I hear Hillary Clinton has taken up the issue of campus rape.
These facts of the rape case Hillary Clinton took in 1975 are indisputable: The medical observations were that the girl had vaginal tearing and bleeding, as well as contusions, bruises, cuts, scratches and had obviously been raped and had received one hell of a beating. The victim lay in a coma in hospital for five days.
In this case, there were two mishandled pieces of evidence linking Hillary Clinton's client to the crime: the victim's testimony and the client's blood-smeared underwear.
Oh that's right. Didn't you know? Hillary Clinton defended the alleged rapist, and put the victim on trial.
Yes, Americans have the right to defend themselves in a court of law, with fact, reason, logic, argumentation, evidence and lawyers who use those legitimate tools of the trade.
Hillary Clinton,in a taped interview from the early 80's, admits that she knew the forensic evidence to have been tampered with. The lab that showed the girl's blood to be present on the man's underwear (clearly demonstrating rape) had cut out and discarded the portion they had tested. So she sent the remaining untainted portion to a more prestigious lab to discredit the first lab's finding. This is mishandling of forensic evidence, and being untruthful to the court how the evidence had been tampered with.
But what of the victim's own sworn statements in deposition?
Hillary Clinton, in a July 28, 1975 court affidavit, cited false psychiatric 'evidence' to claim the girl was “emotionally unstable” (who wouldn't be after being gang-raped, beaten within an inch of their lives and left to die in a ditch by the side of the road?) and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”
“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior,” and that the child “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and she “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
Oh, so I suppose the girl "fantasized" the vaginal tearing, the blood spurting out of her body, the bruises, the contusions and the coma. Really? Or was it her "unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way,” that resulted in the beating?
Given the medical facts of the case, does Hillary Clinton really mean to imply here that a woman does not actually have the right to fight off an attacker? Or is she implying that the girl simply imagined that she had been beaten within an inch of her life? Given the medical facts of the case -- that the girl in fact had been severely beaten to the point that she lay in a coma for five days -- oh, maybe she beat herself up, a la "Fight Club."
Sorry, it just doesn't add up. It doesn't add up to a fair trial, it doesn't add up to Hillary Clinton acting as a faithful officer of the court, and it certainly doesn't add up to concern for rape victims.
And something else doesn't add up: because of all of the evidence and testimony placing the defendant and his alleged accomplice in the truck by the side of the road where she was left bruised and bloodied to die after her beating, the best -- the best -- Hillary Clinton could do for her client was to get a 'plea deal' for him: "unlawfully fondling a child."
That is some fondling, that leaves a girl battered and bloody in a ditch by the side of the road, where she comes to just long enough to drag herself to hospital on her hands and knees and then lays in a coma for five days. Fondling.
But I guess it's OK, because, in Hillary Clinton's own words, "adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior."
So the suffering of people 'in disorganized families' -- the poor -- can be ignored because we can use their social status to discredit their sworn testimony.
Is this the kind of 'justice' and 'fair trial' that our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution?
Do you really think that? Really?