That time when Hillary Clinton used a technicality to get a child rapist out of jail

Young Hillary Clinton

Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was a lawyer before she decided it was politically expedient to fight sexual assault. As a lawyer, she defended an accused rapist of a 12-year old and was able to get him out of jail through a technicality. What’s worse is that she laughs about it in the audio below.

In case you think that he might have been innocent, she didn’t think so.

“He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she said.

Everyone is entitled to a good defense whether they’re guilty or not, but it takes a certain type of person to defend someone who they believe to be a child rapist. I’m not suggesting that she should have thrown the case, but it should be disturbing that she not only got him off through a technicality. She was proud of it.

The country needs strong defense attorneys and even criminals are entitled to them, but that doesn’t mean that one of them should be President of the United States.

Here’s the audio:

Scarlett Madison

+Scarlett Madison is a mom and a friend. She blogs for a living but really prefers to read more than write. Find her on Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest.

  1. You are so confused. Did you listen to the whole interview? She even took the damaged evidence to a forensics expert to see if there was any thing left of the evidence, which the police procedure had destroyed. There wasn’t. So there was no evidence. The prosecutor dropped the charges down to a plea bargain. Why are you not pursuing that person?

    As far as lawyers, she did her job, performing to the letter of her oath – but perhaps stretching it a bit to try to still nab the guy for the crime, by seeing if any evidence was still usable. Something the prosecutors should have done themselves.

    And like she said, – the man even passed a polygraph test, which later made her question their usefulness.

    The picture you paint is of somebody unethical. That’s simply not the case. Imagine if he was innocent – I know that’s hard for your type to do, since you believe everybody is guilty until proven innocent – wouldn’t you want there to be actual evidence to be convicted with?

    Why is that important? So it can be cross-checked, and cross-confirmed. Bada-boom, bada-bing.

    Had he been convicted, an appeals would have required more modern testing. In the absence of evidence he would have been fully acquitted, instead of living out his life on a sex-offender list, as he currently is.

    1. Well said. Of all the lies Trump supporters spew about Hillary, this one bothers me the most. She didn’t want to take this case but was court-appointed and so had to take it. The quote about the girl fantasizing about older men came from discovery testimony, which she quoted when she was trying to have the child assessed by a psychologist. The prosecutor is the one who bungled the case. The defendant was not “freed”, he served time in jail but on a lesser charge. And settling the case for the lesser charge was better for the child, who would have had to relive the whole experience in a trial. She did her job and defended the guy while at the same time, protecting the child. She should be lauded, not lied about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

© 2017 The New Americana