Twice, Hillary Clinton has publicly made the astounding statement—especially for the supportive and enabling spouse of Bill Clinton, an accused rapist himself—that “every survivor of sexual assault” has “the the right to be believed.” Ethics Alarms noted this both times, here and here, and opined the last time, in November:
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?
Words have consequences (though following Hillary’s rise, you wouldn’t know it), and as might have been predicted, a questioner at a campaign event in New Hampshire yesterday asked Hillary if believing all “survivors” meant believing Bill’s accusers as well, including Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones. I have to hand it to Hillary; she was ready. She had thought about an answer, maybe even had a meeting with her advisors to craft the perfect response. Here is what she said:
“I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”
What is a lawyer and a candidate for the Presidency doing advocating the un-American principle of “guilty until proven innocent”? OK, we know what: pandering to the Pro-Vagina vote. Nevertheless, Clinton knows this is not how the law works, so she is apparently advocating a significant and frightening change.
When a woman accuses a man of rape or sexual assault and he denies it, their statements are both evidence of exactly the same weight. Because, sexual assault is a crime, neither party can or should be believed until additional evidence supports his or her assertion. Moreover, our justice system’s traditional and philosophical position is that the formal and official presumption of belief goes not to an accuser, but to the accused. He is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. She does not have a “right to be believed.” He does, unless there are facts in evidence that call his credibility into question.
As I wrote the first time Hillary made this declaration…
There is no right to be believed, although this is an oft repeated “right” pushed by anti-male, crypto-Victorians who are dedicated to making the act of consensual sex so risky for men that Caitlyn Jenner may be the gender’s most viable future. It is also the underlying position behind the un-American recommendation by Colorado Rep. Jared Polis that a 20% chance that an accusation of sexual assault should be sufficient to kick a male student out of college. Law enforcement treating dubious rape accusations as if there is a “right to be believed” resulted in lynchings in the past and successful, life-wrecking scams by the likes of Wanetta Gibson in the present. It allowed the despicable and probably batty Emma Sulkowicz, a.k.a. “Mattress Girl,” to harass her supposed attacker on the Columbia campus even after her story had been thoroughly discredited. The sexist principle relieving women of having to provide more than an accusation alone allowed the false Rolling Stone “Jackie” story of a fraternity gang rape to slander every fraternity on the University of Virginia campus, which were punished by the school’s “right to be believed”-addled president.
Yes, women who claim to be victims of sexual assault deserve to be heard, and they deserve to have their accusation treated like every other accusation, while those they accuse are provided with the presumption of innocence, due process and a fair hearing as well. A right to be believed. however? That’s sexist, reckless, and wrong.
Coming from a potential President of the United States, who would be responsible for ensuring that all citizens’ rights are respected, and that due process and equal protection, not authoritarian edicts born of ideology and gender bias, govern our nation, Hillary’s answer to her questioner is worse than sexist, reckless, and wrong.
It’s sinister, ominous, and disqualifying.
Ethics Alarms 
This is mega hypocracy considering that she colluded with her husband to attack these women’s credibility to protect her hubby’s political future. The foolish people who will vote for her probably don’t remember these women anyway. “So what difference does it make!”
For these people, it is about principals, not principles.
The appropriate way of stating that when individual rights are concerned is “Everyone has the right to have claims of criminal acts committed against them investigated, and everyone has the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty”, period, end of statement.
No one has any “right” whatsoever to be believed in our legal system or otherwise nor should they actually be believed until there is supporting evidence to the claim. To blindly believe someone’s claim is an assumption and we all should know by now that assuming makes an ass out of you and me.
Who will be the first to slam me for that last paragraph. 😉
Not me. Anyone who quotes Felix Unger is aces as far as I’m concerned.
I know who the character Felix Unger is but sincerely don’t understand what you’re referring to.
Oops, I just ended a sentence with a preposition, I suppose the grammar police will be after me now. 😉
Te most famous use of the “If you assume, you make an ass of u and me” …and for all I know, it’s origin, was in an episode of “The Odd Couple,” in which Felix, representing himself in Court, used it in an argument…to applause! Here…
“I have to hand it to Hillary; she was ready.”
I think she was more than ready. It was a scheduled, planted question, and Hilary gave a scripted, focus group tested answer. Next up: Advisers explaining that Hilary has been asked about this repeatedly, and answered all questions, including from the ‘public’ at campaign events. So let’s all move on.
It’s all so predictable.
I doubt very much that the question was planted. That part of Bill’s record she doesn’t want brought up, and most attendees at a Hillary event love Bill anyway. But she had to be ready.
The smile she put on afterwards was definitely rehearsed.
‘So uh… this believin’ women who said they was raped thing… uh… That count for the women you called liars for saying your hubby raped ’em’
‘Why yes, of course, until the evidence proves them liars’ (Full… ghastly smile)
As an aside, was there ever any evidence the women lied about Bill? Or was that a Clintonism? Just a little bit before my time.
No. I should have mentioned that. Even Hillary’s dodge doesn’t address the Broderick claim. No evidence was ever put forth that proved she wasn’t telling the truth…it’s just that Bill denied it, and that was good enough.
I viewed the video again, and still have my doubts. The questioner seemed utterly unfamiliar with the names, and didn’t follow up with Bill’s $850,000 payment to Paula Jones being evidence of some sort of guilt, as well as hush money. It sounded as if they were given a question to read. Perhaps the questioner was legitimate, and just nervous.
Thanks for jumping on this. It hit my like a two by four.
Of course, the immediate spin will be that what Hillary really meant was:
“Everyone should have their accusations taken seriously…”
But then again, though we know words and sentences have meanings, the Left insists they don’t.
I love this return to the core logic of our system of law, however, Hillary’s lying has become so prolific that we must pick the most blatant, the easiest to prove, and then tie it back to how it not only impacts America but how it shows her to be unqualified to move forward in our political system.