“Juanita Broaddrick says she wants to be believed,” BuzzFeed reports, referring to the woman’s longstanding accusation that Bill Clinton raped her decades ago.
Hillary Clinton also says victims of sexual assault should be believed. But as with all things Clinton, that’s qualified, and accusations that might stand in the way of her obsession with power don’t make the cut.
“You recently came out to say that all rape victims should be believed,” a voter asked Clinton in a New Hampshire Q&A event. “But would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones? Should we believe them as well?”
“Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence,” Clinton replied. What evidence exists to lead to such conclusions in the above cases has been left unsaid, and indeed, the Clintons have refused to comment on the specifics of Broaddrick’s accusations. Instead, they have deferred to their attorney, who issued a denial on his clients’ behalf.
Amplifying the push to make doubt the default was NBC News anchor Andrea Mitchell, who with no other substantiation nonetheless referred to Broaddrick as “discredited.” That outraged Clinton victims Willey and Jones, who have demanded Mitchell issue an on-air retraction, an admission there is no evidence Broaddrick’s story is untrue, and an apology. Willey also called on her to resign.
The network has thus far only deleted the “discredited” line in Mitchell’s smear from its online report. The thing is, it’s not the first time Mitchell has run interference for the Clintons, and on this very issue. It’s pretty bad when Bernie Sanders has to call you on it.
The way I would like to see the question posed to Hillary Clinton is more direct than what was asked in New Hampshire. As such, it eliminates the ability to weasel out of a direct answer, at least without everyone seeing blatant evasion. So naturally, no “authorized journalist” will ask:
Is Juanita Broaddrick a liar? Yes or no?
Some will say Hillary could never answer because then she might get sued, but think about that – if someone falsely accused your spouse of such a heinous crime, and much of the public believed it, would you hesitate to call the person doing that a damned liar, even though you have nowhere near the resources the Clintons do? Of course not, but then again, those who keep their oath place a special emphasis on the sanctity of truth, honor, promises, and their good names.
I first asked her that question over two years ago. That was repeated over a year later, with an additional question, one that puts the lie to Hillary’s claim to care about the health and safety of women:
Should Juanita Broaddrick have had a gun to defend herself from rape?
We know, of course, how Hillary feels about that. She and every other Opposite Day “progressive feminist” (not to mention all the indignant and snarky anti-gun males) supporting citizen disarmament would rather see a woman raped and beaten and tortured and killed than armed.
Hillary Clinton and her fellow traveler gun-grabbers would rather see your wife, your daughter, your mother, your sister, savagely violated and slaughtered than equipped and capable of defending themselves.
Don’t believe me?
Ask her if the women you love have a right to keep and bear arms of their choosing. Ask her if the decision to do so, including when and where, should be theirs.