>>The only time anyone mentioned "appointed" was AFTER HRC said in an audio interview that she did it as a favor. The sequence of events of what was said (and when) is important here.

The defendant either did or did not ask for a female attorney. The court either did or did not appoint HRC. Once she's appointed, she's obligated. The order of subsequent reminiscences makes no difference surely.

As for favors: IMHO it's entirely credible that HRC was promised future benefit if she held her nose and took this one for the team, so to speak. She did them a favor over a nasty case whose defendant had already embarrassed his first attorney/s, so she was owed. That motive I can understand- and fair enough, too. I experienced it myself in healthcare when administrators promised first choice for the rest of the year to anybody who would take on a particularly unattractive run.

But the rest of it is an own goal by her logic. Why would she sow the seeds of future criticism for weaseling a rapist off the hook? I suppose it's possible she decided that if they were going to land a booby prize on her, she would deliver a startling result to prove her worth, but I haven't seen anybody suggest that. From a purely selfish perspective, it's not the best outcome for HRC and her politician spouse. Clearly. Or are you saying that she's so psychopathic that she'll try to destroy anybody or anything that stands against her, even a vulnerable underage victim? Any evidence for that, bearing in mind that in the US you're supposed to prove guilt rather than innocence?