Dear Juanita Broaddrick

Using the hashtag "#DearProfessorFord," the "sentence first, trial later" accusers of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have been pouring out tweets expressing sympathy for the ordeal of Professor Christine Blasey Ford, the liberal Democrat activist.

They want an FBI investigation of an individual who won't talk to the FBI of 36-year-old allegations of a drunken party she doesn't remember the exact date or location of; how she got there; how she got home; who was there; or why, after she allegedly feared for her life, she didn't even tell her parents.

No sympathy is expressed for Kavanaugh's wife and two daughters or where he is going to go to get his reputation back.  How about a "Dear Mrs. Kavanaugh" letter expressing regret to her and her daughters for the slime her husband is being dragged through over charges that are less specific than most sightings of Bigfoot?

Bill Clinton rape accuser Juanita Broaddrick never got a letter expressing sympathy for her ordeal, nor did any of the other "bimbo eruptions" wife Hillary took care of with scathing attacks and organized threats and harassment.  She has an idea: if Ford does not want to testify, Broaddrick is quite willing to show up and tell the Senate Judiciary Committee just what credible charges of assault look like:

Juanita Broaddrick, whose Twitter profile reads, in part, "rape survivor of Bill Clinton," has been watching the allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh unfold and is surprised by the accuser's refusal to tell her story.  Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in high school, has yet to accept the invitation to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday.  The committee has even offered her concessions and are [sic] willing to speak to her in her home state of California, but still she has not accepted.

Well, Broaddrick said Wednesday that if Ford is not willing to testify about her allegation, she sure is.

She said in a tweet:

Just a thought… If Christine Ford declines to be interviewed Monday... I'm available to answer questions about my Rape by Bill Clinton.

She is disgusted by the double standard that says women who bring forth assault charges should be immediately deemed credible, a standard that seems to apply only to liberal Democrat women, and noted that Sen. Dianne Feinstein had absolutely no interest in what she had to say about Bill Clinton assaulting her.  As Broaddrick said on The Ingraham Angle recently:

Oh, it makes me go back to 1999, when Dianne Feinstein, along with every other Democrat, refused to read my deposition to the independent counsel[.] ... They would have nothing to do with it.  That shows you the difference in the double standard that existed back then and still does today.

Broaddrick does not accept the psychobabble being expressed in defense of Ford – her alleged trauma and repressed memory.  Ford is not an infant, despite attempts by Democrats to portray her as wounded, scared, and vulnerable.  She is a professional woman, an accomplished professor in liberal academia, who should be quite able to remember and specifically articulate her allegations against Kavanaugh:

One psychologist told the Post that it "may be challenging to recall peripheral details of an assault years later... but that should not detract from a victim's veracity 'if she can clearly and consistently articulate central details of what happened, such as the who, what and where.'"

Broaddrick does not agree.  She told the Daily Caller she doesn't believe the leftist psychology professor, and for the same reason that some do.  Broaddrick "cited Ford's timing and lack of firm details in her retelling of the account." ...

Of particular note to Broaddrick – who, unlike Ford, told friends about Clinton's attack right afterward – was Ford's inability to remember where the party was or who was there.

When I went through her accounting of what had happened, I cannot imagine not knowing where you were and who was there and when it happened," she told The DC.  "I remember everything that had happened to me.  Friends found me immediately after the rape and witnessed the condition I was in.  I remember all the specifics, the exact time it happened, 8:30 in the morning."

Ford said she can't remember how she got to the party or who drove her home.

Women do lie about sexual assault, and false accusations of rape and sexual assault are not uncommon in a media obsessed with the mythical "war on women" by conservatives like Judge Kavanaugh.  One need only remember the infamous and false Rolling Stone story about an alleged rape at the University of Virginia, the story a key part of the portrayal of an alleged "rape culture" rampant on college campuses.

And then there's the Duke lacrosse team's ordeal after being accused of assaulting a stripper at a party, a story pushed by an ambitious prosecutor, Mike Nifong, and a media all too eager to condemn the culture enjoyed by these obvious beneficiaries of "white privilege."  Three Duke players were falsely accused of assaulting a black girl, and Nifong admitted pursuing the false charges for personal political gain.

We remember what happened to Herman Cain, successful black American businessman and conservative, the Democrats' worst nightmare.  Out came the accusations against the man who threatened liberal orthodoxy and the liberal power structure, unproven and unprovable allegations of misconduct.  As soon as he abandoned his presidential run, his accusers vanished back into the woodwork from whence they came, their mission accomplished.

Justice may be blind, but it is not brain-dead.  If Ford does not show up to testify and prove her case, a vote on Kavanaugh's nomination should be held.  And maybe we should just accept Juanita Broaddrick's offer.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor's Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

If you experience technical problems, please write to