Will there be any introspection on why so many, especially on the left, were not aware of the details and extent of the Broaddrick allegations against Bill Clinton? 
Especially give what Hillary Clinton said about Clinton’s accusers in the 90’s and the fact that all the same people supported her candidacy just a few years ago.
I do suggest People actually listen to the episode or research the details. This wasn’t just an empty allegation. Broaddrick actually did have corroborating evidence from that time to back up her story. It was completely ignored. slate.com/articles/podca…
Let's get a little more specific: Broaddrick, who was a campaign volunteer, claimed that Bill Clinton had lured her to his hotel room for a meeting (people might recognize this technique from Harvey Weinstein stories).
Broaddrick had a witness, Norma Rogers. Rogers was with Broaddrick at the nursing conference at the time. She backed up Broaddrick's story, even describing what Broaddrick told her immediately after the alleged assault:
There was physical evidence of the alleged assault per several witnesses and she told several of her friends about it at that time.
Again, compare that to the lack of corroborative evidence in the Kavanaugh case. And yet, most of the media and left have never treated Bill Clinton as guilty or really even made him answer for these or the other sexual assault allegations.
In case you think the screenshots above are from some right-wing or biased source, they are actually from a Vox article on the allegation: vox.com/2016/1/6/10722…
