>>>No...because it his statement came decades later, and after her audio interview in the 1980's.
>
>Usually lawyers can refuse to represent unsavory clients in the US. However, my understanding is that once the Court appoints you, "you're it" unless you can demonstrate a timing or other conflict. I would not be surprised if HRC got landed with this one because others refused and then the client demanded a female precisely when an ambitious HRC was trying to maximize her visibility. The Judge said good, you're it.
>

You've characterized HRC as an ambitious young lawyer trying to maximize her visibility. You're actually making the case of her opponents, that she wanted the case at the potential expense of a rape victim.

Imagine if a female Republican lawyer took the same case today. The DNC and the HRC machine would go after the lawyer - and you know it. :)

Additionally, HRC had already served as one of the attorneys on the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation - already had that on her resume.

Here's the problem with trying to justify HRC actions - one usually winds up using the same Clintonian logic that gets both WJC and HRC in trouble to begin with.