>>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.

There is no political left in the US. there is right and there is conservative right. Thats it.

>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. :)

I think you've got that wrong. I think many democratic voters acknowledge that HRC is not the ideal candidate. In fact from whom ever I speak from the US, most of them think they ended up with the worst candidates in history.

But when it comes to selecting the lesser of two evils, most of them agree it is a bad idea to let a chimpansee drive a gasoline truck.

I hope, I'm wrong, but if Trump gets elected, I think the US would lose its face in the world. You would not be taken seriously by many of your allies anymore. It most likely also would devistate the GOP and it will take years to balance powers again.