Hillary: When I said we should believe rape victims, I didn't mean the ones who accused Bill

There are those who would not want to see Hillary Clinton as president who nevertheless find it necessary to affirm the conventional wisdom that she is very smart. As far as I can see, this notion came about solely because she had a job as a lawyer before becoming First Lady, and people thought that was pretty impressive compared to the housewife/cookie-bakers they perceived her predecessors to be.

---

That's pretty thin evidence of intelligence, and there's lot of evidence to the contrary. One example would be her continued statements that not only make no sense to any thinking person, but also set her up clearly and obviously to look worse than if she had just said nothing at all. Take, for example, her exasperated question, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" That had to do with how four Americans in Benghazi died, and it was simply an expression of Hillary's impatience with having to answer questions about it - as if it was unimportant to know what happened and why. It was such a dumb thing to say, it's almost impossible to conceive of a person with average intelligence - let alone exceptional intelligence - saying it. She stepped in the same trap recently when she declared that all women who allege to have been raped should be believed - perhaps a defensible position but certainly a difficult one for her to live with given the widely known fact that at least three women had accused her husband of inappropriate sexual advances, and one of out-and-out rape. A smart woman would never make such a blanket statement knowing she would inevitably be asked if the statement applied to her own husband's accusers. So sure enough, she was asked, and her answer was, er, interesting:

---

---

Hillary Clinton answered a question about Bill Clinton's alleged sexual impropriety on Thursday, saying that victims of sexual abuse "should be believed" until evidence disproves their allegations. At a campaign stop in Hooksett, New Hampshire, a woman asked Clinton: "Secretary Clinton, you recently came out to say that all rape victims should be believed. But would you say that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones be believed as well?" Clinton responded: "Well, I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence." She then moved on to the next question.

Well! That's a pretty significant qualifier to a statement originally made in a totally unqualified manner. Way to abandon your high-minded principle as soon as you realize it presents a problem for you politically. But that begs another question: What, exactly, was the "evidence" that Bill Clinton didn't do the things Jones, Willey and Broaddrick accused him of? The Clintons paid Paula Jones a settlement. They did not admit guilt, to be sure, but neither did they present any compelling evidence that she lied. They merely tried to discredit her as trailer trash. Kathleen Willey's accusation may not be proven, since she was alone with Clinton during the scenario she described, but there is certainly no "evidence" that he didn't do it. And as for Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed the assault was violent enough that it left her with a bruise that Clinton told her she should put ice on, what is the "evidence" to disprove her story? If you want to say you don't believe them for whatever reason, that's certainly your right, but who has ever presented a single fact that would indicate they lied? There is none. Hillary's use of that word is yet another indication that she is three horrible things - dishonest, stupid and evil. Dishonest because she claimed there is evidence that does not exist. Stupid because the argument is so weak that anyone can see it simply makes no sense. And evil because she is only too happy to tear down the very women she claims to support when they present a problem for her personally. This woman is simply a horrendous human being. It's astonishing to me that people act like a Donald Trump presidency would represent the ascension of a mad man, yet they treat Hillary Clinton like a perfectly reasonable, mainstream candidate.

---