Anyone who argues that Clinton was only doing her job ignore the legally accepted concept that an attorney can choose between a strong adversarial position or a weak one. This excerpt is from a paper written by Michael Asimow, law professor at Stanford Law School: “A weak adversarialist is less concerned with such values as zealous advocacy, protection of client confidences, and procedural justice, and more concerned with the pursuit of substantive justice — that is, reaching the correct result rather than just using the correct procedures. The weak approach honors the individual lawyer’s conscience by allowing the lawyer to do less than the lawyer’s adversarial best when the lawyer is certain that the client is factually guilty of the crime.”
In court documents, Clinton accused the 12 year old victim of “seeking out older men and of engaging in fantasizing.” Clinton made the girl undergo a psychological examination that further traumatized her. If Clinton was truly an advocate for children’s and women’s rights she would have chosen a “weak adversarial” position in the interest of protecting an innocent 12 year old girl, rather than use her as a stepping stone to build her own reputation. This is only one example of Clinton’s true personality: Doing what’s best for her, not what is moral or compassionate.