>>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....
>
>According to a PBS bit this morning she was appointed by the judge. She did NOT want it but was forced to. And she did the best defense job anyone could do according to the prosecutor at the time.

There is no strong evidence she was forced and no documented record that she protested in any way at the time.

Here is what is known:

- The accused man said that he did not want the originally court-appointed lawyer (who was a man) to represent him. He wanted a woman

- HRC has provided inconsistent information on whether she was "forced". In an audio interview during the 1980's, she said that a prosecutor called her, said a guy was accused of rape and wanted a woman lawyer....and said the prosecutor asked HRC if she would do it as a favor to him.

- It was only later, around 2003, when HRC wrote in her book that the prosecutor recommended that the criminal court judge appoint HRC. In her book, HRC states that she didn't feel comfortable taking on such a client, but she was reminded that she couldn't very well refuse the judge's request.

Again, attorneys have different avenues they can take to try get out of a court appointment. There is no documented evidence that HRC explored those, nor any documented evidence that she didn't want the case. Until her book in 2003, there is no trail at all to indicate she didn't want the case. A few people have come forward in recent years to corroborate her story, but it is all hearsay.

And candidly, given the history of HRC, she couldn't possible be less credible when explaining past actions.

So - it took over 20 years for any statement that HRC didn't want the case - and no proof that she tried to object/protest.

Additionally, the audio interview from decades ago certainly indicates she knew she was defending someone who was guilty of the rape charges.