News

Kathy Shelton Rape Case: 5 Fast Facts You Need To Know

Kathy Shelton of Springdale, Arkansas, is now 54 years old. But in 1975, at the age of 12, Shelton was allegedly raped by a 41-year-old factory worker named Thomas Alfred Taylor. The lawyer who provided Taylor’s defense was a 27-year-old law professor who ran a legal aid clinic for underprivileged defendants. Her name was Hillary Rodham, soon to be known as Hillary Clinton — and in the end, Taylor’s charges were reduced from first-degree rape to “unlawful fondling of a child under 14,” mainly due to a lack of credible evidence in the case. Taylor served 10 months of a one-year sentence, and died in 1992.

The Shelton rape case has long been used by Clinton adversaries to attack her, saying that her defense of Taylor makes her a hypocrite when she claims to be an advocate for women and sexual assault victims. Clinton’s political opponents have even claimed that the Democratic Presidential nominee “laughed” when discussing the case in an interview several years later.

With Donald Trump signaling that he intends to attack Clinton as a “bully” toward victims of sexual assault, the Shelton rape case is expected to be a topic in the second Presidential debate on Sunday, October 9, according to Bloomberg News reporter Joshua Green.

What really happened in the controversial Shelton case? Here’s what you need to know.


1. Shelton Was Allegedly Raped By Taylor on May 10, 1975

Shelton never came forward publicly until 2016, when she gave an interview to Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper. In fact, Shelton did not realize that Taylor’s defense lawyer had been Clinton until 2008, 33 years after the case, when the New York newspaper Newsday ran a lengthy story about the case, and Clinton’s role in it.

What actually happened that night remains unclear, mainly because — according to the Washington County Sheriff’s Office — the original case files have been lost. Newsday in 2008 pieced together what remains the most complete account of the incident, but even that paper’s report described the case as “convoluted” and reliant on the testimony of three witnesses, who were each unreliable and had something to hide. An investigator told Newsday that Shelton’s own story contained “serious inconsistencies.”

According to the Newsday account written by reporter Glenn Thrush, the girl — not named in the story but now identified as Shelton — was sleeping over at a friend’s house when, around midnight, Taylor and another man, his cousin, came by the house and offered to take her for a ride in their pickup truck. Saying she wanted to buy a soft drink, the girl got in the truck.

They drove around and picked up a 15-year-old boy. According to the Newsday account, Taylor then stopped at a liquor store where he bought whiskey and Coke, giving the drink to the 12-year-old. Later, in the early hours of the morning, they drove to a secluded area where Taylor and the other man left the truck for a walk. The 15-year-old told police that he then had sex with Shelton.

After the act was concluded, the boy said that he got out of the truck — and Taylor got in. That’s when according both to Shelton and witnesses, as well as doctors who examined her a short time after the incident, Taylor raped her. He also beat her during the rape, she said.

Taylor denied raping the 12-year-old, and even passed a polygraph test, which Clinton said in her later interview “forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”


2. Clinton Did Not “Volunteer” for the Case, She Tried to Get Out of Defending Taylor

In May of 1975, Rodham was still seven months away from her wedding to Bill Clinton, and had only recently moved to her fiancée’s home state of Arkansas where he planned to run for office. She took a teaching position at the University of Arkansas law school and quickly took the initiative to found the University of Arkansas School Legal Aid Clinic.

Because the legal aid clinic provided representation for clients who could not afford a lawyer, in the frequent instances when public defenders could not handle their heavy caseload.

When Taylor told the judge in his case that he demanded a woman lawyer, firing his court-appointed male attorney, prosecutors turned to Rodham, recommending her to the judge in the case.

Clinton wrote about the case in her 2003 memoir Living History, saying that she desperately tried to get out of the assignment.

“I really didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but (Prosecutor) Mahlon (Gibson) gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request,” Clinton wrote.

Gibson, in a CNN interview 11 years after Clinton published her book, remembered the young lawyer’s reaction the same way.

“I don’t want to represent this guy. I just can’t stand this,” Gibson recalled Clinton pleading with him. “I don’t want to get involved. Can you get me off?”

Gibson suggested that she take her pleas to the judge, which Clinton did. But the judge was unsympathetic, ordering her to take Taylor’s case.

Once she no longer had a choice in the matter, Clinton said in a 2014 interview that she had a professional obligation to give Taylor the strongest possible defense.

“I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did,” she said.

Gibson recalled that the young lawyer worked overtime on the case in hopes of impressing the court, which might them help establish the reputation of her new legal aid clinc.


3. Clinton Challenged Shelton’s Credibility, in an Court Affidavit

Even though she found the job distasteful, Rodham mounted what she felt was her strongest possible defense of Taylor. As Newsday reporter Thrush wrote in 2008, “Her approach, then and now, was to immerse herself in even unpleasant tasks with a will to win.”

In an affidavit that can be read in the court file above, starting on page 34 — or at this link — Rodham attempted to undermine the credibility of 12-year-old’s allegations against Taylor, writing that she had “been informed” that the victim, now known to be Shelton, “is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”

She also said that she had been “informed” that the girl “has in the past made false accusations against persons, claiming they attacked her body.”

Finally, Rodham wrote that a child psychologist told her that “children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” and that this tendency was especially common in children from “disorganized families” such as Shelton’s.

When Newsday interviewed her in 2008, Shelton said that she bore no “ill will” toward Clinton. But she has since changed her mind, at least partly because of a tape recorded interview that surfaced in 2014 in which Clinton is allegedly heard “laughing” while discussing the rape case.


WATCH: Bill Clinton Responds As Heckler Calls Him ‘Rapist’ At Ohio Rally

Bill Clinton responds to a heckler who called him "a rapist" at a rally in Canton, Ohio, Wednesday.

Click here to read more

4. Clinton Laughed on the Tape, But Not About Taylor’s Light Sentence

In an interview conducted sometime in the mid-1980s by Arkansas reporter, Roy Reed, Clinton discussed the case. The audio recordings can be heard above. Clinton’s political opponents have claimed that she “laughed” while discussing the light sentence that Taylor received, and when she admitted that she knew he was guilty.

But that’s not true.

There are four moments where Clinton can be heard “laughing” during the interview. Here they are, as identified by The Washington Post.

•“Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” Clinton and Reed both laugh at this remark.

•“So I got an order to see the evidence and the prosecutor didn’t want me to see the evidence. I had to go to Maupin Cummings [the judge] and convince Maupin that yes indeed I had a right to see the evidence before it was presented.” Faint laughter is heard between the words “evidence” and “before” in the second sentence.

•“I handed it [information on her expert witness] to Mahlon Gibson, and I said, ‘Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice.’” Both Clinton and Reed laugh, apparently at the irony of calling the case a “miscarriage of justice” when in Clinton’s opinion, her client was guilty.

•“So Maupin [ie. the judge] had to, you know, under law he was supposed to determine whether the plea was factually supported. Maupin asked me to leave the room while he examined my client so that he could find out if it was factually supported. I said ‘Judge I can’t leave the room I’m his lawyer!’ he said ‘I know but I don’t want to talk about this in front of you.’” Reed is heard saying, “Oh God, really?” and both laugh at the idea that the details of the case were not suitable to be discussed in front of a woman, even the defendant’s own lawyer.

At no point does Clinton laugh at mention of Taylor’s reduced charges and sentence, or at the notion that she defended a guilty client, which she determined to be her professional obligation.

“In the interview she called this a ‘terrible case,’ and it’s clear she is pained to recall it,” Clinton spokesperson Josh Schwerin told the Post. “The reactions that you mention were very clearly expressions of disbelief at breakdowns in the handling of the case and absurdities she encountered within the court system’s bureaucracy.”


5. Prosecutors Botched Evidence in the Case, Leading to Taylor’s Reduced Charges

Kathy Shelton Hillary Clinton, Clinton defends rapist, 12 year old rape victim, Clinton scandals, Hillary Clinton laughed

Hillary Clinton in 2008. (Getty)

Some of Clinton’s attackers have claimed that Taylor was found not guilty as a result of her defense. The truth his, the accused rapist pleaded guilty after prosecutors offered him a plea bargain, in which his charges were reduced to “fondling” rather than first-degree rape.

Why? While Rodham mounted an aggressive defense, in the end prosecutors decided there simply was not enough evidence to make the rape charge stick — because investigators mishandled it.

The only piece of physical evidence available was a pair of underwear that had blood on it. Investigators cut out a piece of the underwear and sent it to a crime lab, but a forensic expert hired by Clinton determined that the small sample was not enough to allow a meaningful test. The only remaining evidence was the underwear that had been cut by the investigators, rendering it useless as evidence.

As a result, Taylor agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge and was given a five-year sentence in county jail — but the judge suspended four years of the sentence and shaved another two months off the remaining year for time Taylor had already served in county jail.

Despite her statement in 2008 that she had nothing against Clinton, in her 2016 interview, Shelton said she was incapable of forgiving the lawyer who defended her alleged rapist.

“It’s put a lot of anger back in me,” said told the Mail. “Every time I see her on TV I just want to reach in there and grab her, but I can’t do that.”

READ: Guccifer 2.0 Clinton Foundation Hacked Documents

Hacking group "Guccifer 2.0" claims to have hacked the Clinton Foundation and posted several documents. See them here.

Click here to read more

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

143 comments

  1. i fail to see the dif; whether hellary laughed at duping the system in order to get a lighter sentence, or not. in the end she was undeniable laughing at shelton; albeit indirectly; which is infinitely worst, imho. hitlary’s ‘client’ was obv guitly; she knew he was, and she did nothing but help him get away with it. she could’ve quit at anytime, but choose to defend this scumbag; willingly and at all costs. i guess it fits the pattern. at least she’d used the experience in the uncountable ‘billy the prez raper’ cases. notice also how she blatantly tricked the investigators into destroying the evidence. then her ‘client’ had to take the lesser count, because it was too good of a deal to pass. so everybody in their sane mind should hate hellary. this tl,dr post is an obv silly and unfounded libmedia attempt to be overly apologetic for the pain and suffering that’s been billary throughout the years…

    • No, she couldn’t quit at any time. She tried in the beginning and the judge would let her off the case. She was stuck and had an obligation, per the constitution of the Inited States, to provide Taylor with the best defense possible. She did her job. If she hadn’t, someone else would have anyway. The results would have likely been the same because the investigators screwed up the evidence and the prosecution had little to no case.

      And no, she didn’t trick them into ruining evidence. Seriously? They did that sending the sample to their own crime lab and when Hilary hired her own forensic guy there wasn’t enough and they had nothing else to test because the original investigators had ruined the evidence. She had nothing to do with that.

      • Well said. I was disturbed when I heard that she had represented an accused child rapist but I see there is much more to the situation.

        • Well said? Could you set a side your Nuremberg “just following orders” defense of Hillary please.. The tape PROVES Hillary believed the rapist was guilty and defended him anyway (0 empathy, sociopath behavior). Most people would take the hit to their law career if necessary not to defend that. This 12 year old girl was in a coma for five days, needed stitches inside her, lost the ability to ever have kids and if you know about ACE studies, you know that an event like this ruins the rest of your life too.

          • Seriously? She should have just given up her career forever over 1 case she didn’t want to defend? Sorry buddy but no one would give up their dreams because they disagreed with 1 single case. So I guess this means we should do away with ALL defense lawyers? If every defense lawyer said no to every case that involved something horrific what would happen? The fact that she happens to be running for president 41 years later she should have never done that case? “Just in case” someday, 40 plus years later it might piss people off and it be held against her? Let me guess….Trump supporter?

            • IKR! These people are ridiculous! Doctors don’t choose to not save the lives of criminals & lawyers are obligated to defend their clients to the best of their ability. Hillary had just opened a law clinic for poor people in a southern town that she was new to. The judge wouldn’t let her remove herself from the case. Had she given up her entire career that she had just started by quitting, the law CLI ic would have also closed down! What about all those clients? The prosecution had no case & I have read elsewhere that between the mom & girl not wanting to put the girl through a trial, they asked for them to offer a plea deal. Hillary actually did that little girl a favor. Had her client not taken the deal & they had gone to trial, I would bet money that he would have been found not guilt. Therefore that girl would go through it all for nothing! There was basically no evidence & the girl had just had consensual sex with the 15yr old & she kept changing her story, not to mention that this was over 30yrs ago when it was rare anyway for a rape suspect to be found guilty. I am sorry that that poor girl went through what she did but I find it interesting that she is now once again changing her story & trying to make money from a go fund me acct & reportedly getting paid by Donald Trump to show up @ the debate…I find it very disturbing how people are so willing to not care about their rights on one hand (our constitutional right to a defense) but will holler about 2A all day long. I sure hope that all the sympathy that this girl has gotten will be given to Trump’s 13 yr old rape victim when it goes to court in December…

            • She wasn’t a public defender didn’t have to take the case and if you hear the tape she says something about blood in his underwear and it disappeared just like the emails!

            • The judge ASKED her to defend this creep, he didn’t FORCE her to do so. No attorney can be forced to defend anyone he/she does not want to defend. She was NOT a paid public defender, she was an associate professor of law and operated a law clinic. She also was doing a favor for a judge who was her finances’ political donor.

      • The Constitution did not obligate Hillary to remain his attorney. The Constitution merely obligates that he is represented by AN attorney. Another could have been appointed. She could have found a way out if it really bothered her conscience that much.

        • Lawyers are actually NOT allowed to just quit a case. They can be fired, sure. But unlike everyone else’s job once a lawyer is assigned a client (this time by the judge) and a trial begins, the lawyer *cannot* quit for their own personal reasons like ‘they want to’ or they don’t trust their client. Even thinking their client is guilty isn’t enough. She would have required the judge’s permission to quit, and since she tried to get him to let her back-out before the trial started and he said “no’, there was no way he was going to let her out once trial started (the whole case starts over so it’s expensive and it slows things down and it disrupts the Court. And sets a bad precedence for other attorneys to see). She actually was stuck. And to not lose her license to practice law she was required to give the defendant the best defense she possibly could. That’s the Constitution for you. We might not like it when it comes to child rapists, but we want it there to protect our friends/our brothers/ourselves if we’re accidentally arrested. Always try to keep that in mind, if any of us were charged with something we didn’t do we would want an attorney who pursued every legal avenue towards freeing us. For that to work, the rules have to apply to everyone- those who appear guilty from the beginning and those who don’t; and the prosecution has to do every part of their job right. Every time. To make sure that those who are truly guilty are parsed out and sent away and the rest are set free.

          • Didn’t she say the judge asked for a favor from her? I could be wrong, but I thought she said that. Think about an animal rights activist for a moment. Do you think they would do something that could possibly hurt an animal if they were required to do it. No, they would not, because their love of animals prevents that. The minute she realized he did it, she could of quit. She could of quit if she wanted. So, maybe she would have to find another office to work for. Or , maybe, she could not be a lawyer anymore. She boasts about loving children and being a defender of them. I LOVE children! If I thought someone was guilty of something like that, I could never defend them. Even if it meant losing my job. If you are going to be President, then you should be willing to do the hard things. It was probably hard to take the case., But, it would be harder and more impressive to leave the case! If you TRULY love children, then you could never represent this man, no matter the costs!!

            • NO, SHE COULDN”T QUIT. You need to educate yourself on legal aid lawyers responsibilities. She had NO choice but to continue and to do her best to defend her client. This was not a case of a greedy lawyer taking on a case for a big fee. It was legal aid. She was allocated this case and she was stuck with it.

              • Oh, mimibelle (you might want to rethink that unfortunate moniker …) yes, if you can read, she could have quit. As a human being – she could have quit her job. Everyone has a tipping point (read Malcolm Gladwell) – this should have been Hillary Clinton’s.
                “I will do a lot, but I, myself, will not defend, like an attack dog, this man who I know to be guilty. I will not stand in a courtroom and say (a direct quote) that this 12-year-old child ‘fantasized about older men.’ I may do a lot as a human being, but I draw the line at that. She is 12-years-old, I will not do this. ” That is what Hillary Clinton could have said – but she didn’t. And the fact that you are defending her on this – you, a woman – means – well, what does it mean? I shudder to think. Hillary Clinton may have done many fine things in her life – this was not one of them. It is so very sad that you defend her on this one. And they talk about uneducated Trump voters – it pains me to think that if I vote for Clinton – you would be among the people supporting her. You are pathetic.

                • Hahahaha — Judy, YOU obviously haven’t read Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, because it has NOTHING to do with the point you think you’re making! Please educate us all and point to information in this article, or anywhere, that supports the notion that she was allowed to quit this case.

                  • Heck I saw it in “The Devil’s Advocate” where Lomax saw what a nasty, evil pervert he was representing and resigned! Of course that was a fictional movie and doesn’t mean that this was the beginning of Hillary’s career association with the Devil but damn, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction! Now for Hillary to have a moral “Tipping Point” means she would have to have a conscious. Obviously she has no more of a conscious than you have an understanding of Malcolm’s book
                    1

                • You are 100% correct. Anybody that even THINK about defending Hillary Clinton, ESPECIALLY in this case, is an absolute ignorant pos and you’re worse than the rapist. This article is so offensive and low it should be retracted and whoever wrote this sh*t should be fired. I NEVER get offended, EVER. This is just criminal

              • She wasn’t a legal aid lawyer, Mimibelle. She was a college professor who started her own nonprofit firm for the poor. She was trying to make a name for herself and willingly took the case. She didn’t want to disappoint the judge. This isn’t the only time Hillary took advantage of a woman to benefit a man. Yes, once she took the case, it was hard to get out of it, but she was not compelled to take the case.

                • Your point is an important one; “This isn’t the only time Hillary took advantage of a woman to benefit a man.”
                  I also understand that she didn’t want to disappoint, wanted to further her career & make a name for herself which we can all understand.
                  However it also is testament to the mercenary level of blind ambition it takes to get where she is today; and that in itself is pretty unappealing in a man or a woman.
                  This case has been of interest to me for some time & given me opportunity to make an effort to understand all sides.
                  Having been, myself a 12 year old girl in The South who was probably far more precocious than Ms. Shelton at the time, and in a similar situation
                  with rapists.
                  I blamed myself many, many years before coming to the understanding that adults in the situation are the one’s with the responsibility
                  to control themselves.
                  Admittedly I was very innocent minded, but looking back, had a highly sexualized physical appearance (which now I know should still have no bearing on the decision of the adult men.)
                  From the childhood photos of Ms. Shelton it is clear that she was not so precocious looking at all, yet Hillary had no problem making the claim that Ms. Shelton was “seeking out older men.”
                  That is the comment that (pun intended, albeit a bad one) trumps all other aspects of the case & is beyond the pale.
                  To blame the barely pubescent kid for her/his own violent rape is just not okay.
                  THAT among other items such as supporting fracking, The War & Wall St. are reasons why I would never vote for Hillary.
                  On the other hand, can’t vote for silly Trump either.
                  A terrible position to be in come election day.

              • Mimmibelle, Bs…Legal aid to fed funded Disability Rts Quit cases ALL the time; leaving innocent victims that are violated with no case and no entity does anything about it. This has been a prob for decades thst all good social workers and other advocates see all the time! And defending case as best as a attorney should is bs. From rape victims, severe domestic violence, babies in severe lead slum apts and more; they are NOT getting the best legal representation, but substandard. Many cases are just a history of their income or welfare typed up, nothing to fight the case, and many are left on their own during court day!!!! Adhering to constitution and law is a Hillary and daily joke of every govt entity that daily has every level.of staff violate laws and contracts. Mandate reporting of violations is fed law and none are doing it. Go, even have your Usps mail stolen, not delivered and try the maze of bs as all govt staff are rude, argumentative, refuse to do their contracted job roles, as know their own Postmaster General, just as every OIG, is unreachable, enabling corruption to go on as a habit. Pray all you can rhat none of your fam ever has to deal with govt, from divorce child custody, taxes on land the govt wants or anything for then, welcome to the ratmaze that Clintons took advantage of to build up in fraud as fraud was already dotted all over every govt office or corporate vendor. Your in a very low awareness level, when you and all past generations should be pissed at yourselves for not monitoring PUBLIC SERVANTS in EVERY govt entity to adhere to all fed laws, fed state contracts, job role contracted requirements! Shame on you for not taking the time to read all the laws attached to every govt entity job and program, including Public Health Law. Calling Trump unfit as a citizens, you are unfit as never read the very laws and contracts that have been violated for decades now! I invite you to 3 way call to any entity for report of victims fed Rts violated in any program, for EVEry dang call is a three plus hr nightmare as gstaff violate vs adhere and vs MANDATE REPORT other violating govt staff!! And bs on the media stating that Trump cannot put Hilary in jail for all public laws state that EVERY level.of govt staff MUST MANDATE report to OIG, attorney general, FBI, and more of ANY violations they become aware of!! How stupid to not read all the laws and contracts and believe Clinton or media as our country is destroyed in and out as adhering to lawful job roles is as rare as a gold in your backyard! Ones not read the laws, nor deal with all these nonstop violating entities and stand by Hilary are insanely stupid. Again, come do three way calls and see how citizens lives destroyed just by fact, every call or cert letter is hours of BULKCRAP violations, cover-up, vs adhere to laws and contracts. You got 1000 hours to lose??..for that’s required when dealing with govt, to let your life fall, fighting a corrupt system at EVERY level. Do not want Trump, fine, write yourself in the ballot or vote for summer candidates. Vote for ones who WILL clean.out the mess in every level.of govt, not use it to become rich and cater to WallStreet and Epstein. Wake up..bout time you did. Too many on the America koolaid, dumbly thinking that govt cared about constitutional rights…Mass Americans living in lala land, NOT monitoring PUBLIC SERvants has enabled all of this. Do your job as a citizen, and by golly, read every law and mandate first; so you KNOW the law vs talk a bunch of crap enabling Clinton violations.

              • This is not true.

                She would have been sanctioned for quitting — at most, and probably so. But she could have quit. It is patently false that she could not quit. In fact, if an attorney cannot provide zealous representation, they must tell the judge in camera and then take their lumps. I would need more proof than her belated claim that she even tried to quit. I do not believe her.

                Lawyers are not slaves. Slavery is illegal. Quitting would not have impaired her law license. It would have cost her some money, and perhaps a bit of embarrassment, short term.

                But that is not the real point. The point is what she did as defense counsel.

                She chose to smear a 12-year-old child in the worst possible way, when true feminists were fighting to make such tactics off limits for ADULT women. And people lap this up, and believe this is good lawyering! Even the court turned down the request for psychiatric evaluation of the child, realizing it was unfounded.

                This “defense” tactic would no longer be legal today, but you believe it shows good lawyering. Sorry to hear lawyers are held in such disrepute. It is not generally deserved.

            • You do not require a license to practice being an animal rights activist. You DO require a license to practice law, and you must obey the laws that govern your license. You are comparing apples to oranges, here.

            • I agree with you 100% here I find it un-believable that she could defend a person that harmed a child. If she had a strong moral character she would have just outright refused the job

            • Agreed. This is like Edward Kennedy being lauded for being a champion of women’s rights. Yes, he passed much legislation, but he’s responsible for the death of a young woman. Scum bag rapist deserved a defense, but Clinton hired expert witnesses and traveled to New York — quite a bit of expense for a public defender. Something is rotten about this case.

          • HILLARY DID NOT HAVE TO TAKE THE RAPIST CASE NOR COULD SHE BE FORCED BY THE JUDGE TO ACCEPT IT. She had a very easy way out if she wanted. THE ETHICS RULES UNDER COMPULSORY REPRESENTATION IN THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOC MODEL RULES OF CONDUCT AND FEDERAL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES RULE 6.2 provides her an early exit with no penalty. It states with good cause that exist hillary COULD AVOID APPOINTMENT BY JUDGE OR TRIBUNAL AND DO NOT REQUIRE ATTORNEYS TO TAKE ON CLIENTS, CAUSES OR CASES THAT THEY FIND “REPUGNANT”. The judge could not force hillary nor hold ill will against her for declining the case. There were six female lawyers on the list to choose from and hillary had zero trial experience. She always claimed she was a champion of young women and children and volunteered all through school on there behalf. That qualifies as good cause. Besides all that listen to her own words, she took the case as a favor. Only 30 years later did she lie and say she was forced to take it and had no way out. hillary is a law professor and starts a law clinic yet shes too stupid to know the compulsory representation rules or shes a compulsive liar. Shes both. A couple years before this trial 27 year old hillary was fired from the house judiciary committee by lifelong democrat jerry zeifman. He says he fired her because she was a liar, dishonest, unethical, conspired to violate the constitution, hid evidence etc. She then takes the WASHINGTON DC bar exam and FAILS miserably. Poor little hillary then heads to arkansas to run future rapist in training bill clintons run for the house. With hillary at the helm of bills campaign they suffer defeat. BUT all is not loss, hillary meets judge cummings son, bills first money donor and campaign supporter. Good old judge cummings, his son, and the D.A are all democratic supporters and friends of future political stars bill and hillary before the trial. The innocent rape victim didn’t stand a chance. She was the victim yet the judge, hillary and the d.a. continued mind raping her before the trial even started. What kind of judge oks hillarys false character asassinations. Want kind of judge leaves hillary alone for several days with the bloody underware evidence on a trip to a bombed out section of new york to meet some so called expert in a really old basement. Whats to stop her from throwing the underware in the washer or sink. All of a sudden hillary tells the d.a. some expert from new york might come down, they crumble before her feet and the cases over. What about the 2 other witnesses. They didn’t arrest him till three days after the rape and beating. What if he put his clothes in the washer the next day. Eye witness testimony not good enough? Why did the judge reduce the sentence from 5 years in prison to 1 year in jail with work release in the day and only sleeping in jail at night after talking to hillary?

        • Yes, and the judge in the case followed the constitution and appointed a lawyer, Hillary Rodham. She didn’t want the case but the judge wouldn’t let her remove herself from it. In the end there was no trial anyway, the prosecution offered Taylor a plea bargain which he took and pleaded guilty. Hillary Rodham did not offer him the plea deal nor did she decide his sentence. If Hillary Rodham had refused the case after the judge told her she couldn’t remove herself it would have hurt her career as a lawyer and someone else would have had to defend Taylor anyway. Someone else here has already told you Taylor would have had a defense lawyer because the constitution guarantees him one. What do people not understand about this??

          • that the guilty go free. that human pain and suffering has a fee. that lawyers are sleazeballs. that the system’s rigged. that following the letter of the law is not always the same as doing the right thing. and that human made justice is by obv def imperfect, unfair, unjust, and an overall bad joke..;(

          • ” If Hillary Rodham had refused the case after the judge told her she couldn’t remove herself it would have hurt her career as a lawyer and someone else would have had to defend Taylor anyway.” And you call yourself a human being, Fionnuala. I am a feminist. To say that one’s JOB is worth more than a 12-year-old child is disgusting. And to say in defense of Clinton that “someone else would have had to defend the man,” – yes, using this defense – we can absolve the German guards at Buchinwald for beating Jews to death and throwing others into the gas chambers, because “Well, if I didn’t do it, someone else would.” If Clinton had quit her job, she could have known, “At least, it wouldn’t have been me.” I have tried to find a transcript of this trial, to no avail. But the thought of Clinton appearing day in and day out and destroying the poor 12-year-old girl makes my stomach turn. Which is what she did. She “didn’t want to hurt her career” – God, to think that you are walking around calling yourself a woman, Fionnuala, makes me heartsick. “Attention must be paid,” is a quote from an Arthur Miller play. And it must be paid to this 12-year-old’s ordeal at the hands of Clinton. God only knows what your morals are – but to defend Clinton like you just have is horrific. And, no, that does not excuse Donald Trump from anything he has said. Or detract from Clinton’s accomplishments. You are scary – and so pathetic, al,most funny in a way – but so sad.

          • WRONG. You do NOT have to take a case. They do NOT force you to take a case. She very well could have said no but she DIDN’T. She thought the case was “interesting” and she CHOSE to take it.
            And then LAUGHED because she knew he was guilty. The fact that you’re trying to DEFEND her is repulsive and about as low as you can go. What the hell is wrong with you?

          • People understand that smearing a 12 year old girl, a defense tactic in rape cases that has since become illegal even for grown women victims, was exceptionally low.

            And yes, she could have turned down the job. Lawyers are not slaves.

        • Its not like she got paid she was a legal aid attorney and refusing the judge was not an option. This was 1975, who knows what it was like for a female attorney in the south. According to the article the judge wanted her to step out of the room when he wanted to have a conversation that was inappropriate to have in front of a woman in his eyes. She had to argue for her right as an attorney to see the evidence. It also obviously bothered her because she tried twice to be removed from the case. So stop it!

        • What the hell does the constitution have to do with someone being required to doing their job? She was appointed to do an ugly job by a judge. She asked to be removed, the judge refused. Defenders are required to defend rapists, murderess etc. every day. Do you really think they are happy about it or seek them out? The accused in this country have the right to competent defenders. I guess you could argue she should have just quit and move on to another career, which would be ridiculous.

        • Umm, , did you not read that she tried to get out of it but was turned down and sent to the judge for a decision who also turned her down? Oh, right…She should have quit and gave up her dreams and goals over 1 case?! If she refused like you think she should have, she would have been sent packing!

      • As a woman and a feminist, I find your comment horrifying. Clinton wasn’t “stuck.” There may come a time in any life when you have to stand up for what you believe. We never let the Germans off the hook for turning their eyes from the atrocities Hitler was committing. Well, defending this man was an atrocity. Yes, it would have been hard – but she could have just quit as a lawyer – doesn’t one’s own moral code mean anything? What Joshua Green and your comment is saying is that one’s career comes before EVERYTHING in life. How did Clinton look herself in the mirror after going after this 12-year-old child – how could she not vomit when making accusations which she knew were false. A 12-year-old child. Nothing excuses this – turning a blind eye to what this despicable man did – to save her career – to quote Joseph Welch at the McCarthy trials, ” … have you left no sense of decency?” There is a qualification for calling yourself a human being – Hillary Clinton failed it – and so do you, dear Jayne for your appalling comment. “She did her job,” to quote you – oh God – the moral fiber of a leech.

        • Sorry Judy, but that’s ridiculous to say she should have just quit her career. Like it or not, the justice system in this country is based on innocent until proven guilty. What would it have gained if she quit? Someone else would have been assigned to the case becasue by the very founding principles of our country, the accused have a right to a competent lawyer. A lawyer puts forth their best defense. The prosecutors are responsible for putting forward a competent case. Is it only on the soul of the defense lawyer if a judge or jury comes back with a verdict you don’t like? Do you put the same standard on the lawyers who defend murderers like O.J or Robert Durst or the other thousands of despicable criminals; do you honestly expect that all those lawyers should have stepped down and quit their jobs too?

          • Oh dear Alicia – how you babble.” it’s my career – I’ll take the job.” In other words, there is nothing you or Clinton would put above your career. Not a 12-year-old child, not anyone. You must have been a 12-year-old girl once upon a time – can you imagine what it was like sitting in that courtroom having A WOMAN – say you “fantasized about older men” – a direct quote. Fine, defend murderers, rapists – sounds like you might relish that – but THIS WAS A CHILD. And yes, I draw the line there. She should have quit – but she didn’t and you wouldn’t have either. I am a feminist and this is disgusting. Fine, defend Clinton – she has done fine things – but not on this – never on this. I hope you are not a mother. A human being must draw the line about what is acceptable for he or she to do – otherwise we are no better than animals. Sorry, sweetie – you don’t quite qualify – well maybe as an animal, yes.

            • To take Judy Brinkworth’s premise to its logical conclusion:

              No lawyer can ever morally or ethically justify representing any man accused of raping a minor.

              Assuming the accused doesn’t admit to the crime and the lawyer wasn’t present at the time of the crime – how could the lawyer truly be certain of guilt or innocence.
              The Sixth Amendment and the Presumption of Innocence “Trump” Judy’s overly dramatic rage.

            • Judy … In every one of your responses, you write, “I am a feminist”. Calling another woman, regardless of her opinion or beliefs, an animal is not really part of the make up of what you claim to be. The Oxford Dictionary defines a feminist as “a person who believes in feminism, and tries to achieve change that helps women to get equal opportunities and treatment: ” Calling another woman an animal doesn’t quite seem to fill that bill now does it?

          • Yes, people in this country are “supposedly” innocent until proven guilty, and yes, she took the job as asked, but to be capable of mouthing the words
            “seeking out older men” in a courtroom against a child- is something only the most ambitious little piece of work could utter…
            THAT is a fact.
            Let it be yourself or your child & let’s see how you’d feel about it.

        • My God, right???
          WTF is wrong with these women??
          Let’s just say she was FORCED to take the case (she wasn’t) what has that got to do with her laughing??? Because she KNEW he was guilty. He doesn’t get more sick than that. Seriously. These “women” that are actually trying to defend HILLARY are, OMG there’s no words. It’s astonishing and repulsive.

        • Hillary was a woman at the beginning of her career in a time when she would have been facing massive levels of sexism. Perhaps you’re right; maybe she could have walked away. And her career would have gone too. Not to mention the outcome of the case would have been the same, because the prosecution had no evidence. Blame the man that raped the girl. Blame the idiots that lost the evidence. But Hillary Clinton was doing her job, and sadly, at that point in her career, she wasn’t in a position where she could turn the case down.

      • She wasn’t obligated to do ANY case. She could have easily said no. Judges and lawyers have been calling her a liar. But, nothin new. At this point it’s weird when she doesn’t lie.
        She’s pathetic.

      • Hillary could have recused herself but she wanted to keep a career. Recuse- challenge (a judge, prosecutor, or juror) as unqualified to perform legal duties because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality. She could have said she had a conflict of interest with regard to rapists but she didn’t…so she’s guilty as charged.

        • Yikes, such drama!

          It would NOT have cost her her career. Preposterous. Utterly preposterous.

          A sanction, at most. No impairment of her law license.

          And no, nothing justifies smearing a child victim. Today, such tactics in rape cases are illegal for adult victims.

      • A lawyer CANNOT be forced to take a case when appointed by a judge nor any penalty held against them. She merely had to show the judge the ethics rules of Compulsory Representation. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and The Federal Rules of Professional Responsibilities Rule 6.2 do provide a way out for lying Hillary. The rule states a judge cannot force an attorney to take a case, client, or cause that the attorney finds “REPUGNANT”. Lying Hillary supporters may want to look up meaning of repugnant. Hillary only had to show the judge proof she had worked or volunteered as a child advocate or the advancement of young female causes etc. She could of cited her lack of experience in serious felonys. She had zero trial experience and six female lawyers were on the list. But listen to the recording, she took the case as a favor never mentions being forced or trying to get out of case until 30 years later. Just remember she can’t help herself she’s always been a compulsive liar. The biggest criminal in this misscarage of justice is the judge!! He let hillary subject the girl to false allegations and affidavits and smear campaigns, false testimony, unnecessary examinations physical and mental and the trial hadn’t even started yet. Hillary doesn’t mention a day after arriving at hospital her brain swelled up from the “fondling” the rapist did to her face with his fist when she threatened to tell. Her mom says in another interview she’s not the same girl since that beating he gave her. Her speach and half the smile on her face is gone. Can’t they see shes had enough, it’s like she’s being raped all over again. Why was left alone with what she called bloody underwear for a few days on a trip to new York, where she meets some uncle Festus type “expert” in a small cellar packed with detective magazines. This expert who she can’t recall his name or exactly where he retired from pulls out a magnifying glass says he doesn’t see enough and all of a sudden the case is over before it started. She could’ve thrown the underwear in the washing machine or the sink. He pleads to a lesser change with a 5 year prison sentence. Hillary gets that reduced to 1 year and work release during the day only sleeping at the jail at night. Why is Hillary laughing and snickering when retelling the case? Because it’s the first thing she won, though not without the judges help. A couple years earlier according to her boss she fired from a job at the House Judiciary Committee for being a liar, dishonest, unethical etc. She then fails the Washington dc bar exam. She then heads to Arkansas to join fiancee Bill Clinton and run his campaign for the Arkansas house. She meets judge Cummings son who becomes Bill’s first money donor to campaign. Judge Cummings and son were supporters of Bill. They were all friends. Bill’s campaign run by Hillary lost. She then started the law clinic and volunteered to represent the rapist with a lot of help from the judge in my opinion. Hillary ecstatic with her first trial win marries Bill a few months later. He then runs unapossed for AG of Arkansas and wins. That’s when their life of crime really gets going on their way to governer, president and rulers of all their brainwashed uninformed lemmings.

        • Your inclusion of the word “lying” in front of Hillary’s name and your general rant of irrelevant opinions and hate disqualifies you from making a sane argument. Refusing a case is not as simple as that and you know it. A court appointed attorney cannot simply refuse a case because they don’t like the accused or think they’re guilty and don’t forget that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. A judge will not accept an attempt to refuse a case based on the fact that the attorney just doesn’t like the person. On a showing of conflict of interest or inability to represent the defendant effectively, the public defender may submit a petition to the court to be recused. A conflict of interest must be proven and may be rejected. Hillary clearly attempted to be removed from the case and the judge rejected her petition. You are twisting things to fit your narrative. Finally, “rulers of all their brainwashed uninformed lemmings”? You clearly have no brain. Grow up.

          • Your an idiot. Liston to the tape she took the case as a favor to the prosecutor. First of all she’s not a public defender !!! She never mentions trying to get off the case on the tape. She says she found it interesting. Thirty years later

      • Well said! I am so frustrated with the blown out of proportion BS! I’m not a big Hillary fan but geez people, read all the evidence before believing only what the Anti-Hillary people and headlines say! Whether or not you like the woman be mature enough to read the facts and accept that maybe she isn’t some awful person in every single situation for the last 40 plus years! She tried to get out of it. I’m SO sick of people saying she took this case as though she sought out some rape case because she wanted to help the guy. I can’t believe what I read sometimes.

      • You’re right, Jayne. And Ms. (Rodham) Clinton had no responsibility to go to New York and seek the advice of the supposed “expert” in the field of that type of forensic evidence. He obviously examined the underpants thoroughly and concluded that there was nothing available there to be tested by any scientist for guilt or innocence to be found. The Sheriff’s Office or the Arkansas “expert” obviously “disposed” of or “lost” the evidence after a hole was cut in the underpants, thus rendering that piece of evidence useless. Upon learning this information from the expert in NY, Ms. (Rodham) Clinton returned to the Judge in Arkansas to inform him of what she had learned in NY. She DID NOT have to got to NY to pursue this case any further, but she did.

      • Yes, she could have told the Judge that she didnt feel she could represent the defendant as the constitution says he is entitled. The Judge NEVER would have refused that request because he would then be held accountable for not providing an unbiased defense attorney for the accused. Hillary Clinton is the devil ! She is not an advocate for women and children. She is only an advocate for herself.

      • Hillary didn’t HIRE any forensics guy. You pay someone you fire. She could never have afforded the unnamed expert she refers to. I know who it is. Her recount doesn’t add up for that and many other reasons. Giving her sole custody of the evidence would have violated the chain of custody, and the rules of every court in the United States. Experts test and examine evidence at venues of the prosecution’s choosing, and the evidence doesn’t leave their custody prior to a verdict. EVER. She said she negotiated the plea bargain with Mahlon Gibson. Mahlon Gibson didn’t hand the case, another prosecutor did.

        She’s LYING. The woman is a pathological prevaricator.

      • Stop parroting what you either know nothing about, or choose to lie about because you can’t face the truth.

        No lawyer in the entire history of this part of the world, has ever been sanctioned for refusing to represent a client. There is no such obligation. Even a lawyer who is appointed to a case, can be excused without repercussions as provided for in the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct:

        Rule 6.2 Accepting Appointments

        A lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to represent a person except for good cause, such as:

        (a) representing the client is likely to result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;

        (b) representing the client is likely to result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer; or

        (c) the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer’s ability to represent the client.

        Note “(c)”.

        According to Mahlon Gibson,the prosecutor for Washington County in 1975, Hillary Clinton told him that she didn’t want to take this case because “she didn’t like those kind of cases and those types of folks (Taylor).” That sounds like a pretty sound definition of repugnant to me. And if she didn’t feel repugnant about him, presuming him guilty, as the evidence suggests she did, that’s an even more egregious indictment of her character!

        Thanks for playing though.

      • CLARIFY for me PLEASE precisely what Hillary Rodham’s RESPONSIBILITY was the required her to take this case? She was NOT a Public Defender in that county was she??? The Constitution calls for the indigent to have legal counsel when accused of a crime. It does NOT say they get to “fire” the court-appointed FREE counsel. THAT WOULD BE INSANE and would drag the criminal justice to a complete halt. It is already SLOW enough. This is STUPID. She was NOT a Public Defender, (and NO, I do not care how “busy” the Public Defenders were at that time in Arkansas. I am trained as an ER Physician. Don’t talk to me about being busy. Ask the doctors who had to suture Kathy Shelton’s genitalia how busy THEY were and how sorry they feel for the Public Defender’s case load and whether they think Hillary HAD to take this case. Work in the E.R. for ONE 12-hour shift before you talk about what cases a professional “has to take.”) Hillary Rodham was trying to start a “free legal aid clinic” at the University of Arizona, an early rung on her political ladder, no doubt. This rapist, (oh sorry—you prefer I call him a “fondler of 12 year-old girls”??) , Thomas Alfred Taylor, already HAD an assigned Public Defender in his county. He complained that he wanted a female. The prosecutor and the judge probably thought it would be funny to make Hillary do it. It was 1975 and she was a young female lawyer about to Marry Bill Clinton. She didn’t have the courage to stand up to them and say “NO.” AFTER she VOLUNTARILY agreed (I don’t CARE how coerced she felt), then and only then was she required to defend him to the best of her ability. Last time I checked, to the best of her ability would NOT include BLAMING the 12 year-old victim. ANYONE who defends THAT is SICK.Hillary Rodham was a woman-hater then and she is now. Adding Clinton to her name has certainly not lessened the truth of that statement.

        I LOVE how poor old Hillary Rodham “had to” defend this guy (no responsibility on Hillary’s part) but the 12 year-old Kathy Shelton was then accused (buy Hillary) of CAUSING her own rape. CLASSIC.

    • Can you comprehend the information presented in the article above? It said 1. The prosecutor bungled the case and as a result offered a plea deal due to lack of evidence. Clinton did not request a lighter sentence it was offered and she allowed her client to take the deal. You also missed the fact that she was appointed to the case by a judge not taking the case was not an option. It was her job to defend Taylor, she is a lawyer and had to do they best she could. Would it have made sense to throw the case? No it would have probably ended up in appeals and with her being charged with misconduct. You may dislike HRC for whatever reason, but this is not a rational reason to. Then you would hate every lawyer who has had to defend a client that was guilty and the prosecution for messing up the case.

      • She could have quit. Period. At least then she could look herself in the mirror with some dignity. But this is not a “rational reason” to dislike what Clinton did? Who are you? It is “rational” to stand up for what you believe in – THIS WAS A 12-YEAR OLD GIRL. There is a psychological term called “confirmation bias.” Look it up – it is beyond belief how you defend her on this – quick – try and think what you would write if anyone else but Hillary Clinton had done this – hopefully, you would be disgusted – but as you are you, maybe not. Sad. I admire Clinton for her many accomplishments – but to laud her for this is beyond shameful. It is people like you – defending Clinton on this episode – who make it very hard to vote for her – we simply do not want to be in your appalling league.

        • Actually, you are the one who needs to look up confirmation bias and while your at it look up cognitive bias as well. Your last sentence is contradictory and makes no sense.

      • The lighter sentence was offered largely because the girl and her mother wanted the case resolved so that the 12-year-old would not have to face any more grillings like the 5-1/2 hour ordeal she was put through by Hillary’s hand-picked psychiatrist. The court ordered that exam because Hillary’s client, the rapist, made an unsubstantiated claim that the girl had “fantasized” the entire episode and had made similar allegations against others before. Without naming the defendant as the source in her affidavit pursuant to the motion she filed for the exam, she stated “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming that they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.” She then goes on to cite the work of a supposed “child psychologist” she doesn’t name, to back up this totally unsubstantiated allegation.

        You can ague if you like that she was only defending her client to the utmost of her ability, but given that she could have had herself excused and already knew Taylor was guilty when she put this little girl he had viciously attacked, on trial… this is arguably damning of the woman. I’d be willing to bet she fabricated the testimony of the child psychologist she cites. Why isn’t he or she named? Hillary worked for the Children’s Defense Fund for years, she could easily have quoted from one of her post-graduate text-books.

        Hillary misstated facts or outright lied about details or episodes in 9-10 different ways that I’ve detected so far. Eventually, I’m sure it’s going to come out that she violated ethics or the law in her handling of it, and that will put all of her “aggressive defense” in the proper perspective. Unfortunately, it will probably be too late, unless a lot of people in WA-DC grow a set and impeach her for just cause (you don’t have to violate the law while you are President, you just need to have committed “high crimes and misdemeanors at some point).

    • @manifordo and @janinec4 , do you have trouble reading English? Did you actually even try to read this article? Many of the things you state are quite clearly refuted by the very article you’re commenting on.

      • This “article” is a travesty and should be redacted immediately. Whoever wrote this garbage should be fired. And raped until they couldn’t have children.
        Repulsive, shameful writing.

        • Actually, the story that she asked to be removed or fought to not take the case only emerged 25 years later. When first discussed 20 years earlier, the reason given for taking the case was “as a favor for a friend.” No additional information was given.

    • You obviously don’t understand the adversarial judical system. Everyone is entitled to legal representation regardless of presumption of guilt and that the advocate (aka Lawyer) is bound to argue the case as best as possible given the circumstances and within the law (i.e. they cannot knowingly withhold evidence). Anything less than this leads to a possibility of an unbalanced legal system.

  2. I’ve listened to the tape–presented as evidence that she did not laugh about getting him off–which is truth. But what stood out like a sore thumb for me, in this “Champion for Women and Children” “I’m with you lower class people (while I wear the ugliest but most expensive jacket in the world”)—what shows me–not that she laughed at ANYTHING in the case (it’s called gallows humor and all professions have it)–what shows her TRUE COLORS is when asked about the case in this interview she says, “It was an interesting case, really. A LITTLE GIRL FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TRACKS . . .” Really now. “I’m down with you people from the other side of the tracks, the side I’M NOT ON–you know, the OTHER SIDE from where I stand and eat and live. This witch, (did I spell that wrong?) is as deplorable as Trump, and can mentor Pinocchio in the fine art of lying through your teeth with your nose up in the air. In some photos if that nose went up any higher, she would drown if it rained. Hmmmmmmm

    • She was conveying a great deal of information by specifying that the victim was “from the wrong side of the tracks.” As a child of that geography, I understand it and am not offended by it. Imo, Hillary Rodham Clinton is a true statesperson and Donald Trump is a POS who has been using our presidential election process as an opportunity to practice for his future career in infomercials.

      • Apparently you are party driven. As long as she is a Democrat, she is fine. Well, she isn’t. Trump is a disaster. She is a disaster as well. Neither of them should be President of the United States. She was obligated to defend him, meaning that she should get him to plead down to the least offense that the situation would command if he was guilty. Being from the wrong side of the tracks should not have ended in a man getting away with raping a 12 year old.

        • You’re right, Jeb. And remember, even if the victim liked it (which I don’t believe she did), it’s still rape. SHE WAS 12 FREAKING YEARS OLD, HILLARY!

      • Sounds like you have the “woman problem”, Lowe. You sound like an idiot and a pig. This child was raped and beat into a coma, she was never able to have children because of this violent attack. The issue is not that Hillary represented a pedo rapist, that is what defense attorneys do, it was her unethical, immoral and frankly disgusting behavior that she continues to this day. So you think you are an authority on the morality of her statements because you are from that “geographical area”? So you think it is ok to suggest a 12-year old CHILD is from the “wrong-side” of the tracks, that she was “promiscuous” and that she “fantasized” about older men, so everyone should trust you that it is ok because you are from that area?? WTF does you coming from the same “geographical area” have to do with anything? Hillary is a pig, she is a bitch and she is a pathological liar. Only empty-headed liberal trash will attempt to defend terrorizing and lying about a 12 year-old rape victim. The only excuse for her behavior is that she is morally defective person.

        • I am in total agreement with your statement. I don’t care if the 12 year-old got naked and did a dance for him. She was 12!! Yes, I am sure she wanted to be horrifically raped, I mean, she is from the wrong side of the tracks. That is the most ignorant statement, claiming to understand the point Hillary was claiming, because you are from the area. So, if I am from the area that Hitler was from, then I understand concentration camps and hatred of Jewish people. If she truly cared about children, it would of not mattered if she lost her license. What a great story that would of made if she had done that. I may have voted for her!

      • I don’t care whether she is a woman or not. Getting this guy such a light sentence when he was guilty was wrong. She had a guilty client. She had an obligation to defend him, she didn’t have an obligation to take apart a twelve year old girl in order to do it.

        • Yes she did have an obligation to defend to the best of her ability and did try to get off the case… and while all of you are outraged by her defending him where is your outrage for Trump and the aligations of him and another man rapeing a13 year old girl

    • And remember, Bill Clinton is one of those poor kids from the other side of the tracks. If Hillary treated him with one tenth of the contempt with which she had treated Young Kathy, then no wonder he looked for companionship outside of the marriage. Of course, Bill Clinton is a piece of work also. I don’t much like the other guy, but I really don’t want those Clintons back in the White House. They’re just downright mean.

  3. This is all you need to read or hear. “Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.” Clinton and Reed both laugh at this remark.

  4. That was terrific investigating! Can you fact check Baylor rape cases like that? Or are student athletes just so evil that they must be guilty

    • It’s just that the people who are doing the investigations at Baylor are so incompetent that the athletes feel free to rape and pillage.

  5. Oh look, a journalist toting water for the rich.and powerful, and kiddie rapers too.

    My grandma was a whore during the great depression. There’s always an honourable way to earn a living. You don’t have to be a journalist. I can help you find decent work like whoring or dealing heroin, if you ever want to make a change in life.

    Just saying…

  6. She could have told the judge that she could not give the defendant the kind of defense he was entitled to because she was too emotionally disturbed by the crime he committed. You couldn’t ask animal rights activist to defend someone who tortured an animal to death. They just could not defend such a person even if they wanted to. They just could not put their heart into defending someone like that.

    • There are valid reasons for a PD bowing out of a case. One of the those reasons is a case where the defendant is someone an attorney can’t represent properly for whatever reason. You wouldn’t ask an attorney to defend someone who killed murdered a child if their own child was murdered. If Hillary cared so about rape victims she never could have defended this rapist.

  7. None of this changes the fact she laughed and admitted he was leiing and beat the lie detector Please stop lieing on her behave it lessens u

  8. I like how this article leaves out the fact that Shelton was injured so badly she could never have children, and the way Hillary taunted her in the courtroom

  9. Fact check number 5, my understanding is they cut out the part of the underwear with blood and semen and it was evaluated by a crime lab in Arkansas. The remaining part of the underwear(minus the blood and semen soaked part)was sent to NY. That was the evidence that the expert in NY said did not have enough physical evidence to evaluate. A big difference. Set us straight on that

    • Also my understanding is the evidence sent to the crime lab in Arkansas came back showing Kathy Shelton’s blood mixed with the rapists semen, any reporting you can share on that also? Any reporting on why the blood and semen on the part that was cut out was thrown away or lost?

  10. I am a woman. I am a feminist. And I find it absolutely horrifying that Hillary Clinton defended this man. “Oh, she had to, to save her career.” Then she should have quit. How did she look herself in the mirror after this? How – a 12-year-old girl – I cannot conceive how any woman, or man, could justify this – her career or a 12-year-old child. It would have been a hard decision – but how she didn’t vomit when making the allegations against this child is beyond the pale. There comes a time when you have to stand up for what you believe in – it may harm you, it may “hurt your career,” but, for God’s sake – where was Clinton’s moral code? I guess we know many lawyers are sleazy – but this is beyond the pale – and to defend Clinton now on this – I’m surprised that the author of this piece didn’t vomit, himself, when he wrote it. A 12-year-old child. That he would even try to defend Clinton on this is disgusting. One has to stand for something in one’s life – .that is more important than any career. Period.

    • Stop it. All you are repeating is your convoluted opinion. Read the article, Hillary Rodham defended a client as a public defender assigned to a case.

      • Guess you’d feel the same if you had no one useful defending you after being raped so badly that you couldn’t have children.
        Oh, and add being from “the wrong side of the tracks” & 12 years of age to it.

    • You, Just like many others have a hard time accepting what rights we all have in this country; a fair trial. That means two sides of a story are presented and the JUDGE decides the outcome. We got rid of angry villagers with pitchforks for a reason. You are basically saying Hillary or anyone else should of not represented this man in court. Even

    • It seems you have a hard time(like many others here) understanding what right we have in this country; a fair trial. Is it so much that Hillary defended him? Or anyone in general? There is a reason we got rid of angry town folk mobs with pitchforks. There are two sides told and it is up to the JUDGE to determine one’s fate. Sounds to me like you wish you could be the judge in any case’s outcome you disagree with. You’re basically saying everyone should of refused to take this case and defend him…in essence sealing his fate. So we let the judicial system do it’s job…until we disagree with it and then we take things into our own hands but only if YOU disagree with it? Me? Anyone who’s last name starts with a z? Please enlighten me on these new rules.

      • Yes, the judge ended up allowing him to serve only 10 months of a 5-year sentence for a sex crime against a 12-year-old girl. Sounds like the judge was crooked as well as the defense attorney. Find out who the defendant;s family is, and you’ll find out why there was so much effort put into this case. Little towns have a way of protecting their own. It’s not always about how much money you have, but rather who your mama is. And I must call out the inmates and correctional officers of the county jail. Don’t they have an obligation to shank child rapists?

  11. So the author edited the story but didn’t note how he edited it, It is my understanding you still have it wrong…the part of the underwear that was cut out was examined and did have enough blood and semen on it to convict. The evidence was “lost” or “thrown out”.The remaining underwear (with the patch cut out) was sent to New York. WHAT KIND OF “JOURNALIST” ARE YOU?? Clarify.

    • RIGHT??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE???
      I cannot believe I’m reading these people defending HILLARY.
      WTF??
      Whatever “blogger” wrote this need to get raped into a coma.
      These people are disgusting

  12. Sad how the Acts of an awful Man somehow wound up haunting both of these Women. Even Sadder that no one seems to see that but focuses more on ‘did she or didn’t she laugh?’

    • You’re a douche, Sarah. To compare a Sarah’s real life-changing trauma to Hillary’s momentary discomfort is ridiculous. Hillary is an accessory after the fact. She clearly revictimized Kathy and is still doing so by not showing any personal responsibility or contrition. And the rapist is dead and not running to be the President of the United States.

  13. If she’s really “always been a supporter of women’s and children’s rights” then the answer is simple. She should have FOLLOWED HER CONSCIENCE (supposing she actually has a moral compass) & said “No, I will not SUPPORT and DEFEND a CHILD RAPIST. Period. We are ALL motivated in life by doing what a basic conscience allows us to do! If and I mean IF, “defending this predator” meant she got to “keep her job” then she should’ve QUIT her job and instead, worked perhaps part time FOR the prosecutor’s office and directed her TIME AND EFFORTS putting AWAY “SEX OFFENDERS” rather than DEFENDING THEM!!

  14. Another leftist media white wash. They are attempting to make this a 6th amedment issue, saying Clinton was only doing her job and against her wishes. ( where have we heard that one before?) The fact is she went way beyond what the court would expect of a defending attorney and laughed about the case several times in the years since that followed. At the very least she is guilty of victim blaming in the affidavit she submited. At worst she got a man she believed to be a vicious child rapist off the charge of 1st degree rape. Either way she is certainly not the pro female and children candidate she claims to be.

  15. What a bullshit, ignorant article. Do you think we’re stupid?? Anyone that has heard the video knows damn well what she was laughing about. SHE WAS LAUGHING BECAUSE SHE KNEW HE WAS GUILTY.
    This is a repulsive art and you should be ashamed of yourself

  16. So, if Counselor Clinton could defend her client simply by demonstrating there was not sufficient physical evidence, then why would she put Ms. Shelton through humiliating psychiatric examinations and why would she engage in blaming the victim for seeking the company of older gentleman? I believe her comment about Ms. Shelton coming from the wrong side of the tracks demonstrates that she considered this young victim as expendable. Her prejudice is that she believes that the girl asked for it. There is a nexus between the dismissive attitude she had toward Ms. Shelton and her attitude that there are super predators endemic to black culture. Ms. Clinton is an elitist with contempt for those very people she claims to champion. Further, one must question her motivation about going to the time and expense of traveling to New York City in order to defend a client in Arkansas? The fishy part about this is that the defendant was allowed to ask that his male attorney be replaced by a female attorney (most indigent defendants have no such luxury). The defendant was part of a family who owned a farm. Undoubtedly someone in that family had some pull with the courts. Ms. Shelton had little to no support and of course many the records have been lost. The Clintons seem to be plagued by missing records — and missing and destroyed people.

  17. I too care about who will sit in the Oval Office as President and by all that’s Holy I Pray it isn’t Donald Trump. Clinton was a legal aid lawyer who was forced to take the rape case. (Mahlon Gibson the Prosecutor suggested that she take her pleas to the judge, which Clinton did. But the judge was unsympathetic, ordering her to take Taylor’s case.) She was doing her job, the way you people act like she is the only woman who ever defended a rapist. Let look at Trump, there is a Lawsuit Charging Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl, filed in New York. Why aren’t you speaking on that?
    Hillary is the Candidate not Bill. So she stood for her husband, I thought that was what you Evangelicals/Christians promote since you are the family values party.
    Trump couldn’t clean up the economy if money started falling from the sky. He is using his Foundation money for his personal use and he is not paying his fair share of his taxes, which would truly help the National Debt.
    Trump help the inner cities, that is strictly BULLSHIT and people in the inner cities pay their taxes, because they come for the middle-class and poor people first.

  18. Well, I never heard of this news ( LOL ) outlet before. But reading this one story, I see it is a liberal propaganda website. I did a little back ground check on this site. ( Founded in 1999 as an entertainment website and then switched over to Hard News ROMBLOL!!!! ). I really don’t mind an open minded fair and balanced news organization, but this story by itself has totally acquitted Hillary of any wrong doing. That in itself leaves the words Liberal Propaganda Website as ringing true. I don’t know all of the things the Clintons have done, But I do know that she isn’t a nice person. No mater what you say, a 12 year old girl doesn’t instigate Rape. I have a 18year old nephew, that had consensual Sex with a 14year old girl and he is doing time, because it is called RAPE!!!!! Hillary said the 12 year old was instigating sex with a 41 year old! Hello! That is still called RAPE! I’ve heard the tapes too… there is nothing in the conversation worth laughing at unless your a sick, twisted, demented person. I bet this wont make it on the comments page, ( because Liberal Media only shows what they want to show on a story ) due to it not being part of their agenda or lining up with their philosophies.

  19. How can anyone defend that nasty crotch Hillary Clinton? What this story is leaving out is the fact that in Common Law one does not have to prove non-consent if a male is left bleeding from a sexual injury. Why is the protection for so called ‘accidents’ of straight sex not up for discussion? If a man is sexually injured it its not necessary to prove non-consent to get a conviction and a substantial sentence.

  20. To all the blind Clinton worshipers out there, she did NOT have to take the case!!! A lawyer may refuse a judges appointment for several reasons. She merely had to remind the judge of the rule of ethics. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct : Rule 6.2 provides that good cause will exist to avoid appointment by a tribunal to represent a person where client or cause they find REPUGNANT. This is also cited under the Lawyers Federal Rules of Professional Responsibilities. Showing proof of her years as a child advocate and defender of children’s rights which she had plenty of, would have been more then enough to relieve her of compulsory representation. She could have also cited lack of experience in serious felony rape cases. She had zero trial experience and there were 6 other female lawyers available on the list. Remember Hillary’s a compulsive liar she can’t help herself. On the tape she says she took the case as a favor to the prosecutor. She also presented a false made up character assassination of the girl, and was allowed to take evidence unsealed in her possession for several days? She could’ve thrown the underware in washing machine or the sink. She left with bloody underwear, by the time she makes it to uncle festers dungeon he can’t see anything with a magnifying glass? And the prosecutor believes this and plead down? Hillary’s memory then improves 20 years after taped interview and changes the story to make her look better. The real criminal is the judge who let Hillary and the prosecutor get away with this. The rapist was allowed work release during the one year sentence only returning to jail at night to sleep. He walked by the girls house on the way to work everyday. Oh did I mention the judge and hillary were friends before this. The judge and his son were supporters of Bill Clinton’s run for the house a year before. Hillary ran that campaign with help of judges money doner son. Bill married hillary same year as trail.

    • Thanks for the additional information. Couldn’t agree more with you about the judge and I am disgusted that the DA did not pursue the rape case even without the underwear evidence. How Clinton was allowed to remove evidence and taken it NYC to defense hack is something I have never heard in 20 years in law enforcement. Sounds like the judge, the prosecutor, and Hillary Clinton conspired to against a 12 year old rape victim.

  21. Hillary Clinton claims to be a champion of women’s rights.
    She is not and not even close.
    Hillary has hurt more women than men to get her way.
    Hillary is a champion of no one but herself.
    The fact that Hillary laughed at this horrible rape case makes her disgusting.
    A child was raped and hurt forever.
    Hillary Clinton made that child cry in court so she could win a case.
    Hillary even accused the child of liking older men when there was no proof of that.
    Hillary’s entire history is like that.
    Clinton just doesn’t care who she hurts as long as she gets her way.
    Bernie Sanders was right when he said …
    “Hillary Clinton is unfit to be president.”

    George Vreeland Hill

  22. “Claimed to have laughed” Listen to the tape, she laughs, she boasts about getting this guy off and admits to knowing that he is guilty. Advocate for children and women my ass. She is a lying piece of shit!

  23. And 6. Kathy Shelton, at 12 years old, after the brutal rape, woke up with stitches in her vagina. She was told that there was a 99% chance she will never have children and she never did. I learned that today via an interview.

  24. Clinton establishment, including, who wrote this! For all you idiots, how would you feel if this was your own 12 year old daughter?
    The women/Killary, is a major lie! JOKE! Criminal…..she took the election from SANDERS! Will probably cheat, along with MEDIA
    ESTABLISHMENT and MILLIONS of ILLEGALS. In the END WE WILL ALL “LOSE”, IF THIS SICK WOMEN WINS! ALL the Muslims
    She is letting in will take over and KILL US! Already starting, my second home state, a Muslim killed “FIVE” people in MACYS, FOR NO
    REASON, again, what if one of them was your family! I was FORCED to LEAVE my HOME, FAMILY, FRIENDS, AFTER 36 years,
    because I didn’t want to raise my child in MEXICO/with Criminals who were driving DRUNK and allowed to walk away after crimes such as
    crashing Into a parked car going 100! Using FAKE names and SSI Numbers, collecting all the AMERICAN resources/WIC,WELFARE, MEDICAL
    etc. that TAX PAYS FOR! INCLUDING THE SOCIAL SECURITY I/we paid into for years! Soon, the whole United States will be like Mexical!
    Even in the State I live in I was Hit by Illegal/NO INSURANCE, COPS DID NOTHING! WAKE UP AMERICA AND VOTE FOR THE LAST HOPE WE HAVE! TRUMPpence2016

  25. This account of the case does not mention that Hillary had this girl subjected to a series of psychological tests, a process which is now illegal under rape shield laws. Imagine your daughter raped and beaten into a coma, with tearing in her vaginal area so bad that it required stitches and being told she can never have children, and after identifying her attackers, the attorney requires her to go through many tests to determine her “emotional fitness”. Imagine further there is physical evidence with the attackers semen that was tested in a crime lab that gets thrown out because Hillary demanded to do an “Independent sample” and suddenly the part of the underwear with the sample goes missing? I cannot imagine any of you Hillary supporters being a fan of her if this was your daughter. Even if Hillary didn’t have to take the case, she did not need to subject this girl to hell.

  26. she didn’t “trick” them into cutting the underpants — not at all. however, what she did do, and what it sad and unethical, is she LIED to the court. she told the judge the old guy in Brooklyn was ready to fly down to Arkansas to testify for the defense. in reality, he told her that the underpants (with the hole in them) could not be tested. telling the court the guy from Brooklyn was ready to fly down to Arkansas to prevent a “miscarriage of justice” is an outright, boldface lie. all that guy could have said if he did testify was the underwear could not be tested as the evidence on them was destroyed. he testimony would’ve proven NOTHING. yet, Hillary led the court to believe this forensic expert was going to testify for the defense. she lied in order to get a deal for the rapist she was defending. and it worked too. and yes she laughed about doing this. pretty eye opening and i’m a democrat!!

    • I’ll do you one better jenkins, I’m not sure she made the trip at all. I’ve never heard of a case, not from that era anyway, where the defense was given sole custody of the evidence to consult with an expert witness who hadn’t even been retained. And you’re right, she was being totally disingenuous in saying the guy was ready to “come up from NYC and prevent this ‘miscarriage of justice’.” She could never have afforded to hire him, for one thing.

  27. This story reinforces what many people think of Hillary. She became apart of a corrupt system at a very young age. Her mentors did her and America a disservice!!

  28. Clinton Did Not “Volunteer” for the Case, She Tried to Get Out of Defending Taylor for raping ;Kathy Shelton( Kathy Shelton Rape Case)
    Bullshit. she lied about the case , she humiliated the child, accused her of being a liar and wanting to be raped by older men. She emotionally and mentally tortured a 12 year old child on the writness stand.

  29. I find it appaling, all these ignorant “she could have quit” comments. First off do you know how much time and money it takes to become a lawyer? And you are telling me you would just up and quit, lose your license, after working so hard to get it, if you were in the same position? Yeah right. I dont think so. Everyone needs to stop acting like they better than everyone else.

  30. Wow, talk about a pro-Hillary spin!. Why not mention that how on the tape Hillary says she was asked to take the case as a favor? Then years later when Hillary wrote her book, Hillary’s story changes that she had no choice but to take the case. Talk about omitting evidence!

    Hillary laughs throughout the story. Does it really matter if she laughs at the exact point that she describes the reduced sentence as an afterthought with no concern for the victim? Isn’t it bad enough that she laughs on how she represented the potential conviction of the child rapist she believed to be guilty would be a miscarriage of justice?

    Isn’t slut shaming a 12 year old rape victim wrong whether or not is was legal to do so?

  31. Does her teaching law and being a lawyer give her a pass on 18 UScode793 f,g,h I don.t think so . Picking on a 12 year old to save a rapist ? I do not care what the judge said . I would quit my job or go to jail before I attacked a little girl . Her actions speak volumes about her character . Liar ( every word out of her mouth) . Donation thief (ask Haiti) . Champion of womans issues( ask Kathy Shelton) which shows she’s not someone I trust within 1000yards of a child . Election theft conspiracy ( go ask Debby W Shultz). Saudi Arabia who knows how to destroy Trade centers gives her millions for what .

  32. So all of you who don’t like Hillary for defending this man against the rape charges, how do you feel about Donald Trump’s lawyer defending him against the civil suit FOR RAPING A 12 YEAR OLD? Better yet, shouldn’t you be angrier at the rapist? Taylor? And Trump? Sheesh. BTW Hillary started a rape hotline in Arkansas after this case because it horrified her.

  33. My goodness, you right wingers are such fools. Twisting and squirming around evidence like snakes. Letting your emotions rule your brains. You have established your hatred of Hillary Clinton and are seeing only what fits into that narrative. Did you all miss the part about setting up a free legal service for those who can’t afford a lawyer. Is that not an indication of character? Do you not believe in a constitutional right to a defense? If you do, who should perform that defense. Many claim she could have said no. She in fact could not say no without destroying her career. It’s a lawyers obligation to give the best defense they can. Are you suggesting that Hillary should not have given the best defense she could? Are you aware that she was so disturbed by the case that she set up a rape hotline afterwards. Perhaps laughing at all was inappropriate but she certainly did not laugh at the victim or her success in the case. Do none of you ever laugh at an inappropriate time? Is that an indication of your character? It’s quite clear all you hateful morons need something to pass judgement on so you can feel better about yourselves.

  34. So the defense, here, is that even though Hillary knew her client to be guilty, it was more important to her to win the case, then to seek justice and defend the public at large from a rapist and child molester? Well, then…..that’s who I want running the country! (Oh, and thanks for telling everyone what you heard on the taped interview with Hillary, instead of letting people hear for themselves. Because the press is always so honest and above board, these days.)

  35. The author of this article tries so hard to paint Clinton as innocent, but fails. Anyone who listens to the audio cam hear her laughing for themselves. She had no issue destroying the reputation of a 12 year-old virgin left in a coma and infertile due to the brutal rape

  36. I have seen no comment on this affidavit she filed in the case. It is not proper for a lawyer to inject her credibility into a case, which she did. Furthermore, she makes these hearsay assertions with no mention of supporting witnesses. She further filed the motion for a mental exam of the girl, a material witness, probably unpredented, requesting that it occur three days later. This is contrary to notice procedures, i. e. some reasonable time for the adverse party, the prosecution, to respond, not to mention necessity for sufficient time for th court conduct a hearing. Hard to say whether it was a case of somebody not knowing how to practice or law or something sinister.