Respectfully, I realize I could have Googled and found something about the matter, but I don't want to take a pick. I want to read the one you read to ensure we both have the same information in that regard.
I posted one of them in #128. Here it is again.
Exclusive: ‘Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,’ Rape Victim Says
Having read the article to which you provided the link, I have determined that the central question is one not of what Mrs. Clinton did or said, but rather one of ethics. I don't have a problem with Mrs. Clinton's efforts to effect the best possible outcome she could, ideally a not guilty verdict, for her client.
In the process of examining the ethical dilemma associated with the (not new) matter of how lawyers can bring themselves to defend folks like the accused rapist Mrs. Clinton did, I came across the following information that you may find useful in developing a more comprehensive understanding and view of the matter and considerations involved.
I realize the plaintiff claims that Mrs. Clinton lied in order to obtain the results she sought on behalf of her client, but one must realize that the accusation is also that Mrs. Clinton lied to the court. Were that in fact true, or believed by the court, or Arkansas' Attorney General, or the plaintiff's attorney(s), to be plausibly true, and investigation would have ensued, and
Mrs. Clinton could have been disbarred for doing so. Indeed, perjury is a possible outcome. None of those things happened; she was not only not disbarred, and not charged with perjury, but also not censured, or anything else, aside from having to endure the accusations that have of late surfaced, in connection with that trial.
I also happen to think the plaintiff in that case is today being used as a pawn in the effort to smear Mrs. Clinton's reputation. I think that in part because of what was presented in the article you referenced.
[T]he victim now claims she was misquoted. She didn’t even know Clinton was the lawyer who defended her attacker until Thrush showed her Clinton’s book and she had no other information about what had happened behind closed doors in that courtroom when Thrush approached her, she said. Thrush declined to comment.
After [the plaintiff in the rape case] was released from prison in 2008, [she] read more about Clinton’s involvement in her case, but she never planned to confront Clinton about it.
The article you referenced states that:
[A]fter hearing the newly revealed tapes of Clinton boasting about the case, the victim said she couldn’t hold her tongue any longer and wanted to tell her side of the story to the public.
“When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”
Well, I listened to the tape. Mrs. Clinton hardly sounds boastful. In fact it seems pretty clear to me that what she was laughing about was the perfunctory handling the forensics team exercised with a critical piece of evidence in a rape trial. I think the humor expressed in Mrs. Clinton's chuckles is not of the jocular sort, but rather of the bittersweet variety. Mrs. Clinton's other remarks in the interview do not at all suggest she gloated with glee over the outcome. In total, it appears that Mrs. Clinton realized the opportunity before her and, on behalf of her client, availed herself of it.