It is more than fair, actually. This is what George Will calls “condign justice.” It is so appropriate, ironic and long deserved that all fair-minded Americans should run into the street shouting “Calloo! Callay!”
Well, metaphorically at least.
The fact that Bill Clinton smugly ducked impeachment while damaging the law, the culture, his office and his party in the process (just ask President Gore) and was allowed to slip easily into the role of beloved elder statesman and obscenely compensated celebrity speaker was enough to make one question the existence of cosmic justice. The fact that his wife was allowed to undermine the cases of his various victims and then achieve high elected office wearing the mantle of feminist champion was, if possible, worse, a catalyst for cynicism and despair.
I know of what I speak.
But as American jurist John Bannister Gibson (1780-1853) observed, “Millstones of Justice turn exceedingly slow, but grind exceedingly fine.” Both Bill and Hillary got careless and smug as time went on, as the culture evolved around them, not entirely in healthy ways, but definitely dangerous ways for them. Thanks to the Obama Administration’s weaponizing of sexual discrimination, bias and assault for partisan combat, feminists adopted an extreme and dangerous approach to sexual assault, taking the position that all women who accuse a man of rape or assault must begin with the presumption of credibility, in direct contradiction of long-held, core principles of American justice, which hold that the presumption of innocence rests with the accused, and an alleged victim must still prove her case. The Democratic Party, which back in Bill’s day shrugged off Clinton’s conduct with rationalizations like “Everybody does it” and fictions like “Illicit sexual activity by the President in his office with an employee that he subsequently lies about under oath and uses his power as President to evade responsibility for is personal conduct” (Bernie Sanders, who is old and didn’t get the memo, just repeated this canard: Try to keep up, Bernie!), embraced the feminist position with foolish and undemocratic gusto, and suddenly Hillary Clinton was saying, as if the history of her husband didn’t exist, that all victims of sexual abuse had the right to be believed. She said this, and then sent Bill out on the road to support her.
I joined some other commentators in noting how astoundingly arrogant and tone-deaf this was, writing…
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.
Little did I know that the Presidential candidate who would devastatingly use this to expose both Clintons to the culture for a second chance to get it right would be the ethicists’ least favorite, yes, even less than Hillary herself, Donald Trump. Suddenly the mainstream media couldn’t ignore the gargantuan donkey in the room. Hillary not only painted herself and Bill into a corner, she painted feminists, Democrats and the left-biased news media into the corner along with them. Putting the final brush stroke on the paint job was none other than Juanita Broaddrick herself, who was moved by Trump’s attack to issue a quickly viral tweet:
“I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73. It never goes away.”
Then, putting a rich frosting on a deliciously ironic ethics cake, Bill Cosby was hauled into court by one of his sexual assault accusers, as the news media and feminists cheered. You gotta hand it to Cosby, a master comedian. What timing!
I love it. You have to love it. There are so many old, wise sayings that these developments confirm that it is simultaneously joyous, satisfying, hopeful and even funny.
Yes, funny. It was funny watching Democratic operative Donna Brazile, with whom ABC weekly disgraces itself by holding her up as an independent commentator on its “roundtable,” dissolve into desperate, dishonest doubletalk and gibberish when CNN’s Jake Tapper asked her how feminism and Democrats could ignore Juanita Broaddrick’s victimhood now, and still side with her accused attacker and his top minion, The Feminist Candidate. She babbled…
“Donald Trump…has built his campaign on mocking women, attacking immigrants, of course, and smearing Muslims. I’m not surprised that Donald Trump has decided to go into what I call the sleaze basket…When it comes to sexual assault, violence against women, I think Democrats and liberals and progressives have a good history on ensuring that women are able to tell the truth and to ensure that there are laws properly on the books to allow victims of these crimes and abuses to have their day. So I don’t think there’s any contradiction there….Donald Trump believed that this is one way to silence Hillary Clinton when she brings up his misogyny and his attacks on women, I don’t think that’s going to work either. Now, I’m a feminist, Jake. I mean, and I know Bill Clinton. And I have a great deal of respect for Bill Clinton. During that time, we all condemned his misconduct. I mean, I’m not married to Bill Clinton. I’m sure as a husband and wife issue, there were marital issues they had to resolve… I can tell you this. Hillary Clinton has a lifetime commitment of supporting women and girls, whether it’s in through legislation or as an advocate for women and girls. And the notion that for some reason she cannot be a, you know, can run a campaign and talk about these issues without somebody bringing up the misconduct of her husband. I mean, that is in my judgment that is real misogyny.”
1. Brazile begins with such a pure ad hominem attack that it should be used from now on to illustrate the fallacy. The issue isn’t Trump. The issue is the dishonesty and hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton.
2. Democratic leaders do not have a good record of respecting women—the Kennedys, the Clintons, Gary Hart, Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner (husband of Hillary’s top aide, coincidentally) John Edwards—but never mind—Brazile’s statement is hilarious, but never mind. Brazile is using the tactic of deflection and misdirection, and being ridiculously obvious about it. Focus, Donna. The issue is Hillary and Bill, and specifically Hillary’s role in destroying women who accused her serial sexual predator husband of harassment, assault, or worse. We aren’t concerned with “Democratic leaders,’ we’re talking about two particular leaders….as you well know.
3. “Donald Trump believed that this is one way to silence Hillary Clinton when she brings up his misogyny and his attacks on women, I don’t think that’s going to work either.” Trump doesn’t know what he’s trying to do half the time, but his instincts for the jugular are uncanny and his guttiness can’t be questioned. The fact is that Donald Trump’s misogyny is apples to Bill Clinton’s conduct as President and Governor rotten oranges. Stipulated: Trump is a creep; and Bill Clinton was President Creep. That’s a material difference. Remember, Bill and Hillary sort of admitted that he had been a creep when Bill was a candidate in 1992, but promised voters that his creepy days were over. And the First Lady and Head Cover-Up Specialist for President Creep is the woman now claiming to be champion for exactly the kind of women she aggressively worked to discredit.
4. Incredibly, desperately, Brazile defaults to the old “it’s just sex; it’s just adultery” tactic from the Monica days. Nobody, not Jake Tapper, not William Kristol not Donald Trump, certainly not Hillary, is talking about adultery. The issue is sexual assault. And Donna? Rape isn’t “misconduct.” Rape is a felony.
5. Donna Brazile says its misogyny to accurately point out that a female official’s words are completely contradicted by her past conduct. Welcome to Danna Brazile’s preview to what a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and Presidency would be like.
Vox is a reliable Democratic and progressive news analysis website launched by Ezra Klein, formally the most left-biased of all Washington Post reporters. If there is a barely credible spin to put on a story reflecting poorly on President Obama or Democrats, count on Vox to find it. Vox, however, was moved to review the accusation of Juanita Broaddrick, and did a fair, unbiased job. The piece’s conclusion is especially noteworthy, which says in part…
“No one besides Bill Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick knows the true story here — and ultimately, the matter comes down to which of their two accounts one believes. There is certainly not enough here to convict Clinton in a court of law, even if there weren’t a statute of limitations. There’s no physical evidence. There’s just the word of Broaddrick and her friends against Clinton’s. To that end, I reached out both to the Hillary Clinton campaign and Bill Clinton’s personal representatives; the former did not reply, while the latter declined to comment.
Given the prevailing view among many progressives — including Hillary Clinton — that one should default to believing rape accusers, the Broaddrick allegation thus poses a problem….There is a crucial tension between “believe survivors” and the “Juanita Broaddrick is lying” position of some Clinton defenders, lacking further information…Many, including Harvard Law’s Jeannie Suk, have argued that defaulting to believing every accusation of rape “harms the overall credibility of sexual assault claims,” given that false claims do happen, albeit quite rarely. But whatever the merits of that view, adopting it would be a big pivot for Hillary Clinton, given that just a couple of months ago she was tweeting, “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” There’s no easy way to reconcile that view with her allies’ dismissal of Broaddrick’s allegations.”
One correction to this is necessary: there is no ethical way to reconcile that view with her allies’ dismissal of Broaddrick’s allegations, or with the deification of Bill Clinton.
Fair? Just? This is wonderful.