The Clintons Rape and Defame
Hillary, poor thing, has been defending the “rights” of male rapists all her adult life. In order to do that she has repeatedly had to throw women and children under the bus. She is not the defender of women, nor the lover of children, that she claims.
During the court case of 12 year old Kathy Shelton, there would have been no question that she was raped. She had been badly beaten, and in a coma sent to the hospital where doctors confirmed that she had been raped and her injuries had required internal surgery. So there would have been no question she was raped. The only question would have been by whom, because there were three males present, one of whom was a 15 year old that Kathy had a crush on. They were drinking and getting her drunk.
I read in one news piece on this that, oddly, the original case files have been lost. But here is what I have pieced together about the Kathy Shelton rape case.
In 1975, Clinton – then Hillary Rodham – was a 27-year-old law instructor running a legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. After a 41-year-old factory worker was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, he asked the judge to replace his court-appointed male attorney with a female one. The judge went through the list of a half-dozen women practicing law in the county and picked Clinton. She has said she was not thrilled with the assignment but felt she had little choice but to take the court appointment – which the prosecutor in the case confirmed to CNN. (Fact Checker: The Facts about Hillary Clinton and the Kathy Shelton Rape Case)
People are going to say that Hillary had no choice, but she definitely had a choice whether to take that case or not. Once she was into it though, and knew the defendant to be guilty, she would have had no choice but to see it through.
During the court proceedings, however, she must have also decided she had no choice but to slander the little girl.
“Hillary then began to attack my character, forcing me to undergo multiple polygraph tests where I was asked explicit sexual questions I didn’t even understand. Next I was sent for a psychiatric examination. It felt like I was the one on trial.” (Shelton, quoted by Fact Checker: The Facts about Hillary Clinton and the Kathy Shelton Rape Case)
The article says that the psychiatric exam never happened, based on the fact that the court upheld the objection of the defense, “according to court records.” Since I have read elsewhere that the “original” records on this case have been lost, I don’t know what records are spoken of here. But no one disputes that the polygraph tests took place. People will say that Kathy failed that test. She, at 12 years of age, did fail it the first time, apparently due to her not understanding what was being asked. Terms were explained to her and she passed the second attempt.
It was in Hillary’s attempt to get the girl examined psychologically that she sank to her lowest level, in my opinion. Hillary and her team claim on the campaign trail that she has such a passion to defend the rights of women and children that in 1973 (two years before this court case), she was in her own words, “going door-to-door in New Bedford, Massachusetts, on behalf of children with disabilities (quoted in The Story of Kathy Shelton, The 12-Year-Old Rape Victim Hillary Found Funny).” And Donna Brazil told the audience at the Democrat national convention that, “during that in the 1970s, ‘Hillary didn’t want to talk about anything other than how to make children’s lives better’ (ibid.).”
If no one on earth has more concern and compassion for the rights of women and children than Hillary Clinton, then why in her effort to discredit the victim – this 12 year old child already victimized and traumatized by rape – did she slander this little girl by attempting to put her at fault for, “often fantasizing and as seeking out older men like the rapist,” and therefore being such a lewd little girl that she wanted and enticed men to do such things to her?
Hillary apparently fabricated these ideas by twisting material from interrogations and testimony and was thus throwing Kathy’s own words and experience back in her face in order to make her seem like the guilty party. Can you imagine this? Let me help you imagine this. This is the same thing that the rapist himself had apparently done when during the rape, according to Kathy’s testimony, she was beaten and verbally abused during the attack.
‘I can’t cuss, but [Taylor] was calling me the ‘b’ word, and [saying] ‘You like it, you know it’,’ said Shelton. ‘Slapping me and hitting me with his fist.’ (quoted in The Story of Kathy Shelton, The 12-Year-Old Rape Victim Hillary Found Funny)
Why do I say that Hillary fabricated this idea that little Kathy was a selfish seductive vixen? Because she offered no evidence for it and the court therefore refused her request for a psychological examination of the victim. Did she offer no evidence because she was lazy? No. One thing we know Hillary is not is lazy. Even Trump admits that. Did she forget? Well, she wasn’t having seizures yet. She was in her 20s and on her first case, making a name for herself. No, she didn’t forget. Do you think if she had any evidence she would have submitted it? Of course! She didn’t have any evidence. In order to embellish what little she had, she said,
“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing, … I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
I have been informed? By whom? No one? Can you prove it? No? The court threw it out. With Hillary it’s, “damn the torpedos, and full speed ahead! I’m going to win!” I doesn’t matter that the torpedo is the psychological destruction of a 12 year old. She was defaming a 12 year old rape victim to win herself a case.
Meanwhile the prosecution themselves were behaving oddly, mishandling evidence. They had the victim’s underwear, but when they cut out the piece with blood and semen on it to send it to their lab, either the piece was too small for proper testing or it was lost (a gap in the chain of custody, I think) or both. Does this strike anyone besides me as suspicious?
Even with that, Hillary was not confident of the case, and so persuaded the defendant to accept a plea bargain.
For a variety of reasons, a plea agreement to a reduced charge was reached. Investigators mishandled evidence of Taylor’s bloody underwear, cutting out the stain for testing and then losing it. Newsday also quoted a retired detective on the case as saying that Shelton’s ” ‘infatuation’ with the teenage boy, which she refused to admit,” led to “serious inconsistencies in her statements about the incident.” The detective also said Shelton’s mother “was so eager to end the ordeal she coached her daughter’s statements and interrupted interviews with police.” (Fact Checker: The Facts about Hillary Clinton and the Kathy Shelton Rape Case)
The plea bargain was for a 5 year sentence. Now the next suspicious thing happens – which adds to suspicions about the prosecution mishandling their evidence. The judge reduced the already reduced plea bargain sentence down from 5 years to one and then took two more months off for time already served. This was for a man now known to have brutally beaten and raped a 12 year old girl. Who was this perpetrator – this “factory worker”? Someone’s cousin? A member of the Stephens family (this was Arkansas, after all)? Perhaps we will learn more about this case down the road.
And then we come to Hillary’s flippant, dismissive, attitude (which we have seen her exhibit before in other inappropriate settings) discussing this case after the fact. Did Hillary laugh at Kathy Shelton? Did she seem unconcerned with what had happened to this little girl, and just laugh it off? You will have to be the judge of that: