Look What This Viral New York Times Piece Just Said About Bill Clinton’s Rape Allegations…

2110
Source credit | E Online
Clinton Trump
Bill Clinton | Photo Credit The Duran

Amid what seems to be a nationwide sexual assault scandal, the left is embracing a “Believe Women” movement. Does that mantra apply to women who accuse liberal politicians like Bill Clinton? Or does it only work for them, when women accuse men such as Donald Trump and Roy Moore?

There is no disputing that sexual assault is an important issue. But absent legitimate facts, we are left with little more than a case of “he said, she said.” And this is a dangerous game to play. 

A world, where the credibility of victims is not based on evidence but on the worthiness of the accused.

Take, for example, the recent New York Times Op-Ed by Michelle Goldberg. Readers might be inclined to think the story, deceptively titled “I Believe Juanita,”  is about supporting Clinton’s accusers. Unfortunately, they would be wrong.

Instead, what readers will find is another hit-piece on President Trump and conservative women. With carefully chosen words, Goldberg suggests allegations against Clinton were less believable than those levied at conservative politicians.

While she does “believe” Juanita Broaddrick’s claim that Clinton raped her, Goldberg finds his other accusers unworthy of her support. Referencing Katherine Wiley and Paula Jones she calls the evidence, “less definitive than that against Harvey Weinstein, Trump and Moore.”

Apparently, it matters little that there is no evidence against President Trump. That is, unless one views the statements of his accusers to be the undisputable truth. And, in Moore’s case, there are ample reasons to question the validity of at least some of the allegations.

So why then, are these women more believable than Clinton’s accusers?

The “Benefit” of Doubt

Trump Clinton
Trump appears with Bill Clinton accusers before a presidential debate | Photo credit CNN

The answer is simple-because the left deems Clinton as deserving of the benefit of the doubt. And make no mistake, creating doubt is very beneficial in politics. After all, painting Clinton as a victim of right-wing conspiracies, kept him in the White House. 

Goldberg, albeit somewhat subtly, makes that point from the beginning.  “Looking back at the smear campaign against the Clintons shows we can’t treat the feminist injunction to “believe women” as absolute,” she wrote.

So, in other words, “believe women” if they’re accusing someone you don’t like or when it furthers your agenda. That’s a pretty sad message coming from the party accusing President Trump of disrespecting women, isn’t it?

 

 

disqus-arrow
  • Cecilia Owens

    A rapist is just that; he exploits women. It does not matter what comes after the fact, especially a lifetime RAPIST such as Clinton. He was impeached for god’s sake. What do you suppose got him to that phase? And except for DEMS in the house and senate he would have been history. Look what his wife DID to those women’s reputation. How can any lawyer really believe that people will just ‘forget’ the facts, just because he is “worthy.” Don’t fall for this stupid move women. Then Hilliary would be proven right. He is a ‘RAPIST” who has much more money to spend to ‘buy’ his innocence than any of the women.

You Might Like