The facts of the case, so far as they can be confirmed, are not the main point of contention here. At issue, rather, is how the facts are misrepresented and exaggerated in such a way as to give the impression that they're damning. Upon examining the evidence objectively, readers may find reason to disagree with Ms. Clinton's college-age politics and even question her judgment in certain matters, but they will find nothing to support the inference that her actions at the time went beyond legal or moral bounds.
For two impartial reviews of the facts themselves, see "Black Panthers" by David Mikkelson of the Urban Legends Reference Pages and "Hillary Clinton and the Black Panthers" from Urban Legend Zeitgeist.
As to the misrepresentation of the facts, here are the main objections:
Was Hillary Clinton a "defender" of the Black Panther murderers?
Not in the sense implied. Remember, these were accused murderers at the time she and other campus activists took up their cause (unless presumption of innocence somehow doesn't apply here). Secondly, there was a widespread suspicion among leftists that the Panther leaders had been framed by police and in any case were unlikely to get a fair trial in New Haven. Lastly, it's evident from the role for which Clinton volunteered during the actual trial – that of observer for the American Civil Liberties Union – that her interest lay precisely in its fairness and legality.
Did Clinton help the accused murderers "get off easy?"
No. How could she have? She played no direct role in the trial or sentencing.
Did Clinton organize demonstrations that "shut down" Yale University?
She was involved in such demonstrations, but how major a leadership role she played is under dispute. Eyewitness accounts place her at planning meetings but also characterize her as contributing a "moderate voice" to those proceedings. For the record, the demonstrations did not "shut down" the university. Similar protests went on at schools across the country.
Does Clinton's participation in the demonstrations and trial 30 years ago reflect negatively on Clinton in the present?
Only if you assume that student activism is bad and that having once been involved in it taints one for life. Taking into account the turmoil of the times and the widespread spirit of dissent on college campuses everywhere during the Nixon/Vietnam era, Clinton's documented activities were relatively tame and rational. One can certainly disagree with her politic beliefs, but the evidence shows Clinton was neither anti-American nor a gun-toting revolutionary, however much certain parties in the present would love you to think so.
The Smear Campaign Continues
David Mikkelson's thoughtful dissection of the email rumor also supplies some of the missing context required to objectively judge Clinton's allegiances and activities at the time. It also betrays the motives of those so adamantly perpetuating the smear, and thus has aroused their ire. Mikkelson's piece was derided on one conservative message board as a "a thinly-veiled whitewash." The angry reader wrote: "The learned liberals with their college libraries and research powers appear to first find an answer they like and then use their intellect and university education to obfuscate the truth that might hurt their views or their hallowed leaders."
In other words, we're to assume Mikkelson must have a left-wing agenda and his critique was biased. Unsurprisingly, no one on the message board took issue with Mikkelson's exoneration of G.W. Bush in the racial covenant affair, a case in which the smear tactics originated from the left. The fact is, Mikkelson and his wife, Barbara, have established an unblemished track record of political impartiality over the years.
Another nexus of conservatism on the Net, "Insight Magazine," regurgitated the anti-Clinton allegations in 2001 in an article entitled "Hillary Hides Her Panther Fling." It offers testimony verifying that both Clinton and Bill Lann Lee "indeed were student leaders during the Panther protests" and concludes from that rather bland fact that each can therefore be held accountable for the accused murderers "getting off easy." But it's not entirely a muddleheaded rehash. The article goes on to enumerate in some detail Clinton's contacts with various communists during the time period in question.
You heard right. Insight reveals that Hillary Clinton associated with communists in her youth.
Is it true? Yes. Among the lawyers trying the Panther case were some communists and former communists. Clinton knew them and worked with them.
Was Clinton herself a communist? No. Did she advocate a communist takeover of the United States? No.
Then what is the point of "naming names" of these people Clinton knew and worked with as a student activist 30 years ago? To find her guilty by association, we must conclude.
Some reading this may be too young to recall, but in the 1950s this particular tactic came to be known as "McCarthyism," and has been roundly condemned in the ensuing decades. But, as I said at the outset, the age-old dirty tricks are still very much in vogue and I would be hard-pressed to scrounge up a more perfect contemporary example. 
> > Page 1, 2, 3
