Ever since the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, we have been told by the Democrats that every woman must be believed whenever there is a claim of sexual assault, even if the story changes, there is no physical evidence and no one can corroborate the event.
But, in 1999, The New York Times, that so-called “champion of women’s rights,” questioned Juanita Broaddrick’s accusation of rape against then-President Bill Clinton.
Looks like Dems believe all women should be believed…if the accusation is leveled against a conservative.
….The Times, we need hardly point out, was relentless in its effort to find any smidgen of untoward or unethical behavior in the youthful history of Brett M. Kavanaugh, to the point that every day seemed to bring forth some preposterous non-revelation about a barroom scuffle or a dirty prank perpetrated by a fraternity to which the nominee once belonged. Almost totally absent from the Times’s coverage was any acknowledgment of the doubts a reasonable person might entertain about Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that Kavanaugh had assaulted her in 1982. The problems, to simplify, were these: No witness, including some she suggested, would corroborate her claim, and her own testimony was often ambiguous and vague….
….The problems with Mrs. Broaddrick’s accusation are obvious. There is no physical evidence to verify it. No one else was present during the alleged encounter in a Little Rock hotel room nearly 21 years ago. The hotel has since closed. And Mrs. Broaddrick denied the encounter in an affidavit in January 1998 in the Paula Jones case, in which she was known only as ”Jane Doe No. 5.” Through all those years, she refused to come forward. When pressed by the Jones lawyers, she denied the allegation. And now, she has recanted that denial….
But despite the problems with the accusation, it became part of the background noise of the impeachment process in Congress, pushed by conservative House Republicans even after Mr. Starr made only a glancing reference to it in a supplement to his report….