“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups [read: Black Lives Matter], parties [read: Democrats], nations and epochs [the Obama years], it is the rule.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche
Clearly Mr. Nietzsche never met corrupt American politicians (and specifically today's progressives).
In 1975, current Democratic front-runner, then Hillary Rodham, was already a demonstratively corrupt 27-year old lawyer. What was this purported “great champion” of women's rights doing then? She was successfully defending Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year old sexual predator accused of raping a 12-year old girl. What did she do shortly after that? This lucky lady married a fellow cad, her “Prince Charming” Bill. She also became a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigations—a post she was later fired from for unethical practices like lying! (Indeed, today, with a well established reputation as a habitual fibber, does this longstanding pattern of immoral conduct surprise anyone?) However, back then her misbehavior was obviously disconcerting to chief counsel Jerry Zeifman, Hillary's supervisor. Of his reason for her termination (and his further rare refusal to write a recommendation letter), he said:
“Because she was a liar,” Mr. Zeifman said in a March of 2008 interview. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution [by redrafting rules related to the president's right to counsel], the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
In hindsight, it appears that Hillary has always viewed “the rules” as something that only apply to the “little people”—everyone else—but never herself. Decades later, this dynamic is plainly apparent in light of her own rogue actions and Nixonian style wrongdoing: the Server-gate scandal (in which a private server was set up and used to restrict and control the flow of government information—and state secrets—in clear violation of federal law).
For context and comparison, it was, in part, the Watergate audio tapes which compelled Richard Nixon resignation in 1974. In 2016, will the same be true of Hillary (assuming she gets that far)? I coyly refer Hillary's taped 1980 interview with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed in which she repeatedly cackles like a magpie at the lenient sentence given the man she defended of the rape of a minor. Will Mrs. Clinton continue to get a complete pass for this shockingly brazen and pathologically unfeeling 1980 voice recording? Or will this supremely arrogant figure at the nexus of federal investigations related to Server-gate, Charity-gate and Benghazi finally meet her well deserved Nixonian fate? Certainly, one wonders what it will take for the American electorate to finally wake up to the clear and present danger of this insider creature of Washington; a “for sale” amoral power broker who fully expects a queenly return to the White House in 2017?
This 40 year travesty adds to the stench of multiple his-and-hers scandals which have dogged the Clintons from seemingly the inception of their political lives—so many scandals who can keep track of them all? Ultimately, however, the kick in the head is not what the Clintons repeatedly get away with, it's why any sane person would support crooked Hillary's presidential aspirations.
Speaking of which, the first person who should get his head professionally examined forthwith is Washington Post “fact checker” Glenn Kessler. His dubious relationship with truth is as tenuous as his colleague's, fellow propagandist Hillary-defender Ruth Marcus. Precisely as she, Mr. Kessler shamelessly manipulates facts—and misconstrues history—as overt political cover for Mrs. Clinton's gleefully inappropriate reaction to her previously mentioned 1975 slick lawyering. To this Orwellian “fact checker,” the victim in this tale isn't the defenseless 12-year old child, it's Hillary (taken to task by the National Republican Senatorial Committee who accurately produced a political ad on this subject last month.) Moreover, all the important details are spun to be misleading. For example, Mr. Kessler implies that defendant Taylor was entitled to “replace his male court-appointed lawyer with a female attorney.” He wasn't: public defenders are the luck of the draw (usually determined by caseload). Therefore, any change is at the discretion of the individual judge. Second, while a judge or a prosecutor can recommend a given attorney, neither could have compelled an “unwilling” Hillary to accept a client truly abhorrent to her. Notice Mr. Kessler's intentionally misleading summary of the situation: “In other words, Clinton was a court-appointed attorney, given the case despite personal objections.” In the same vein, earlier in the piece, he scribbles, “The judge went through the list of a half-dozen women practicing law in the county and picked Clinton.” All of this verbiage wrongly implies arm-twisting where there is none.
Upon close examination of the actual facts, Mr. Kessler's fictional interpretation is at odds with Mrs. Clinton's own recollection: “The prosecutor called me a few years ago, he said he had a guy who had been accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer,” said Clinton in the interview. “Would I do it as a favor for him?” By definition, a favor is a voluntary kindness, not something one “must” do. Why then this propagandist spin of events? To promote a false narrative that Hillary wanted no part of this infamous case. Follow this sycophant's slippery logic: as an “unwilling” party, she's not responsible for the domino effect of its consequences. Mr. Kessler's fallacious underlying theme is Hillary Clinton as “victim” of Republicans now, and the legal system then, as a young attorney.
In any case, the long-nosed Mr. Kessler is more than worthy of his own four Pinocchio scale—and then some. After all, if what this intrepid columnist claims is true why would Hillary call this tragic circumstance (by any rational measure) “fascinating?” In truth, the voice on that audio tape indicates the kind of person who likely enjoys pulling the wings off of helplessly beautiful things, like butterflies. Or perhaps someone who would not give a second thought to exploit a little girl's trauma for another's legal benefit. Worse, Hillary's tone is secretive and almost conspiratorial: the naughty whisper of something wrongly done, and jubilantly gotten away with.
What Mr. Kessler clearly ignores is that Mrs. Clinton relished in the challenge of getting her client exonerated, and was giddy about the questionable nature of some of the details:
“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she deadpans before a breezy laugh.
Moreover, this “feminist icon” peels with laughter throughout her disclosure that the crime lab accidentally destroyed DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime. Even more despicably, this hero of the left re-victimized the young girl through the legal process by attacking her credibility via an affidavit she wrote which stated:
“[T]he complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.”
Even if true—which is highly doubtful—a 12-year old cannot legally give consent for sexual activity with a 41-year old adult. Therefore, the child's alleged “fantasizes” at that time are irrelevant. More sleazy Clintonian style evasion (“It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is”) to cast doubt on the veracity of an innocent by a person who has grave issues with truthfulness herself—to this very day.
Given all the mishaps, which were many—like the mishandling of the bloody underwear—Slick Willie's wife pulled a real fast one. She finagled a plea deal that reduced the charges from first-degree rape to unlawfully fondling of a minor younger than 14. That's not sexual assault—that's inappropriate touching. In other words, the result of the trial was nothing more than a legal slap on the wrist:
Roy Reed: “How did it turn out? What...”
Hillary Clinton: “Oh, he plea bargained! Got him off with time served in the county jail, he'd been in the county jail about two months.”
Considering the source, unsurprisingly, that last bit isn't quite true either. Per The Washington Free Beacon: “Taylor was sentenced to one year in jail, with two months off for time served. He had been facing 30 years to life in prison for first-degree rape.” Yet, in the final analysis, so distasteful was her dishonorable accomplishment, she crowed proudly about it (above) to the press five years later!
By the victim's own admission, Mrs. Clinton put “me through hell.” More honest words of warning are rarely spoken. Is this really the caliber of person this country wants as the next U.S. president?