I haven't read the documents. I have read about the case. She was court-appointed and her responsibility was to represent her client to the best of her ability. That's how our system works. Doing any less would have been dereliction.

From the relevant Snopes article:

'That affidavit doesn't show, as claimed, that Hillary Clinton asserted the defendant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about men"; rather, it shows that other people, including an expert in child psychology, had said that the complainant was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,"'

First, there are a number of ways an attorney can get out of court appointments, especially in certain types of cases. The "she had to do it" claim is simply not true.

Second, you said you haven't read the available documents. It is sophomoric to admit you haven't read something (that's available) and then rely on a fact-check site that doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation.

Third, the child psychologist's claim was discredited during the legal proceedings. (Oh, I forgot...you said you didn't read the documents).

In this case, Snopes is using a straw-man fallacy. The point is that HRC offered no hard evidence in her claims.

Final comment: this is yet another example of the hypocrisy of the political left. On the one hand, they (rightly) criticize police investigators for adhering to linear patterns and linear descriptions, and for not recognizing that those who have been victims of traumatic crimes are not able to provide linear explanations. The left screams (again, with reason) for reforming police investigation processes that take into account new information on how the brain works after trauma.

On the other hand...well, I'm sure you see where this is going. This is called hypocrisy.