Kat’s ‘National Review’ Article, Aug 16, 2016

According to Kat’s latest National Review article, it’s not the least bit surprising that Hillary’s statement that rape survivors ‘have a right to be believed’ was deleted from her website.

National Review

by KATHERINE TIMPF, August 16, 2016 1:39 PM

Hillary Clinton’s campaign quietly removed her quote about how all sexual-assault survivors “have the right to be believed” from the top of one of her website pages — and I can’t say I’m surprised.

Remember, throughout the fall of 2015, Hillary Clinton was clearly trying to make the “right to be believed” part of her campaign platform. She used the phrase on Twitter (several times) and during a speech at Northern Iowa University. In fact, according to BuzzFeed, archives of her campaign website dated September 14, 2015 show that the following quote from that speech had been proudly displayed at the top of the page:

“I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.”

Then, by February, the clause “you have the right to be believed” had been removed . . . coincidentally, right after sexual-assault allegations against her husband began to resurface, and people began to question how she could possibly believe the statement, given the way she’s dealt with these kinds of situations in her own life.

Clearly, Hillary Clinton’s plan to drum up modern feminist votes using a typical modern feminist talking point hasn’t worked out quite how she’d planned. In December, a reporter at a campaign event asked her whether or not her husband’s accusers had “a right to be believed,” to which Hillary replied: “Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”) In January, one of Bill’s many accusers, Juanita Broaddrick, tweeted that Bill had raped her when she was 35 and that Hillary had tried to “silence” her from speaking out. Columnists, myself included, were beginning to call her out on her hypocrisy.

So how did Hillary Clinton handle it? The way she always does: Delete and deflect. And how did it work out? The way it always does: With her getting away with it.

In fact, the very same BuzzFeed article that notes the removal of the quote also goes on to detail the way that Hillary’s supporters have defended hypocrisy her by questioning Broaddrick’s credibility:

But even if Broaddrick doesn’t want to admit it, she’s become increasingly cozy with conservatives as election day draws nearer. She used to tweet mostly about her own story and other sexual assault–related issues; these days, her feeds are filled with outlandish Clinton conspiracy theories and angry posts about Benghazi. She may have once donated more than $1,000 to Obama, but now she retweets criticism about him and his wife.

Broaddrick’s move to the right damages her mainstream credibility.

But here’s the thing: Whether or not any of those characterizations make you question Broaddrick’s credibility is irrelevant . . . because regardless, not a single one of them amounts to Broaddrick having to be “disbelieved based on evidence” — which, remember, is the standard for no longer believing accusers that Hillary Clinton set for herself when she was questioned by that reporter in December. This means, logically, that even her modified stance would still demand that she believe Broaddrick, as well as the many other women who have accused her husband and never been proven wrong. And, seeing as she’s still, you know, married to the dude, that’s certainly something people should be asking her about.

But people, it seems, would rather not. After all, nothing infuriates Hillary Clinton more than someone asking her to explain, and the odds of a straight answer are slim to none. If your e-mails become a problem, delete them! If someone asks you if you wiped your server clean, respond with a stupid joke instead of answering the question! And when you’re questioned about the reason that four Americans were murdered in Benghazi while you were secretary of state, just angrily shout “What difference — at this point, what difference does it make?”

Honestly, it’s a bizarre way to be able to conduct your life. How does she do it?

Easy. We’re letting her.

People get away with not being held accountable because people don’t hold them accountable. There is no other way.

Obviously, the way that Hillary Clinton has handled the sexual-assault allegations against her own husband is a feminist issue. These women matter, and they shouldn’t be treated differently just because of whom they happened to be accusing . . . which, by the way, is a huge talking point on the left when it comes to anyone but Bill. (Honestly, has there been any other man, in recent history, who has been accused of sexual assault by multiple women and yet somehow maintained feminists’ favor? Really, I’m just asking.) But it’s about more than that, too: It’s also about Hillary’s blatant refusal to feel responsible to comply with any set of ethical standards — even when those standards are the ones she’s willingly, publicly set for herself.

It’s far from an isolated incident. In fact, we had another example of this just last week with the Cheryl Mills controversy. Before Hillary took office as secretary of state, she and the Clinton Foundation agreed to conduct business in a way that would not “create conflicts or the appearance of conflicts for Senator Clinton as Secretary of State.” Now, as I explained in my column on the issue last week, having her chief of staff doing high-level work for the Clinton Foundation is certainly something that — at the very least — gives the “appearance” of the kind of conflict that Hillary Clinton herself promised she’d avoid.

But what does she care? She’s Hillary Clinton. She doesn’t have to explain, because no one seems to care. She’s lying; she’s deflecting, and she’s up in the polls.

I hear people explain their reasons for voting for Hillary Clinton all of the time, and I always have to ask: Even if you do like the sound of what she’s been saying she’d do as president, how can you possibly believe that she actually means it? After all, we’re talking about someone who shows no respect for adhering to standards — even when she’s set them for herself — and I highly doubt that giving her the added power of being the leader of the free world would be what humbles her into accountability.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *