The Hillary Clinton Tapes

Kathy Shelton was 12 years old when Thomas Alfred Taylor raped her. A young Hillary Clinton was appointed as his defense attorney and the plea bargain resulted in him spending less than a year in jail. In no world is it okay that the man who assaulted a child in this manner served anything less than the remainder of his life in prison, much less only a few months. I would also never expect Kathy Shelton to forgive Taylor for his actions, or Clinton for defending him. What she had to endure was unimaginable and devastatingly life changing. The defense of “she was asking for it” in any variation is sickening and a sign that “rape culture” hasn’t changed much in the past 40 years.

What I will say is that Thomas Taylor had the right to an attorney according to the justice system. This justice system appointed a young attorney at the beginning of her career. The young Hillary Clinton defended her client, no matter what her personal feelings were, to the best of her ability. Unfortunately, the best of her ability happened to be to the detriment of the victim because our culture has successfully blamed the victim for “asking for it” for so many years.

“The presidential candidate later laughed while discussing aspects of the case in a recently-unearthed audio taped interview from the 1980’s.” — The Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729466/Child-rape-victim-comes-forward-time-40-years-call-Hillary-Clinton-liar-defended-rapist-smearing-blocking-evidence-callously-laughing-knew-guilty.html)

Fortunately, that article also includes the audio so everyone can, and should, listen. HRC does laugh on tape twice. At no point did she laugh at the victim.

The first time was when she said that she had Taylor take a polygraph test. “I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs [laughter].” In listening to this, it was clear that she was pointing out the absurdity that polygraphs are so heavily relied upon in trials when they are clearly not always accurate.

The second time was when discussing a piece of important evidence. As a back story leading up to the laughter: “But you know what was sad about it was that the prosecutors had evidence, among which was his underwear. His underwear, which was bloody. Sent it down to the crime lab… neatly cut out the part that they were going to test… came back with the result… then sent the pants back with a hole in it as evidence… the crime lab had thrown away the piece that they’d cut out.” (I would still recommend listening to the whole clip.) She proceeded to go to someone in New York to get it tested, someone who she described as clearly not being a real expert but who was accepted as one. “Well this guy’s read to come from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice! [laughter]” Once again, she was not laughing at the case, or the victim, but rather at how she could get someone working out of a Brooklyn basis to qualify as an “expert.”

At no point in this audio tape, do you hear any malicious laughter at the victim, so the statement from The Daily Mail, and others, is misleading at best. I am not excusing the defense that HRC used but we should be pointing blame at the culture that made that defense so successful. She performed her responsibilities for the defendant. Unfortunately, she did too good of a job.

Just keep in mind that you should know all the facts before forming your opinion based off of click bait titles. Listen to the tape and then make your own judgment.