>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)

Unfortunately, I think you're missing my point.

For years, the political left has blasted law enforcement for the linear processes they've used in determining if an alleged victim is credible.

However, I have yet to see one liberal personally call out HRC for the same thing. Basically, she is mildly credited for "doing her job as a good lawyer".

As much as I can't stand Trump, conservatives voting for Trump at least acknowledge how bad he can be. Her supporters are better at the art of political Omertà.

As I just said to Tamar, clearly HRC acknowledges the inconsistency - as she pulled content from her website. I guess you could say she's way smarter than her loyal supporters. :)