Another skeleton comes rattling out of Hillary's closet.

[dalesql]

So it seems Hillary's defense of rapists by discrediting the rape victim was something she had been doing for decades. It's sad that this is being published in a british paper, I guess the american news apparatchiks don't want to break ranks in their support of Hillary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729466/Child-rape-victim-comes-forward-time-40-years-call-Hillary-Clinton-liar-defended-rapist-smearing-blocking-evidence-callously-laughing-knew-guilty.html

Comments

[seawasp]

Old news, and mostly not true. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

[donnad.livejournal.com]

Do you not believe in the consitiution? Do you not believe that everyone deserves a fair trial, guilty or not?

HRC was assigned to defend that person. She did not choose it nor request it. Should she have refused because he was guilty? Doesn't that go against the constitution? If she had refused, it probably would have been held against her (Oh look HRC doesn't believe in the constitution and that everyone should get a fair trial, she's not fit to be President.) and her career would have suffered.

I can't believe people are still beating that dead horse.
This is old news, if you really want to call it news.