A reader writes:

No offense, but you left yourself open to the dissent of the day when you failed to highlight the most damning piece of the Newsday article. It's this one:

"'I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,' wrote Rodham, without referring to the source of that allegation. 'I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body.'

"Dale Gibson, the investigator, doesn't recall seeing evidence that the girl had fabricated previous attacks."

This is the Clinton behavior we've seen time and again: quite likely fabricated charges, so skillful so as to become impossible to completely disprove, which serve "the greater good" of whatever cause they're using at the moment to burnish their credentials, experience, or legacy.

What's disturbing about this article isn't that Clinton mounted a vigorous case as a public defender. It's that it appears she played fast and loose with the truth in order to satiate her manic desire to prove her "bulldog" toughness to other observers. You can mount a vigorous case, but you're not supposed to conjure up the circumstances that allow you to make that defense. Lying to help yourself out during your first court assigned case is not an indispensable part of the country's legal defense system.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.