Throughout her career, Hillary Clinton has used manipulative and hurtful tactics in order to climb the ranks. Sometimes at the detriment of other women.

Hillary Clinton’s abuse of women goes all the way back to 1975 when she successfully defended a man on charges of raping a 12-year-old girl. As written in the affidavit, Clinton writes that the 12-year-old “is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” (34.) Further, “…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,” (34.)

Due to an error in the handling of evidence by the prosecution, the key piece of evidence – the defendant’s underpants – was dismissed.

“You know, what was sad about it,” Clinton told Reed, “was that the prosecutor had evidence, among which was [Taylor’s] underwear, which was bloody.”

The evidence points to Thomas Alfred Taylor of being guilty, but due to malpractice Hillary Rodham got him to plea down to “Unlawful Fondling of a Child under the Age of Fourteen.”

This is evidence of two things – that Hillary Rodham was a shrewd lawyer and that Mr. Taylor did not serve the adequate time for his crime. Blame that on the prosecution, but the man almost definitively raped a 12-year-old girl and served only a year in jail for it.

So how did Hillary Rodham discuss the trail after the fact? She laughed about it.

In an interview with author Roy Reed, she discussed this case. She said, “He [Thomas Taylor] took a lie detector test! I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs [laughter].” Even Hillary Rodham knew he was guilty.

And yet, despite knowing this, she tarnished the image of a 12-year-old saying she fantasized about older men. She was combative, stubborn, and had a temper after she had been raped. Now she laughs about the case.

(The above quote starts around 1:48)

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast, the aforementioned 12-year-old says “Hillary Clinton took me through Hell.”

“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 [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”

Clinton stands by her defense of the case. “When you’re a lawyer you often don’t have the choice as to who you will represent,” she said. “And by the very nature of criminal law there will be those you represent you don’t approve of. But, at least in our system, you have an obligation. And once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation.”

That doesn’t mean one should go laughing about how a child rapist got off easy. Nor should they feel no remorse about damaging the character of an impressionable little girl after she had been raped.

Three years later in 1978, Bill Clinton was accused of raping Juanita Broaddrick in Little Rock, Arkansas.

In a famous interview aired on NBC’s Nightline in 1999, shortly after Bill Clinton was cleared by the Senate of impeachment, Juanita recalled:

Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip. … He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him “No,” that I didn’t want this to happen, but he wouldn’t listen to me. … It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to “Please stop.” And that’s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip. … When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment, and he walks to the door and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says, “You better get some ice on that.” And he turned and went out the door.

The Washington Post reported that the White House released a statement in 1999 denying the allegations, “Any allegation that the president assaulted Ms. Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false,” Clinton’s personal attorney, David E. Kendall, said in a statement released by the White House yesterday.” Beyond that we are not going to comment.”

Broaddrick claims that Hillary confronted her shortly after the incident. At a fundraiser she said, “I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate the things you do for him. Do you understand? Everything [emphasis added] you do,” conveying a not so subtle threat.

On the encounter, Broaddrick says “what really went through my mind at that time is ‘She knows. She knew. She’s covering it up and she expects me to do the very same thing.'”

Watch the entire interview with Nightline:

Mrs. Broaddrick came back into the limelight recently when she responded to Chelsea Clinton rebuking Donald Trump.

He threatened to bring up her father’s infidelities at the first presidential debate.

Even Salon says “President Clinton’s failure to address Juanita Broaddrick’s charge of rape is indefensible.”

One would think that, if these allegations are so horrendously false, the Clintons would sue for slander and/or libel. It is also curious that, unlike Bill’s other accusers, Juanita was never subjected to the same ridicule that others were. The passage of time does not negate facts. The statute of limitations may be expired, but Mrs. Broaddrick’s claims still need to be addressed.

Hillary Clinton “wrote the book on terrorizing women.”

That was exclaimed by another one of Bill Clinton’s accusers – Kathleen Willey. In an interview, she continued: “Her tactics and the things that she set in motion against all the women like me, the ones you have heard of and the ones you haven’t heard of, and the ones who are so scared that fled the country, are terrorist tactics like I’ve never seen before.”

According to David Brock (now a Clinton ally), the Clintons (primarily Hillary) engaged in numerous intimidation tactics in order to silence any would-be Bill Clinton accusers of sexual misconduct.

David Brock says, “Given Bill’s personal history and character, Hillary and her team had to treat them all as potentially true.”

What is ironic is that Hillary has now tried to become a champion of women’s rights. Her campaign’s site has a page on sexual assault, where the headline reads: “I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard.”

As The Hill and Buzzfeed note, there’s a key phrase missing from the quote: “You have a right to be believed.”

It was removed after Buzzfeed’s bombshell interview with Juanita Broaddrick was released. Again, no credible source has ever disproved Mrs. Broaddrick’s claims.

She has a right to be believed.

The media, shamefully, does not give her story justice. They don’t want to.

They are fully owned and operated as the 3rd arm of the Clinton Campaign and do anything to quash any negative stories, as confirmed through numerous emails released by Wikileaks showing correspondence on potential stories between Clinton campaign staffers and media members.

Women deserve to be believed if they come forward against an abuser, except if it is against the Clintons. From the RealClearPolitics article:

Brock quotes Rex Nelson, former political editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, recalling that “women were called and told they’d make them look like whores if they came forward.” The campaign hired a private investigator, Jack Palladino, who Brock reports was “part of the same circle with which Hillary Rodham had been associated in the early 1970s.” Palladino’s job was simple: To contain what Clinton operative Betsey Wright called “bimbo eruptions.”

It is patently unfair and unjust that these women, many of whom are still afraid to this day to come forward, have never been given the proper time of day to air their accusations.

Bill Clinton’s impeachment vote in the Senate was voted straight party-line – with every Democrat senator voting not guilty on perjury charges, despite President Clinton, on video, denying any sexual relations with White House intern Monica Lewinski. Should they have stuck true to their morals rather than party, Bill Clinton would have been removed in disgrace from his party.

Instead, he is championed by liberals as a great president.

Just overlook the overlook the terrible things he did, and that his wife covered up, in order to get there.

Hillary Clinton has systematically silenced, intimidated, and abused women for both her and Bill’s political gains.

Further from the RealClearPolitics article:

The use of a private investigator to do surveillance on – and attempt to intimidate – potential witnesses was an unprecedented scandal potentially far darker than the story of the ill-starred whitewater investments. Yet with the sole exception of the Washington Post story in July, not one of the campaign reporters chose to write about the practice, even though many were quite familiar with it. (p. 273, The Seduction of Hillay Rodham)

He goes on to say that “Hillary had always been an advocate of take-no-prisoners tactics,” and that bringing in her old pal Palladino “suggested that with the White House in her sights, Hillary was willing to countenance intimidation to cover up Bill’s peccadilloes.”

These reports of intimidation and silencing detail cases that we know about.

Given the Clinton’s history of doing-whatever-it-takes, there is most assuredly countless other victims who have never had the opportunity to come forward with their story.

Either the press is ignoring them to continue their own narrative, or they are too afraid to come forward for fear of retribution and being made “look like whores.”

There is no doubt about it: Bill Clinton is a serial sexual predator. The old saying goes that where there’s smoke there’s fire.

In remarkable irony, the president just happened to put a cigar in an intern’s vagina.

There’s too many accusers, too many stories to discredit them all as bimbos or part of a “right-winged conspiracy.”

Hillary Clinton bears no blame in the conduct of her husband.

She bears the blame in the silencing of his victims. She bears the blame of hiring private detectives to investigate his accusers so any impropriety of their past can be exacerbated by her media team and the media at large as the pantheon of why that accusers is not credible. She bears the blame of looking past her husband’s abuses for their political gain.

Politics is a game. But rape, groping, sexual misconduct – call it what you will – is not. The ends never justify the means when it comes to this.

She bullied, she lied, she threatened, she instilled fear. To make sure that her husband got the presidency. To make sure that she could run for a political office in the future. To make sure that she got the presidency one day.

Her tactics are vile and despicable.

In her own words:

Unless that person survived a Clinton assault.

The following two tabs change content below.

Shane Rider

Shane Rider is a writer for REGATED, interested in political theory, conservatism, and all things Boston. He is consistently seen at Fenway Park and has been known to sleep outside for World Series tickets. You can follow him on Twitter @sriderMA

Latest posts by Shane Rider (see all)