Snopes has no reason to lie.
Snopes based much of its information from the court documents.
Snopes based much of its information on a news article that
contained an interview with the victim, and quotes her.
Snopes discusses the audio.
Clinton didn't lie. There's nothing in any of the information I saw indicating in any way that she lied about anything.
By contrast, the OP is lying when it says:
1. The victim says she was in a coma (she yelled at the 15 year old after the incident, and it's on record that she walked into the ER herself).
2. HRC "freed" the defendant. She didn't. The defendant copped a plea with the prosecutor -
at the urging of the victim and her mother. The prosecutor accepted the plea offer. The prosecutor and Court approved the sentence. Copping a plea, esp back then, is and was done in 97% of rape cases.
3. HRC lied and said the victim had a propensity for older men and had made false accusations in the past. HRC did not say that. The affidavit clearly tells the Court that "others" had informed HRC of that, and a psych expert had also given her information. For those reasons, she requested a psych exam of the victim and her mother, at the cost of the defense. The fact that others had told HRC that would have to be true, since the Court would not have considered the affidavit if such information had not been entered as evidence already, or if the Court was already familiar with that information. The expert would have been known to the Court, of course. All "informers" would have at a minimum been on witness lists filed with the court, including the psychologist.
4. The victim says as a result of the rape, she couldn't have children. There is absolutely no evidence of that. She didn't have children, but nothing indicated anything even approaching such a thing, in the evidence or testimony. The first time this came up was just recently (she's now about 50 years old). Even if that were true, that has nothing to do with HRC.
5. At the time the victim gave an interview for the news article referenced in Snopes, she stated that she held no ill will toward the defendant's attorney (HRC).
6. The OP says HRC "volunteered" for the case. Not true. Hillary states this in a book, and the prosecutor on that case also states that she told him that directly, and tried to get out of it. She was
appointed to the case by the Court. (attorneys get on public defender lists, which the Court uses to appoint to defendants who don't have money to hire their own attorneys)
If the victim doesn't like the plea deal NOW,
she can blame her mother, who pushed hard for it, and
the prosecutor, who was the attorney who represented the victim's rights,and
the judge, who is the one who ultimately approves the sentencing. This was the 1970s, so victims weren't protected as much then as now. But even now, rapists sometimes get light sentences. Here is a sentence handed down LAST WEEK for a father who repeatedly raped his 12 year old daughter: 60 days in jail for a man who raped his 12 year old daughter -
Petition Calls for Removal of Judge Who Gave Man 60 Days in Jail for Raping Daughter, 12 - Inside Edition
If we tried to force harsher sentences even now, which many women would like, many men would have a fit. A lot of men don't believe rape accusations in the first place, then blame the victims if it turns out to be true, and ultimately sometimes think just being accused is a harsh enough sentence, since it supposedly ruins HIS life, HIS future. So, there you go.
