A charge against Hillary Clinton that doesn’t add up to much

The Daily Beast has a story claiming to show Hillary Clinton took an overly aggressive stand against a 12-year old rape victim in 1975. The victim, now 52, has spoken out saying that as the attorney for the accused rapist, Hillary Clinton “…lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good at the time.” The victim and the Daily Beast story are referring to Clinton’s statements in an affidavit to support a motion to have the 12-year old rape victim submit to a psychiatric examination. That affidavit is set out at the bottom of this post.

The affidavit is odd only in the sense that all of Hillary’s statements are hearsay, but I don’t think that matters all that much. None of it is evidence offered in Court, it’s merely an allegation that evidence exists of certain things that warrant a psychiatric examination of the complainant. The only thing I see to criticize it for is one of trial tactics. If Clinton did have admissible evidence that supported her hearsay accusations, a different lawyer might have decided to save it for trial to be used in cross examining the victim’s testimony. The witnesses who made the statements to Clinton could be called to testify if they have direct knowledge of the victim making prior false allegations. A different lawyer might have considered that to have been a better way to defend the accused and create reasonable doubt as to his guilt. But that’s a judgment call and not a smoking gun showing that Hillary Clinton lied to the court.

It’s possible that Clinton did lie about having been “informed” of the allegations that she enumerates in the affidavit. But since the case ended in a plea bargain and never went to trial there was no trial testimony on this score. So whether Hillary was lying about anything in the affidavit will never be known.

It seems strange to me that I’m defending Hillary Clinton, whom I believe to be a pathological liar, but based on what has been presented so far I think this rip on her will not be going any where. The tapes discussed in the Daily Beast story in which Hillary Rodham [that was her name then] boasted about getting her client a sweet deal for a heinous crime also don’t seem to be a big deal to me. A young lawyer’s exaggerated bragging about getting a good result for a criminal defendant is not earthshaking news.

The Daily Beast is not a conservative website. It’s a left-leaning site and could be expected to be a Hillary defender. That it’s not only reporting a story many might consider unfavorable to her, and also reporting it in a way that casts her in an unfavorable light, seems incongruous.

However, for another point of view on how this might play out see this: Hillary vs. Walker: Due Process Only Applies If You’re A Liberal — Child rapists deserve due process. Conservatives governors, not so much.

See also: The Hillary Tapes

Here is the affidavit:

34-e1209c1456