Hillary Clinton just keeps digging herself deeper and deeper when she tries to defend herself against embarrassing gaffes. In this piece by Jonathan Tobin in Commentary Magazine, we see that Hillary has contradicted an earlier version of her account of a rape case she took on as an attorney in Arkansas prior to her husband becoming president.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/07/08/hillarys-clinton-rape-case-answer-doesnt-work-war-on-women/
"I was appointed by the local judge. I asked to be relieved of that responsibility but I was not."
"But in her account of the case in the interview with a writer from Esquire magazine that was found in the archives of the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, Clinton told a different story. In that version she said she took the case as a favor to the local prosecutor who told her that the rapist wanted a woman to defend him."
So which is it, Hillary?
"What difference at this point does it make? "
As it is with the Clintons, neither version can be taken on face value, but if one of them is true, I'll go with the earlier version since it is much closer in time to the actual event and Hillary was not on the defense in the earlier interview as she is now.
It bears repeating that there was nothing illegal in her actions. She was acting as a defense attorney and she did her job. As in many rape cases, she did what many defense attorneys do-as despicable as it may be- she blamed the victim and engaged in character assassination.
Just days ago, Ms Clinton mischaracterized the US Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision as employers deciding whether or not their employees can use birth control. That's bad enough, but how ironic that this same woman portrays herself as a woman's champion. It is laughable. The clear hypocrisy should be enough to eliminate this woman from any presidential campaign. Sadly, however, it probably won't. If Benghazi couldn't remove Hillary Clinton from the political stage, I guess nothing can.
It would be hard to wage the "War on Women" when you have giggled about how you got a child rapist off with the time served waiting for the trial. The 12 year old victim of the rape was a female, so being on the rapist side puts Hillary in a awkward position, even with all revisionist recollection about how she was compelled to defend him.
ReplyDeleteIt bring up the question of whether being a good lawyer conflicts with being a good citizen. Hilllary made the choice to be a good lawyer and accused the 12 year old of having responsibility for the rape.
Hillary wrote her thesis on Sol Alinsky and she would be as close to his principles as Obama, if not more so.
Stark differences in how she came to have this case in the first place. Quite typical, when you lie you have to remember what you have told others sometimes a long time ago, and you often forget. When you tell the truth, all you have to remember is what really happened.
ReplyDeleteElwood,
ReplyDeleteGood observation. If she were as smart as she is reputed to be, she would have reviewed the tape before contradicting it.
This is what happens to serial liars.