Woman Asks Hillary: If All Alleged Rape Victims Should Be Believed,

Townhall.com ^ | December 3, 2015 | Guy Benson

[Kaslin]

Hillary's been engaged in this moral signaling for weeks now, as it dovetails nicely with her her First! Woman! President! identity-driven campaign:

"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 14, 2015

That pronouncement elicited a torrent of mockery and challenges from Clinton detractors, who wondered if this standard applied to, say, her husband.  Several women have accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct, ranging from unwanted groping to rape -- all of which falls under the vague, over-broad parameters of the "sexual assault" umbrella. What about them?  Shouldn't those woman have been automatically believed, rather than ridiculed as 'nuts and sluts'?  Good question.  I'll let a female attendee at today's Clinton rally in New Hampshire take things from here:

.@HillaryClinton response: "Well, I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence"— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) December 3, 2015

Fascinating.  It's true that Bill Clinton was never indicted, let alone convicted, of any sexual crime.  But does that fact constitute determinative "evidence," upon which Bill's multiple accusers should be "disbelieved," in Hillary's mind?  And in light of her answer above, wouldn't it follow that Mrs. Clinton did believe women like Juanita Broaddrick, at least "at first"? Hmm. A number of conservatives have jumped on Hillary's response as turning the "innocent until proven guilty" legal standard on its head, but is that necessarily true?  I think what she's getting at is that alleged sexual assault victims deserve to have their claims taken very seriously until there's reason to believe otherwise, not that accused parties should be presumed guilty under the law unless and until proof emerges that they're not.  Her point applies to how self-described victims are treated when they first come forward.  I don't think she's advocating any alterations to the legal process of how accused parties are dealt with as criminal cases are investigated and adjudicated.

Let's face it, though: None of that is particularly relevant to the intent behind her "right to be believed" posturing, is it?  Her comments were meant as panders to the Lefty "rape culture" hysterics, whom we address at some length in End of Discussion.  Clarifying walk-backs undermine the potency of her superficial 'pro-victim solidarity' messaging.  Today, Hillary was confronted with the uncomfortable reality that she's a profoundly imperfect vessel for this specific pander.  Parting thoughts: Now that a private citizen has broached the verboten subject to her face, will anyone in the media dare to pick up this strand of questioning and further explore Hillary's thoughts on the matter?  At what point did she stop believing Juanita Broaddrick, and why?  And just for the sake of clarity, Clinton doesn't endorse the increasingly-prevalent anti-due process trend on college campuses, does she?  Inquiring minds want to know.

[Kaslin]

The rest of the title is What About Your Husband's Accusers?

[beaversmom]

UH-OH!!!

[Responsibility2nd]

Woman Asks Hillary: If All Alleged Rape Victims Should Be Believed,

_________________________________________

Hillary. Didn’t she write a book?

It Takes A Village
Idiot to Believe my Husband

[skeeter]

It would not surprise me if Hillary simply flat denied any sexual harassment on the part of her husband.

Hillary speaks with the confidence of one who is totally unconstrained by the truth, and completely unchallenged by the media who convey her lies.

We have arrived at an extremely dangerous place.

[mlo]

Hillary believed Bill’s accusers. She just didn’t care.

[rainee]

Hahahahahhaaa!
That lady better stay far away from Marcy Park.

[Steely Tom]

Hillary can’t remember what she said two minutes ago.

[sparklite2]

[ground_fog]

A whole generation of millenials will learn who Juanita Broderick is and others...this lying fraud is going to find it harder to hide behind a lying media with dwindling power

[MeshugeMikey]

OUCHIE!

this will certainly gave hillary some interesting nightmares..at the very least...Id think

[al baby]

I just saw that on fox news it was a set up question hillary knocked it out of the park end of story

[HarleyLady27]

ONLY the ones her husband raped are NOT to be believed!!!

[Kaslin]

?

[The_Media_never_lie]

A whole generation of millenials will learn who Juanita Broderick is and others...this lying fraud is going to find it harder to hide behind a lying media with dwindling power

Wereas Romney and McCain were gentlemanly losers, Trump will call her out mercilessly on her dismissal of the rape/abuse victims. And she so deserves it!

[MeshugeMikey]

The US...in the sign reading “fighting for Us”...is clearly “The Clintons”

[Baynative]

I was just thinking the same thing about the irony of the sign behind her. If you look through her entire career the only thing she has ever fought for is her own power and pocketbook - with the exception of the black panthers who kidnapped, tortured and executed a 19 year old man they thought had given information to the FBI.

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

I could absolutely see Trump holding a press conference with Broaddrick, having her crying while telling her story and even better, making an ad for TV. Can you imagine how that would go? Take Hillarys video portraying herself as a hero for sexual assault victims and then having Broaddrick telling her story as well as Paul Jones, Kathleen Willey, This is an old pic I made from last time Hitlery ran....

[MeshugeMikey]

a more vile pernicious thugette has never risen to the “heights” that this woman has.

[B4Ranch]

"Mrs. Clinton, back in the 1990s your husband concluded the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed legislation repealing the Glass-Steagall restrictions on affiliations between banks and securities firm, and embraced welfare reform and cuts in capital gains taxes.

Today you are running on a pro tax, pro-regulation, pro spending platform that is almost the opposite .... of your husbands economic record. If his policies worked so well in the 199os, why are you running against them today?"

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4595138900001/an-amazing-question-for-hillary-clinton/?playlist_id=930909812001#sp=show-clips

[TwelveOfTwenty]

I just saw that on fox news it was a set up question hillary knocked it out of the park end of story

I saw the video. If that's hitting it out of the park, them I'm David Ortiz.

"Well, I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence"

So Bill's accusers should have been believed until the evidence showed otherwise, but when did that happen?