>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)
>
>I think that the point that Kevin is trying to make is that HRC proclaims herself to champion women, unless they have been sexually assaulted by her husband, of course, or can be raped and she can defend the rapist and laugh about it later saying that she knew the entire time that the rapist was guilty as sin. I know that you are really bright, so I find it hard to believe that you do not see the hypocrisy here. Talk is cheap and HRC's actions speak louder than words. She definitely does NOT champion women....

Yes, other than working to close the pay gap, fighting for paid family leave, her endless work to protect women’s health and reproductive rights, decades of work to promote women’s rights around the globe like the U.S. delegation to the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, where she proclaimed that “women’s rights are human rights.”, created the first ever Ambassador-at-Large for global women’s issues, which has become a permanent position. ...also helped launch the first U.S. strategy to prevent and respond to gender-based violence globally, and she advanced women’s economic empowerment, championed programs to prevent and respond to gender-based violence, and spearheaded public-private partnerships to improve the status of women and girls. Yeah other than that she's really done nothing. I wonder what Trump's list looks like? These are all actions she's taken, not just words - and I don't recall seeing any actions in this regard offered by Trump - there is no doubt who is more of a champion of women between these two is there? Or did I miss something?