlon Gibson] called me to tell me an indigent prisoner accused of raping a twelve-year-old girl wanted a woman lawyer. [Prosecutor Mahlon] Gibson had recommended that the criminal court judge, Maupin Cummings, appoint me. I told Mahlon I really didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request.
    That assertion was backed up by the prosecuting attorney, Mahlon Gibson, as noted in a 2008 Newsday article about the case:

    On May 21, 1975, Tom Taylor rose in court to demand that Washington County Judge Maupin Cummings allow him to fire his male court-appointed lawyer in favor of a female attorney. Taylor, who earned a meager wage at a paper bag factory and lived with relatives, had already spent 10 days in the county jail and was grasping for a way to avoid a 30 years-to-life term in the state penitentiary for rape.

    Taylor, 41, figured a jury would be less hostile to a rape defendant represented by a woman, according to one of his friends. Cummings agreed to the request, scanned the list of available female attorneys (there were only a half dozen in the county at the time) and assigned Rodham, who had virtually no experience in criminal litigation.

    “Hillary told me she didn’t want to take that case, she made that very clear,” recalls prosecutor Gibson, who phoned her with the judge’s order.

    Rodham immersed herself in Taylor’s defense as the law school’s spring semester came to an end. “She worked a lot of nights on it,” said Van Gearhart, her teaching assistant at the law clinic in 1975. “I remember her doing that because she wanted to show that she was willing to take court appointments, hoping that the bar would help us in getting established as a clinic.”
    Gibson said the same thing during a 2014 CNN interview about the case, adding that Hillary had attempted unsuccessfully to get the judge to remove her from the case:

    Gibson said that it is “ridiculous” for people to question how Clinton became Taylor’s representation.

    “She got appointed to represent this guy,” he told CNN when asked about the controversy.

    According to Gibson, Maupin Cummings, the judge in the case, kept a list of attorneys who would represent poor clients. Clinton was on that list and helped run a legal aid clinic at the time.

    Taylor was assigned a public defender in the case but Gibson said he quickly “started screaming for a woman attorney” to represent him.

    Gibson said Clinton called him shortly after the judge assigned her to the case and said, “I don't want to represent this guy. I just can't stand this. I don't want to get involved. Can you get me off?”

    “I told her, ‘Well contact the judge and see what he says about it,’ but I also said don't jump on him and make him mad,” Gibson said. “She contacted the judge and the judge didn't remove her and she stayed on the case.”
    More at link.

    Finally, Hillary didn't "free" the defendant in the case. Instead, the prosecuting attorney agreed to a plea deal involving a lesser charge that carried a five-year sentence, which the judge reduced to four years probation and a year in jail (including time already served):

    Mahlon Gibson agreed to reduce the charges from first-degree rape to unlawful fondling of a minor under the age of 14, which carried a five-year sentence. [Judge Maupin Cummings] reduced Taylor’s five-year sentence to four years probation and a year in county jail — with two months taken off for time he had already served.

    The victim says it was her mother, who had recently been abandoned by her husband, who pushed for a quick plea deal to avoid the humiliation of having her daughter testify in open court. The mother, who died several years ago, was so eager to end the ordeal she coached her daughter’s statements and interrupted interviews with police, Sgt. Dale Gibson [the department’s lead investigator] recalls.

    “We both wanted it to be over with,” the victim told Newsday. “They kept asking me the same questions over and over. I was crying all the time.”
    Even now, that outcome is not unusual for violent criminal charges: 2014 statistics show that 97% of criminal cases (including rape) are resolved by plea bargain, and only 3% go to trial. The ratio of plea bargains to trials was similar in 1970
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 08-11-2016 at 08:10 PM.

  5. #4
    If she thought that was bad, now the liberals are gonna gang bang her.

  6. #5
    Oh that's so harsh but so true, Angela.

    You definitely want a lawyer who will fight for you, but what Mrs. Clinton did to that child was beyond the pale.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/08...illary-a-liar/

    Kathy Shelton was twelve years old when she was raped by a drifter in 1975. Thomas Alfred Taylor, her attacker, served less than a year in prison thanks to his defense attorney, Hillary Clinton.
    [...]
    During the case, Clinton accused the 12-year-old of ‘seek[ing] out older men’ and ‘engag[ing] in fantasizing’ in court affidavits, and later laughed while discussing aspects of the case in a recently-unearthed audiotape from the 1980s.

    On the audiotape, Clinton indicated that she believed Taylor, her client, was guilty, saying that his ability to pass a lie detector test ‘forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs’.

    She also laughed while describing how she was able to get a world-famous New York City blood expert to question the admissibility of forensic evidence that was misplaced by the crime lab after it was tested.

    The tape, which Shelton said discredits the notion that Clinton truly cared about protecting young girls, raises new questions that she wants to ask Clinton directly.

    ‘I heard you on tape laughing,’ said Shelton. ‘I just want to know, you’ve got a daughter and a grandbaby. What happens if that daughter of yours, if that would have been her [who was assaulted at age 12]?’

    ‘You would have protected her. You don’t know me, so I’m a piece of crap to you,’ added Shelton, who lives in the same small northwest Arkansas town where she was raised by a single mother. ‘Who cares about me, as long as you can win your first case as an attorney?’
    Congratulations on your new low, Zippy. You must really love that evil she-devil.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucille View Post
    Oh that's so harsh but so true, Angela.

    You definitely want a lawyer who will fight for you, but what Mrs. Clinton did to that child was beyond the pale.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/08...illary-a-liar/



    Congratulations on your new low, Zippy. You must really love that evil she-devil.
    Can you dispute the fact-checking done on the site, or are we just using emotional appeals now?

  8. #7
    LOL There's an audio of it, FFS. It's on youtube.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  9. #8
    She laughed about lie detector tests not being reliable- not about her client (which she did not want to represent) getting a plea bargain.

    (audio tapes can be listened to at my link).

    The audio on these tapes is difficult to understand, but Clinton can be heard describing the case as "terrible." When she audibly laughed at points, Clinton did not appear to be making light of the outcome of the case, but rather musing about how elements of it that might ordinarily have supported the prosecution worked in the defendant's favor (i.e., observing that the defendant's passing a polygraph test had "forever destroyed her faith" in that technology):
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 08-11-2016 at 09:03 PM.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    She was amused during the whole story. I listened to it. Did you, or did you just go straight to snopes to defend your gal (or maybe you keep it handy for your "work")?
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  12. #10
    snopes.com might as well change their name to clintondefenders.com, since they never fail to defend the criminal clintons, no matter what. They've been doing that since the 90's. They seem to bend over backwards to explain away every charge against the clintons. What a joke they are.

    Hillary clearly doesn't give a rat's @ss about rape or sexual abuse victims. It's well documented that she not only turned a blind eye to her husband's long sordid list of crimes related to women, but she went a step further and actively worked to destroy them for the sake of their political ambitions.

    I'm amazed that ANYONE would be dumb enough to support HRC.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  13. #11
    A lot of these "fact check" orgs have a serious liberal bias going back years.

  14. #12
    She was responsible at blocking forensic evidence. This is in Hillary's America film and its chilling.

  15. #13
    An 08 person with almost 30K posts defending Hillary on this, shows you how far we as Ron Paul people have drifted apart, on very fundamental issues.
    I have to say this defense of Hillary is one of the more shameful things I have seen on RPF, if it came from somebody that just joined, but you Zippy
    Tsk tsk
    Defending her on this at any level is tantamount to tacit approval, truly shameful, neg rep issued.
    Have to call out this BS.

    Somebody on another forum said she was just doing her job, my response was just like an SS guard in Auschwitz did his, there is natural law and we should not be breaking it when we know it is evil to do something.

    While Ron Paul was politically active he was like the glue that held us all together now that he is out of the political arena, that glue has no sticking power.
    Everybody is going their separate way with their own political ideologies now.
    Somebody asked once where did all the Ron Paul people go, they went where 2012 went...over and out scattered to the wind.
    Last edited by ProBlue33; 08-11-2016 at 11:27 PM.
    Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by ProBlue33 View Post
    An 08 person with almost 30K posts defending Hillary on this, shows you how far we as Ron Paul people have drifted apart, on very fundamental issues.
    I have to say this defense of Hillary is one of the more shameful things I have seen on RPF, if it came from somebody that just joined, but you Zippy
    Tsk tsk
    Defending her on this at any level is tantamount to tacit approval, truly shameful, neg rep issued.
    Have to call out this BS.

    Somebody on another forum said she was just doing her job, my response was just like an SS guard in Auschwitz did his, there is natural law and we should not be breaking it when we know it is evil to do something.

    While Ron Paul was politically active he was like the glue that held us all together now that he is out of the political arena, that glue has no sticking power.
    Everybody is going their separate way with their own political ideologies now.
    Somebody asked once where did all the Ron Paul people go, they went where 2012 went...over and out scattered to the wind.
    I think there's a lot of truth to this, unfortunately, and the direction of the liberty movement going forward is uncertain. That said, whatever happens in the Presidential election or whoever we support/don't support, let's all try to elect good, liberty-minded people to Congress and locally. There are still plenty of good lower level candidates out there who I think like 90% of this forum would support. We shouldn't lose sight of that.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by ProBlue33 View Post
    An 08 person with almost 30K posts defending Hillary on this, shows you how far we as Ron Paul people have drifted apart, on very fundamental issues.
    I have to say this defense of Hillary is one of the more shameful things I have seen on RPF, if it came from somebody that just joined, but you Zippy
    Tsk tsk
    Defending her on this at any level is tantamount to tacit approval, truly shameful, neg rep issued.
    Have to call out this BS.

    Somebody on another forum said she was just doing her job, my response was just like an SS guard in Auschwitz did his, there is natural law and we should not be breaking it when we know it is evil to do something.

    While Ron Paul was politically active he was like the glue that held us all together now that he is out of the political arena, that glue has no sticking power.
    Everybody is going their separate way with their own political ideologies now.
    Somebody asked once where did all the Ron Paul people go, they went where 2012 went...over and out scattered to the wind.
    Do you believe every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial, including assistance of counsel for a vigorous defense?
    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUd View Post
    Do you believe every person accused of a crime has the right to a fair trial, including assistance of counsel for a vigorous defense?
    Absolutely correct. FWIW however her voters may not be as sophisticated and fair minded as you are.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Lovecraftian4Paul View Post
    I think there's a lot of truth to this, unfortunately, and the direction of the liberty movement going forward is uncertain. That said, whatever happens in the Presidential election or whoever we support/don't support, let's all try to elect good, liberty-minded people to Congress and locally. There are still plenty of good lower level candidates out there who I think like 90% of this forum would support. We shouldn't lose sight of that.
    I don't know the ratio but I would say many now support Trump, not because of his ideology but because he has to fight the corruption from the Media, the GOP, the RNC, the DNC.

    Supporting Gary is a waste of time. Just like dumb nuts supporting Nader. The system is inherently designed for 2 parties.

  21. #18
    My goodness. People still talking about the liberty movement like it's a thing.
    It's dead. It has been dead since June 2012.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by ProBlue33 View Post
    An 08 person with almost 30K posts defending Hillary on this, shows you how far we as Ron Paul people have drifted apart, on very fundamental issues.
    I have to say this defense of Hillary is one of the more shameful things I have seen on RPF, if it came from somebody that just joined, but you Zippy
    Tsk tsk
    Defending her on this at any level is tantamount to tacit approval, truly shameful, neg rep issued.
    Have to call out this BS.

    Somebody on another forum said she was just doing her job, my response was just like an SS guard in Auschwitz did his, there is natural law and we should not be breaking it when we know it is evil to do something.

    While Ron Paul was politically active he was like the glue that held us all together now that he is out of the political arena, that glue has no sticking power.
    Everybody is going their separate way with their own political ideologies now.
    Somebody asked once where did all the Ron Paul people go, they went where 2012 went...over and out scattered to the wind.
    Are you not aware of zippy's role Here? Maybe you should have been more involved before Trump got in the race.
    "The Patriarch"

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    My goodness. People still talking about the liberty movement like it's a thing.
    It's dead. It has been dead since June 2012.
    Yeah I have to agree given how people that supported Ron Paul in 08 & 12, will unfathomably will vote for Clinton in 2016.
    Or will throw there vote away in a battleground state as a ideologically correct purity protest vote.
    Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos

  24. #21
    "Ideological purity" exists only in theory. If you will only vote for an ideologically pure candidate, you will never vote which means you surrender to the status quo. Rand isn't "pure" and isn't in the running at this time. Even Ron was not always "pure" according to some.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 08-14-2016 at 01:05 PM.

  25. #22
    So Bill is not the only rapist that Hitlery defends.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •