That's your prerogative not to take her word for it, for whatever reason (because she's well-coiffed? or what?). I still don't see that as a reason to take the see-no-evil/hear-no-evil view that "I don't want to hear about such things in the first place". How exactly can you proudly display this honorable skepticism of yours if you never hear the stories you doubt in the first place?
As for myself: I'll admit, between the word of Clinton or a Clinton flunkie, and some randomly-chosen person, I'll take the word of the randomly-chosen person.
Of course, this might be moot. Did Clinton or his flunkies even deny the threat, or rather did they just challenge the court proceeding with a flurry of briefs and an army of wing-tips, without denying the actual story? It would be rather strange if you are here to say "I believe the word of Clinton over the word of that broad" if Clinton doesn't even deny the broad's story.
I mean, heck, that would be ridiculous.
In any event, had not JW brought the story to light, it seems that we wouldn't even know about this charge - true or not - to begin with.
And you would prefer it that way: to remain in ignorance. Is that what you're saying? Please, just say so if that's the case, so we can end this conversation.