Why Trump Can’t Hide Behind Bill Clinton

by Alex Knepper

Sex crime accusations are gut-wrenching to deal with because the gravity of the offense is so heavy — and our tools for sorting truth from falsehood are profoundly and necessarily limited. On the one hand, we want to believe and console those who have been victimized — but we also don’t want to condemn a man as a monster unless we have incontrovertible evidence against him. It is difficult enough to neutrally evaluate sex crime accusations without partisan and ideological concerns getting in the way — but when we apply that political layer to an accusation, it is nearly impossible to have an even-handed discussion, since much is at stake beyond the simple guilt or innocence of the accused. Whether one gives Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt seems to be motivated in almost every instance by partisan concerns, it seems — and I look at myself, too, and recognize that, as a supporter of Hillary Clinton, I want to believe he didn’t do what he’s accused of doing. So I will say here that I cannot state decisively that Bill Clinton is innocent. What I can say is that there are good reasons to give him the benefit of the doubt.

We know that Bill Clinton has a history of being a user and a cheater. We must remember that cheating is not assault, nor is it indicative of a greater likelihood to commit assault. Trump supporters love to sneakily cluster all sexual impropriety under the same umbrella — but while both are examples of bad behavior, only one is a crime. With this in mind, I will not bother addressing anything about Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, or other episodes in which the consensual nature of the affair is not in doubt. There are three primary accusers Republicans point to as evidence that Bill is a sex criminal: Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick.

I cannot decisively say that any of these women are lying. But I can say that there are good reasons to be skeptical of their claims, and that pro-Trump Republicans are exploiting both people’s ignorance about the details of the cases, as well as the popular progressive tendency to insist that we ought to always believe accusers. I do not accept the notion that we must always believe the accuser. We should always take accusations seriously — but from there, we must look at the evidence and only then decide how much weight to assign them. The weight of the evidence shows that there is good reason to give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt.

Continue reading

Advertisements

5 Takeaways From New Hampshire

By Cinzia Croce

1. For Republicans, the Iowa Caucuses Are Virtually Meaningless

It is clear that what happens in Iowa stays in Iowa, as the results from Ethanolandia were quickly forgotten by everyone except for Ben Carson, who is still smarting over Cruz’s dirty tricks. The only news lingering is the insane process used to award delegates. Four years ago, it took Republicans literally weeks to determine their winner, and this year it is the Democrats’ turn to haggle over the results. Months of media coverage, polling and political analysis are spent on this totally unrepresentative slice of the electorate that seems purposely designed to pull candidates away from the center — particularly on the Republican side. Fellow Americans, how long are we going to tolerate this monumental waste of time?

Continue reading

Ghosts of Hillary’s Campaigns Past

By Cinzia Croce

As the 2016 presidential campaign got underway, the conventional wisdom was that Hillary Clinton would quickly secure the Democratic nomination while it would be months before the GOP would crown its nominee.  Some even raised the specter of a brokered convention. But as the Iowa caucuses approach, it appears the opposite may come to pass: Hillary having to slug it out for months while Donald Trump runs the table.

The clearest sign that Hillary’s campaign is in trouble is Sen. Claire McCaskill — one of the most effective attack dogs in the business — calling Bernie Sanders a socialist. A few days ago, the New York Times reported Ms. McCaskill declaring,“The Republicans won’t touch him [Sanders] because they can’t wait to run an ad with a hammer and sickle”. “Hammer and sickle”? Not even a perfunctory “Bernie is a socialist” stop before launching the “Bernie is a communist” attack?! Hillary must be in deep trouble.

Continue reading