>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....

I understand the point Kevin is *trying* to make but don't think that criticizing her behaviour as a defense lawyer makes the case.