>
>The other point is that HRC could not give evidence herself (despite suggestions in mainstream media) but absolutely had an obligation to get expert evidence in front of the judge/jury if it assists her client. She's not allowed to go soft because she thinks her client is a pig. My question to people blaming HRC is: why is it her fault her client got off? Who was the prosecutor and what the heck happened to their obligation to prove the case?

I'm not disputing that first sentence in theory. You continue to miss the point.

She was previously using a campaign slogan on sexual assault: "you have the right to be believed, and we’re with you". She dropped that from her website. (And by the way, even Snopes, that left wing leaning site that liberals love to use, acknowledges this).

She dropped that after the rape case (and past Bill Clinton cases) hit the mainstream media again.