Thursday, May 19, 2016

Rape Wars

by JASmius

Beginning first and foremost with the settled understanding that this is all years-old tabloidesque detritus that few if any voters have ever cared about (not that they shouldn't have, but the fact is, they didn't and don't) and only has even tangential relevance to the 2016 presidential race because one of the two men accused of rape above is actually a candidate in 2016, let me say that I can kinda-sorta see a tactical purpose to Donald Trump dredging up the decades-old Juanita Broaddrick rape allegations from the Clinton scandal swamp.  Not an effective one, but a purpose nonetheless:

Hannity: “Are they going to interview Juanita Broaddrick? Are they going to interview Paula Jones? Are they going to interview Kathleen Willey?’ Hannity asked, ticking off the names of women who have accused Bill Clinton of inappropriate behavior through the years. In one case, it’s about exposure. In another case, it’s about groping and fondling and touching against a woman’s will.”

Trump: “And rape.”

Hannity: “And rape.”

Trump: “And big settlements, massive settlements.

Hannity: “$850,000 to Paula Jones.”

Trump: “And lots of other things. And impeachment for lying.”

He better be careful about that last one.  Karma can be a bitch.

Did Sick Willie rape Juanita Broaddrick?  Probably.  It's almost forty years later, and she's never once altered, revised, or recanted her story....

I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now never goes away.

....including how Mrs. Clinton did all she could to protect her eventual presidential meal ticket.

But if you think that Donald Trump gives a rat's ass about Juanita Broaddrick or Paula Jones or Kathleen Willey or Monica Lewinski or any of the new women [Bill Clinton is] going to "enjoy" as First "Gentleman" over the next four years, other than envying Bill for having bagged them first, guess again.  The one and only reason why The Donald is going after his good buddy Bill is that Hillary is trying to make him the face of her campaign,  And since Trump and Hillary - or Trump and Bill - really don't have any ideological or character differences to speak of, and Trump can't talk issue substance without a hack like Hannity to spoon-feed it to him and clean up his messes, down into the sewer he goes.  As if he ever comes back up out of it.

It is, though, it has to be pointed out, another exercise in Trumpocrisy:

Donald Trump denounced charges in a California lawsuit that he raped a teenaged girl twenty-two years ago, dismissing the tale as a bogus political cheap shot.

“The allegations are not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated,” Trump told

The woman, identified by RadarOnline as Katie Johnson, accused Trump and fellow [?] billionaire Jeffrey Epstein of “making her their sex slave” for a four-month stretch of 1994.

Did Trump do this?  Who knows?  But is there any compelling reason to believe that he didn't that is any better than Mr. Bill's?  Remember, the Clintons and Trumps and Epsteins and their ilk all travel in the same circles, and some of them, shall we say, aren't very nice.  And it's difficult as well not to notice that Trump's reaction to the Katie Johnson allegations bears a striking resemblance to the Clintons' reaction to his rehashed charge from last night:

Hillary Clinton reiterated that she has no intention of directly addressing the accusations raised by Donald Trump relating to her husband.

When asked during a CNN interview if she felt "compelled to defend your honor, the honor of your husband," she said, "No."

"I know that that's exactly what he is fishing [for], and I'm not going to be responding," she said.

Hmmm; maybe the resemblance isn't so striking.  This isn't a categorical denial so much as an "I'm not going to dignify that charge with a response".  Which, in point of fact, does not deny or rebut it.  At least last night, anyway.

What about the Rodham campaign?

The Democrat presidential front-runner's press secretary released a statement slamming the claim Trump made that Donald Trump's claim that former President Bill Clinton may have been accused of rape.

"Trump is doing what he does best — attacking when he feels wounded and dragging the American people through the mud for his own gain. If that’s the kind of campaign he wants to run, that’s his choice," press secretary Nick Merrill said in a statement released shortly after Trump made the accusation during a Fox News interview.

"Hillary Clinton is running a campaign to be president for all of America [snort]. It’s not surprising that after a week of still refusing to release his taxes and likening Oakland and Ferguson to the dangers in Iraq, of course he wants to change the subject. So while he licks his wounds, we'll continue to focus on improving the lives of the American people," Merrill added.

Yeah, Trump is trying to change the subject.  But then so, here, is the Rodham campaign.

Or so it seems.  The thing is, I'm puzzled as to why, since if you want a vehement, categorical denial, whatever its veracity, long-time and still Clinton family shyster David Kendall offered it up seventeen years ago.

And that's why I am, in turn, puzzled as to why, beyond his Pavlovian baser psychological reflexes, Trump keeps going after his good buddy Bill's womanizing past.  Everybody knows this stuff, everybody knows Hillary enabled it for naked political ambition, and nobody cared about it then or cares about it now.  So how is playing up what was old news a generation ago going to help Trump or mitigate his myriad of weaknesses and vulnerabilities as a candidate now?

The answer, of course, is that it won't.  It's simply Trump being Trump.  Like he could be anything else.

I'm sure he and his good buddy Bill will have a lot of laughs over it at the next White House orgy - no matter who wins in November.

No comments: