The only way Hillary can be certain that Bill did not commit rape

Hillary, the strongest advocate for women and girls, is starting to get questions about her husband's alleged raping and molestation of women and girls.

During a campaign event in New Hampshire today, Hillary Clinton was asked about the women who accused her husband of rape and sexual assault.

The woman pointed out how Clinton recently said all rape victims should be believed, and then asked, “Would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and/or Paula Jones?”

Clinton responded by saying, “I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

What does that mean, disbelieved based on the evidence?  What evidence is there that can exonerate Bill Clinton from these rape charges?  As I recall, Paula Jones accused the president of trying to force her to give him oral sex.  Kathleen Willey said that Mr. Clinton fondled her breasts and placed her hands on his genitals.  Juanita Broaddrick said that Mr. Clinton forced her down on a bed, bit her lip, and raped her.

What evidence is there that can disprove these claims?  There really can be only two forms of evidence.  The first is being able to prove that Mr. Clinton never had the opportunity to meet with these women alone.  I don't think Hillary can prove that.

Mr. Clinton could deny the charges, of course, but that is not conclusive evidence of his innocence.  There is only one absolutely, positively certain way that Hillary could be 100% certain that the charges against her husband are false...

And that is if Mrs. Clinton were present during Mr. Clinton's encounters with Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick, and was an eyewitness who could say that everything was consensual.  In that case, and only that case, Mrs. Clinton could be 100% certain that there was no rape, because she would have seen everything that happened.

In this day and age of homosexual marriage, transgenderism, boys in girls' showers, and so on, and presidents getting oral sex under the desk of the Oval Office while talking to world leaders on the phone, are three-way flings really out of the question?

Whatever the rationale, this is the only explanation that would allow Hillary to honestly claim that her husband is innocent of all rape charges.

Exit question: Which do you think is more likely, that Hillary is lying to protect her husband or telling the truth to protect her husband?

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

Hillary, the strongest advocate for women and girls, is starting to get questions about her husband's alleged raping and molestation of women and girls.

During a campaign event in New Hampshire today, Hillary Clinton was asked about the women who accused her husband of rape and sexual assault.

The woman pointed out how Clinton recently said all rape victims should be believed, and then asked, “Would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and/or Paula Jones?”

Clinton responded by saying, “I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

What does that mean, disbelieved based on the evidence?  What evidence is there that can exonerate Bill Clinton from these rape charges?  As I recall, Paula Jones accused the president of trying to force her to give him oral sex.  Kathleen Willey said that Mr. Clinton fondled her breasts and placed her hands on his genitals.  Juanita Broaddrick said that Mr. Clinton forced her down on a bed, bit her lip, and raped her.

What evidence is there that can disprove these claims?  There really can be only two forms of evidence.  The first is being able to prove that Mr. Clinton never had the opportunity to meet with these women alone.  I don't think Hillary can prove that.

Mr. Clinton could deny the charges, of course, but that is not conclusive evidence of his innocence.  There is only one absolutely, positively certain way that Hillary could be 100% certain that the charges against her husband are false...

And that is if Mrs. Clinton were present during Mr. Clinton's encounters with Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick, and was an eyewitness who could say that everything was consensual.  In that case, and only that case, Mrs. Clinton could be 100% certain that there was no rape, because she would have seen everything that happened.

In this day and age of homosexual marriage, transgenderism, boys in girls' showers, and so on, and presidents getting oral sex under the desk of the Oval Office while talking to world leaders on the phone, are three-way flings really out of the question?

Whatever the rationale, this is the only explanation that would allow Hillary to honestly claim that her husband is innocent of all rape charges.

Exit question: Which do you think is more likely, that Hillary is lying to protect her husband or telling the truth to protect her husband?

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.