News & Politics

Dylan Matthews 'Voxplains' Hillary's Duplicity Regarding Her Husband and Sexual Assault

If you look at the world around us right now there’s not a lot of nuance. NoKo is testing hydrogen bombs (or says it is, either way…they ain’t scared), the gun grabbers are in a frenzy as well as the minority, and Iran is already making a mockery of its “historic” deal with the U.S.

It is pretty easy for even the casual observer to see that America and the rest of the world are one big hot mess that has nothing to do with temperature or climate. For progressives, it is a world desperately in need of some spin to make it seem to the masses as if The Lightbringer’s tenure in the White House hasn’t been an unmitigated disaster for seven years.

Enter Vox, a site that seeks to “explain” the news.

For the kind of people who voluntarily admit to a need for having the news explained.

So it is interesting that on this site the same guy who used the aforementioned Iran deal and Obamacare to refer to Barack Obama as “one of the most consequential presidents in American history” (yes, he meant the good kind of “consequential” and not the “we’ll be digging out of this for decades” kind) is taking a close look at Hillary Clinton’s dismissal of questions about her husband’s alleged sexual assaults while portraying herself as a great champion for women.

Hillary got herself into trouble with all of this by doing the only thing she really knows how to do: pandering. The Robot Queen’s handlers farm the prevailing winds to find opinions for their historic candidate, as she possesses only one of her own: “Make me president.” Whatever is trending on Twitter with progressive youngsters on any given day becomes Hillary’s “policy position.”

That is how the wife of Willy the Zipper found herself in support of the social justice warrior radfem notion that all men are rapists or rapists-in-waiting. Some staffers gave her some words to tweet so she could get the college girls to like her, really, really like her, and she ended up positing that every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be “believed.”

It is certainly problematic that a woman married to a man who has quite a trail of women who deserve to be believed now seems to be saying, “Except the ones who accused my husband, of course.”

Voxsplainer Matthews noted that near the end of his post:

But the Clinton critics have a point. There is a crucial tension between “believe survivors” and the “Juanita Broaddrick is lying” position of some Clinton defenders, lacking further information.

His solution? Throw the SJW line out the window:

One answer might be giving up the former position. Many, including Harvard Law’s Jeannie Suk, have argued that defaulting to believing every accusation of rape “harms the overall credibility of sexual assault claims,” given that false claims do happen, albeit quite rarely. But whatever the merits of that view, adopting it would be a big pivot for Hillary Clinton, given that just a couple of months ago she was tweeting, “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.” There’s no easy way to reconcile that view with her allies’ dismissal of Broaddrick’s allegations.

In the end, it’s always about protecting Hillary and her predatory, um, husband, which is why Matthews concludes by mentioning Hillary’s allies being dismissive, even though Mrs. Bill has built an entire career on not only dismissing Bubba’s accusers, but trying to destroy them.