November 19, 2017

Not News: Hillary Claims Broaddrick, Jones ‘Misremembering History’

In a Friday radio interview, Hillary Clinton failed to answer a question about her hostile, orchestrated actions against women who credibly accused her husband of sexual harassment and assault during the 1990s. In the process, she accused the alleged victims of “misremembering or misinterpreting history.” On Laura Ingraham’s Friday evening Fox News show, Paula Jones took strong exception to Mrs. Clinton’s nonsense. Naturally, the establishment press hasn’t covered what Mrs. Clinton said.

The full Ingraham Angle interview segment, which also included alleged Clinton rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, was about what Broaddrick called the “sudden epiphany” many liberals and establishment press members are having about the credibility of Broaddrick, Jones, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, and others. Neither of Ingraham’s two guests are impressed, given that they were savagely attacked when it mattered most.

In the following snippet from that segment, Ingraham replayed a portion of Mrs. Clinton’s Friday interview with WABC’s Rita Cosby. Jones went off upon hearing it (HT Mediaite):

Transcript (links added by me for historical context; bolds are mine throughout this post):

LAURA INGRAHAM: Paula and Juanita, I want you to listen to something that Hillary Clinton said yesterday in an interview with our friend Rita Crosby on WABC. Let’s listen.

(cut to radio interview)

HILLARY CLINTON: Every situation has to be judged on its own merits. And there are allegations that were disproved —


It’s unfortunate that people are misremembering or misinterpreting history.

(return to studio)

INGRAHAM: Paula, “misremembering”?

PAULA JONES: I’m not, I’m not — no-no-no-no-no-no, no. That is so ludicrous, what she just said. I mean, seriously? I cannot believe that that lady would say that. And nothing was misinterpreted. I know what happened to me in that room that day.

And I also know that there was some lady from the New York Times that had quoted — some Miss Goldberg lady — said that she believed Juanita, which I’m happy that she’d believe Juanita.

But she should believe me too. And she said that that was not true about me. Well, how would she know? Did she have some kind of relationship with him or something that she’s been looking at his private parts?

How can she say that I was discredited when I was not discredited?

You know, I mean, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals was going to take it all the way to trial, and then Bill Clinton settled (for $850,000 — Ed.).

Why would he settle if it had been thrown out at a lower court? People don’t do that if you’re not guilty.

Of course, the settlement agreement acknowledged no guilt on Clinton’s part and contained no apology, but Jones is right. At the time of the settlement, her then-husband Steve correctly noted that “the payment amounts to an apology on its own.”

For those who believe Ingraham engaged in selective editing to make Mrs. Clinton look bad, here, from a longer interview clip, is Cosby’s entire question, followed by Mrs. Clinton’s answer up to and including “misremembering”:

RITA COSBY: Do you regret, though, not saying something, I guess, you know, supportive of the women? Because you’ve always said that women should be believe.d And yet George Stephanopoulos and others have said that you were part of the attacking the victims, the people who were making the allegations against your husband? Do you regret that?

HILLARY CLINTON: Look, I think every situation has to be judged on its own merits. And there are allegations that were disproved. There were allegations that were absolutely contradicted under sworn testimony.

Of course you should give people who make such allegations the benefit of the doubt. That’s what our system does. But then you have to investigate. And that fully happened in the late 90s.

And what we’ve got here is something very different. There’s been no commitment to investigate the more than a dozen women who’ve made charges against, uh, President Trump, and there’s been no effort to really go into and understand what he was talking about in his Access Hollywood tape. So, they are not parallel. And I think it’s unfortunate that, uh, people are either misremembering or misinterpreting history.

Mrs. Clinton could have saved herself and Cosby a lot of time by saying what she really meant during her extemporaneous dodging about whether she regrets what she did in going after Bill Clinton’s victims. Her answer was really: “No.”

Separately during the Ingraham interview, Juanita Broaddrick observed that “No human being was protected more than Bill Clinton was” during the 1990s, and that “and no human being was more harassed and ridiculed and trashed as Bill Clinton’s victims were.”

A Google News search done at 10:45 a.m. Eastern Time on Sunday shows that only Mediaite, LifeZette, TheBlaze, and one other blog have recognized the existence of Mrs. Clinton’s allegations that Bill Clinton’s victims are “misremembering or misinterpreting history.”

Cross-posted, with possible revisions, at



  1. Voices from left — Maureen Down and Susan Sarandon

    It’s worth taking a moment to give credit to two women whose politics I may significantly disagree with but who have been on the correct side of justice regarding sexual harassment aka womanizing.

    Maureen Down has another op-ed today [1], an apolitical discussion of her view on the cultural evolution:

    “You may wonder why in the year 2017, after so many graphic and scalding national seminars on sexual predation over the last 26 years, we are still trying to come to terms with it.

    Perhaps because in those earlier traumatic sagas, both the left and the right rushed in to twist them for their own ideological ends. The stench of hypocrisy overpowered the perfume of justice.”

    She understands the key points in the evolution of this sage: “Institutional feminism died when Gloria Steinem, Madeleine Albright and other top feminists vouched for President Clinton.” GenX saw all this. Some still got in line to gain power by joining the ‘sick sisterhood’ of institutional feminism. Others of the daughters of creeps (see Meghan McCain, Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton) who are in an especially awkward emotional personal position about if/how/when to separate themselves from the psychological hold of a parent. The near term evolution can only handle the former — identifying behaviors of a sick sisterhood to demand and expect such enabling to stop.

    (The latter may truly remain somewhat more of a potentially only private matter if the daughters can be supported to choose to create for themselves a separate safe boundary. Psychiatry has this term of ‘safe boundaries’ and its a concept being taught in some High School health classes, yet it is still a fuzzy concept of reasonable mutual familial support vs emotional control. To first accept the need to establish such a boundary, and then attempt to describe it and establish it is risky, as anyone who has helped domestic violence families well knows. And it is further complicated here due to the public nature of the pattern bullies, whose children are caught up in the public scrutinity, must accept the likely outcome that they would forgo any financial and the political inheritance of their parents, and risk trying to explain to a confused public — well-versed in the Commandments that includes ‘honor thy father and mother’ irregardless if one has a history of demeaning women and the other an enabler of that malicious behavior. Remember, it is only very VERY recently that the wife no longer had to ‘stand by your man’, silently behind him at the press interview where he apologized as the old playbook that salvaged his career.)

    So back to Maureen Dowd, who shows up where we are currently at in ‘opening the wound’ so that we/society can begin a healing process.

    In the Bill Clinton – Clarence Thomas era, “both the left and the right rushed in to twist them for their own ideological ends. The stench of hypocrisy overpowered the perfume of justice.” To some extent, we are partially seeing that alignment a bit today, when there is hesitancy at the Sunday Morning Round Tables. Yet also I saw some truly calling for “moral leadership” (ironically yet not surprising, two of the strongest voices were men, yet that is not surprising as they are among those who don’t have ‘I tolerated it earlier in my career’ in their personal history.)

    Maureen Dowd owns long-term credibility on this issue: our society’s evolution through sexual harassment hopefully towards a better culture. She spoke out repeatedly against blind support of Hillary, and repeatedly attempted to educate and lead a turn in societal attitudes. Her op-eds will be worth continuing to read (or starting to read, if you are new to her writings) as we navigate these revolution.

    I think another hero to mention is Susan Sarandon, who has certain politics I completely disagree with but earned my strong respect in 2016. She was and is a Liberal Leader who consistently refused to support Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

    “It’s no secret that Academy Award-winning “Thelma and Louise” star Susan Sarandon isn’t fond of Hillary Clinton.” [4b] It is worth noting that her character in that movie fled from justice because she was afraid of what would happen to a woman in a Texas prison, and the instigating incident was helping her friend after a parking lot assault outside a manly bar.

    Perhaps her words show us where this debate may go. “Susan Sarandon: Both Clinton, Trump are ‘un-trustable’ and both have had too many enablers.

    “”We’ve been voting for the lesser of two evils for too long,” she told CNN’s Carol Costello.
    “The good news, if you want some good news, is that everybody’s so frustrated that at least we’re awake,” she added.”

    We’re awake, and perhaps as this plays out, then based on our Constitutional processes, sometime during the New Year perhaps we may see at least one or all of the following:

    (a) Roy Moore not elected by southern voters, a ‘dirty old man’ Republican in politics held accountable for his long-term pattern of behavior

    (b) Al Franken will either resign under pressure or be recalled by his MN voters, a comedian turned Democratic senator now held accountable for his pattern of language and his USO behavior

    (c) Trump and Pence step aside, retaining our country’s respect for the election process by retaining the Presidency in a Republican through the Constitutional process where the Speaker of the House is next-in-line: an early welcome and wish for President Ryan.

    Perhaps (c) is just some Tom Clancy crazy storyline, or perhaps it will happen. Life can be stranger than fiction. For now, may we hope more people think thoughtfully and LongTerm, in the spirit of Ms Dowd and Ms Sarandon who set aside their tribe with their 2016 Presidential opinions and leadership.



    The Hillary Effect
    Maureen Dowd
    Maureen Dowd NOV. 18, 2017


    For a life lived hating Hillary Clinton – take a bow, Maureen Dowd
    by Emma Brockes

    3. Susan Sarandon


    Susan Sarandon on refusing to back Clinton: ‘I don’t vote with my vagina’
    BY NEETZAN ZIMMERMAN – 11/04/16 01:21 PM EDT


    Susan Sarandon: Fear of Trump ‘not enough for me to support Clinton, with her record of corruption’
    By Travis M. Andrews November 2, 2016


    Susan Sarandon: Both Clinton, Trump are ‘un-trustable’
    By Alexandra King, CNN
    Updated 2:33 PM ET, Thu November 3, 2016

    Comment by Cornfed — November 19, 2017 @ 12:46 pm

  2. Hillary is a sick woman. She knows full well that Jones had a very high chance of winning her case and that the other accusations were *not* investigated because Hillary and Bill used all their power to make sure the accused were kept down and/or under wraps. There were no disproved allegations and there were no meaningful contradictions in any testimony.

    She wants to talk about misremembering history? There’s nothing to investigate with Trump because the Access Hollywood tape speaks for itself (it was referring to consensual sexual acts, not assaults) and because the accusations made against Trump were politically timed and very flimsy. Of course she conveniently forgets all that.

    What an evil you-know-what.

    Comment by zf — November 19, 2017 @ 1:01 pm

  3. #1, What the hell was that? I don’t know what was worse, Dowd’s man-hating self-serving psychobabble with it’s false premises or Cornfed’s rambling, factually challenged absolutist tone in describing it. And what is with the bizarre non-sexual assault related call/hope for Trump and Pence to resign? Is Cornfed a Never Trumper Russian conspiracy nut? Lots of nutjob far left liberals hate Hillary for various leftist reasons, that fact does not make then moral and mental giants and that certainly does not make them some sort of bastion of “LongTerm” thoughtfulness. Dowd and Sarandon are still hateful left wing tribalists, whatever few breaks they have with liberalism/the DNC notwithstanding. Man, what a cluster**** of a comment #1 was.

    Comment by zf — November 19, 2017 @ 5:39 pm

  4. Well, he said one of the three, so I discounted the Trump-Pence resignations.

    Comment by Tom — November 19, 2017 @ 6:15 pm

  5. #4, He said more than that. He said one, *more or all of* the three. Insanity.

    Comment by zf — November 20, 2017 @ 10:15 am

  6. True. I discounted it because I thought the Trump-Pence resignation idea had no basis. The other two do, though I would bet based on what’s known at the moment that Moore will hold on and that Franken isn’t going anywhere.

    Comment by Tom — November 20, 2017 @ 11:55 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.