In June, a tape emerged of Hillary Clinton laughing as she discussed her successful defense of a 12-year-old girl’s rapist who beat the girl into a coma.
Hillary’s defense of the rapist included accusing the girl of being mentally ill, a liar and promiscuous.
Since the US media did its best to protect her, as they have Obama, it took a UK site to finally ask Hillary about it. And as usual, Hillary lied.
“When you are a lawyer, you often don’t have the choice as to who you will represent, and by the very nature of criminal law there will be those who you represent that you don’t approve of,” said Clinton in an interview published on Friday with Mumsnet, an online forum for parents in the UK.
“I asked to be relieved of that responsibility but I was not and I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did,” said Clinton.
“But at least in our system you have an obligation, and once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation,” she added.
But that’s not what Hillary Clinton said on tape
“The prosecutor called me a few years ago, he said he had a guy who had been accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer,” said Clinton. “Would I do it as a favor to him?”
That’s not the compulsory appointment that Hillary Clinton now tries to make it out to be. She was offered the opportunity to act as a lawyer for a rapist who had a lawyer, but wanted a female lawyer.
The Free Beacon notes that Hillary has told different versions of this story over the years. And that’s typical of Hillary Clinton. The taped version is probably truest because Hillary never expect it to go raw out to the public.
Since then she’s tried to make her disgusting behavior palatable to the voting public.
Did Hillary ask to be removed from the case? There are no indications of that. She doesn’t mention it on the tape, which she normally would have as is it’s quite relevant to the story she was telling.
However if she did make such a request, she could no doubt present paperwork to back it up.
She didn’t even make that claim during her original race when she tried to make the case more palatable to potential voters. If she did ask to be relieved, why didn’t she mention it in Living History when she was defending her conduct in the case?
The most likely answer is that this is another of the impromptu Clinton lies that have a way of getting their tellers in trouble.
No evidence will ever be presented to back up her latest claim, but the media will treat it as a fact anyway and claim that the issue is settled.