When Jeff Sessions testified on the
Hill yesterday, he was grilled about the Justice Department's disclosure
that it may seek a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton.
Was it political retribution? Perhaps
there should be a probe of whether donations to the Clinton Foundation
were tied to a 2010 Obama administration decision, in which Clinton
participated, to allow a Russian agency to buy a company that had
uranium rights in America.
But after President Trump repeatedly urged such an
investigation, critics say that naming a prosecutor would undermine
DOJ’s independence. The attorney general said the decision would not be
made on political grounds.
There is, at the moment, another drive under way to look back at Clinton — in this case, Bill Clinton.
In light of the intense focus on sexual assault and
harassment allegations involving Roy Moore, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin
Spacey, Louis C.K., business leaders and prominent journalists, the
question arises: What about Bubba? And that question is being posed by
liberal commentators.
Having covered all the Clinton sex controversies, it's
generally not true that the mainstream media gave the 42nd president a
pass. The Washington Post investigated the Paula Jones story and broke
the news about the Monica Lewinsky probe. Kathleen Willey appeared on
"60 Minutes." The Post and Wall Street Journal reported on Juanita
Broaddrick, although NBC held an interview with her until after Clinton
was acquitted at his Senate impeachment trial.
But a number of liberals defended Clinton during the
1990s against the allegations, blaming them on what Hillary famously
called a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
Chris Hayes, the liberal prime-time host on MSNBC,
tweeted the other day: "As gross and cynical and hypocritical as the
right’s 'what about Bill Clinton' stuff is, it’s also true that
Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the
allegations against him."
In a piece
called "The Reckoning," Atlantic contributing editor Caitlin Flanagan
wrote Monday that we should "not forget the sex crimes" of which "Bill
Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick
reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial
campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the
last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where
she says he very violently raped her. She said she fought against
Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied.
At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a
minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones says, he sent a
couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed
his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she
met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that
he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to
his crotch.
"It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged
violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than
many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the
past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless
justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was
rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism."
As Exhibit A, Flanagan points to this 1998 New York Times op-ed by feminist leader Gloria Steinem.
If the allegations were true, Steinem wrote, "President
Clinton may be a candidate for sex addiction therapy. But feminists
will still have been right to resist pressure by the right wing and the
media to call for his resignation or impeachment."
On Kathleen Willey’s tale of Oval Office groping,
Steinem said: "Even if the allegations are true, the president is not
guilty of sexual harassment. He is accused of having made a gross, dumb,
and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life. She
pushed him away, she said, and it never happened again. In other words,
President Clinton took 'no' for an answer."
In the case of Paula Jones, "Mr. Clinton seems to have
made a clumsy sexual pass, then accepted rejection." His relationship
with Lewinsky, despite the "power imbalance," was not coerced.
And he should stay in office, writes Steinem, because he was "vital" to "reproductive freedom."
This is hugely embarrassing to read now, nearly two decades later.
New York Times liberal columnist Michelle Goldberg now writes
that she believes Juanita Broaddrick, that revisiting the Clinton
scandals is "painful," and that "Democrats are guilty of apologizing for
Clinton when they shouldn’t have."
With a lament that Hillary had to pay the price for Bill’s misdeeds, Goldberg says:
"It's fair to conclude that because of Broaddrick's allegations, Bill Clinton no longer has a place in decent society."
In the cauldron of impeachment politics, some liberals
were as wedded to defending Clinton despite the mounting evidence as
some conservatives today are to defending Roy Moore.
But there is a defend-our-guy-at-all-costs mentality in
such cases that at least some liberals are belatedly attempting to
confront.
Footnote: Sessions, whose old Senate seat is at
stake in the Roy Moore race, made no attempt to defend his fellow
Alabamian at yesterday’s hearing. "I have no reason to doubt these
women," he said.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.