On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton appeared on MSNBC to talk about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Dr. Christine Ford.
And I wondered, “Why?”
Clinton told host Rachel Maddow that Christine deserves due process. Does that apply to the women who accused Bill?
As for the Kavanaugh situation:
“There should be due process for everyone involved, and I think that’s what Dr. Ford is asking for. She is asking for due process.”
Surprisingly, Maddow — who, in May, giddily proclaimed a Democratic revival (see here) — broached the subject of former President William Jefferson:
“Your husband, when he was president, faced allegations that were not the same as this, certainly, but had connections to these kinds of old allegations from years ago.”
That’s true — they weren’t “the same as this.” They were much worse. Kavanaugh has been accused of trying to force himself on a girl while covering her mouth, as a drunk teenager. Bill was accused of rape — among other things — as an adult holding public office.
“I know you had concerns at the time. Your husband certainly had concerns at the time that he never really had due process to defend himself from allegations like this. Have we learned anything over the years about due process not just for the accusers but also for the accused?”
Press Pause. Bill had “concerns” about getting due process?
Someone should take Maddow on a stroll down memory lane, to the Paula Jones case. As the former Arkansas state employed recalled to Fox’s Sean Hannity, Slick Willie “sat down, pulled down his pants, his whole everything and he was exposed, and I said, ‘I’m not that kind of girl, and I need to be getting back to my desk.'”
Fast forward to Bill paying Jones $850,000 as part of an out-of-court settlement. Does that sound like someone who would prefer due process?
Back to Hillary:
“I think that you have to take each of these situations sort of on their own merits, and what we have today is a process that has been rushed, that has been deliberately opaque where information that the Congress, not just Democratic senators, but all senators and the public deserve to see that they were denied.”
Let’s take a look at Hill in 2017. About the Weinstein improprieties, she pushed a zero-tolerance policy to British journalist Andy Marr:
“We recognize that this kind of behavior cannot be tolerated anywhere, whether it’s in entertainment, politics…after all, we have someone admitting to being a sexual assaulter in the Oval Office.”
Then Marr threw a curve:
“And yet, in your book (What Happened, which I recently covered here), the three women brought onto stage by Trump attacking your husband, and you kind of dismissed them. Was that the right thing to do? Are you sure about that?”
To quote myself from a previous article:
“Clearly surprised, Clinton immediately dismissed the women (wait, I thought we’re supposed to ‘stand with them’), saying that it was ‘clearly in the past’ (like many of Weinstein’s alleged victims?), and that it should be forgotten because “that had all been litigated.”
On the topic of sexual victims in politics, Hillary Clinton is maybe the last person who should be invited for a discussion. Well worth noting, I believe, is this excerpt from Newsweek, which portrays Clinton as anything but a friend to those affected by the malady:
(Clinton rape accuser Juanita) Broaddrick first spoke out about Hillary Clinton’s attempts to silence her in 1999, when she told the Drudge Report that Hillary Clinton approached her at a political rally to thank her for keeping quiet about the alleged assault.
“She caught me and took my hand and said, ‘I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill,'” Broaddrick recalled. “I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase—looking less friendly and repeated her statement—’everything you do for Bill.'”
Broaddrick said Hillary Clinton wouldn’t let her “get away until she made her point.”
“She talked low, the smile faded on the second thank you,” Broaddrick continued. “I just released her hand from mine and left the gathering.”
Willey has leveled similar accusations against Hillary Clinton, telling the Washington Examiner in October 2016 that the conversation about Bill Clinton’s alleged assaults should include discussion of the Democratic nominee’s complicity.
“Hillary Clinton’s been calling me a bimbo for 19 years, as well as Paula and Juanita and Gennifer [Flowers],” Willey told the outlet.
“This [is] no longer about Bill Clinton’s transgressions or his infidelities or girlfriends or sex … it’s not about that anymore,” she continued. “What it’s about is the actions that his wife has taken against the women that he has raped and assaulted.”
The fact that Hillary is willing to go before a national audience to discuss a topic so obviously ill-fitted to her is quite the testament to her desperation for national relevance (as is this). Strong as it may be, no appearance she can make, and no opinion she can give, makes the the difference she most wants — no matter what, Trump still won.
Thank you for reading! What do you think of Hillary’s MSNBC appearance and her thoughts? Please sound off in the Comments section below.
And please read more — I’d be honored if you’d check out these three articles: