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.”
The Clintons (and their close associates, the Weiners, Epstein and Podesta) don't seem to have normal reactions to child abuse and pedorapists, which is: revulsion, anger, and the urge to protect innocents. But Putin is the bad guy.
view the rest of the comments →
AreWeSure ago
Hi,
I know you hate the woman but these are not the facts of the case.
The reason the guy got a lighter sentence was it was a plea bargain deal. He reached a deal with the prosecutor to plead guility in exchange fore a 5 year term. That's a fairly reasonable term on a plea. The judge later reduced this sentence.
The reason the prosecutor agreed to plea was he had a weak case and it wasn't a sure thing they would convict the guy and the girls family was eager to wrap everything up quickly. The family did not want a trial.
It was weak for the following reasons. The police believed the girl lied during parts of her story, which at best, was inconsistent. It was unclear how she would come across as a witness. Her family was determined to not have her testify anyway.
Another weakens was the prosecution didn't have any physical evidence tying the guy to the crime scene. He claims he left a party with the girl, and his 20 year cousin, then they picked up a 15 boy, got some drinks, then he drove everyone home. He claimed never to have stopped in ravine by the highway where the incident was said to take place (The 15 year boy was charged as an underage offender.) Without physical evidence it would have been a he said/she said thing. The case becomes a lot stronger if they could prove he was there.
They had his underwear with blood on them. When Clinton asked to do an independent test, the gave her the underpants back with a hole cut out of them. And no blood on them. When they tested them they cut out the bloody part, tested it and threw it away. There was no way to test them again.
All the things about the woman said about Clinton putting her through hell, should be looked at with a very, skeptical eye. The woman has come forward publicly and we can identify her as Kathy Shelton. There's a lot of reasons to doubt Kathy Shelton when she said Hillary Clinton put her through hell.
The first is Kathy Shelton first learned that Clinton asked for an psychiatric evaluation of her in 2008. She never knew about the affadavit Clinton filed which a pretrial motion filed wth the judge. When first interviewed in 2008, she said she had no problems with Hillary Clinton. The article you quoted refers to this as "a contested, short interaction with a reporter in 2008," Here's the article from 2008, there's plenty of details from the woman. It seems like a carefully reported article.
“I have to understand that she was representing Taylor,” she said when interviewed in prison last fall. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.”*
Despite these problems, she bears Hillary Rodham Clinton no ill will and was eager to read “Living History” — at least pages 72 and 73, which contain her case.
Kathy Shelton seems to confusing the cops and the prosecution's interactions with her with Clinton's. The case never went to trial so Clinton never cross-examined her, the lie detector tests the girl underwent were not asked for by Clinton. And she didn't under the pyschatric evaluation Clinton requested because the judge rejected her affadavit. . This is why she didn't even know about this until 2008. If that affadavit contains lies, they were not Clinton's. As Clinton wrote, she was "informed of this info." It could have been by her client or his family saying this. (they knew the girl previously.) There's nothing unethical about filing that affidavit and relaying any accusation her client made. And as the 2008 article makes clear, there is nothing unethical about a defense lawyer defended their client. In fact, it is considered profeesional misconduct for a lawyer not to vigorously defend her client. That's how our system works. Her legal obligations were to her client. The judge and the jury are in charge of justice. But when the state is trying to take someone's liberty away that person is presumed innoncent and has the right to the best defense possible.
The 2008 article gets one thing wrong. We now know the examination Clinton requested, because lasst year a lawyer found the original files
When Clinton was interviewed years later about this case. She did not laugh at the woman. She laughed at the state of justice in Arkansas in the mid-70s, especially for a woman lawyer. They did not want to give her the evidence in the case because it was underwear. When the prosecutor was going to relay the details of the assault, he wanted her to leave the room because a woman shouldn't hear those things. And she laughed about the reliability of lie detector tests since her client who plead guilty passed his. The reporter who interviewed her said this
TL/DR Clinton didn't take this case. The court appointed her because the guy wanted a woman lawyer. She asked to be removed. The judge refused. She didn't put the woman through an ordeal. The case was weak and led to a plea bargain. She didn't laugh at the victim. What she did do was shortly after this case she helped establish the first rape crisis hotline in Arkansas.
When that Washington Post article came out, Shelton changed her claims.
pizzaequalspedo ago
Long history with Hillary blaming the women victim or siding with the rapist, including her husband.
Let's face it, Hillary is the scum of the earth. Americans simply couldn't stomach someone as corrupt as her running this country. So much so that several Blue states went red for the fist time in decades.