>>>
>>>And speaking of blood-curdling, read all the available documents of her defending a rapist in the 1970's, specifically the affidavit documents she filed. She filed a motion to try to get the 12 year old girl to get a psychiatric examination. Here is her exact quote:
>>>
>>> “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing … [and] that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body”
>>
>>Isn't that her job as a defense lawyer??
>>
>>P
>
>Peter, please read my entire exchange with Tamar.
>
>The Ds cannot have it both ways. For several years now they've been talking about police investigations regarding rape and sexual assault allegations. They claim that cops are using outdated methods of determining if there's something to the victim's story - specifically looking to dismiss accusations if the alleged victim's story doesn't follow certain linear patterns.
>
>If the Ds want to promote that, they need to do so consistently.

I don't follow your reasoning. 'several years' and 40 years ?

If I understand correctly the 'evidence' used by Hilary Clinton would not be admissible today - but it was then and it would have been her duty as the defense lawyer to use it (whether she privately thought it should be inadmissible or not)