Oh boy, the wingnuts have a new attack on Hillary Clinton and it’s an especially stupid one. Someone found an old interview where she talked about defending an accused child molester when she was working as an attorney for a Legal Aid office in Arkansas. And that means she “is the war on women,” according to Joseph Farah.
Newly discovered audio recordings reveal Hillary Clinton in the 1980s gladly defended the suspected rapist of a 12-year-old girl using a legal technicality.
Is this a surprise for a woman who seeks to be president and who has championed the notion that Republican opposition is “at war with women”?
But now we see the truth about this phony feminist. Given the choice between being the token woman attorney representing a man she strongly suspected was guilty of raping a 12-year-old girl and doing the right thing, Hillary opted for the money and her legal career.
Now let’s look at the actual article he cites:
Twenty-seven-year-old Hillary Rodham had just moved to Fayetteville, and was running the University of Arkansas’ newly-formed legal aid clinic, when she received a call from prosecutor Mahlon Gibson.
“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?”
Farah has translated that — read: lied about it — and turned it into her “gladly” defending him and “opting for the money.” In fact, she did it as a favor to the prosecutor in the case and she was working for Legal Aid, which means she didn’t make a dime from that case at all (she would have been paid a salary regardless of the cases she took). But why let little things like facts get in the way of one’s political assumptions?
She also, by the way, would have been legally obligated to provide him the best defense she could as his attorney. Anything less could result in being disbarred. Right wingers love to make these kinds of attacks on lawyers, like denying Neil Katyal’s potential nomination as Solicitor General to replace Elena Kagan because he had once defended an inmate at Gitmo (who turned out to be innocent, incidentally, even according to the Bush administration). It’s just another example of how conservatives actually despise the constitution they claim to revere. The constitution guarantees the right to counsel, but then they savage anyone who acts as counsel for anyone they don’t like. It’s perverse and appalling.