In order to maintain the support of the world’s Lena Dunham acolytes, Hillary Clinton has taken to involving herself in the radical feminist cause du jour: the battle against rampant sexual assault on college campuses. Sure, the crusade has pressed on without much regard for typical things like due process and reality, but radical feminism requires that people have something to fear in order to maintain its relevance in an age of increasing opportunity.
Fortunately for Hillary, feminists don’t care to delve too deeply into their heroes’ pasts, or they’d find that Clinton herself is an unapologetic apologist for a possible sexual predator: her husband. While the media may still be convinced that accusations of Bill Clinton’s “preferences” are still “alleged,” Hillary Clinton has much to answer for if she sees fit to assume that every person who alleges sexual violence against another is telling the truth and “deserves to be believed and supported.”
Last night, her past surfaced in an unexpected way. Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer for Bill Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign in the 1970s, who claimed that Bill Clinton raped her in a hotel room, decided to call out the Presidential contender for her Tweet.
Juanita claimed that she had an encounter with Hillary Clinton shortly after the incident, telling the Drudge Report that Hillary took her hand outside of an event and gave her an ominious message, presumably indicating that Broaddrick should stay silent on the matter. According to Vox, which isn’t exactly the most conservative outlet in the world, Juanita’s claim was made to the Dateline producers who covered her story in 1999, as well as to Fox News in 2003.
Little evidence has surfaced to substantiate Broaddrick’s claims, but that’s exactly what Hillary Clinton was addressing in her Tweet; where sexual assault is concerned, there is usually very little evidence, especially if the victim doesn’t seek medical treatment right away – and many don’t. It’s the victim’s word against the alleged perpetrators, and Hillary Clinton clearly says that, in those types of cases, the victim – not the perpetrator – should be heard, supported and believed. Even if you consider Broaddrick’s story somewhat flimsy, it’s far less flimsy than many recent allegations feminists have come to not only believe but champion, like Columbia University’s Emma Sulkowicz’s. If Hillary Clinton turns tail on a victim now, it’s obviously very telling.
Of course, as with feminists during Bill Clinton’s reign of terror, they’ll probably forgive and forget. After all, you can’t inconvenience the first woman President like that.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.