Update: Amazing how Republicans/conservatives refuse to see the connection between the Hillary rape story lies and the Scott Walker smears by partisan left wing creeps. We see the connection. Greta Van Susteren sees the connection:
WORST REPORTING OF THE WEEK: about REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER AND DEMOCRAT HILLARY CLINTON [snip]
If they did original reporting, the would know that yes, the prosecutor in Wisconsin in a document accused Governor Scott Walker of a crime (that is common and routine for a prosecutor) BUT OBVIOUSLY THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY SINCE NEVER CHARGED HIM WITH A CRIME. That is a HUGE difference – accusing v. charging. If the prosecutor thought Walker committed a crime, he just had to fill out a paper and charge him. And if he thought Walker committed a crime, it was his job to charge him – but that did not happen. Second, a Federal Judge ruled later that the conduct the prosecutor objected to is not a crime, that the alleged conduct fits within a loophole of the campaign law. That ruling is now on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit but if it is upheld, it means that the prosecutor accused Governor Walker of innocent conduct (conduct that is not illegal.) If it is reversed, then Walker may have trouble but that is not where the facts stand now.
If they did original reporting, they would have read the court file in the Arkansas case (I did) and seen that the affidavit filed by then 27 year old lawyer Hillary Rodham was a routine application for a court ordered psychiatric evaluation of the complainant. It was not Clinton going after the accuser – but rather filing a routine application in her constitutional job to represent a client. Clinton said she had reports about the complainant and wanted the Court to pursue it further with an examination. That’s routine. Second, if they did original reporting, they would have LISTENED to the tape and learned that Clinton’s laughter (sarcastic I thought) was about polygraphs and not the complainant or the charge. Like with Governor Scott Walker, this is a big difference. The polygraph occurred when no doubt the client was claiming he was innocent to his lawyer Clinton. Clients do that…insist insist and insist innocence. He took polygraph and passed. He then later pleaded guilty and admitted his guilt …to his lawyer Clinton and then in court at the plea…..hence the polygraph remark by Clinton.
Lying hypocrites of the left have a great deal in common, more so than with us, with lying hypocrites of the right. The Sunni Right and the Shiitty Left should shut up.
Republicans/conservatives get extra points for stupidity (1) because they are so politically inept that with all the evidence against Barack Obama and his Chicago thugs they still fail to nail Obama and won’t appoint enough select committees or utilize the inherent power of the House because they prefer to talk, talk, talk; and (2) Republicans conservatives fail to see that as much as they hate Bill and Hillary Clinton the Shiitty Left hates them even more.
Latest proof of the Shiitty Left’s hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton comes from Salon magazine and the guy who wrote that reprehensible Shiitty Left book “What’s the matter with Kansas?” That book is the guiding light for today’s Shiitty Left and its author hates Bill and Hillary Clinton. He hates the great economic record of Bill Clinton too because it was not Shiitty Left enough. The problem for the Shiitty Left and the Sunni Right when they claim that voters see Hillary as a return to the past is that that is the future voters want for America. The Sunni Right and the Shiitty Left should marry each other, have ugly children, and leave America.
A filthy race-bait attack on Scott Walker published by The New Republic. Disgusting. Scott Walker smeared in that filthy article of innuendo, character assassination, and ugly racial politics. Few in Big Media attacked this anti-Scott Walker filth. Some on the right in the name of justice defended Scott Walker against the feces shat by The New Republic/em>.
But that was not enough anti-Scott Walker hate for Big Media. Scott Walker is once again smeared by Big Media. Big Media quoting unscrupulous prosecutors charged Scott Walker with being at the “center of a criminal scheme”. But in all this Scott Walker is the victim of politically motivated prosecutors twisting the law for their nefarious ideological ends:
This is a true story: in 2012, Democratic district attorneys in Wisconsin launched a secret probe known as a John Doe investigation with the goal of proving that conservative groups illegally coordinated activities during Gov. Scott Walker’s recall election. They issued more than 100 subpoenas, demanded the private information of conservatives and conservative groups, and actually conducted secret raids. And under state law, individuals who were targeted or witness to the investigation were forbidden from making knowledge of it public.
Fortunately, judges saw right through this partisan abuse of power. Early this year, a state judge, ruling in a secret proceeding, quashed the subpoenas and all but ended the investigation. [snip]
In February, a conservative activist and group filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the partisan district attorneys who had pursued the John Doe probe. In short order, a federal district court judge held that the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed on their claim that the defendants‘ investigation violates their rights under the First Amendment, such that the investigation was commenced and conducted ―without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction.” [snip]
Most recently, that appeals court has ordered some of the previously secret probe documents disclosed to the public, including an unsuccessful defense that the John Doe investigators made to one of their secret subpoenas. In their attempt to get a subpoena, which was rejected by a judge for lacking probable cause, the partisan investigators claimed that Walker was involved in the so-called conservative conspiracy.
To summarize, a politically motivated and harmful investigation by partisan prosecutors victimized Governor Scott Walker and his supporters. Big Media reported these facts to mean that Scott Walker was guilty of criminal activity. Big Media published the failed lies of prosecutors and willfully ignored that Scott Walker and his supporters were the victims of the failed lies.
Like Scott Walker, Hillary Clinton is also fighting a smear. This idiocy is mostly confined to Sean Hannity and the Washington Free Beacon. The “scandal” is that Hillary, as a very young lawyer, defended a rapist, a child rapist at that. This is supposed to show that Hillary hates children or something or is insincere or something.
This Hillary Clinton rape scandal was examined in the past repeatedly and used against her politically repeatedly. Now the story is revived because the Washington Free Beacon, to its journalistic credit (now if they would only go talk to Rezko), found an audio tape of a young Hillary Clinton discussing the long-ago case.
A CNN panel denounced Hillary and some few Republican/conservative websites are trying to get some mileage from the audio tape. Now the Hillary Clinton rape scandal has a new angle due to the rape victim saying some very angry things against Hillary Clinton:
The victim, whose name has been withheld in the media, spoke with the Daily Beast. The interview appears to have occurred after the conservative website The Free Beacon on Sunday published audio tapes from the 1980s in which Clinton discussed the case with a reporter. In those tapes, Clinton seemed to suggest she thought her client, Thomas Alfred Taylor, was guilty of the crime that he was not convicted of committing. [snip]
“Hillary Clinton took me through hell,” the victim told the Daily Beast, adding that she would confront Clinton if she had the chance to speak with her.
“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,” she said. “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 above excerpt is by Maggie Haberman who is not to be trusted in anything. If Haberman says Hillary ate lunch on June 20, 2014, check to be sure Hillary lunched because Haberman makes things up about Hillary Clinton all the time. Here’s the audio of Hillary talking about 1975 when Hillary was 27 years old:
So what happened in 1975? Maggie Haberman could have asked her fellow Hillary hater at Politico, Glenn Thrush, but she must have been in too much of a rush to smear Hillary. Here is the hit piece then Newsday reporter Glenn Thrush wrote in 2008 about what the rape victim said and why Hillary defended an alleged rapist of a child:
In May 1975, Washington County prosecutor Mahlon Gibson called Rodham, who had taken over the law clinic months earlier, to tell her she’d been appointed to represent a hard-drinking factory worker named Thomas Alfred Taylor, who had requested a female attorney.
In her 2003 autobiography “Living History,” Clinton writes that she initially balked at the assignment, but eventually secured a lenient plea deal for Taylor after a New York-based forensics expert she hired “cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff’s office.” [snip]
Echoing legal experts, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson says the senator would have been committing professional misconduct if she hadn’t given Taylor the best defense possible.
“As she wrote in her book, ‘Living History,’ Senator Clinton was appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas to represent Mr. Taylor in this matter,” he said. “As an attorney and an officer of the court, she had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law. To act otherwise would have constituted a breach of her professional responsibilities.” [snip]
“She was vigorously advocating for her client. What she did was appropriate,” said Andrew Schepard, director of Hofstra Law School’s Center for Children, Families and the Law. [snip]
With all the anguish she’d felt over the case in the years since, there was one thing she never realized – that the lawyer for the man she reviles was none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton.
“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.“
One would think a responsible reporter in 2014 would note for readers that in 2008 the alleged victim said “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.” Indeed Hillary was doing her job. Maybe Haberman or Thrush hire lawyers to represent them on the basis of doing the worse job possible but most people want the best legal representation, not the worse.
In 1975 Hillary was 27 years old and just appointed to run the University of Arkansas Law School legal aid clinic. Hillary fully expected to eventually return to work with Marian Wright Edelman on children issues. But first she was forced to represent an accused rapist:
Taylor, 41, figured a jury would be less hostile to a rape defendant represented by a woman, according to one of his friends. Cummings agreed to the request, scanned the list of available female attorneys (there were only a half dozen in the county at the time) and assigned Rodham, who had virtually no experience in criminal litigation.
“Hillary told me she didn’t want to take that case, she made that very clear,” recalls prosecutor Gibson, who phoned her with the judge’s order.
“I didn’t feel comfortable taking on such a client, but Mahlon gently reminded me that I couldn’t very well refuse the judge’s request,” the eventual first lady writes in “Living History.” [snip]
Gibson (who is not related to prosecutor Mahlon Gibson) had no illusions about how hard the case would be to prove, because the girl seemed to have a romantic interest in the 15-year-old. [snip]
“Taylor was alleged to have raped this girl in a car right near a very busy highway – I told her it seems sort of improbable and she immediately agreed,” said Baker, who remembered Rodham as “smart, capable and very focused.” [snip]
Prosecution case crumbles [snip]
By the fall of 1975, the prosecution’s case was crumbling under pressure from Rodham and other factors relating to the evidence and the witnesses. [snip]
In 2005, while working in a laundry, the victim stole several hundred dollars worth of checks from her boss to buy drugs. She is now living in a halfway house and looking for work.
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.
We left out most of the details of this convoluted case loaded with witness lies and a difficult to prove crime because no one seemed to be sure if the alleged victim had consensual sex with a boy or raped by an older man. Add to all this the results of the lie detector test Hillary discusses in the audio tape and the smear of Hillary laughing at a rape falls apart.
What Haberman and other Hillary haters term ‘Hillary laughing because she got a rapist free’ appears more to us as a very young lawyer on her first criminal case beginning to realize that things are often not as they seem. Was Hillary’s laugh a decade later chagrin as she recalled herself as a young lawyer realizing that a lie detector cannot be trusted to detect lies from a man she believed to be guilty or was Hillary’s incredulous laugh a decade later a way to convey that what others saw as brilliant legal work on her part was actually very easy once you added an exculpatory polygraph test result to the other overwhelming evidence (and lost underwear/semen evidence by the prosecutor) in favor of her client? But to say Hillary Clinton laughed at the plight of a rape victim a decade later is not believable.
Some are alleging that Hillary supporters do not want “the Hillary tapes” heard by the American public and distorting the facts to claim that Hillary was not forced by appointment to defend the alleged criminal. Hells bells, we do. Here, listen again. Check out that last part with Hillary laughing because the prosecutor won’t discuss evidence in the rape trial with a lady present and listen as Hillary incredulously laughs that that really could have happened and how she stood her ground. Here listen again:
We love listening to Hillary with her southern accent. But we do think this rape scandal story is just stupid. Stop it. Stop smearing Scott Walker. Stop smearing Hillary Clinton.
We have other items on our “stop it” list. IRS scandal talk is all over our TV. We’re sick of it. Here’s “Wisconsin nice” Paul Ryan with his pretty blue eyes boring the Hell out of us about the IRS:
Gee willikers what rage! Quelle horreur! Weez shur nuff be
skered now. Not. This display is not as scary as a Girl Scout demanding money from a delinquent cookie customer. But from the coverage we’ve seen you would think this was a volcanic eruption. It wasn’t. It was just talk. Talk, talk, talk. To be followed by more talk, talk, talk.
The scumbag IRS commissioner tells Congress the agency owes no apologies and what do we get from Congress – talk.
Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk….
Cut the crap Congress. Cut the crap Republicans. Stop it. Cut the crap. You know what to do. Special prosecutor. Select committee.
Hillary Clinton told you this is a scandal during her interview on Fox News. Appoint a G_d damn select committee and demand a special prosecturo or shut up. Do something about this outrage or shut up. Stop it. Stop the bu*lshit posturing and do what you have to do.
Same goes with this immigration crap. Stop it. Do something or shut up. And by “do something” we don’t mean “immigration reform”. We mean a select committee investigation. We mean a special prosecutor.
From now on any and all Obama scandals should automatically trigger a special select committee and demands for a special prosecutor. If you can’t do that just shut up. Shut up! Stop the posturing nonsense.
Republicans in Congress know they have to power to save the nation. Eric Holder at the corrupt Justice Department is doing everything to protect Barack Obama. Barack Obama will break all the laws he wants. Congress has the power to stop this. Congressional Republicans know they have the power but rather posture than do what they must do to save the nation.
The inherent power of Congress must be used by Republicans to save the nation or they should shut up.
Hillary Clinton has given Republicans the green light to go after Barack Obama on the IRS and on Immigration. The public is against Barack Obama too, even on what was supposed to be his strong suit of immigration.
Get up off your lazy bloomin’ arses and get the job done.