The late Leslie Millwee…VERY late.
Leslie Millwee, a former reporter for local Arkansas TV station KLMN-TV, has accused former president Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting her three times in 1980, while Clinton was governor of Arkansas…Millwee told Breitbart she interviewed Clinton about 20 times publicly and also met with him in KLMN-TV’s newsroom. She said he groped her and rubbed his genitals on her while they were alone in KLMN-TV’s small editing room.
“He came in [to the editing room] behind me, started hunching me to the point that he had an orgasm,” she told Breitbart’s Aaron Klein. “He’s touching, trying to touch my breasts and I’m just sitting there very stiffly, just waiting for him to leave me alone. And I’m asking him the whole time, ‘Please do not do this. Do not touch me. Do not hunch me. I do not want this.’ And he finished doing what he was doing and walked out….Breitbart also interviewed three of Millwee’s friends, who said Millwee told them in the late 1990s about the alleged assaults.
…Millwee’s accusations are new, and Breitbart, which published a 19-minute video interview with Millwee, has been supportive of Trump and dismissive of the numerous women who have accused him of sexual assault. The site is led by Steven Bannon, who took a leave from Breitbart to serve as CEO of Trump’s campaign.Millwee said she considered coming forward in the late 1990s, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but she was intimidated after seeing how the media treated other women who accused Clinton of sexual assault.
“I almost came out during the Monica Lewinsky and Kathleen Willey situation,” she said. “I watched that unfold a little bit. I was very prepared to go forward then and talk about it, and I watched the ways the Clintons and Hillary slandered those women, harassed them, did unthinkable things to them, and I just did not want to be part of that. I had very small children at the time, I had a job at pharmaceuticals, it was a very conservative situation. I didn’t want to do anything to bring harm to my career and my family.”
Millwee said she decided to finally go public now because she believes that the media still has not held Clinton accountable for his alleged sexual assaults. A Breitbart spokeswoman said Millwee reached out to Breitbart on her own “months ago after Hillary’s ad that sex assault victims have a right to be heard.”
Observations:
1. Please, God, if Chris Wallace starts to ask Hillary or Trump a question about this, just strike him down dead, or turn him into a pillar of salt, or something. Please.
2. Should she be believed? Well, the news media has certainly behaved as if all of the women who came out with Trump accusations after the Billy Bush tape should be believed, and, I hate to harp on this, but Hillary says women who make accusations of sexual assault have a right to be..no, wait, sorry. That statement doesn’t apply to Bill’s accusers. My bad.
3. Of the major news media, so far only the New York Times has deigned to report Millwee’s claims, in contrast to the entire journalistic establishment leaping on one Trump accuser’s story after another last week. Go ahead, media bias-deniers: explain that. I agree that accusations against a current Presidential candidate is bigger news, but an explosive accusation against the assumed First Lady in Waiting is certainly news, and the news factor is magnified when that individual is a former President. If a man had accused Ann Romney of sexual assault in October of 2008, do you not think the networks would have reported it within seconds?
4. It’s a pity she gave the story to Breitbart, the sleezy Trump-bought website. On the other hand, how better to ensure that the story would be reported? Once again we see how a biased conservative news media is an unfortunate but necessary counter-measure to biased liberal news media.
5. The accusation, even if completely true, and it certainly appears credible, doesn’t make Donald Trump look better or mitigate his words, character or conduct in any way.
6. The account does, however, make the claims of alleged Clinton rape victim Juanita Broaddrick and alleged assault victims Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones more believable, and they were pretty believable already.
7. If accurate, boy did the United States have a sick, sociopathic criminal bastard as President for eight years! That’s a disgusting story. Let’s ask Democrats if they find Bill’s conduct more disgusting than Trump’s conversation with Billy Bush, which, they said, mandates his dropping out of the race. Let’s ask them how they would characterize someone who willfully assists a man in getting away with such a revolting act, and by doing so allows him to continue preying on other women, to protect her own power base? Would they characterize such a women as a feminist? A loyal wife? A champion of women?
An accessory?
8. Does the film “Spotlight” cause any bulbs to go off? Boston Archdiocese? Catholic Church? Tell me, O Hillary Corrupted: What’s the difference?
9. I wrote a post recently in which I imagined a hypothetical Hillary Clinton secret video in which she admitted to all of the worst allegations and accusations regarding her. I just as easily could have framed many of the same issues with a hypothetical that followed Leslie Millwee’s actual claims, with questions from that post such as these…
Would the mainstream news media treat this video with the saturation coverage that the NBC tape has received?
Would the news media attack the methods by which the video was obtained as a deflection?
Would the Washington Post moderate or retract its endorsement that stated,
“There is a well-qualified, well-prepared candidate on the ballot. Hillary Clinton has the potential to be an excellent president of the United States, and we endorse her without hesitation.” ?
Would any publication retract its endorsement? Any prominent columnists? Which ones?
Would any prominent Democrat publicly condemn Clinton’s words and admitted conduct, or retract his or her support?
What would Elizabeth Warren say in response? Bernie Sanders? Barack Obama?
Would a significant number of Hillary voters switch their preference to Trump? Would any?
10. Nice going, Leslie, you waited 36 years after the attack, 24 years after the 1992 campaign, 18 years after Clinton’s impeachment trial, 16 years after Hillary was elected Senator purely on the basis of her association with this wonderful man, four years after Democrats made Clinton the most hypocritical key-note speaker in world history when he gave his speech to a Democratic National Convention dedicated to women’s rights—women’s rights!-— to the cheers of feminists and adoring journalists, six months after the Democratic primaries, and less than three weeks from this election. Meanwhile, in those 36 years, how many women did Bill Clinton abuse, and Hillary Clinton intimidate? You had an ethical duty to report this guy long ago. Yes, some risk was involved. You allowed cynical, power-abusing, hypocritical wrongdoers to prevail on a national scale, with terrible consequences to individuals, the nation, society, politics and the culture.
Ethics Alarms 
As of 8:35PM, half an hour after your post date, I found her mentioned in the Washington Post too. Not headlined, I grant you – but dear god, see your Point 1 – how far down towards Enquirer do we want our mainstream media to go?
The whole country needs a shower after all this…
What bugs me is that Gary Johnson is not polling 30%.
I know, I know. But that die has been cast, no?
Please, please, please, God, please say it’s November 2nd and the new POTUS is my parrot.
Presuming all claimants of sexual abuse should be believed is not wrong. However, delayed timing of charges shift the presumption of innocence back to the accused. Timing is critical because it establishes a contemporaneous
complaint which lessens the chance of concocted stories used strategically to alter election results. There is no method of judicial relief when a candidate is destroyed by an allegation mere days before the election. Even if a person is afraid to come forward it is easy enough to make a detailed contemporaneous report.
Males and females both deserve to be believed. Sexual assault is a crime therefore the complaint should be filed with the police in the jurisdiction and not a newspaper and names of the accused should be shielded from public record until duly convicted.
And those accused also have a right to be believed, absent tangible evidence.
“There is no method of judicial relief when a candidate is destroyed by an allegation mere days before the election”
This is why I refuse to even consider these accusations from either side, at least prior to the election, absent tangible evidence as Jack stated.
Jack, did you read about the high-school newspaper kerfuffle? http://gazette.com/clinton-endorsement-by-colorado-springs-high-school-newspaper-creates-community-uproar/article/1588103
Morons. How is a political opinion inappropriate in a student paper? How is an editorial imposing a view on anyone? I don’t care if a paper endorsed Flipper. The controversy is an embarrassment.
“but an explosive accusation against the assumed First Lady in Waiting is certainly news,”
Heh heh heh.
First gentleman? First consort? First cad? “That asshole again?”?
There’s a great picture circulating with his face photoshopped into QEII’s silhouette. I’ll try to track it down.
I saw a meme from the primaries with Bill’s grinning face over the line “I just realized, if Hillary gets elected I get INTERNS!”
My question for her is why didn’t she knee him in the nuts rather than standing their stiffly? Or perhaps grab him there and squeeze real hard! Probably she was ashamed and shocked that it happened so that’s why she didn’t come forth with the story immediately.
Hopefully you’re never in a position to ask that question. Because it’s horseshit. Assuming her claims are true, and I realize that certainly isn’t established, what gives you the right to Monday-morning-quarterback the way in which a crime victim responds to being sexually assaulted? Gosh, it must be a relief for her to have you point out what she should have done to stop her attacker. Now she can spend the next few years wondering if her failure to resist sufficiently (in your view) somehow makes the incident partially her fault.
I’ve never been sexually assaulted, but I’m honest enough to recognize instances in my life where I have failed to act courageously in situations that called for quick, decisive action. I’ve seen it in myself and seen it in other people. Reacting to stressful situations by freezing up is completely normal. Most people, when faced for the first time with a situation where they don’t know what to do, react by doing nothing. I’ve seen people with first aid training walk past an injured person. They didn’t do it because they were assholes, they did it because they weren’t mentally prepared to act. Have you ever tried to get an answer out of a kid by really yelling at them? Nine times out of ten, they’re not refusing to answer because they’re obstinate, they’re staying silent because they don’t know what to say.
I’ve experienced emergency situations where I acted in a way that I can be proud of. And, each time, I’ve identified a moment where I’ve had to almost consciously decide to keep my head and actually force myself to remain calm and to act. For people who haven’t been prepared for it that can be almost impossible. That’s why military and first responder training is so rigorous. It’s brutally unfair to second guess a sexual assault victim by questioning the way they responded during their assault.
He has a right to question her actions because she’s a citizen, citizens have a duty to report crimes, other citizens suffer as a result of people voiding this duty, and when the assaulter is a trusted elected official like a GOVERNOR, for god’s sake, it is especially essential.
Glad to be able to clarify that for you. Yup, sometimes doing the right thing is tough. That doesn’t change the fact that it is right.
Yes, we’re in total agreement about reporting the crime. She reneged on her responsibility as a citizen. I have little sympathy for the idea that women, or anybody for that matter, would be re-traumatized by being “forced to relive” their ordeal when the alternative is letting a criminal continue victimizing others. My problem with Wayne’s statement is that he was finding fault with how she reacted while she was being assaulted when her response to the situation was, if not particularly helpful, at least understandable. Questions like “why didn’t you fight back” are necessary during an investigation but, coming from a stranger on the internet, bring with them the implication that she was somehow at fault for what happened to her.
I was careful to say it’s unfair to second guess a victim for their behavior “during” an assault. I should have followed that up by saying that waiting decades to report a crime is inexcusable.
Of course, all this presupposes the fact that the incident actually happened. Thanks to her not reporting it for decades, we’ll never know.
Jack said, “You had an ethical duty to report this guy long ago.”
You are telling a woman that she is duty bound to confront an abuser, I think Spartan might have a real problem forcing that duty on any woman.
She will, and she’s wrong. As this case shows.
I’m not wrong. Based on her alleged description, she would not have been able to prove a thing. Her career would have been ruined and her reputation dragged through the mud. However, if she wanted to report him, that would be her right and perogative. I do question giving the story to Breitbart — what, did the Enquirer refuse her call?
I question that too, but as I said, since most news organizations are falling all over themselves and ripping up their codes of conduct to protect the Clintons, she may have felt she had few options.
How does one FORCE that duty? Can’t make her report; in ethics, one can’t make someone do the right thing. In society, the duty of a citizen to report crimes is not a matter of debate. Women cannot claim special exemption.
Do we similarly give an ethics pass to a mother who knows that her husband or brother or boy friend is raping her 13-year old daughter? 12? 10? 6? So she’s afraid of the consequences, the disruption, revenge. Does that excuse her? There is NO DIFFERENCE.
Maybe my use of the word “forcing” wasn’t the best choice, but that’s how some (like Spartan) will likely take it.
We are in agreement on the overall “duty”.
SOCIETY is in agreement too. For some reason, many women think these duties don’t apply to them.
Jack Marshall said, “SOCIETY is in agreement too.”
Here is where you and I might part ways just a little tiny bit.
I have been seeing a really disturbing trend in society for 10-15+ years where individual responsibilities and individual moral duties are piled outward not inward. The responsibility and duties are being pushed away from self and blame is being places onto anyone or anything else to absolve said implied responsibilities.
It’s one of the ongoing ethics and societal norm battles, true.
That’s different. In that scenario, the mother also is committing a crime. Also, a mother generally has a moral and legal duty to protect a child — we have no such duty to protect ourselves.
But protecting ourselves is not the reason we have the duty to report violent crimes against ourselves. The reason is law enforcement; the reason is to get rapists, killers and exploiters of power to harm women in the workplace off the street so they don’t hurt anyone else.
“The reason is law enforcement; the reason is to get rapists, killers and exploiters of power to harm women in the workplace off the street so they don’t hurt anyone else.”
Well, those are good reasons, but if you have no proof and the accused is the most powerful official in the State, what do you think will happen?
I’m beginning to think that Jack needs to add a new rationalization. Something along the lines of #25 “The Coercion Myth”. A rationalization essentially that “Well, the odds are against me trying to right a wrong, so I better not try” or even “Well, I probably stand to suffer greatly for doing the right thing, so I better not”.
Or there may already be a rationalization for that.
I’m looking. The other missing rationalization Spartan has made me wonder about is from an old comment of h—er, Spartan’s under a previous moniker, about how “abortion is a small percentage of what Planned Parenthood does.” Does the list cover that? “The wrong things I do are OK because I do relatively few of them”? It’s related to Ethics Accounting and The Ruddigore Principle, but may be worth a sub-rationalization.
I saw that comment. On the old Gladney post. I think that rationalization IS a sub rationalization of one of the ethics accounting family of rationalizations. I’ll look also.
It is either sad or impressive that you know the list better than I do.
I think it’s a fair assessment even though I wouldn’t call it a rationalization. It’s right up there with “those who throw stones,” i.e., no one is a paragon of virtue.
In any event, I would still defend Planned Parenthood’s right to perform abortions. Not only are they legal — but they are necessary.
A necessary evil, I believe, was your term. Like War. Right? That doesn’t mean that Bill Clinton’s position they should be available, safe, RARE isn’t correct as well.
Planned Parenthood misses one of the three, and when we’re talking about evils, that’s not excusable.
They are a necessary evil — but necessary nonetheless. And abortions are steadily decreasing, despite their availability.
A necessary evil, I believe, was your term. Like War. Right? That doesn’t mean that Bill Clinton’s position they should be available, safe, RARE isn’t correct as well.
Planned Parenthood misses one of the three, and when we’re talking about evils, that’s not excusable.
Are you saying they are missing the “rare” part of it? That can’t be attributed to Planned Parenthood, can it? They support efforts to make abortion more rare–through taxpayer funded contraception, a policy that has been proven to drastically reduce the abortion rate in areas where it has been tried.
That conservatives do not support this incredibly effective policy to reduce abortion can hardly be blamed on Planned Parenthood.
Contraception makes accidental pregnancies rarer. Abortion is not a necessary or automatic result of accidental pregnancies, and ethically, it shouldn’t be the response at all.
Chris, you know it bad form to come back to arguments you were solidly schooled on. Especially this argument which I’m fairly certain was one of your inaugural assertions on this blog. We haven’t forgotten that you were enlightened regarding this line of argument, don’t pretend it carries some sort of new validity. (It doesn’t)
I’m not “pretending” anything, tex–believe it or not, not everyone is as amazed by your amazing argumentative prowess as you are, and I was not even remotely impressed by your refutation of my argument the last time I made it.
As far as I’m concerned, the argument stands: if you are against abortion, but won’t pony up a few bucks more in taxes for the most effective method of reduction we know of, then either you don’t really believe abortion is baby murder, or you care more about money than stopping baby murder.
Bzzzt. Intellectual dishonesty. It’s been demonstrated, thoroughly, how that connection is false and illogical.
You really are tgt-lite.
Contraception makes accidental pregnancies rarer. Abortion is not a necessary or automatic result of accidental pregnancies, and ethically, it shouldn’t be the response at all.
I never said abortion was a “necessary or automatic result of accidental pregnancies.” It’s still a result that happens in the real world, and it’s a result that can be prevented through the method I described earlier.
Contraception makes accidental pregnancies rarer. Less accidental pregnancies means less abortions. Therefore, contraception makes abortion rarer.
“I’m not “pretending” anything, tex–believe it or not, not everyone is as amazed by your amazing argumentative prowess as you are, and I was not even remotely impressed by your refutation of my argument the last time I made it.”
That’s one of Tex’s favorite tactics. He thinks he’s right, and he takes immense pride in the fact that he thinks he’s right, and he keeps reminding us that he “settled” thorny ethical issues despite the fact that we still disagree.
That might sound a little snotty, but I don’t mean it to be. I actually think his arrogance is a little endearing. Jack is arrogant too, but I haven’t met a director who isn’t. Its a required attribute for the job.
Actually it was Jack who settled it.
See your memory is as rusty as Chris’.
Arrogant? Moi?
I don’t feel the need to convince you, nor do I think that I will convince you, but I feel the need to point out that one of the reasons that women don’t always come forward to report sexual crimes is that we see what has happened to our friends and family members when they have reported sexual crimes. Nothing.
I’m not even blaming the police (although there are many examples of treating victims of sexual crimes badly). There are simply times when there is no evidence that a crime took place. What will the police investigate? What will the Prosecutor do? I’m an attorney, I can tell you what will happen — little to nothing to punish the assaulter. However, what will happen to the victim of the crime is that she will have to endure questioning, an intrusive rape kit, and ultimately cross-examination if the case goes to trial (likely it won’t though). If the assaulter is the most powerful official in the state, how do you think that plays out? And what do you think happens to the woman’s reputation? She is essentially being victimized twice.
Look, if there is evidence, I would report a sexual crime — even though I know what would happen to me. But if President Obama, Bush, etc. assaulted me? I would make damn sure that there was tangible, irrefutable evidence before I destroyed my career and made my attack the subject at every dining room table.
You seem to be confusing rationalization with logic.
Spartan said, “I don’t feel the need to convince you, nor do I think that I will convince you, but I feel the need to point out that one of the reasons that women don’t always come forward to report sexual crimes is that we see what has happened to our friends and family members when they have reported sexual crimes. Nothing.”
Reread what you wrote, I don’t think that’s what you intended to say. If you stick to the way your worded that argument, it’s completely illogical and I think contrary too what you’ve written before.
You’re right. I worded that badly. “Nothing” is what happens to the accused. The accuser on the other hand? A lot of things can happen — most of them are bad.
Spartan said, “I’m an attorney…”
That’s kinda like saying “trust me” with a little more clout, but if you’re not a criminal law attorney your said clout is not knocking the ball out of the ball park.
I think you’ve been asked before, what kind of law do you practice?
I’ve practiced many kinds of law, but I’ve done a fair amount of criminal work, including death penalty work. In addition, one of my best friends is the head prosecutor of an SVU unit in a major city and another is a senior public defender. I’ve learned a ton from them in addition to my own experience.
Thanks for questioning my credentials. What are yours when it comes to criminal law?
Spartan said, “Thanks for questioning my credentials.”
I’m not the one that wearing my credentials on my shoulder Spartan, you are; it warranted the question. Sounds like you’ve got some “related” experience; just curious, are you more behind the scenes or arguing in court rooms? Personal opinion, many of those arguing in court rooms cannot do their job effectively without excellent attorneys on staff supporting their efforts – I’ve seen it in action.
You answered my question; thank you.
Spartan said, “What are yours when it comes to criminal law?”
I’ve never claimed to be an attorney, in fact I’ve never claimed to have any credentials whatsoever related to law. My credentials in such regards are absolutely zero, I would never claim that which I do not possess; however, my experience is otherwise and my knowledge is far from non-existent. I had one attorney representing me years ago that pointedly asked me, after reviewing everything I presented to him, why I needed him because I had almost everything done. My answer to him was that I’m not an attorney, you never represent yourself, and I don’t know the intricacies of how to effectively navigate the legal system, that’s what he was for. I did my job, he did his job and we won. I’ve also had some rather extensive experience with patent law.
Did I sufficiently answer your question?
I actually wasn’t really asking … just pointing out your rudeness.
Spartan said, “I actually wasn’t really asking … just pointing out your rudeness.”
That was rude – really?
Give me a break Spartan; how about float down from your cloud on high and walk the Earth with the rest of us. I’m really trying here; but if you don’t like playing softball, we can go back to hard ball – I’m game, are you?
Rude – nope. I think you over reacted just a touch with that interruption.
I’m the cool cucumber here — I’m not the one who uses all caps and bold all the time.
Why do I float on high? Just because I disagree with you?
Spartan said, “I’m not the one who uses all caps and bold all the time.”
All the time? Really? Using hyperbole for something like this?
Actually I try to use bold letters and all caps to specifically imply voice inflection so that the readers and read it the way I want it read. It’s a blogging technique I’ve learned over the years. You should try it, it actually helps sometimes. If you don’t know how to do it and would like to try just ask; I have a comment that I developed for a friend to share with others a few years ago when I was taking a blogging “sabbatical”. There was a commenter over at madison.com a number of years ago that use 100% all caps on every word all the time, it was truly annoying, but I had a different understanding; I had a friend that died of brain cancer a number of years ago that had an extremely hard time reading anything that was not in all caps. Misspelling, all caps, extremely poor grammar, and rotten punctuation, I don’t care one bit as long as the intent is reasonably understandable. A little understanding for such petty things can go a long way.
Spartan said, “Why do I float on high?”
It’s nothing but a figure of speech, I figured after reading some of the exchanges between Alizia and I you would have know that. Was I wrong?
Spartan said, “Just because I disagree with you?”
Hell no, disagree all you want, I’m a big boy that can take care of myself and I can take it when directly challenged. Your “rude” interruption of what I said came across as kinda low-grade pompousness from your throne on high, but I really didn’t want to say that coming out of the gate; however, since you asked. 😉
Jack Marshall said, “But protecting ourselves is not the reason we have the duty to report violent crimes against ourselves. The reason is law enforcement; the reason is to get rapists, killers and exploiters of power to harm women in the workplace off the street so they don’t hurt anyone else.”
I agree with you Jack; but, you’re forgetting Spartan’s core belief, “I do not have any duty to confront”; and when you actually believe that then reporting turns out to be synonymous to confronting regardless of the safety of possible future victims including herself – Spartan intentionally condemns all of them to suffer from that particular abuser like she has.
Yes that was particularly pointed.
I’m guessing Sparty is too young to have heard this as a kid.
I stopped listening when I got to the lyrics about the “injun chief” and the “feathers flew.”
I figured you would. The U.S. was different in the ’50s. Big deal.
I’ll give you the hook so you don’t have to hear anything un-PC: “Be sure you’re right, and then go ahead.” In other words, take action when you see something that calls for action.
You’re such a bundle of contradictions. You believe the government should do everything to help everyone but you don’t believe an individual should risk a thing for the betterment of society. You purport to care deeply about others, but only take action if the calculus tips in your favor. I guess I’m just a hopeless Romantic who has been led to believe that individual acts intended to further the greater good are worthwhile and important to the health of the society as a whole. You seem to be a careerist.
“You believe the government should do everything to help everyone but you don’t believe an individual should risk a thing for the betterment of society.”
Well, no, I don’t believe that at all.
“You purport to care deeply about others, but only take action if the calculus tips in your favor.”
That’s not true either. And, I will tell you that — putting aside sexual assault for the moment — every time that I have spoken up about sexual harassment involving me or colleague it has burned me. That doesn’t mean that I don’t take action, but let’s not pretend that aren’t negative consequences all the time for people who do take action.
“I guess I’m just a hopeless Romantic who has been led to believe that individual acts intended to further the greater good are worthwhile and important to the health of the society as a whole. You seem to be a careerist.”
Got it. Pointing out that someone who has no power will be ruined if she accuses an important, powerful, rich man of wrongdoing because she has no evidence? Well, guess what? If she had spoken to a decent attorney at the time, he/she would have told her the exact same thing — “It is your right to call the police and/or bring a civil action, but it will be difficult to prove, and the process will be very emotionally and perhaps financially challenging for you and your family.”
So you’re from the part of Michigan that is still ground leased at market rates by the Native American tribe that’s owned it since before Columbus? Interesting. Must be comforting.