Where did Clinton suppress evidence on the rape trial?
Amaury Rodriguez
2

1975: How Hillary Clinton wrote the book, on victim-blaming

Clinton filed a motion to order the 12-year-old girl to get a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing … [and] that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,” according to an affidavit filed by Clinton in support of her motion.
Clinton also cited an expert in child psychology who said that “children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to such behavior,” Clinton wrote in her affidavit.

Though my initial remarks above in this exchange had been on the matter of suppression of evidence (another can of worms to open on this person’s character entirely) here above we see that, aside from manipulating and suppressing conclusive evidence which certainly would have convicted her client, she further went out of her way to manufacture “evidence” throwing the onus entirely onto a 12-year-old girl and her family, for the case’s being heard at all.

I’ll now refer you to a term which is used widely in rape-advocacy circles, one of the more laudable aims, at least on its face, of feminist organizations and initiatives which this Hilary person has also gone out of her way to cloak herself in as a politician: VICTIM-BLAMING.

Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially responsible for the harm that befell them.

I generally avoid citing Wikipedia as a source in itself, except on those occasions where one of its entries is well-enough annotated to further credible sources.

The presence of no less than forty-six hyperlinked footnotes, in this instance, more than assures me that this WKP article is at least a good starting point for one of the most front-and-center claims of feminist lobbies and groups: that the system turns aggressively on complainant women, blaming them either for a crime against themselves or alleging it never even happened.

While we’re talking about evidence, here is what candidate Hilary said in an early speaking engagement as a Presidential candidate, when asked about due process and rape cases:

At an event in Iowa on September 14, 2015, Hillary Clinton declared, “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault . . . You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we’re with you.” She also posted the following comment on Twitter: “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” Subsequently, someone asked her this question: “You recently came out to say that all rape victims should be believed? But would say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones? Should we believe them as well?” Hillary Clinton responded: “Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

Now, granted, Arkansas v Taylor was a case very early in a young attorney’s career, forty years prior to her running later for the Presidency. And yes, as you point out, it was her duty not to the accused but to the law, the court and the US Constitution, to see to it that this accused was given a worthy and just defense. This conundrum has faced every prosecutor or defense attorney in every case where they knew full well their client was innocent or guilty, respectively, and yet each one had a duty to try the case lawfully and fairly. I do not shrink from this blunt reality in rule of law here.

But given first, her entire knowledge of conclusive evidence, her further taking it upon herself to obfuscate and obscure that evidence, yes, as she says later, it was “sad”, indeed, that a prosecutor had had it from the beginning.

Knowing this, having herself demanded to see what evidence the prosecution had, and knowing early on in the case that she was indeed tasked with defending a genuine rapist and child-molester, beyond reasonable doubt, it was indeed still her lawful duty as Attorney of Record, to see the man have a fair trial, to see he was not railroaded and lynched by false claims or planted evidence, not intimidated into plea deals or some future status as a confidential informant if such were not his genuine wishes or violated his basic civil rights.

And so, to accomplish this, and hit it out of the park as it were, she not only buries evidence against her client, but fabricates speculative gibberish cited to “experts” [p34], to transform a young girl who had been abducted and assaulted and her life changed for the worse forever, into the perpetrator.

And this case, as recorded in official documentation and not just as laughed about ex parte by one of the officers of the court a party to it, is as textbook an example, as egregious a set of tactics, as malicious and heartless a model for a trial lawyer winning for winning’s sake, as I wager you will find anywhere.

Hilary Clinton, that former First Lady of the United States who along with child-groper and all-round creep Joe Biden, pushed the Violence Against Women Act through Congress in 1994 while the nation was fully absorbed in the OJ Simpson case (a marathon in pre-internet media fixation making Desert Storm look like a dress rehearsal).

She has styled herself a women’s-rights activist throughout her public career, to a degree and magnitude few women in public life have ever attained the brand-recognition for feminist political advocacy her name is associated with: The lady who in 1975, wrote the book on victim-blaming in a child rape case.

And that book, is entitled “State of Arkansas V. Thomas Alfred Taylor. CR 75–203. Washington County Circuit Court. 7 Nov 1975.”

I’d suggest you read that book, that this false goddess of the feminist cause wrote to benefit only herself, before ever allowing a defense of her, to be associated with your own good name.