Discredited? By whom?


After Donald Trump revisited Juanita Broaddrick’s accusation that Bill Clinton raped her in 1978, the Enslaved Press kicked into overdrive. According to Clinton fan-girl Andrea Mitchell, this alleged rape was “discredited.”


Discredited by whom exactly?

It’s easy to call Broaddrick’s claim “discredited” when you are the ones who discredited it — not because there was no proof, but because you didn’t want to give her any credit.

Mitchell isn’t alone in this.

I wandered over to the UK Daily Mail website this morning and saw this headline:

Now, why use quotation marks around the word “rape” unless you wanted to give the impression that it wasn’t really “rape?” Clearly the Daily Mail wants to leave you with the impression that this sexual assault of Juanita Broaddrick was just a whole lotta discredited nothin’.

This is sort of the same “logic” (see what I did there?) the Left uses to promote “Climate Change.” The science is settled, not because science can ever be settled, but because the Left has decided the science is settled. Climate deniers have been “discredited” not because there isn’t actual scientific doubt about the claim that man is causing the climate to change, but because the Left has decided they don’t want to hear it anymore.

Claiming that Juanita Broaddrick’s accusations against Bill Clinton have been “discredited” is intellectually dishonest coming from the people who made it their life’s mission to discredit Broaddrick.

Andrea Mitchell is basically saying “It’s been discredited because we say so.”

Bill Clinton was never charged, that’s true. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t forcibly sexually assault Juanita Broaddrick. It may only mean that nobody in Arkansas wanted to bring a rape charge against the sitting Attorney General of the State (which Clinton was at the time of the incident).

The fact is, since Clinton never formally faced charges of rape, he was never formally convicted or acquitted of the crime. So how can Mitchell claim Broaddrick’s accusation was discredited?

Mitchell isn’t stating a fact here. Instead, she is merely pushing the two-decade-old Enslaved Press narrative. For over twenty years this Liberal media has gone out of its way to act as human shields against Bill Clinton’s vile behavior. The last thing they want is for this story to once again gain traction in the year they hope to help drag the felonious Hillary over the finish line and into the White House.

For all his faults, one thing I have to give Trump credit for is refusing to let the Enslaved Press manipulate and control the narrative.

As I mentioned the other day, it is supremely dumb to use the “Trump treats women like crap” line of attack when the woman he is running against treated Bill’s accusers like crap. And not just her. Her venal enablers in the Enslaved Press smeared these women relentlessly for committing the unpardonable crime of revealing the truth about one of their preferred politicians.

And, if Andrea Mitchell’s dismissive remarks are any indication, they will happily continue to smear Juanita Broaddrick and any other victim of Bill Clinton all in service to Queen Hillary.

The truth is, Trump’s hammering Bill and Hillary’s despicable treatment of Bill’s victims will almost certainly show that the only ones who are, in fact, “discredited” are the Clintons and their useful idiots in the Enslaved Press.

Hat tip Washington Free Beacon.

If you like the work at Patriot Retort, please consider contributing

Hit the tip jar DONATE button in the side bar. Even a few bucks can make a world of difference!

Share, share, share

2 thoughts on “Discredited? By whom?

  • May 20, 2016 at 4:13 pm

    Dianny, I love the fact that they also used quotation marks when stating that Hillary refused to defend Bill’s “honor”. Clearly he never had any and still doesn’t.

  • May 20, 2016 at 10:17 pm

    How does it go; “When the truth becomes a crime, revolution becomes a duty” or something to that effect. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Comments are closed.