Reminder: There Was Much More Corroborating Evidence Against Bill Clinton Than Against Brett Kavanaugh

Posted: Oct 16, 2018 10:25 AM
Reminder: There Was Much More Corroborating Evidence Against Bill Clinton Than Against Brett Kavanaugh

When Hillary Clinton made headlines and raised eyebrows this week by asserting that her husband's sexual affair with a young White House intern did not constitute an abuse of power because Monica Lewinsky was legally an adult, even many Democrats winced.  It was the sort of tortured justification that we've grown accustomed to from the Clintons, but in the #MeToo era, downplaying the ability of adult women to be exploited or abused by male superiors in the workplace is a major no-no.  Indeed, it's difficult to envision a more pronounced power gap between a 22-year-old unpaid intern and the President of the United States.  But Hillary couldn't help herself.  Due to the firestorm over Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation process, Mrs. Clinton has found herself in an awkward position on several occasions, trying to attack Kavanaugh while defending her husband.  This was a particularly memorable line of argument:

This harkens back to an encounter on the 2016 campaign trail wherein Clinton tried to dismiss a litany of credible allegations leveled by a number of women against the 42nd president -- ranging from sexual harassment, to misconduct, to forcible rape.  The latter charge, advanced by Juanita Broaddrick, has always been the most serious.  She and other alleged victims were ripped apart (see the 'nuts and sluts' and "trailer park" smears) by the Democratic attack machine, back when destroying or ignoring Bill's accusers aligned with the political interests of the party.  "Believe women" wasn't the mantra in those days, nor is it today, depending on the woman and the accusation.  But Hillary's line about Ms. Broaddrick appears to be that the rape claim was investigated and debunked, unlike the claims against Kavanaugh (which actually were investigated, with zero corroboration uncovered).  In fact, there was quite a lot of compelling and contemporaneous evidence against Bill Clinton.  Here's a useful summary from Slate, written in 1999:

Broaddrick’s initial denials indicate only that she shunned publicity. That’s why she never reported the rape; rebuffed advances from Clinton’s political enemies who, in 1992, urged her to go public; and lied to Paula Jones’ lawyers. She eventually told the FBI the truth in 1998 only because her son–a lawyer–advised her against lying to federal investigators...Five people say Broaddrick told them about the rape immediately after it occurred. A friend and co-worker named Norma Kelsey says that, 21 years ago, she found a dazed Broaddrick with bloodied lip and torn pantyhose in their shared hotel room and Broaddrick explained that Clinton had just raped her. (Clinton is supposed to have bitten her on the lip just before raping her.) Her current husband–then her lover–says Broaddrick told him about the rape within a few days of the event...

Broaddrick did not remember the date of the rape, though she did supply the name of the hotel (Camelot) and the reason she was visiting Little Rock (a nursing home seminar). She also says that Clinton pointed to a ramshackle prison outside the hotel room window before he raped her and said he planned to renovate it. NBC News found a date when a nursing home seminar was held in the Camelot Hotel and records show that Broaddrick attended. Newspaper reports suggest that Clinton was in the area and had no official commitments in the early morning, when the rape is supposed to have occurred. There was a prison outside the hotel window.

The Slate post also notes the stories of other women who've pointed the finger at Clinton, suggesting a pattern of entitled and inappropriate sexual conduct.  In fairness, it runs through some of the counterpoints from Clinton defenders, too.  But I'd recommend considering all of the information contained in those two paragraphs above, then juxtaposing it with the utterly unsubstantiated claims against Kavanaugh.  Broaddrick had five contemporaneous witnesses whom she told nearly immediately, including someone who found her crying and bloodied that very day.  By contrast, not a single one of Ford or Ramirez's named witnesses could back up their stories -- with Ramirez recently telling friends she was unsure of her own memory.  Don't forget that the same Democratic Party that defended Bill Clinton to the hilt for years collectively exploited totally unproven claims to insist that Brett Kavanaugh withdraw his nomination or be defeated.  Meanwhile, here's lefty blogger Ezra Klein acknowledging that Broadderick's story remains harrowing and credible:

Based on the Left's arguments against Kavanaugh, especially in light of the complete dearth of evidence against him, how can Bill Clinton remain a Democrat in good standing today?  How can he have just inked a lucrative speaking tour contract with his wife, who aided and abetted the slime campaign against his accusers?  The Clintons' political survival relied on the very opposite of the "believe women" mantra.  Parting thought: Will Bill, yet again, be offered a plum speaking slot at the next Democratic National Convention, as he has every cycle, for decades?  Who could forget his appearance at the "war on women"-themed 2012 DNC, which astoundingly went out of its way to honor Sen. Ted Kennedy -- who killed a woman -- by celebrating his status as a "champion" for women?  Speaking of gobsmacking hypocrisy on this front, I'll leave you with the latest ad out of New Jersey's Senate race.  Oof:

The Coma Before the Storm
Kurt Schlichter

One more question: What percentage of the Democratic partisans who believe Dr. Ford and are convinced that Justice Kavanaugh should have been denied his SCOTUS seat would nevertheless vote for Bill Clinton all over again, in a hypothetical 2020 match-up against, say, Mike Pence or Ted Cruz?  90 percent?  95 percent?