Your citation of Hillary’s defense of a child rapist as a reason she is terrible reveals how flawed your whole position must be, or else that you’ve been misinformed.

Hillary was appointed by the judge to represent this guy, she had no choice. She was a new attorney without experience in criminal defense, but she worked hard to learn (even though she wasn’t getting paid). There were issues with the victim’s credibility, and Hillary had a constitutional obligation to research those issues and present her client’s case if it went to trial. By reaching a deal for the defendant to plead guilty, she helped avoid forcing the victim to testify (extremely traumatic) and forcing herself to attack the victim’s credibility on the stand and with expert testimony (even more traumatic, especially if the jury later acquits and the victim leaves feeling like the ordeal was her own fault). The prosecutor and the judge accepted the deal as well.

What Hillary did was help reach a resolution where the defendant was held responsible for his actions, he was incarcerated, and the victim was not required to re-live the experience and face the public scrutiny that a trial would result in.

At a relatively young age, Hillary showed her dedication to working hard, accepting responsibility, following her duty, learning new skills, reaching a compromise, and making the best decision when placed in an extremely undesirable position. She demonstrated her respect and reverence for the US Constitution and the importance of due process, even for the very most unpopular of people.

This story only supports Clinton’s case for the presidency.