Sunday, October 9, 2016

Snopes: Trump supporters claim that Hillary Clinton freed a child rapist and later laughed about the case - is mostly false


WHAT'S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later.

WHAT'S FALSE: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant's lawyer, she did not laugh about the case's outcome, she did not assert that the complainant "made up the rape story," she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not "free" the defendant.

Origin:In May 2016, the image macro shown above began circulating on Facebook, holding that back in 1975 a young Hillary Clinton (then Hillary Rodham) had "volunteered" to represent a 42-year-old man (Thomas Alfred Taylor) who was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, that Clinton told the judge in the case that the complainant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about older men, that Clinton "got [the] rapist freed," and that Clinton later admitted she knew the defendant was guilty and "laughed about" the outcome of the case. Although Hillary Clinton was indeed involved in a case of this nature, the aspects of the case presented in the image were largely inaccurate or exaggerated.

Finally, Hillary didn't "free" the defendant in the case. Instead, the prosecuting attorney agreed to a plea deal involving a lesser charge that carried a five-year sentence, of which the judge suspended four years and allowed two months credit of time already served towards the remaining year:

Additionally, according to Newsday it was the complainant and her mother who pushed the state to make a quick plea deal rather than have the former go through the ordeal of a court trial, with the mother actively interfering in the investigation to bring about that result:

The victim says it was her mother, who had recently been abandoned by her husband, who pushed for a quick plea deal to avoid the humiliation of having her daughter testify in open court. The mother, who died several years ago, was so eager to end the ordeal she coached her daughter’s statements and interrupted interviews with police, Sgt. Dale Gibson [the department’s lead investigator] recalls.

“We both wanted it to be over with,” the victim told Newsday. “They kept asking me the same questions over and over. I was crying all the time.”

Even now, that outcome is not unusual for violent criminal charges: 2014 statistics show that 97% of criminal cases (including rape) are resolved by plea bargain, and only 3% go to trial. The ratio of plea bargains to trials was similar in 1970 [PDF].

Additionally, that 1975 criminal case came before the widespread adoptions of rape shield laws that now protect rape victims in court from some forms of questioning. A case brought in 1975 would have been subject to much weaker legal protection for the accuser than today.

19 comments:

  1. Hillary's defending husband Bill against his sexual victims, and Hillary's public and vocal denouncing her husband's sexual victims as liars, is her more grievous sin.

    ReplyDelete
  2. do you know the facts or are you just repeated the allegations?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's an open fact that Hillary publicly denounced and attacked as liars her husband's sexual victims. This was all in the '90s.

    ReplyDelete
  4. don't know what an open fact is - please provide sources

    which women have alleged that they were sexual victims - and have their charges been proven? Which women did she publicly denounce and call liars.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It amusing to see how people take the word of Snopes as gospel.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Monica Lewinsky gave a TED speech about it recently. And what was done to her was front page news for months.

    ReplyDelete
  7. it is amusing to see how any and all allegations about Clinton are taken as gospel by some people

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-haunted-by-efforts-to-destroy-bill/

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435941/hillary-clinton-enabled-bill-clintons-abuse-women-her-own-standards

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435941/hillary-clinton-enabled-bill-clintons-abuse-women-her-own-standards

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/9585/9-times-hillary-clinton-threatened-smeared-or-amanda-prestigiacomo

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/01/flashback-hillary-clinton-threatened-bills-accusers-in-1998/

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rabbi Eidensohn will not believe you because it was not in the New York Times.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Looking at the Washington Post - didn't see that there was a conclusion - just a question

    ReplyDelete
  11. I gave you give sources, out of many more available. Including the highly regarded National Review and Washington Times. None of this information are chiddushim.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That goes both ways. Others believe any nonsense about Trump. But it's not at all relevant to my point, which was that the supposed referees have their own biases.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Even more important, Clinton was appointed by a judge to be the defense counsel. The U.S. constitution grants a right to effective counsel to all defendants, not only the innocent ones, and not only ones accused of non-heinous crimes. Attacking Clinton for this is in essence an attack on the 8th amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Would you accept such a weak defense if the intimidation would have been done by the aguda? You would not accept a slopes article just saying false without any evidence. You would not accept Hillary's intimidating either.

    ReplyDelete
  15. what intimidation? where is the evidence showing that the snopes article was false?

    ReplyDelete
  16. She says that she was intimidated. There are witnesses who corroborate her story. What evidence did Snopes present?

    ReplyDelete
  17. she said she felt intimidated but there is no evidence that Clinton intended or actually said anything to intimidate her

    ReplyDelete
  18. So she is lying? She decided to stay quite all these years not because she was intimidated. Well, you May as well just call her story a tall tale. Or go circular and say that Mrs. Clinton is not Mr. Clinton......

    ReplyDelete
  19. you really don't get it. I said she thinks she was intimidated. I asked for evidence that Clinton said something to indimidate her and that she wanted to intimidate her.

    It really is possible for a person to genuine feel initimidated by a mistaken understanding of what was said or how it was said. Never said she was lying.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.