Believe All Women? Top Hillary Clinton Adviser Declares ‘Juanita Broaddrick Is Full of Sh*t’

|
Posted: Nov 08, 2018 9:30 AM
Believe All Women? Top Hillary Clinton Adviser Declares ‘Juanita Broaddrick Is Full of Sh*t’

As many Democrats headed to the polls on Tuesday ready to deliver what they hoped would be a fatal blow to Drumpf and his Republican minions —who of course had the gall to express skepticism of Christine Blasey Ford and her tale of near rape and murder at the hands of two evil white frat boys —most doubtlessly had little idea of the insanely hypocritical stance they and their political idols consistently take on the issue of accusations of sexual misconduct.

As most people who follow news outlets other than CNN and MSNBC are aware, it’s a pretty common occurrence that when women accuse Democrats of sexual malfeasance or other potentially criminal behavior, no doubt can be too strong about their claims. Consequently, such accusations are rarely given much coverage or credence by the mainstream media, and even when they are, professions of belief of these women tend to come well after any serious consequences can possibly be suffered by the accused. At the very least, most pundits and journalists know better nowadays than to openly insult or attack those accusers while simultaneously spouting empty platitudes like #BelieveAllWomen to facilitate attacks against their political opponents on the right.

In spite of the apparent ubiquity of such sage wisdom among our coastal liberal elites, Philippe Reines —a longtime top adviser to Hillary Clinton —ignored that guidance on Monday when he not only publicly accused Juanita Broaddrick of lying about her past claims that then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton raped her in a hotel room in 1978, but insisted that Broaddrick is “full of sh*t.” Reines also asserted that Broaddrick is part of a “cottage industry” of women desperate to sell their stories for public consumption.

Reines made the above comments on the latest broadcast of National Review’s online radio program “The Jamie Weinstein Show.” As host of the show, Weinstein initially provoked the statements by asking Reines to discuss a recent New York Times article that talked about how Democrats have been strenuously avoiding help from Bill Clinton during this year’s midterm election campaigns due to the various past allegations against the former president. Although Reines initially struck a conciliatory tone when speaking about the sexual misconduct accusations more generally, he really lit up when specifically asked about Broaddrick’s claims [emphasis mine]:

REINES: Obviously, #MeToo is making everyone reevaluate things. It is a moving target and I do think that there are people who are trying to reconcile something that happened twenty years ago in this new context. I understand why people are doing that. I also understand why people say it’s been dealt with. He was impeached. It’s not like he got off scot-free.

WEINSTEIN: He w- -- Juanita Broaddrick was never really seriously-

REINES: Juanita Broaddrick is full of sh*t. Juanita Broaddrick-

WEINSTEIN: Oh you don’t -- so you don’t think she’s telling the truth about that.

REINES: I do not think she’s telling the truth.

Reines went on to claim that even Ken Starr "did not think she was telling the truth” and that one of Starr’s reports “confirmed” Broaddrick was “a not-credible witness.” Reines did not specify what report he was talking about. Copies of the famous Starr report that can be found online never mention Broaddrick by name, and even more recent press coverage that has been critical of Broaddrick’s rape allegation only notes that Starr found her case to be “inconclusive,” not that she lied. If there were any direct comments from Starr saying that Broaddrick was not credible or a liar, one would think they would be easier to find.

But regardless of Starr’s ultimate opinion of Broaddrick, it remains that in the era of #MeToo, when the Left almost uniformly insists that every Republican accused of sexual misconduct must be guilty because a woman said so, it really should not be too much to ask that Democrats display just a tiny amount of consistency and follow their own supposed principles. Given the inherent absurdity of following the #BelieveAllWomen rule to the letter, however, it is not surprising that Dems cannot bear to reliably enforce it on themselves.

Just don’t bet on that fact stopping the hashtag crazy train anytime soon.

A transcript of the segment from “The Jamie Weinstein Show” follows below (audio of the segment can be listened to via Mediaite):

(…)

JAMIE WEINSTEIN: Speaking of Bill Clinton, there was an article today in the New York Times. “No One Wants to Campaign with Bill Clinton Anymore” was the headline. In the age of #MeToo, have you reevaluated how you view Bill Clinton and the Clinton presidency?

PHILIPPE REINES: I seem to be the only one who hasn’t, but, I mean, I’m a white male, so I’m not sure.

You know, on the political part of the Timesstory, I think, most importantly to accredit to the Clintons, just like Nancy Pelosi, is that these people say, and I’m quoting Nancy Pelosi quoting former Raiders owner Al Davis, saying “just win baby.” Like, they don’t care. If you’re gonna win by having me, great. You’re gonna win by ignoring me, great. If you’re gonna win by saying I’m bad, great. And I know a lot of people, I think, who want the party to win subscribe to that.

I don’t, I don’t know, I mean, you know, there’s no way I can answer this question without getting this wrong. Obviously, #MeToo is making everyone reevaluate things. It is a moving target and I do think that there are people who are trying to reconcile something that happened twenty years ago in this new context. I understand why people are doing that. I also understand why people say it’s been dealt with. He was impeached. It’s not like he got off scot-free.

WEINSTEIN: He w- -- Juanita Broaddrick was never really seriously-

REINES: Juanita Broaddrick is full of sh*t. Juanita Broaddrick-

WEINSTEIN: Oh you don’t -- so you don’t think she’s telling the truth about that.

REINES: I do not think she’s telling the truth. More importantly, Ken Starr did not think she was telling the truth. For me, I assume Ken Starr pulled no punches.

WEINSTEIN: But why do you think though-

REINES: Ken Starr’s report, or subsequent reports, confirms that he deemed Juanita Broaddrick as a not credible witness, both in terms of his own interview of her and the inconsistencies between what he heard from her and what she told the FBI.

WEINSTEIN: Why do you think all-

REINES: You think Ken Starr would have gone easy on Bill Clinton?

WEINSTEIN: Why do you think all of the people who have recently listened to Slow Burn, this was a podcast where she was interviewed, and are now saying: I totally, you know, reevaluate my position on Bill Clinton. She seems very, very credible. She didn’t want to come forward and was forced-

REINES: I’m sure -- she didn’t want to come forward my ass.

WEINSTEIN: Well, I mean-

[crosstalk]

REINES: This is a cottage industry.

WEINSTEIN: You think she did?

REINES: That she wanted to come forward?

WEINSTEIN: Yeah.

REINES: I think that there is a sad dynamic with a lot of people who legitimately, I mean, to me the best example is, um, Sean Jone- -- uh-

WEINSTEIN: Paula?

REINES: No. I think that’s why I had Jones in my head. Um, the -- one of the four who died at Benghazi [Author’s Note: probably Sean Smith], his mother -- his mother just believes in her heart that there is another part of the story. And I understand that. I understand -- I’m familiar with the details in the sense that, you know, I know that she was estranged from her son. She, um, does not get along with her daughter-in-law. She didn’t even know he was in Libya. I understand how you go from that to really upset, and I do believe that people have taken advantage of that to whip her up and use her for political purposes.

WEINSTEIN: But in the case-

REINES: And that I find sad. And I think that that’s-

WEINSTEIN: In the case of Broaddrick, she does seem -- have more credibility than almost, you know, certainly any of the Kavanaugh people, because she can name contemporaries-

REINES: These are false comparisons.

WEINSTEIN: She was a Democrat.

REINES: But these are false comparisons.

WEINSTEIN: What is the -- why would she-

REINES: I mean, if you heard one of the Kavanaugh -- first of all, one of the Kavanaugh women is being pretty uniformly dismissed.

WEINSTEIN: Right, the Avenatti person.

REINES: So, if twenty years from now she’s saying this really happened, are you gonna be asking on a podcast some-

WEINSTEIN: No, I just think that-

REINES: I mean, someone, someone latching onto something?

[crosstalk]

WEINSTEIN: I’m not gonna dwell on it, but I think that Broaddrick is, is, is -- was somewhat more compelling, especially, you know, here in our interview.

REINES: Don’t believe Phillipe Reines, believe Ken Starr.

(…)