Althouse: Hillary was asked the blunt question: "You say that all rape victims should be believed, but would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and/or Paula Jones?"

December 3, 2015

Hillary was asked the blunt question: "You say that all rape victims should be believed, but would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and/or Paula Jones?"

Clearly prepared for that question, she answered: "I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence."

Next time the question should be reframed: You have said that all those who make an accusation of sexual assault should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence, so can I assume that you originally believed Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones, and if you ever came to disbelieve any of these women, was it genuinely because you considered the evidence and found that they deserved to be disbelieved?

88 comments:

Freeman Hunt said...: So, guilty until proven innocent?; 12/3/15, 4:40 PM
Sebastian said...: "so can I assume that you originally believed Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones, and if you ever came to disbelieve any of these women, was it genuinely because you considered the evidence and found that they deserved to be disbelieved?" "was it genuinely" gives her too much wiggle room. Better: Since you originally believed x's charge of rape/assault against your husband, what specific evidence did your husband provide to convince you that he did not rape or assault x?; 12/3/15, 4:46 PM
eric said...: Freeman, I tweeted that exact response earlier today.

Great minds think alike!; 12/3/15, 4:47 PM
Crimso said...: I'm betting that was a planted question, since she has to be aware people have been making rumblings about it. Better to defuse that bomb when you know it's out there.; 12/3/15, 4:47 PM
mccullough said...: So if the accused denies it, that is also evidence. Then we are at a stalemate without some other evidence to corroborate either the accused or the accuser. A penchant for dishonesty also can be used to undermine the credibility of either the accused or the accuser.

Bill Clinton lied under oath. And lied to the American people "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". So any woman who accused him of rape who herself does not display a capacity to commit perjury has better evidence than Bill Clinton.; 12/3/15, 4:47 PM
chuck said...: Well, might be interesting to see what fallback positions the Hillary team has prepared. The chance that Hillary will agree that Bill is possibly a rapist is pretty much zero, at least in public.; 12/3/15, 4:50 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "I'm betting that was a planted question, since she has to be aware people have been making rumblings about it. Better to defuse that bomb when you know it's out there."

1. The questioner was very awkward and badly mispronounced "Juanita."

2. The answer sets up another question, which was my point. The answer doesn't defuse the bomb. It gives material for a better question. That's my point. She's more boxed in than before. She originally just mouthed a questionable feminist proposition. (Questionable for the reason Freeman raises.) Now, she's said something else, and it's going to be hard to defend. Plus the ice is broken, mentioning those women to her face, making her seem to be already in the middle of talking about something. That facilities the next question.; 12/3/15, 4:59 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Another question I would ask is: Given the accusations that have been made against your husband, accusations that have never been adequately disproved, how can you ask the women of American to back you as the first woman President when it would mean bringing him back into the White House?; 12/3/15, 5:01 PM
tim in vermont said...: The evidence is pretty damning. Go to slate mag if you want it from a liberal source "safe space"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/03/is_juanita_broaddrick_telling_the_truth.html

Of course Slate manfully refuses to come to the obvious conclusion. That she only changed her story when put in a position where lying could have put her in prison, and there were many witnesses. Most of the "he didn't do it" points are basically just personal attacks and speculation on the motives of a *lot* of witnesses, including one who discovered her still in the hotel room immediately after the rape, as well as other friend she told around the time.

The Clintons use the fact that she didn't tell her husband for a couple of weeks that she had gotten herself into a hotel room alone with his nibs. I mean, what woman only shares a traumatic event with her girlfriends? That doesn't sound believable at all.

That's what Hillary calls "evidence."; 12/3/15, 5:07 PM
M Jordan said...: Your question's too long. Simply, "Why evidence did you uncover to stop believing in the claims of Paula Jones and the others?"; 12/3/15, 5:07 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Didn't the evidence persuade Bill Clinton to pay $850,000 in a settlement to Paula Jones?

Doesn't the payment suggest that Ms. Jones' allegation that Bill Clinton sexually harassed her was largely substantiated?

Have you examined the evidence that Juanita Broderick was raped by your husband? What do you know about the Broderick's allegation that Bill Clinton raped her, and how did you learn it?

Didn't your husband sleep with over 10 women during his marriage to you? What does that say about your abilities as a wife?; 12/3/15, 5:09 PM
M Jordan said...: Also, "Paula Jones said your husband's penis is 'bent.' Was that why you stopped believing her?"; 12/3/15, 5:09 PM
Fabi said...: Brava for your comment at 5:01, Ann. I'd love to hear her response to that follow-up.; 12/3/15, 5:10 PM
rehajm said...: The answer doesn't defuse the bomb. It gives material for a better question...That facilities the next question.

With the Clintons follow ups are only rehashed versions of the original question. Asked and answered, counsel.

Should we all brush up on Clinton Rules?; 12/3/15, 5:10 PM
cubanbob said...: Ann Althouse said...
Another question I would ask is: Given the accusations that have been made against your husband, accusations that have never been adequately disproved, how can you ask the women of American to back you as the first woman President when it would mean bringing him back into the White House?
12/3/15, 5:01 PM "

I would also throw in that your husband was found guilty of perjury and that he settled for a substantial amount of money and that he sexually harassed an intern.; 12/3/15, 5:12 PM
MikeR said...: "how can you ask the women of American to back you as the first woman President when it would mean bringing him back into the White House?" Doesn't a candidate have to separate herself of this kind of questionable connection?

"Hillary Clinton divests from fossil fuel companies and Bill Clinton!"; 12/3/15, 5:14 PM
sean said...: This doesn't seem very hard: "Major institutions which serve the general public (which ncludes private institutions such as newspapers and universities) should treat all rape allegations as credible, unless and until the evidence indicates otherwise. Obviously, a person who has private information, including without limitation personal knowledge of the accused, might be justified in disbelieving the accusation from the start."; 12/3/15, 5:26 PM
David Begley said...: Better yet. Why did you lead the way in suppressing the bimbo eruptions?

And tell us how much you enjoyed attacking the credibility of that young rape victim back when you defended that accused rapist?; 12/3/15, 5:30 PM
David Begley said...: I have seen Hillary in Iowa three times. She didn't take questions from us serfs.; 12/3/15, 5:31 PM
William said...: Working against President Clinton is the fact that there is more than one accuser. And there is also his proven past record of transgressions and telling lies about those transgressions. The charge that he is a rapist is very credible, and there is nothing he can say that makes it less credible.......We now consider it hypocritical and disgraceful that our first president was a slaveowner. Won't future generations find a similar amount of hypocrisy and disgrace in the election of a rapist's enabler as our first female president.; 12/3/15, 5:32 PM
damikesc said...: Did she believe the U.VA rape case?
Mattress Girl?

Does she believe them now?

I'll also note, that if you believe her, she had no clue he had Monica blowing him until right before his public admission. So, she certainly didn't believe those claims initially.

And she thought it was pretty funny that she got that one accused rapist off, which indicates that she knew he did it and didn't care. You seldom laugh when you get the innocent off. You get irked that they were put through it in the first place.; 12/3/15, 5:35 PM
Kirk Parker said...: I get it, Althouse!

You're angling to be selected as a debate moderator. Yes, that would be light-years better than the media fools we currently are stuck with.

I would like to see you and Iowahawk, or you and Mark Steyn, moderate the presidential debates.; 12/3/15, 5:39 PM
Hagar said...: The Clintons paid Paula Jones and her lawyers $800,000+ and Billy Jeff lost his license to practice law in Arkansas.
These penalties were based on no evidence?; 12/3/15, 5:41 PM
PB said...: No, Ann, that question is too long-winded and in-direct. The original question was succinct and Hillary's answer was telling. What should have happened is that a follow question should have been asked, "Do you not believe a person accused of a crime should have the presumption of innocence during investigation and in a court of law?"; 12/3/15, 5:43 PM
bbkingfish said...: Easy answer for Hillary to that one:

"Of course not! I believed my husband."

I think that, when Hillary says that rape victims should be believed, she means that they should be believed by investigating authorities.

As a point of basic logic, it hardly is necessary that every professed rape victim be believed by every citizen who reads or hears about the case.

I mean, who gives a hoot what some law professor (for instance), or any other person driven by ungovernable prurient curiosity, believes about the veracity of either victim or perpetrator? What those bozos think is irrelevant.; 12/3/15, 5:50 PM
madAsHell said...: The next question will never be asked. She will only be questioned by shills in the crowd.; 12/3/15, 5:50 PM
Rick said...: Hillary question:

Do All Lives Matter?; 12/3/15, 5:52 PM
Beorn said...: So, guilty until proven innocent?

Yes, unless you're a Clinton. In that case you're innocent no matter the facts.; 12/3/15, 5:52 PM
Crimso said...: "The answer sets up another question, which was my point. The answer doesn't defuse the bomb. It gives material for a better question. That's my point."

Oh, I got your point. My point was that any additional burrowing on this issue (like the press will ever do that) can now be met with something along the lines of "asked and answered." I realize lawyers would say "No, it's a different question." But to the average person (this includes almost all reporters), it will look like she deftly fielded the difficult question and now it's time to MoveOn. And having your plant sound awkward and mispronounce names seems like a perfectly sensible thing to do.

She'll NEVER be asked the much more difficult forms of the question you're suggesting.; 12/3/15, 5:53 PM
Lyle Smith said...: Our country is in deep trouble, if people are going to tolerate their fellow citizens applauding her answer.; 12/3/15, 5:54 PM
Bob Loblaw said...: So, guilty until proven innocent?

Yeah, just reworded a bit. What I'd like to know is how many other crimes are there for which she thinks it would be reasonable to believe the accuser unless the accused mounts a successful affirmative defense.

Whether or not the question was planted is sort of immaterial. She would have been asked eventually.; 12/3/15, 6:00 PM
dbp said...: I don't think Ms. Clinton ever owned up to her "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" comments in the lead-up to the Lewinsky scandal.

She will never come out and say, "I defended my husband even though I knew he was guilty", even though everyone knows that it is the truth.; 12/3/15, 6:01 PM
traditionalguy said...: So Hillary does stand by her man and bakes him fresh cookies. And but for the ever present Vast Right Wing Conspiracy making it all up, she has never been caught telling a lie...and anyway you assholes, you cannot prove it.

That's one tough broad.; 12/3/15, 6:02 PM
Roughcoat said...: Oh, man, the bullshit piles up so high in this country you need wings to stay above it.

Sell the house. Sell the car. Sell the kids. Find someone else. Forget it. I'm joining up with Colonel Kurtz.; 12/3/15, 6:10 PM
David said...: Oh that the journalists could think as quickly as Freeman or Althouse and perhaps follow up with another question.; 12/3/15, 6:10 PM
Skeptical Voter said...: Nah Hillary believed the women who accused Billy Jeff of sexual piccadillos for a nanosecond or two; then like a good little defense attorney she dug in and tried to slut shame the lying skanks who dared, I say dared! to turn down Billy Jeff;'s attentions. She even had a name for what she was doing back in the day. She said she was responsible for "tamping down bimbo eruptions".

So you should believe women=--but not "bimbos". And after all, Billy Jeff with his unwavering taste for Astroturf nooky only went for bimbos---or so the Hildebeest thought. And bimbos don't count.; 12/3/15, 6:15 PM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: What a sad old bag that Hillary is.; 12/3/15, 6:19 PM
eric said...: Let's be honest.

While this is all fun and everything, we know that Republicans and Democrats aren't held to the same standard. Hillary isn't subjected to questions like Trump, Cruz, Carson, etc. I mean hell, Carson had a press conference where he answered questions for awhile and that still didn't diffuse the situation.

Clinton won't do that. Clinton doesn't need to do that. The media not only won't ask her these questions, or corner her to (And if someone in the media does, they'll pay for it by their "friends" in the media), but they'll give her and her family the questions in advance!

This is why you should always vote for Republicans over Democrats. Republicans are held to account and made to answer questions.; 12/3/15, 6:22 PM
Big Mike said...: A question for female readers of this blog. Out of all the women alive today in the United States, is Hillary Clinton really the one you'd like to see as our first female President?; 12/3/15, 6:24 PM
Laslo Spatula said...: "...until they are disbelieved based on evidence."

So, tell us: what IS this evidence that tosses them in the trash pile?

My question, that.

I would advise her not to respond in a class-oriented way, because blue-collar women get raped, too, not just liberal arts college students.

I am Laslo.; 12/3/15, 6:24 PM
Gusty Winds said...: Doesn't Hillary! have to actually believe something that comes out of her own mouth first?; 12/3/15, 6:26 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: As long as she can get it into 3 or 4 rounds of back and forth, it's enough to prevent the allegations from being repeated or condensed..

Of course nothing came out that made the rape allegations not believeable unless it is guilt by association, because they were being circulated by members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, and it maybe can be shown that other things the same people said were wrong.

That is, those who said stories about Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones also said other things. That claim may even be a lie, because she'll pick someone who did say implausible things as the exemplar.; 12/3/15, 6:32 PM
Laslo Spatula said...: So were Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky all liars?

That would be a Great Question.

Categorical answer would not work.

Unless she is THAT drunk.

I am Laslo.; 12/3/15, 6:35 PM
Curious George said...: "traditionalguy said...

That's one tough broad."

What a steaming pile. A tough broad is one that stand by her convictions. She doesn't hide behind a husband governor, a husband President, or a fawning press.

She is a weak and brittle despicable human being.; 12/3/15, 6:39 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: "I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence."

Followup: "Gathering and assessing such evidence would take some time. Why did you continue to support your husband during the time you believed him to be a rapist?"; 12/3/15, 6:40 PM
TWW said...: Wasn't the phrase 'Bimbo Eruptions' coined by Hilary before all the facts were in?; 12/3/15, 6:47 PM
Crimso said...: Roughcoat got out of the boat. Now I'm going to have to pop that DVD in.; 12/3/15, 6:58 PM
tim in vermont said...: I mean, who gives a hoot what some law professor (for instance), or any other person driven by ungovernable prurient curiosity, believes about the veracity of either victim or perpetrator? What those bozos think is irrelevant.

Because "What difference does it make at this point!"

And we all know that "War on Women" is really code for "Let's have a war on Republicans" and has no further meaning.

I personally think that Hillary believes them all, privately.; 12/3/15, 7:01 PM
Sebastian said...: "Followup: "Gathering and assessing such evidence would take some time. Why did you continue to support your husband during the time you believed him to be a rapist?"

Or: Since you believed the female accusers before you received contradictory evidence, for how long exactly did you consider your husband to be a rapist in each of those three instances? Did you make any effort to separate yourself from this man whom you believed, based on the initially credible accusations of those three women, to be a rapist?; 12/3/15, 7:08 PM
David Begley said...: Will this question reported on Maddow tonight?

7:21 central now.

I bet $200,000 it will not.

Any takers?; 12/3/15, 7:22 PM
David Begley said...: Debate questioners:

Ann Althouse
John Hinderaker
Mark Steyn.; 12/3/15, 7:24 PM
Gahrie said...: Out of all the women alive today in the United States, is Hillary Clinton really the one you'd like to see as our first female President?

I'm not a woman, and I don't play one on television.

But I think Hillary perfectly embodies the Leftist feminist gestalt of the last 50 years.; 12/3/15, 7:26 PM
Ken B said...: Ann's initial question is good for a deposition. What is wanted is a sound bite. If you had evidence she was lying why did you pay Paula Jones nearly a million dollars?; 12/3/15, 7:30 PM
traditionalguy said...: Or how about, Hillary is one tough secret keeper broad. She has a strong belief in the lawyer aphorism that it isn't what happened, it is what you can prove happened. And she wiped her email server clean. So you'll have to get the proof on her and Bill somewhere else.

The only thing anyone has ever gotten on a Clinton was a semen stain with Presidential DNA that spurted onto Monic'a blue dress.; 12/3/15, 7:42 PM
walter said...: "$850,000 in a settlement to Paula Jones"
Ouch. That's like doing 3 or four speeches for FREE..in Willy's world.; 12/3/15, 7:46 PM
Hagar said...: It was a planted question.

And yes, Hillary! is one tough and nasty broad.; 12/3/15, 7:49 PM
Howard said...: What Crimso said. Asked and answered, right-wing conspiracy, time to move-on.org

If they persist, she will say At least we are not The Donald; 12/3/15, 7:53 PM
jacksonjay said...: I wanna hear her comment on the trips Bubba took with the convicted pedophile billionaire to Fantasy Island. I think another noted law prof also made visits to said island.; 12/3/15, 7:54 PM
Lance said...: "So each time your husband was accused of rape or sexual assault, you immediately assumed your husband was guilty? Why would you assume that? Had you observed something in your husband's character or experienced something in your marriage to lead you to suspect he could assault or rape a woman?"; 12/3/15, 8:04 PM
Rob said...: Hillary's chances would be significantly improved if she were running as the Widow Clinton. Bill should have somebody taste his food.; 12/3/15, 8:26 PM
David Begley said...: No follow-ups and Hillary knows that.

A deposition or trial with ONE question.; 12/3/15, 8:27 PM
wildswan said...: I wonder what she means by everybody - Bill AND Juanita? Bill AND Monica?

I think if Ted Cruz asked her questions she wouldn't get away with lawyer-weasel slick-willy answers.

And - I don't think people believe her. They are just silenced before a brazen liar.; 12/3/15, 8:35 PM
JAORE said...: It's not whether the question was phrased well.

It's not that it doesn't open an avenue for follow up/clarifying questions.

It's not that Hillary's answer doesn't come close to putting the issue to rest.

It IS that the candidate, her team, all other Democrats and the media can now say, "That's old news. She was asked. She answered. Move along. This is an OLD story".; 12/3/15, 8:37 PM
Real American said...: Men accused of rape have a right to be believed.; 12/3/15, 8:39 PM
Real American said...: Does she still believe that a Republican conspiracy forced her husband to get blowjobs from Monica Lewinsky?; 12/3/15, 8:42 PM
Doug said...: Big Mike said: A question for female readers of this blog. Out of all the women alive today in the United States, is Hillary Clinton really the one you'd like to see as our first female President?

WHAT DO WE WANT? PRESIDENT VAGINA! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!; 12/3/15, 8:53 PM
M Jordan said...: The most amazing part of her answer was the sh!t-eating grin she carried throughout. I don't like the woman but I gotta admit, this woman is brazen. She reminds me of a Bible college student I knew back in the day who sold Bibles in Appalachia in the summers. He told me how he could sell the most expensive Bible he offered to toothless people living in self-built log cabins with wind blowing through the chinks.

Cold. But he made a lot of money doing it.; 12/3/15, 9:47 PM
Drago said...: I'm not sure this is a fair question to ask of someone with diminished capacity.; 12/3/15, 10:34 PM
SukieTawdry said...: She pretended not to believe Gennifer Flowers. She pretended not to believe Monica Lewinsky. She pretended not to believe Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. She pretended she was ignorant of husband's predilection. She pretended not to know what went on in Benghazi. She pretended her private email server was simply a convenience. She pretended her $100,000 cattle futures windfall was a result of shrewd investing. She pretended 50 times that she did not recall when deposed under oath during the Whitewater investigation. She's the Great Pretender. It's a mystery to me why anyone considers this woman fit to be president of the United States and commander-in-chief.

In a perverse kind of way, I'm glad Tashfeen Malik is emerging as at least an equal partner with her husband, if not his instigator, in the terrorist couple's family business. Perhaps it will poke a few holes in this idea that we need to elect more women to public office simply because they're, you know, women.; 12/3/15, 11:41 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Hillary demonstrates why this election is so important and men and women of good will should really think hard and logically and dispassionately about who has the best shot at beating her.

I submit it is Rubio.; 12/4/15, 12:20 AM
walter said...: Do the math..we could get "2 for 1"..twice; 12/4/15, 12:23 AM
rcommal said...: Among the prefixes available, Hillary Rodham Clinton chose to focus on a particular one, as always she has, and it's worked for her, consistently, not to mention for the overall brand.

Hell, she's always been well ahead of the curve.

---

[pssst...

the prefix to which I am referring is...

"dis"]; 12/4/15, 1:34 AM
rcommal said...: What a "tell" therein, there is!; 12/4/15, 1:36 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Whether you on the Left or the Right, it is hard to see Hillary as other than a pitiable figure.
Putin will eat her for lunch.; 12/4/15, 1:37 AM
Guildofcannonballs said...: "Next time the question should be reframed:"

Exquissette? Beuaitiful? Spectactulactor?

EIther way thricely, awed are other-than-Buckley likewise of course they say, and He was too.

The gift of this blog is truly that only those measuring the invaluable peruse the possibilities of monetary labelization wherof ego-wise measuring and accounting accrue little badwill.

"Charming" is an apt long-term perspective of a person with faith in America and her ability to survive bad Obama's and Carter's and Jackson's, knowledge of Victory not only achieved but deconstructed, of sorts, and whipped about and yet alive stronger than ever; only an issue because, as these things go, America happens to kick the rest of the world's cunt.

SO let us destroy her*.

*Climate change today: income inequality tomorrow.; 12/4/15, 1:39 AM
Achilles said...: People who want to vote for Hillary will vote for Hillary. It doesn't matter that she was the worst secretary of state since 1973. It doesn't matter that when asked to name an actual positive accomplishment of hers over her very long career she can't answer the question. Her accomplishments are marrying Bill Clinton and together with him raking in 3 BILLION dollars in contributions/bribes. It doesn't matter that she stood on the coffins of dead veterans and knowingly lied to their families faces at the funeral.

It doesn't matter that she is subhuman. People who will vote for Hillary are similarly empty shells with no morals or conscious thoughts to speak of.; 12/4/15, 1:42 AM
rcommal said...: Big Mike and Doug:

No.; 12/4/15, 2:30 AM
Annie said...: Big Mike at 6:24, no. I think she is worse than her pig of a husband for covering for him and enabling him to continue sexually assaulting other women. She's a dragon; she could have put some serious hurt to him and dumped him, but she decided riding his coattails to power was more important.; 12/4/15, 2:56 AM
Mark said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12/4/15, 4:25 AM
Tom said...: It also sets up an opportunity for honest labeling: so, when these accusations we're made, you chose to stand by the rapist, your husband, isn't that right?

Note, she never said her husband was cleared of those accusations by the evidence. If she's going to disprove the accusations, under her own model, she has to produce the evidence.; 12/4/15, 6:03 AM
Doug said...: rcommal: My tongue was firmly planted in my cheek.; 12/4/15, 6:03 AM
tim in vermont said...: One thing Bill shows us is that the essential postulate of Pickup theory is correct.

Many many many women love to be treated like shit.; 12/4/15, 6:12 AM
Peter said...: Who knew that building a reliable lie detector was as simple as determining the sex of the accuser?; 12/4/15, 8:32 AM
JackOfClubs said...: She still doesn't get the presumption of innocence right, even after the walk-back. The proper principle should be "You take the accusation seriously and investigate thoroughly to find if there is any evidence in support of it. Only then should the accuser be 'believed ... until they are disbelieved based on [further] evidence." The fact that so many people are willing to accept her revised statement as correct is really kind of scary.; 12/4/15, 1:47 PM
Bilwick said...: Shortly thereafter, the reporter's cat disappeared under mysterious circumstances.; 12/4/15, 2:31 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: dbp said...She will never come out and say, "I defended my husband even though I knew he was guilty", even though everyone knows that it is the truth.

And therein lie the seeds of a good line of questioning/attack. "Mrs. Clinton, good judgement is one of the attributes Americans say they care about most in their Presidents. Can you tell me what the fact that you believed your husband when he lied to you and to the American people about his affair with Monica Lewinsky while in office says about your judgement? According to your statements you believed him right up until he admitted the truth (in a press conference or just before it) despite mounting evidence to the contrary as well as your own personal connection to all the people involved. If your intellect and judgement weren't able to cause you to doubt then-President Clinton's lies then, why should we believe they're good enough to be the leader of the nation now?"

You then tie any answer in to her having to make difficult judgement calls with imperfect information, having to negotiate and use/understand trust with other foreign leaders, call back other failures of judgement she's demonstrated (Libya/celebrating Gaddafi's death, etc), and go from there. If you're really not a fan and you wan to treat her like the Republican candidates are treated you preface the question with a reference to polling that indicates a huge % of the American people already don't find her trustworthy, and phrase to ask how she can hope to win them over when she demonstrated that bad judgment in the past.

The rape apologist angle is fine, but there's no chance the Media will run with it. Rolling that into questions about her judgement, though, might have an outside chance of getting in!; 12/4/15, 4:38 PM
mikee said...: Hillary put up with a multi-year affair between Bill & Jennifer Flowers. Why the heck should she be asked about her judgement - she lied for Bill about Jennifer, she lied for Bill about Monica, she LED the team fighting bimbo eruptions, whose primary purpose was to smear women accurately accusing her husband of infidelity.

She should be asked, "You have been caught lying to the American people about your husband's sexual affairs with other women, lying to the American people about the cause of the death of 4 Americans in Libya, lying to the American people about a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Why do you, when faced with facts that might affect you negatively as a politician, so often choose to lie outrageously to the American people? And why should we expect anything else from you now, other than self-serving lies, or in future?"

I recall every TV cop & lawyer from Police Detective Sgt. Joe Friday and Perrry Mason to George Zimmerman's defense attorneys destroying witnesses with such questions.

Will anyone ask Hillary this as a followup to that obviously planted attempt to close off a valid complaint about Hillary as a person and politician?; 12/4/15, 6:47 PM
mikee said...: Hillary put up with a multi-year affair between Bill & Gennifer Flowers. Why the heck should she be asked about her judgement - she lied to the entire country for Bill about Gennifer, she lied on live TV for Bill about Monica, she LED the team fighting bimbo eruptions during his election campaigns. Her primary purpose was to smear women accurately accusing her husband of infidelity, affairs, sexual assault, and rape.

She should be asked, "You have been caught lying to the American people about your husband's sexual affairs with other women, lying to the American people about the cause of the death of 4 Americans in Libya, lying to the American people about a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Why do you, when faced with facts that might affect you negatively as a politician, so often choose to lie outrageously to the American people? And why should we expect anything else from you now, or in the future, other than self-serving lies whenever you are faced with difficulties, opposition, or failures?"

I recall every TV cop & lawyer from Police Detective Sgt. Joe Friday and Perry Mason to George Zimmerman's defense attorneys destroying witnesses with such "patterns of lies" questions.

Will anyone ask Hillary this as a followup to that obviously planted attempt to close off a valid complaint about Hillary as a person and politician?; 12/4/15, 6:58 PM