Is Hillary Clinton no better than the Stanford Judge?

In the past month, there has been widespread outrage over Judge Aaron Persky’s ruling on the Stanford rape case. While the jury believed Brock Turner should be given six years in prison, Persky only granted him six months for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman behind a dumpster.

“A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him. I think he will not be a danger to others,” said Persky.

Pretty disgusting, right?

So how would you feel if an attorney fought for her client to receive one year in county jail and four months probation instead of 40 years in prison for raping a 12-year-old girl?

That attorney is now the Democratic nominee for President of the United States: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Where’s the outrage?

While some may believe Clinton is a great role model for women and girls, they probably haven’t heard of the 1975 sexual abuse case where she defended an accused child rapist, protecting him from rotting behind bars.

Clinton successfully brought her client’s ruling down from a first-degree rape to unlawful fondling of a minor under the age of 14.

According to tapes obtained by the Washington Free Beacon nearly 30 years after the trial, it was proven that Clinton knew her client, Thomas Alfred Taylor, was guilty, and tried to hold back her laughter while speaking about the sentence.

“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed – which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” said Clinton with a laugh.

She had also been recorded chuckling about the mishandling of DNA evidence, blood-stained underwear, which was a crucial part of the case that could have landed Taylor a guilty verdict.

There has been much speculation on how Clinton became the appointed attorney to this case. She had previously stated that she took on this case as a favor, but asked to be relieved because it was not a case that she wanted to be involved in.

According to PolitiFact, no official evidence has surfaced suggesting Clinton asked to be relieved from the case at any time, except from her own telling of events.

Either way, Clinton had no choice but to represent Taylor since she was appointed to his case.

The Daily Beast interviewed the former victim, who asked to stay anonymous for safety reasons.

She said: “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. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.

“It’s proven fact, with all the tapes, she lied like a dog on me. I think she was trying to do whatever she could do to make herself look good at the time…. She wanted it to look good, she didn’t care if those guys did it or not.

“Them two guys should have got a lot longer time. I do not think justice was served at all.”

In the affidavit, Clinton accused the victim of being emotionally unstable, having a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing, being unusually stubborn with a temper, and that she had been informed that the victim made false accusations about people, claiming they had attacked her body.

As The Daily Beast reported:

“The victim vigorously denied Clinton’s accusations and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never accused anyone of attacking her before her rape.”

The damage done to her physically and emotionally after her attack is NOT something that she could have wished upon herself. Clinton makes it sound like she provoked the men, and took pleasure in being fondled by them.

The-then 12-year-old was a virgin before her assault, and spent almost a week in a coma, according to reports. She proceeded to spend several months recovering from the attack, and went to therapy for 10 years. After realizing the severity of the beating and rape, doctors prepared her for the possibility of not being able to bear a child.

She is now 54, unmarried and without any children.