Rape

On Rape, Liberals Don't 'Believe the Victim' If It's Juanita Broaddrick

The right and left reverse positions when a sexual assault accusation threatens Hillary Clinton.

|

Broaddrick
Screenshot via Youtube

In the wake of the publication of a major interview with Juanita Broaddrick, a lot of left-leaning writers are soberly re-examining her decades' old rape accusation against Bill Clinton—which seems to grow less plausible (or perhaps less important) in their eyes, the more it threatens Hillary Clinton's presidential bid.

"While I (sort of? am leaning toward?) believe Juanita Broaddrick, her characterization of Hillary Clinton sounds irrational, maybe induced from PTSD," writes Wonkette's Rebecca Schoenkopf. Schoenkopf deserves credit for admitting a startling truth: her tribe is generally much less likely than this to agonize over accepting the victim's narrative. "Why did Juanita Broaddrick change her story? ask people who otherwise would automatically answer 'rape survivors do that sometimes,'" notes Schoenkopf.

We need not try to imagine how left-leaning feminist writers would respond if someone else described an alleged rape survivor as sounding "irrational." People like Cathy Young, Richard Bradley, and me have been excoriated by sites like Wonkette, Jezebel, and Feministing for daring to scrutinize self-described victims.

Meanwhile, conservatives are fervently embracing Broaddrick, as is Donald Trump's campaign. Breitbart News described Broaddrick as "a highly-believable victim."

Indeed, if an alien were to visit the United States and survey opinions on the Broaddrick issue, it might well conclude that conservatives were generally inclined to believe sexual assault victims, whereas skeptical liberals generally preferred to tread cautiously.

Reality, of course, is the opposite. "Believe the victims," is the mantra of the feminist-left. It was even Hillary Clinton's position on sexual assault accusations—at least until people pointed out the irony of Hillary vowing to believe all women while very specifically disbelieving those who had accused her husband. Last February, after Broaddrick sent a tweet accusing Hillary of trying to silence her, the Clinton campaign deleted the following sentence from its website: "You have the right to be believed, and we're with you."

When Clinton was specifically asked at a campaign event last December whether she thought Broaddrick should be believed, she replied, "Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence." But Broaddrick's accusation has never been disproven. There are reasons to think it might have happened, and reasons to question it.

Let's just get this out of the way: I don't believe Juanita Broaddrick's rape accusation against Bill Clinton. I don't believe it, because belief isn't part of the calculus here. Either it happened the way Broaddrick says it happened, or it didn't. I don't know whether it did or not, and so my position is I don't know whether Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick. I can't know something I don't know, quite obviously.

What I do know is that Broaddrick's story is perfectly plausible: she says she met Bill Clinton at a campaign event when he was running for governor of Arkansas, and he invited her back to a hotel room. He then forced himself on her, she claims. Weeks later, Hillary approached Broaddrick and essentially thanked her for keeping quiet, according to Broaddrick.

Broaddrick didn't tell the full story until decades later. Reporters have corroborated aspects of it, but not the actual rape. There are reasons to believe it—Broaddrick seemed genuinely traumatized, Bill Clinton is a creep—and reasons to disbelieve it—Broaddrick's story has changed, and resurfaces occasionally for no other reason than to satisfy partisan goals. When it comes to judging the truthfulness of decades' old claims that were never adjudicated in court, nor witnessed by any impartial persons, a certain amount of caution is prudent. But for many people, the factor tipping the scales is does believing this person assist or hamper my political agenda?

BuzzFeed's profile of Broaddrick is case in point. It's remarkably fair to both Broaddrick and Clinton, relating the details of the accusation in unbiased fashion. It also acknowledges something as uncomfortable as it is obvious: the more Broaddrick becomes an icon of right-leaning anti-Clinton sentiment, the less inclined liberals are to adhere to their typical "believe the victims" mantra:

Broaddrick has repeatedly said that she's not politically motivated. She insists she has no plans to join Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's campaign and says she's only voting for him because she doesn't want the man she claims raped her — and the woman she believes enabled him — back in the White House. She voted for Barack Obama in 2008 for the same reason, she said.

But even if Broaddrick doesn't want to admit it, she's become increasingly cozy with conservatives as election day draws nearer. She used to tweet mostly about her own story and other sexual assault–related issues; these days, her feeds are filled with outlandish Clinton conspiracy theories and angry posts about Benghazi. She may have once donated more than $1,000 to Obama, but now she retweets criticism about him and his wife.

Broaddrick's move to the right damages her mainstream credibility. Liberals may not want to call her a liar, but they don't understand why she has to back Trump, either, especially since his party has been mostly absent from — if not antagonistic toward — the ongoing national conversation on sexual violence. But the progressives who started that conversation aren't eager to include Broaddrick in it. The right-wingers may have an agenda, but at least they tell Broaddrick they believe her. That's all she's ever wanted.

It's all she's ever wanted… and it's the very thing the feminist left has continuously asserted that all sexual assault victims—proven or unproven—deserve. Whether or not Broaddrick is a Trumpkin has no bearing on whether she was raped.

Indeed, the Broaddrick dispute is a perfect reminder of why "believe all victims" is a nonsensical ideology. It is now being appropriated by the right in order to smear Hillary for sins that her husband may or may not have committed. With any hope, this act will persuade the left—Hillary Clinton included—that people who make rape accusations deserve support and compassion rather than de facto belief. The next time an Emma Sulkowicz or a Jackie comes around, perhaps the lefties who routinely attack other journalists for poking holes in alleged victims' stories could respond with the same amount of skepticism with which they continue to handle Broaddrick.

One final note: the pro-Trump Republicans who have opportunistically attached themselves to Broaddrick's cause are at least as delusional as the "believe all victims" left. As long as Donald Trump is their standard bearer, their assertions that they suddenly care about the treatment of women should be relentlessly mocked.

NEXT: Ukraine's Dire Economic Situation, Explained

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What? Leftards are hypocrites? Stop the presses!

    -jcr

    1. *sounds of whirring machines slowing to a stop*

    2. My last pay check was 9700 dollar working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
      This is what I do,…. http://bit.do/FOX92

    3. My last pay check was 9700 dollar working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
      This is what I do,…. http://bit.do/FOX92

  2. For what it’s worth, the Clinton campaign quietly took down their Believe the victim campaign pledge.

    1. The silence was deafening.

      -jcr

    2. Mentioned in article.

  3. As with everything to those on the left, it is the person who is to be judged, not their actions. So when the person is one of their own (Clinton), everything is excused.

    Principals always trump principles.

    1. S-
      I came here to say essentially the same thing.

    2. I think we should just start regarding this as a given.

      People are hypocrites. Democrats are hypocrites. Hypocrisy is banal. Stop even stipulating that the self-appointed moral arbiters of the left are any better than the people they love to scold.

    3. Especially when it comes to the boomer liberals that make up Cankles’ primary base of support. These are the same people who considered Nixon to be one of the most paranoid, corrupt politicians on the planet, yet are voting for a woman who makes Nixon look like a Boy Scout.

    4. My aunt is a far left progressive kook. A retired college english professor who is a huge supporter of Hillary Clinton (She used to throw democrat fundraisers at her home). One day, during a lengthy debate, I cornered her on the subject of Bill Clinton’s conduct with women (my aunt claims to be a feminist). she admitted his behavior was awful, but supports him because ‘he does so much good work’. Same thing with Hillary, and Ted Kennedy.

      It goes beyond ‘principals over principles’ with progressives. They have no real character, and no real internal sense of morality (they lack a soul). This is why when they accumulate enough power, that human suffering around them increases exponentially. Tyranny, starvation, murder, genocide, etc., it doesn’t matter. At the end of the day, these people only care about their marxism. Nothing else really matters to them. This is why so many will support Hillary no matter what evil thing she has been proven to do.

      1. This is exactly correct. It is were the left in this country have gone, as long as you are on the side that they deem good your behavior or performance mean nothing and everything is forgiven. So yes, those support in Hillary Clinton and excise her behavior because of her policies are bad humans.

    5. Hate the sinner, love the sin.

  4. One final note: the pro-Trump Republicans who have opportunistically attached themselves to Broaddrick’s cause are at least as delusional as the “believe all victims” left. As long as Donald Trump is their standard bearer, their assertions that they suddenly care about the treatment of women should be relentlessly mocked.

    THANK GOD YOU REMEMBERED!!!

    OT:Headline of the year? http://www.thelocal.se/2016081…..ter-attack

    1. A psychic midget escaped from prison.

      Small Medium at Large!

    2. “Headless Body In Topless Bar”

    3. A laser beam hit one of the teens in the face and the children rushed back home, shaken but luckily unharmed.

      The masked shooters…

      The police didn’t care so much about the traffic jam, she said, but officer Daniel Hagthorpe was concerned about the alleged laser attack and public sex.
      “Pointing at someone with green laser can cause injury if it hits the eyes,” he told Dalarnas Tidningar.
      And their waterwheel sex could be considered sexual harassment if anyone took offence, he added.

      Remember when the Swedish were vikings? Or when they were considered a great military power from the 17th through to the 19th century? Gustavus Adolphus, anyone? And now if someone points a laser pointer at someone else it’s referred to as an “attack” by a “shooter”, and the local authorities try to figure out if someone might have been offended by the sight of two people bangin’ in public in the dark.

    4. As long as Donald Trump is their standard bearer, their assertions that they suddenly care about the treatment of women should be relentlessly mocked.

      1. Good ole’ Robby, never forgetting to shit his pants over Trump.

  5. Are you saying that “the right” by default doesn’t believe rape accusers? If not, can you explain your “reverse their positions” statement?

    Secondly, you don’t have to know something to believe, or believe in, it. Just ask any religious person, anybody that has served on a jury and vowed to convict (without witnessing a crime firsthand) or anybody in a relationship. Belief requires a bit of faith where knowledge requires observation. There’s a big difference.

    Thanks.

    1. Just for clarification, I read it as “the left by default believes the victim and the right, by default, does not. And they have reversed positions when it comes to Broaddrick.” Is that what you are saying?

      1. Furthermore, their belief in Broaddrick might not be as reflexive as Robby thinks. It may be based on the multitude of women that have accused Bill Clinton of sexually abusing them and his official record of perjury in cases involving sexual assault/harassment.

        To me that sounds a lot more like a position arrived at after consideration of facts, not necessarily reflex.

        1. Yeah, it’s not like there isn’t a pattern in Bill Clinton’s behavior or anything….

        2. It may be based on the multitude of women that have accused Bill Clinton of sexually abusing them

          Other than Broderick, can you name one woman who accused him of sexual abuse?

          his official record of perjury in cases involving sexual assault/harassment.

          I don’t think he’s ever testified in a sexual assault case, or even been involved in one. Sexual harassment is a very different animal.

          1. Katherine Willey, off the top of my head. I could probably find more with some googling.

            1. Willey who saw Slick Willie’s willy.

              1. It’s willies all the way down.

            2. I forgot about Willey. But she was a serial liar about other things. It says something that Ken Starr didn’t bother bringing her up during Monicagate.

              1. She was a serial liar. Right. (rolls eyes at Team people)

                1. Why did Ken Starr distance himself from her then?

                  If you think I’m Team Blue you’re sadly mistaken. Far from it.

                  I’m on Team Truth. Regardless of whose ox it gores.

                  1. He didn’t pursue it because a Clinton Admin flack refuted her claims under oath. And besides, he didn’t need her testimony to corroborate since Lewinskey was going to be forced to take the stand and spill the beans.

                    And if there’s anything we know to be a fact, it’s that a Clinton or one of their inner circle would never, ever lie under oath. Why, it’s inconceivable!

                    1. So Starr dropped a credible sexual assault case because he wanted to pursue the more serious charges of “not correcting your lawyer about a consensual sexual relationship during a case that was settled out of court”. Right.

                      The Lewinsky shit was weak sauce (no pun intended) and you know it. Starr avoided Willey because her accusations weren’t credible.

                    2. Wiley never filed a criminal complaint. She was a witness in the civil complaint Jones filed.

                      A case, by the way, that Jones,unanimously won at the Supreme Court.

                      Starr was investigating misconduct in office, which is totally different. And it resulted in Clinton being impeached and censured by the bar association for perjury. As for the Jones case, he settled out of court for $850,000. It was handled by Starr’s successor, by the way.

                      On that case, “The Independent Counsel’s judgment that sufficient evidence existed to prosecute President Clinton was confirmed by President Clinton’s admissions and by evidence showing that he engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.”…according to Wiki (their link to a government record has somehow been made unlinkable. (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/icreport/lewinsky.html)

                    3. Red herring. The Jones case and the perjury impeachment had zilch to do with sexual assault or rape.

                      Oh… and:

                      A case, by the way, that Jones,unanimously won at the Supreme Court.

                      Then a few lines later….

                      As for the Jones case, he settled out of court for $850,000.

                      You seriously need to get your story straight before you embarrass yourself further. It’s clear you don’t like the Clintons (an attitude I admittedly have great sympathy for) and are just trying to throw a mess of anti-Clinton spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks.

                    4. Several of Bill Cosby’s accusers have been discredited, it is worth noting, but the multitude of accusations is still regarded as proof that at least one of them must be true. Usually, for feminists, one accusation is enough for them, and 2 is enough to go all “I can’t even, I mean, like, OMG, how could anyone think he could be innocent.” Once we’re talking 3? Forget about it.

                      Now, to those of us who live in the real (generally excludes feminists, of course), it is indeed possible that a high profile man may be falsely accused by multiple women; there’s a lot of publicity and possibly some money in it, and these men have probably been around may thousands of women over the course of their careers who have at least a circumstantial basis for making an accusation (like just being in a room alone with the guy for a few seconds). The odds of a few of those people being crazy is pretty good, and once one woman makes an accusation, the knowledge that future accusations will be taken more seriously only encourages opportunists to jump on the bandwagon.

                      So no, the multiple accusations against Clinton don’t constitute overwhelming evidence that he was guilty at least once. But it is some enormous hypocrisy, because we all know, if it were anybody else, progs would be having seizures over the fact that anyone still dared to defend him. Like trying to rehabilitate Bill Cosby.

                  2. If you think I’m Team Blue you’re sadly mistaken. Far from it.

                    I’m on Team Truth.

                    Uh-huh, sure.

                    1. I’m on Team Truth Correct The Record.

                  3. I’m on Team Truth. Regardless of whose ox it gores.

                    If my eyes had rolled any harder they’d be on the floor right now.

                  4. He may have believed her just fine, but found her to be a bad witness. That happens al the time.

          2. Didn’t Kathleen Willie (not sure of spelling) accuse him of fondling her breasts? If so, that is sexual assault as well as sexual harassment.

          3. Paula Jones.

            1. Did not accuse him of rape.

            2. You did not say rape above. You said sexual assault. And bill was first accused of full on rape in 1969 by a coed at Oxford. Bill gave up his Rhodes scholarship and returned to Yale within a year. The state department reportedly was involved as they did not want a Rhodes scholar convicted of rape. Half a dozen women have accused bill of rape or assault.

              Fuck off you mendacious cunt.

              1. Paula Jones didn’t accuse him of sexual assault either, so not sure why you’re bellyaching over semantics.

                Link to the 1969 thing? I’ve never heard of that.

          4. Eileen Wellstone, Elizabeth Gracen, Gennifer Flowers

            1. Gracen and Flowers had affairs with him, never accused him of rape.

              1. can you name one woman who accused him of sexual abuse?

                Gracen and Flowers had affairs with him, never accused him of rape.

                Dude, can you please leave the goalposts alone for more than 2 minutes. It is a truism of the knee-pad party that the behavior Bill Clinton is accused of with Willey and Lewinsky vis a vis his relative power is by definition sexual abuse, except when it is Bill Clinton.

                1. The goal posts are right where they started. I asked for women who accused him of sexual abuse and he replied with women who did not fit that criterion.

                  1. Well, by the leftist definition of rape, considering the power imbalance, it would be rape. Now, if Hillary Clinton is willing to acknowledge that actual definition of rape, as one which requires being actually physically forced (or with threat of physical force) to engage in sexual activity or while unconscious, then we can let all this go away. As it were, I strongly suspect Hillary is on board with the ‘yes means yes’ / ‘power imbalance’ theory of rape that her feminists supporters like Lena Dunham believe in.

              2. I’ll bet Liz Gracen gave Bill one Hell of a quickening……..

            2. I seem to recall reading a story within the past couple of years where they practically had to pull him off Jackie Kennedy.

  6. It’s just a matter of time until absolutely-accurate lie detection is a thing.

    We’ll see how the elites manage to wiggle out of its mandatory application. One suspects it will be something like: “Those who *count* the votes decide everything.”

    1. I doubt that. It’s not a detectable lie if the person telling it believes it.

      1. Ah yes. The George Costanza/Hillary Clinton dynamic.

        just remember. It’s not a lie if you believe it..

        1. Yes. If you are mistaken or a sociopath, there is no detecting it

          1. Or a cop. But you already said sociopath.

            1. +1 I was in fear for my life!

      2. That’s the kicker, John — I suspect even H does not actually “believe” what she did/does is aboveboard.
        Indeed, she, um, admits “it was a mistake”, “I have more work to do”, etc.

        1. Yes, this. There is no way Hillary Clinton does not know how Bill Clinton operates, unless she is obscenely stupid. Oh, wait….

          1. I’m sure she does. That’s how she stays in the picture.

    2. Same way Congresscreatures weasel out of mandatory drug testing now — false piety to the Constitution on the rare occasion when it is on their side.

      Sen Robert Byrd, one the biggest porkbarrelers and robbers of the American taxpayer in history, used to keep a little booklet of the Constitution in his pocket at all times, so that when he was pulled over for speeding or running red lights, he could point to the clause about Congress being immune to arrest or detention.

      1. That’s Kleagle Robert Byrd or Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd, to you.

        1. Or Democrat Robert Byrd

      2. If I recall correctly, members of Congress are immune to arrest or detention only while Congress is in session or while they are on their way to Congressional sessions.

    3. Like the engine that runs on water, that technology will never see the light of day.

      1. It may not “see the light of day”, but it will be used.

  7. Sloppy nailed it above. When has the right ever claimed all rape victims are lying? Would reason not publish this without some kind of false equivalence about the Right?

    Pathetic.

    1. He never said that. He said the feminist left claims that all rape victims should be believed without question (but is not following that principle here), while the right tends to scrutinize rape accusations (and is also not following that principle here).

      1. The right is scrutinizing her. She has made this allegation for decades. It has always been consistent. She never benefited from telling it. She seems to have no reason to lie. Is that enough to send Clinton to jail? No. And no one is claiming that. But it is enough to end the Clintons careers. Or should’ve enough

        1. So a bare accusation with no evidence should end the accused’s career.

          And in this case, the career of his wife as well. I never have quite worked out the logic of how Bill Clinton’s sexual forays is supposed to disqualify Hillary Clinton, but it seems to be automatic in the mind of the hard Right.

          1. It is not just an accusation. It is one of many that fits a pattern.

          2. The fact is that she supported her husband through all of the accusations, and enough of them were plausible, combined with the Lewinsky scandal, to show a pattern of abuse of power. If you are a woman who would put up with that behavior for political gain, I deem you to be disqualified from holding any office, or any position of any power whatsoever. Clearly you desire political power above all other things, and therefore cannot be trusted with it. It’s that simple. Plus, there’s the whole thing of “Women should vote for me because I’m a woman” and then having covered for Bill constantly throughout all of the scandals and accusations. She’s scum, a low life, immoral, power hungry individual with sociopathic tendencies.

            1. The list of things that should disqualify Hillary from being president is longer than my leg, but having a sleaze for a husband isn’t one of them.

              1. spqr2008 isn’t saying that merely having a sleaze for a husband is something that disqualifies her, it’s that she defended and excused that behavior for political gain and clearly is willing to do anything for political power that is one of many things that disqualifies her.

                No one here has claimed that merely being married to a sleazebag is enough to disqualify her from the presidency, rather it’s what her defending, enabling, and excusing that behavior says about her character – that she’s a power mad sociopath who only cares about gaining political power – that disqualifies her. Your claim to be on “Team Truth” and not just a Team Blue hack is looking more and more like bullshit by the minute.

              2. Can Bill Cosby be president?

                1. Herman Caine couldn’t.

          3. The issue with Hillary–and obviously I don’t know this to be true–isn’t that she her husband is a serial philanderer and sexual predator, it’s that she might have been covering for him for their entire marriage in order to further her personal ambitions. And then there’s a difference between whether she simply turned a blind eye or whether she actively worked to sanitize their public image by manipulating accusers or the like.

            Again, I don’t know if any of that’s true, but if it were, then yes, it would call into direct question her ethics, and her strength of character, and possibly even result in criminal charges.

          4. I never have quite worked out the logic of how Bill Clinton’s sexual forays is supposed to disqualify Hillary Clinton

            The thinking behind it is that she covered for him and smeared women who accused him of sexual assault and/ or harassment. All the while claiming to “believe all victims.” To be fair, that makes her a dishonest, mendacious hypocrite, but that’s not something we didn’t know about her already. Also, if being a dishonest mendacious hypocrite was enough to disqualify someone from the presidency, there wouldn’t be any politicians left who do qualify. Still though, it’s one more piece of evidence that she’s a lying cunt.

          5. Because she harassed and persecuted all his accusers? She really went the extra mile NOT to blame his cheating ass and to denigrate and discredit his paramours/victims. Cabrona.

      2. Are you Tulpa?

        1. My money’s on this being a Buttplug sock.

      3. “The right and left reverse positions when a sexual assault accusation threatens Hillary Clinton.”

        That seems like a pretty cut and dried false equivalence. But I didn’t RTFA so maybe he clarified it.

  8. What I do know is that Broaddrick’s story is perfectly plausible: she says she met Bill Clinton at a campaign event when he was running for governor of Arkansas, and he invited her back to a hotel room. He then forced himself on her, she claims.

    How in the world is that “plausible”? There’s no evidence that Bill Clinton has ever forced himself on a woman. He’s definitely had affairs with consenting women like Monica Lewinsky and others, but there’s a big difference between that and rape. At most you could say that he has had enough sexual harassment allegations that some of them are probably true, but again that’s way short of rape.

    If that’s plausible, then any man on the planet could plausibly be accused of rape.

    1. There is to evidence. Juanita Broderick’s account is evidence. And Paula Jones claimed he exposed himself to her in his office. Moreover there is good evidence that Bill has been with thousands of women which would mean he is a sex addict. A guy who exposes himself to unwilling women and is a sex addict almost certainly has forced himself on them too. Bill is a sick fuck.

      1. LOL you really are lining up with the feminist left position on this one, John. Robby hit the nail on the head.

        1. No I am not. Exposing yourself is one of the best indicators of someone having real issues. It is not a feminist left position that actual perverts exist. If you are having sex with thousands of women and have such poor impulse control you exposing yourself to strange women in your office, all of which Bill did, you have problems. All of that makes Broderick’s account more believable.

          1. There’s also no evidence he exposed himself to Jones. (and the incident is supposed to have occurred in his hotel room, not his office)

            You’re using a bare accusation as evidence to back up another accusation, coupled with some questionable logic about going from indecent exposure to rape.

            If you really believe that indecent exposure indicates that someone is a rapist at heart, then you are totally cool with prosecutors putting people convicted of indecent exposure on the sex offender lists, right?

            1. The evidence is Jones account. We k ow Bill lied under oath. Why would Jones lie? More importantly, how many women have to come forward before Bill loses the benefit of the doubt? Either he is the most unlucky guy in the world with all these women lying about him, or he is a devient and they are telling the truth. I am taking the later.

              Bill Clinton not being a sick fuck is a pretty stupid hill to die on even for a troll like you.

              1. “BELIEVE THE VICTIM”

                LOL

                1. Shut the fuck up, Tulpa.

            2. An accusation, given under oath in a legal proceeding, *is* evidence. It may or may not be credible evidence, but evidence it most certainly is.

              1. What Fubini Baby is looking for is *corroboration* of Jones’s evidence.

                1. What Fubini Baby is looking for is capitulation. He/she doesn’t give a shit about evidence or corroboration of the same.

                  The rape accusation is plausible for any number of reasons, if your Clinton burden of proof isn’t set somewhere between ‘infinity’ and ‘infinity squared, no takebacks’.

      2. I don’t agree that there is even any such thing as a “sex addict”, but otherwise, John is spot on. People believe that Bill Cosby raped women who came forth years later. And as far as college guys getting kicked out of school for “rape” when even the supposed victim said she wasn’t raped, is becoming a matter of course. But Bill gets a pass somehow.

        1. Behind every double standard is an unacknowledged single standard.

    2. ?1 Jeffrey Epstein

    3. Oh and his affair with Lewinsky is clear cut workplace sexual harassment. But democrats are supportive of women so it doesn’t count….

      1. No, it wasn’t. She was a willing participant.

        1. Heh, if the political party of the man had been republican, that wouldn’t have mattered.

          Also, ask Lewinsky today if she’d have done it then if she knew her life would be destroyed…

        2. The man holding the most powerful position in the world and a 20 something intern who is in “love”. Nothing sleazy about that.

          And don’t forget had Monica not had the blue dress they were going to have the media portray her as a crazed stalker. They were going to humiliate and destroy her even though they knew she was telling the truth. They care about women so much.

          1. Sleazy yes. Sexual harassment, no.

            The Clintons are scum for other reasons, but saying you think he raped someone based on zero evidence is beyond the pale.

            1. The law says otherwise

              1. About what?

                Having a sexual relationship with a subordinate does not necessarily constitute sexual harassment. Only if it’s obtained via leveraging the employment relationship, which absolutely was not the case with Lewinsky and Clinton.

                Yeah, I know the feminist left would paint it as sexual harassment if it were any other manager in the world, but they’re idiots. You shouldn’t be adopting their line.

                1. I don’t think John is so much adopting their line as adopting their Alinskyite principle, “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

                2. Yet as a physician, in the state of Arkansas, giving into a stalker, who was a patient, could result in permanent revocation of a medical license, being labeled a sex offender, of sorts!. Or, is it about the false premise of a “power” thing? But, we must not let the facts interfere with the punishment. But a physicians career is not as important as the President’s…..(;-P It is never justice. It is about “just us”. Isn’t it?

            2. You can keep saying there is zero evidence, but it isn’t true. Just because you don’t like the statements doesn’t mean you can discount them entirely. If you’re really for team truth you need to posit why you disregard all the accusations against him.

              1. Because they aren’t supported by evidence.

                Counting an accusation as evidence of itself is bullshit, bullshit that gets excoriated here when the left does it.

            3. The Clintons are scum for other reasons? What are those?

          2. See, I don’t really necessarily know what to think but this here is a concrete fact you’ve put forward John and it’s the point that I think bears repeating.

            Knowing full-well that Lewinsky was telling the truth, they were going to destroy her and lie about this until the cows came home. As a matter of fact, they did exactly that until Monica came forward with physical evidence to clear her name.

            That is the important takeaway from the incident. The political musical-chairs that happened after that is secondary to what happened before the truth came out. While this is certainly nothing new in politics it does tell you exactly what kind of ‘moral fiber’ there might be in the Clinton camp and it absolutely shows you what kind of people the DNC has working for it and what kind of people her supporters are.

            You could slap them in the face with concrete proof of their corruption and they will shrug it off. They literally don’t care if Hillary has killed someone, because she is the Democratic Nominee and Trump.

            That isn’t even utilitarianism, it’s blind evil.

        3. Bro, I can’t believe you’re gonna make me use terms like “power disparity” right now…

          So, the reason that sexual relationships are typically discouraged or forbidden in most companies, organizations, schools, etc. between, say, professors and students, or supervisors and their direct subordinates, is because it’s impossible to know that the subordinate isn’t consenting due to perceived coercion of some kind. Even if the superior isn’t putting any pressure on the subordinate, the subordinate might not feel able to say no just by the nature of the work relationship.

          Now, you could make the argument that Bill Clinton fell deeply in love with Monica Lewinsky and so he threw ethics to the wind to take a chance on romance, but it sure seems to me and I think everyone else that he wanted a little bit of strange and figured, hey, it’s good to be king. That would make it sexual harassment and, frankly, there’s a good argument for assault as well.

          I’ll put it like this. If Monica Lewinsky was my daughter there’d be a smoking hole where Bill Clinton’s balls used to be.

          1. ^This^

            There is a legitimate question about just how consensual the relationship between Monica and Bill really was. For Bill, I think it was all about shucking some side corn. Monica was probably a stupid, naive 20 something who thought she was in love and thought he was too. Wouldn’t be the first young dumb chick to be fooled into thinking a married man was “in love” with her only to find out the hard way that she was just some strange to nail on the side.

            Maybe she even convinced herself that the power disparity had nothing to do with her consenting to the relationship, but I’d bet dollars to donuts that it had something to do with it at first, and she convinced herself that she was really “in love” with him in order to rationalize away any feelings of dirtiness.

          2. Oh, come on. As David Letterman said, “Who among us hasn’t had sex with a subordinate in the workplace and then lied about it under oath?:

            (Of course, that turned out to be less amusing once it turned out that Letterman himself had been having sex with a subordinate (though possibly not in the workplace, and definitely without any perjury about it).)

        4. Unlike Anita Hill?

    4. After all, what man hasn’t been accused of sexual harassment?

  9. “Indeed, if an alien were to visit the United States and survey opinions on the Broaddrick issue, it might well conclude that conservatives were generally inclined to believe sexual assault victims, whereas skeptical liberals generally preferred to tread cautiously.

    Reality, of course, is the opposite. “Believe the victims,” is the mantra of the feminist-left.”

    That Robby associates not believing rape victims with the right is both appalling and unsurprising.

    If a Republican were to visit this site, it might well conclude that Robby is irrationally biased against them.

    If Robby doesn’t think that’s a problem, I seriously doubt he’ll ever understand why it should be.

    Memo to Gillespie and Welch:

    Re: The House You Built

    Robby is shitting all over it.

    Sincerely,

    Friends and Donors to Reason

    1. Are you saying that is NOT OK!?

      1. He shit in the fruit sushi bowl.

      2. “If Robby doesn’t think that’s a problem, I seriously doubt he’ll ever understand why it should be.”

        That’s actually giving Robby the benefit of the doubt.

        I mean, if he were capable of understanding why that’s wrong and simply just chose to be wrong on purpose, that would probably be worse, right?

    2. Yep. There are a lot of reasons a right leaning person would sympathize with libertarian positions.

      And there are a couple of reasons a left leaning persons would sympathize with libertarian positions.

      But the left always always worships at the altar of big government . It’s not a coincidence that many of the things they agree with libertarians on are things we see being mandated by the government and the courts.

      That power won’t work out well for libertarians in the end.

      1. There’s also the question of intellectual honesty that other Reason staff have built up over years and years.

        Sullum and Bailey have taken shit from all sorts of people and held to the standards of intellectual honesty.

        I’ve seen them smeared by the left and the right on various issues for not holding to the left or the right.

        Sometimes I disagree with them, but anybody who questions their intellectual honesty is making a fool of themselves.

        Yeah, they built up quite a reputation for Reason over the years. You could say the same about Gillespie, Welch, Walker, KMW, Howley, Sanchez, Doherty, and a host of others.

        And Robby is shitting all over that.

      2. Observe that the recent (1932) left/right euphemisms for bureaucratic/religious looter factions are kept as vague and unclear as possible by those very factions.

        1. Yeah, you keep going on about the early 30’s and ‘looters’ nonsensically. Is this some form of performance art? Or are you just gibbering?

    3. “preferred to tread cautiously” = not believing rape victims?

    4. You idiot. The opposite of the “believe the victims” narrative is believing in due process and evidence. This is a compliment to the Republicans you fucking troll.

  10. Once the election is over and Bubba and Hillary are safely ensconced in the presidential seal, the left can go back to uncritically hammering the narrative that rape allegations should always be believed. Its utility, admittedly, has faltered with this particular election cycle, but will once again find its usefulness in political haymaking.

    1. Once the election is over and Bubba and Hillary are safely ensconced in the presidential seal, the left can go back to uncritically hammering the narrative that rape allegations should always be believed.

      Until Bill gets caught forcing himself on a white house maid, that is.

      1. “.. himself on a white house maid,”

        That’s just racist. 😉

        1. “Why, if that were my daughter….” “What would YOU do, daddy?”

  11. If I see the wagons being circled, I assume they aren’t doing it to protect the truth. Right wingnut!

  12. Liberals may not want to call her a liar, but they don’t understand why she has to back Trump, either,

    One can’t imagine WHY a woman would take a stand against her rapist in any way possible.

    I can understand why liberals have a hard time understanding this, however. They are in denial.

    1. We understand you were raped but that doesn’t give you the right to be a Republican.

  13. “Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

    The shitty state of American journalism is evidenced by the failure to immediately follow up with, “And what, specifically, would this evidence be?”

    1. “*Believable* evidence, DUH!”

    2. I hate to say this, but Hillary’s position is actually an improvement over the position taken by some Title IX Coordinators on college campuses, Who claim that it is improper to express disbelief based on evidence, and that the only acceptable position to take with respect to a rape allegation is to support the accuser.

      1. Hillary’s position is, as always, whatever is best for Hillary. Which is more honest but not really better than the Title IX Inquisition’s position.

        1. If Hillary’s position is better, then it is purely coincidence.

      2. Agreed, and if only she and others would apply that position universally as a principle rather than situationally as an excuse I’d give them some credit for it.

  14. So, on a related subject: I’m seeing rumors on 4chan and elsewhere that Hillary is 1) demented and 2) incontinent. I consider the former an improvement in her character, since I’d rather have a vegetable in the whitehouse than a mentally competent and malevolent power grubbing narcissist. As for the second, is there any corroboration?

    -jcr

    1. I’m seeing rumors on 4chan

      Well, at least the foul-mouthed 14-year-olds are taking an interest in politics.

  15. For DU’s take on Juanita

    The Bill Clinton baloney is in the news now. It’s all over the place.

    I don’t even remember her role in any of this. I don’t care.

    It’s in the news now so of course, the entire cast of characters will be Tweeting, Facebooking, Snapchatting, Instagramming and making the rounds on the media.

  16. Slightly off topic:

    I can only imagine what it must be like for wives like Hillary or Huma whose husbands are just as well known for their infidelity as they are for their professional accomplishments.

    “Monicagate” and “Carlos Danger.” That’s their legacy in many people’s eyes and always will be. These women stay married to them which, at a basic emotional level, must leave a terrible hollowness somewhere.

    Makes me wonder if HRC’s corruption and seemingly endless quest for power isn’t somehow a way to make up for a feeling that she may not, for whatever reason, be worthy of a sincere and meaningful intimate relationship.

    1. Some people simply aren’t sexual or intimate beings. They derive their satisfaction in different ways, like having power over others or the control of life and death. We can’t understand the, because we are normal and intimacy and sexuality are drivers in our lives. But there are certainly people that would rather be worshipped or feared as opposed to being loved or desired.

    2. There is a whole lot of that I am sure. Also I think Hillary is likely a closet case and never could have real intimacy with men but since coming out was a real issue for her generation was never able to forgive herself totally for wanting such with women. She is so fucked up. She needs a team of specialists trying to unscrew her head

    3. There is a whole lot of that I am sure. Also I think Hillary is likely a closet case and never could have real intimacy with men but since coming out was a real issue for her generation was never able to forgive herself totally for wanting such with women. She is so fucked up. She needs a team of specialists trying to unscrew her head

      1. If you were married to Bill wouldn’t you at least consider batting for the other team?

  17. “their assertions that they suddenly care about the treatment of women should be relentlessly mocked.”

    The only people who think republicans don’t care about the treatment of women are deluded team leftists.

  18. Broaddrick’s story of her alleged rape certainly sounds quite plausible, but the assumption that Hillary was thanking her “for her silence” seems less so. As I remember it, Broaddrick has quoted Hillary as saying “I want to thank you for what you do for him”, or something very close to that. What you do, ongoing present tense. My interpretation of that is that Hillary knew Bill had had sex with Broaddrick, but didn’t know the details, didn’t know at that point that it was rape. She thought it was a consensual relationship that might be ongoing, and was saying that she didn’t object, that she in fact thanked Broaddrick for meeting Bill’s sexual needs. Only later, I suspect, did Hillary learn of the claim that it had been rape.

    1. I’m not even sure that’s credible. IIRC, the rape was a one-time encounter. And Hillary was never a supporter of her husband’s extramarital affairs.
      The Clintons meet a lot of people and probably have boilerplate thank-yous for all sorts of people they can’t even remember who they are or what they do.
      If Hillary said such a thing at all, it was probably because she thought Broaderick was some sort of campaign staffer and was uttering some boilerplate statement saying “thanks for your work”.

      Anyway, the rape is bad enough. It’s not really necessary to embellish it with this notion that Hillary was somehow involved. That strikes me as too politically convenient.

      1. If I’m not mistaken – and I may be, this is from memory – Broaddrick claimed that Hillary made a beeline to seek her out, grabbed her hand tight when shaking it, and pulled her close to tell her a second time that she REALLY appreciated what Broaddrick was doing for Bill.

        If that’s accurately what Broaddrick claims, it’s entirely believable as an implicit threat from a woman who has been said ad naseum over the years by those close to her to be a cold, calculating, threatening person. Not to say it happened, or happened as it was claimed, but it certainly isn’t implausible in any way.

        1. When did she claim that?

          Also, the Clintons are known for the whole squeeze-on-the-elbow move when shaking hands, which makes people feel like the Clinton’s really-really personally care about them. That still doesn’t mean anything even if it happened.

  19. It’s not hard to understand: they only automatically believe the victim if the alleged perp doesn’t have a “D” after their name. Principals before principles.

    1. It is even worse than that. Because the Client Ron’s hold the proper political positions, women should be honored if Bill should choose to abuse them. The way the Clinton’s were given a pass on the sexual harassment moral panic that followed the Thomas confirmation hearings was appalling.

  20. I’ve been aware of the rape story for around 20 years. It came out during the whole Monica Lewinsky saga. Personally, I think it is quite credible, in part because it took place during the 1970s when the concept of what constituted rape was a lot narrower. No meant yes, and unless physical violence was involved it wasn’t rape.

    The part about Clinton thanking her is new though. I’m not sure if I believe that. For one because Hillary was always reportedly furious when she heard about her husbands affairs. (The whole thing about bashing him on the head with a lamp during the Lewinsky saga.) Hillary might have kept her mouth shut about them, but was never an active collaborator, and I can’t imagine Bill confessing a rape to her, much less her approaching and thanking the rapee.

  21. Yes, Robby, wanting to adhere to rules if evidence, due process, innocent until proven guilty is the same as dismissal out of hand.

    Get bent, Soave.

    1. The statute of limitations is passed, so that’s convenient.

  22. “The next time an Emma Sulkowicz or a Jackie comes around, perhaps the lefties who routinely attack other journalists for poking holes in alleged victims’ stories could respond with the same amount of skepticism with which they continue to handle Broaddrick.”

    I don’t see how you can equate the Sulkowicz or Jackie rape claims with the Broaddrick rape claim. In the case of the former two, their stories were either physically implausible to the point of absurdity and then easily disproved (Jackie) or the accused rapist had IM conversations showing that the alleged victim wanted a sexual relationship with him (Sulkowicz). By contrast, I’m not aware of any such factors that would cause you to doubt Broaddrick’s claim. That doesn’t make it true, of course. But it does make it, in my eyes, more deserving of consideration than these recent cases that the Left briefly championed.

    1. I don’t think he implied they were equivalent. Many on the left show skepticism toward a plausible rape accusation while accepting absurdities on faith. If they are willing to give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt, especially given everything we know about him, they should apply the same skepticism toward other, less realistic claims.

  23. With any hope, this act will persuade the left?Hillary Clinton included?that people who make rape accusations deserve support and compassion rather than de facto belief. The next time an Emma Sulkowicz or a Jackie comes around, perhaps the lefties who routinely attack other journalists for poking holes in alleged victims’ stories could respond with the same amount of skepticism with which they continue to handle Broaddrick.

    You so funny! Dream on, Robby.

  24. Welcome to subjective epistemology. This lack of integrity is what underlies the left and right sides of the Nolan Chart. Totalitarians know they want total coercive control over your mind, body and economic life. Objectivists and libertarians with equal certainty reject both demands. But those afflicted with the head wound of subjective evaluation end up forming the 75% manipulable by superstition and social pressure identified in the Solomon Asch Experiment “Opinions and Social Pressure.”
    This is why spoiler votes, not violence nor taking over by fraud, are the path to a better world.

  25. I hate you for making me defend Trump, Robbie.

    Donald Trump says nasty things about women. Agreed. Is your contention that mean words are the equivalent of sexual assault?

  26. But even if Broaddrick doesn’t want to admit it, she’s become increasingly cozy with conservatives as election day draws nearer.

    Hypocrisy and rape-enabling will tend to do that.

    As long as Donald Trump is their standard bearer, their assertions that they suddenly care about the treatment of women should be relentlessly mocked.

    If by “caring about women”, you mean repeating the nonsense about unequal pay, a rape epidemic, and trade in female sex slaves, you’re right, he “doesn’t care about women”. However, that’s not the only sense in which one can “care about women”.

    1. Democrats care about women about as much as they feel they are useful to win an election. If every voting age woman was a card carrying republican, they wouldn’t give two fucks about them.

  27. Molly . I can see what your saying… Samuel `s c0mment is unimaginable… last monday I got a great new Infiniti after bringing in $6142 this past month and-also, $10k lass month . without a question it is the most comfortable work I’ve had . I began this 5 months ago and straight away began to make over $81 p/h

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  28. The fundamental is that leftists far more support ‘the ends justifies the means’ than does the right. In other words, our goals are just, yours are not just, so we must win, however.

  29. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.

    ??? http://www.NetNote70.com

  30. What is it about Libertarians that makes them unreasonable when it comes to sex? No matter what the specific circumstances of the issue, they will bend over backwards to separate themselves from conservatives in order to impress the left that they are not bound at the hip to the right. How about just being bound at the hip to the truth like Libertarians claim to be? The magazine isn’t called Reason for nothing.

    The facts of this particular case lead one to believe that Juanita Broderick’s accusations against Bill Clinton are reasonable based on the preponderance of facts and the demeanor and actions of Ms. Broderick in the thirty plus years since the event. It’s not hypocritical to believe her story, while maintaining a skepticism in general towards such claims. Each case should stand alone. Isn’t that what reason demands?

    1. True statement. I like Reason because many of the things written here are well thought out even if I don’t 100% agree. What I don’t like about Reason is crap like this article that is a thinly veiled attempt to appear above it all while doing a half way job of analysis. Why a half way job? Because it fit the shallow point being made. The “I don’t know” about the accusations are shallow because reasoned thought would tell you that since this wasn’t an isolated incident and there are many more similar accusations that there is a high likelihood that it is true. Bill Cosby is funny but when 20 or 30 women tell a similar story it takes a fool to think that he not funny and a rapist.

      Sure, the left puts a limit on “believe the victim” that is directly tied to the politics, or race or wealth of the person accused. Only a blind fool can’t see that. My problem with this article is that it avoids the ocean of information about Bill that makes Broderick’s accusation even more plausible. The unbiased truth is that Bill’s MO was to abuse and Hillary’s MO was bimbo control.

  31. Christopher . if you, thought Maria `s postlng is astonishing… on thursday I got a gorgeous Honda NSX from having made $8819 this-past/5 weeks and-more than, $10 thousand this past munth . without a doubt it is the nicest work Ive had . I started this 8-months ago and pretty much immediately startad bringin home at least $78.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  32. My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I’m a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can’t believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn’t be happier. Heres what I do,

    ———– http://www.Max43.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.