I swear, I didn’t set out to have this be “Inexcusable Presidential Candidate Monday” on Ethics Alarms, but the worst of the worst have been busy as bees trying to make my head explode. Hillary’s tweet may be the worst of the batch.
What would possess her to walk into the social media buzz saw that would be (and was) sparked by such a pious assertion issuing from William Jefferson Clinton’s top enabler? How many victims of sexual assault did she undermine to advance her husband’s ambitions and her own?
Is she that deluded? That convinced of her corrupted supporters’ willingness to believe anything she says, or to excuse every cynical, shameless maneuver? Has she finally reached the point where she has issued so many, many lies that she can no longer keep them all straight, and now blunders into obvious contradictions? Or is she trying to sabotage her own campaign, taking her copious skeletons out of the closet and hanging them from the roof for all to see?
I don’t know, but I do know this: if there is any woman on earth whose past conduct should constitute estoppel from making the statement that “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported,” it’s Hillary Clinton.
Ethics Alarms 
My theory is that she’s taking a sounding on the sources and depth of her support in anticipation of an FBI report.
OOOOOOOO!
I’m not sure I actually see the contradiction here. Were the accusations against her husband ever proven?
She didn’t say anyone who claims to be a victim of sexual assault deserves to be believed, after all.
What you wrote is pretty Clintonian on its own. You really think the tweet means everyone who really was assaulted must be believed, but those who are falsely accusing shouldn’t be believed? Right to be believed means make an accusation, get believed. Otherwise the statement is a tautology.
Hillary has no idea whether all the women who have accused Bill were assaulted, but she abetted his efforts to discredit and ignore them. That contradicts her tweet.
The tweet says “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” That doesn’t mean the same as saying there is a “right” to be believed. Although you’re right that when read literally, it is essentially meaningless.
I’m sure Jack doesn’t need to drum up the plethora of discussions that discuss the concept that the average citizen doesn’t need a conviction to put the facts together. IE Bill Cosby, OJ Simpson, Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, etc…
It’s still a mystery why she wouldn’t realize that the tweet was naturally going to inspire scorn and anger coming from her. She has been married to a sexual predator, and has done nothing to slow him down. That’s enough to make the tweet an offensive jaw-dropper. Cosby, Bill, Barry Bonds…these are cases where the smoke is so thick that the lack of a fire is essentially impossible.
Bill, is that you? the Horny Hick himself? How does “deserves to be…believed” different than saying they should have the “right to be believed….” I guess it depends on what your definition of “is” is…..
Just a note that Lewinsky ‘ s accusations were proven true by forensic means, but of course that doesn’t qualify here to because assault wasn’t charged, even though Hillary pilloried her as badly as any asserted assault victim.
My guess is the tweet was sent out by the twenty-something staffer who runs HRC’s twitter account and was ten when the Clinton’s cleaned out,er, cleared out of the White House. Hilariously bad management and delegation.
Remember Hillary defending the rapist of a 12 year old girl. She laughed and said he passed the lie detector test although she knew he had lied and raped that poor girl. She humiliated the child in court and laughed when interviewed about the case. Hillary stayed with a man who has been unfaithfully to her and who has exploited women and abused them. I hope she doesn’t get elected. Anyone would be better than Hillary!
Lingering effects of PTSD from landing under fierce sniper fire.
Not-only-dead-broke-but-in-debt type poverty can really mess with your head.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Two possibilities in my mind, neither good.
1) This was sent out by a 20 something staffer who do not remember the Bill Clinton presidency.
2) This was sent out intentionally in the belief that it will play well with those same 20 somethings who do not remember the Bill Clinton presidency.
Bill Clinton doesn’t remember the Bill Clinton Presidency.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2012/11/05/most-cynical-and-hypocritical-statement-of-the-2012-campaign-bill-clinton/
I think that Hillary Clinton has learned over her life and times how powerful sheer, mindblowing audacity can be when it comes to the Democrat base. Her backing comes from those who want special favors from a big government and are only looking for an excuse to support those that promise to provide it.