>>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.

In this forum, nobody except you says she wanted the case at the expense of a rape victim. My view is the opposite of the one you try to assign to me. IMHO she was assigned this "booby prize" case by the court so was unable to escape. There's no "win" for her getting off such an unpopular defendant: the best outcome for her is to display a spirited defense of the constitutional and personal rights of somebody who would make many/most women uneasy who then is found guilty through no fault of hers. Whereas getting him off creates enmity and a time bomb. As we're seeing. So where's the motive?

>>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. :)

For the 3rd time: if you're appointed by the court to represent somebody, it doesn't matter how abhorrent you find your new client. You're obligated to do your best for them. If political opponents really want to go after a lawyer for honoring her obligations, a) the critics are displaying partisan ignorance and b) they end up hoist by their own petard while the accused target gets to sit on their moral high horse.

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

So?

>>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.

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