Saturday, June 21, 2014

Hillary Clinton Is Not For Women

Yeah, I know, the left will dismiss this because it happened so long ago, but it is reality and it is Hillary Clinton and she refuses to apologize.
From the Daily Beast:  Hillary Clinton is known as a champion of women and girls, but one woman who says she was raped as a 12-year-old in Arkansas doesn’t think Hillary deserves that honor. This woman says Hillary smeared her and used dishonest tactics to successfully get her attacker off with a light sentence—even though, she claims, Clinton knew he was guilty.
The victim in the 1975 sexual abuse case that became Clinton’s first criminal defense case as a 27-year-old lawyer has only spoken to the media once since her attack, a contested, short interaction with a reporter in 2008, during Clinton’s last presidential campaign run. Now 52, she wants to speak out after hearing Clinton talk about her case on newly discovered audio recordings from the 1980s, unearthed by the Washington Free Beacon and made public this week.
In a long, emotional interview with The Daily Beast, she accused Clinton of intentionally lying about her in court documents, going to extraordinary lengths to discredit evidence of the rape, and later callously acknowledging and laughing about her attackers’ guilt on the recordings.
“Hillary Clinton took me through Hell,” the victim said. The Daily Beast agreed to withhold her name out of concern for her privacy as a victim of sexual assault.
The victim said if she saw Clinton today, she would call her out for what she sees as the hypocrisy of Clinton’s current campaign to fight for women’s rights compared to her actions regarding this rape case so long ago.
“I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ’75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”
The victim’s allegation that Clinton smeared her following her rape is based on a May 1975 court affidavit written by Clinton on behalf of Thomas Alfred Taylor, one of the two alleged attackers, whom Clinton agreed to defend after being asked by the prosecutor. Taylor had specifically requested a female attorney.
“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Clinton, then named Hillary D. Rodham, wrote in the affidavit. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
Clinton also wrote that a child psychologist told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” especially when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”
The victim vigorously denied Clinton’s accusations and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never accused anyone of attacking her before her rape.
“I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying,” she said. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.”
This is a must read for anybody considering voting for the bitch from hell.
When Clinton was asked for comment, she said "What difference does it make"?


  1. I wouldn't say, "what difference does it make," but I would say a she-said/she-said story that is 40 years old will be tricky to sell in a campaign attack ad.

    I voted for Obama vs. Hillary in a close, "flip a coin" caucus, I liked them both. But after the caucus, some of Hillary's behavior rubbed me the wrong way. Still, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat over a Huckabee or a Santorum. In fact, from what I've seen you'd have to turn back time to the 2000 McCain or the 2000 Romney for me to vote for a Republican candidate. They acquired too many barnacles in the ensuing years.

    Now, about the "what difference does it make" comment. That was about whether or not a video was at the root of the Benghazi attack. I agreed with Hillary on that one. But pay my blog a visit, and see that it WAS the video after all....

  2. Yet we heard about Romney hazing a student and giving him a haircut.

    All this proves is Jimby Greenlee is a brain-dead partisan cultist.

  3. Yeah, the Romney story was old too. Cruelty in his college years. I'm not sure it made much of a dent, no bigger than what he already had. The people who cared were already not going to vote for him. I doubt most conservatives gave a crap if he bullied a gay kid.

  4. Or this gem from 30 years ago.

    But then again, what difference does it make? As shitty and sickly as Hillary looks, she's probably going to croak before 2016.

  5. The difference in both stories you presented: ample witnesses to the event.

  6. "I doubt most conservatives gave a crap if he bullied a gay kid".
    Jamie, that statement is far from the truth and is dishonest.

  7. Statements from Jimby that are far from the truth and dishonest.

    In other words...a day ending in "y."

  8. 1, 2or 3 people don't make up a majority. And I know I am not in the catagory of hate. We may have differences but that doesn't I support bullying.

  9. Sorry, Dan, I should have worded that better. I don't think most conservatives were dissuaded from voting for Mitt based on that story. I don't think it would have changed their vote.

  10. Jimby caught with his cornfed hands in the cookie jar. Priceless.

  11. What a witty rejoinder.