Falcon would have to edit it, since he wrote it. The post is archived, though...so I'm not sure if it can be edited?

In these audio tapes from the 1980's, we hear Hillary Clinton bragging and laughing about getting a pedophile off a child rape charge.

We absolutely do not hear that. In those tapes you hear her describe the actual case as **terrible. ** Right after this case she established Arkansas's first rape crisis hotline and she pushed for legistlation that before a rape victim's previous sexual history would be heard by a jury, it would have to be approved by the judge. This was a safeguard to ensure the relevance of this as evidence and to prevent the damage of the jury hearing it, even if the judge didn't allow it.

As to your claim,

First of all the guy plead guilty and got a five year sentence. The charge was unlawful fondling of a child. It was a plea deal. 95% of convictions for violent crimes are the result of a plea deal. The prosecutor went for the plea deal for a few reasons.

One, they had a very weak case. The cops had lost the physical evidence that tied the guy to crime scene, making it a he said, she said case.

Two, the girl's family didn't want her to testify. The mother wanted it settled quickly.

Three, the cops thought the girl wouldn't be a good witness, that she was lying about some aspects of the case, particularly about a teenage boy involved in the incident.

What she laughs at how messed up the justice system was....

....The sexist judge tried to prevent her from seeing certain evidence because she was a woman. Even though she was the guy's lawyer. The judge thought she would be too delicate to hear sexual details or see the guy's underwear. The judge even tried to have her leave the room during the plea bargain phase.

....How unreliable lie detectors are. Her client passed one and then later plead guilty to a crime.

Her interviewer laughs when she explains the cops threw away the physical evidence, preventing an independent test.

She did not take this case voluntarily. She was appointed by the court. A lawyer has a duty to do what they can to advocate for their client and provide effect counsel. It's one of the hallmarks of the American System.

You can read more about that here. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/DefenseFunctionFourthEdition.html

If a defendant does not receive effective counsel, his conviction can be overturned and a new trial ordered. This has its basis in the 6th Ammendment.