09-27-2016, 03:32 PM
Interesting challenge for Trump. Merely dangling the issue of Bill Clinton's indiscretions won't do much for him. He'll have to do it directly and explain how this taints Hillary. A direct attack may well be fatal for him. Not only is he likely to pull the roof down on himself, it would actually allow Hillary to gain sympathy as she was cheated on and not the cheater. To suggest she failed women because she stood behind Bill rather than his accusers verges on bizarre. I'd love to know if any women, feminist or not, sympathise with the likes of Genifer Flowers who made money from boasting about having an affair with Bill. On the other hand, Trump also cheated on his wives, so how does this issue help Trump?
The more serious attack would be to go after the allegations made by Paula Yates and Juanita Broadderick. The latter alleged rape but provided a sworn statement that there was never any rape before recanting the statement. More importantly, Trump has faced rape and sexual assault claims too. An ex-wife alleged rape in divorce proceedings even if she has tried to fudge that subsequently. The wife of a businessman he was dealing with alleged he groped her. And most amazingly, he faces a civil suit in which the plaintiff alleges he raped her when she was a child of 14 or so. He's playing around with explosives.
I'd imagine that Clinton will be quick to nail him about the child rape case if he opens up the issue. No doubt, Clinton doesn't want to go there first as it would be the ultimate in negative mudslinging, would open up Bill's issues and the case may not have much to it. But if he attacks her with a half-baked allegation that she should answer for Bill's sins, especially if he peddles unproven rape allegations, then it would be fair game. I suspect that most voters would say then that he brought it on himself. Imagine Hillary asking him if he did rape a child after tying her to a bed at a party thrown by a convicted paedophile and whether he threatened that she would regret it if she told anyone. What the hell could he say? That would be an amazing moment.
I reckon if you're standing in petrol, playing with matches isn't a good idea.
The more serious attack would be to go after the allegations made by Paula Yates and Juanita Broadderick. The latter alleged rape but provided a sworn statement that there was never any rape before recanting the statement. More importantly, Trump has faced rape and sexual assault claims too. An ex-wife alleged rape in divorce proceedings even if she has tried to fudge that subsequently. The wife of a businessman he was dealing with alleged he groped her. And most amazingly, he faces a civil suit in which the plaintiff alleges he raped her when she was a child of 14 or so. He's playing around with explosives.
I'd imagine that Clinton will be quick to nail him about the child rape case if he opens up the issue. No doubt, Clinton doesn't want to go there first as it would be the ultimate in negative mudslinging, would open up Bill's issues and the case may not have much to it. But if he attacks her with a half-baked allegation that she should answer for Bill's sins, especially if he peddles unproven rape allegations, then it would be fair game. I suspect that most voters would say then that he brought it on himself. Imagine Hillary asking him if he did rape a child after tying her to a bed at a party thrown by a convicted paedophile and whether he threatened that she would regret it if she told anyone. What the hell could he say? That would be an amazing moment.
I reckon if you're standing in petrol, playing with matches isn't a good idea.