Equal Justice #ForAll

Consider the fates of two prominent Americans, comedian Louis C.K. and former President Bill Clinton. Both have been accused of serious sexual misconduct. But unlike the comedian, whose recent tiptoe back into show business has been met with howls of protest, Mr. Clinton continues to enjoy public adulation.

In this #MeToo era of enlightenment how is it that one man (C.K.), who has admitted to exposing himself to women without their consent*, can be treated so differently from another man (Clinton) who has been accused of multiple acts of hands-on sexual assault and even rape?

A recent thought-provoking article in The Weekly Standard put the contrast between the public treatment of these two under the microscope.  It got me thinking.

Louis C.K. was shamed into staying off television and stage to perform an open-ended silent penitence for his sins. Last November, he released what many thought was a sincere apology entitled, “These Stories Are True.”  He promised to step back to examine his behavior and “take a long time to listen.”  After staying out of the spotlight for the better part of a year the comedian has quietly returned to his livelihood, making just a few appearances at a New York comedy club. Audience members walk out, protestors gather outside.

Decades of Sex Abuse Accusations Against Bill Clinton Have Never Been Fully Adjudicated

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, recently enjoyed a very public tour with co-author James Patterson as they touted their book, “The President is Missing.” There were a few pithy questions for Clinton about his Monica Lewinsky sex scandal but there was no hue and cry for the former president to disappear from public view.  In fact, Clinton, along with his wife Hillary, will soon set out on an extended and much publicized speaking tour of North America – appearing in more than a dozen U.S. cities. Ticket prices range from $70 to VIP meet-and-greet tickets at $2,000.

Where is the fairness when a man accused of the most serious sex crimes – a man who first lied about sexual relations with a White House intern and then offered up only a tepid apology – can enjoy a higher standard of public acceptance than a man who admitted to his bad behavior and expressed remorse for masturbating in front of unsuspecting women?  Do the #MeToo women of the Clinton era deserve less attention than the more recent victims of Louis C.K.?

That surely cannot be the case. The nation hung on every word of a 35-year-old sex allegation from Christine Blasey Ford who told  the Senate about her encounter with a teenaged  Brett Kavanaugh.  That alleged incident with our newest U.S. Supreme Court Justice reportedly took place in the early 80’s.  (I say “allegedly” because Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the charges, Ford offered scant corroboration and under questioning some of her assertions were dubious)

Then Candidate Bill Clinton visits Juanita Broaddrick (far right) at Her Nursing Home Job

You know what else happened around the early 80’s?  Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s 1978 gubernatorial campaign alleges he raped her at a hotel in Little Rock where he had summoned her for a meeting. She says she sustained a serious bite on her lip during the attack. “The last thing he said to me was, ‘You better get some ice for that,” Broaddrick said. “And he put on his sunglasses and walked out the door.”

In 1979,  Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary claims Clinton exposed himself and demanded she perform a sex act on him. When she refused, she says, he tried to force her.

In 1980, then-Governor Clinton visited the KLMN-TV station.  Former anchorwoman Leslie Millwee alleges Clinton repeatedly made sexually suggestive comments and groped her from behind while pleasuring himself by rubbing against her. Several of her co-workers confirmed Millwee’s claim.

There have been many detailed complaints about Mr. Clinton’s sexual misconduct over the years.

In 1991, Arkansas state troopers escorted Paula Jones to a hotel room to meet with Clinton. She would later charge him with exposing himself, propositioning her for sex and harassment.

In  1993, White House aide Kathleen Willey alleges then President Clinton sexually assaulted her in a private study off the Oval Office. Today she calls Clinton a “serial sexual predator.”

In fact, there are claims of Bill Clinton’s criminal sexual behavior going back to 1969 when a British woman, Eileen Wellstone, reported  that Clinton, then attending Oxford University on a Rhodes scholarship, sexually assaulted her.

To some this may seem as a rehash. But I’m hoping it serves as a clarion call to hypocrites everywhere who would demand permanent banishment for some while allowing others to skate.   Let’s judge all people by the same standard no matter what their political party or station in life.

An allegation is not always the truth. And, certainly, there have been women who have made false claims of victimhood. But when multiple women come forward, all describing the same behavior, they deserve a fair hearing. So does the accused.

I, for one, will not be attending any of the upcoming “Conversations with the Clintons.” I’d be too tempted to rise and holler, “J ’accuse!”


* Please see a discussion of my phrase – “without their consent” in the comment section below.




  1. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 12:14 pm

    Reader Kevin McKeown writes:

    Your article is exactly true. Thanks for ruining my breakfast, but anger is raging through me at the moment.
    I had been quite a liberal, with fuming hatred for Republicans and Libertarians. Then I became a critical thinker when Obama came to office and began to politicize the IRS, give the Black Panthers voting authority, dumping on the Tea Party, and so on. I attended the first big Tea Party rally in Albuquerque, and was surprised at the large percentage of Blacks and Spanish speaking Latinos, AND Native Americans. All scum to Obama and the libs.
    To be a liberal, one MUST break laws, challenge rules, regulations, societal ideas. This is what they do. In a broad sense, liberals are not people who have children, or family values, that is, concepts involving keeping society on track in the long run. Anything goes.
    You need to understand that to break laws, twist facts, to be hypocritical IS to be liberal.
    Liberals by and large are selfish arrogant narcissists. There is no mental bedrock.
    My liberal friends want Clinton on the $20 bill. Billy that is. Go figure.
    They tell me that what Bill Clinton did was “different.” That Monica was at fault.
    Too angry to write anymore.

    Kevin McKeown

  2. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 12:15 pm

    ABQ Journal Readers Tom & Marie Coyle write:

    Dear Diane,

    Your article on Bill Clinton is right on and we hope all will “read and heed it”. Both Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary should be in jail for all they have done, but no one pursues
    this. Keep up the good work you do.


    Tom & Marie Coyle

  3. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 12:16 pm

    Reader Denise Robles writes:

    I thought you said you were a crime, not a political reporter. I actually agree with you in part about the oft discussed and debated 20+ year old accusations against president Clinton? What about all the believable accusations against the CURRENT president? Inconvenient to discuss right now?

  4. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 12:18 pm

    Noozhawk Reader Michael Battaglia writes:

    Diane Diamond, made an unequivocally false comment regarding Louis CK, in her article. She said:

    “In this #MeToo era of enlightenment, how is it that a man (C.K.) who has admitted to exposing himself to women without their consent can be treated so differently than a man (Clinton) who has been accused of multiple acts of hands-on sexual assault and even rape?”

    Louis CK never once “masturbated without consent” (which actually adds strength to the author’s point). This is a false narrative being regurgitated ad nauseam by journalists who apparently think it’s okay to take shortcuts by using recent articles rather than researching through the source material.

    If one bothered to go to the source, one would see that the article in the NY Times never once intimated that CK masturbated “without consent”, and in Louis CK’s letter, he apologized specifically for the accusations as offered by the NY Times. He did NOT apologize for “masturbating without consent”, as it never happened. Also, one glance at any local set of laws will provide one with the understanding that “masturbating without consent” does not meet the definition of “sexual misconduct”; it is considered worse than mere “misconduct”.

    I know you are busy as hell, but if you could please talk to Diane about correcting that, if only for the sake of integrity, I think that would be a good thing.

    I’m not saying let’s give Louis CK an award for valor, I’m saying let’s get it right with our integrity.

    Thank you,
    Michael Battaglia

    • Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 12:19 pm

      DD replies:

      Mr. Battaglia has a point.

      Louis C.K.’s past behavior included (the thrill of?) actually ASKING women if he could masturbate in front of them.
      Not that they WANTED him to do that or gave him PERMISSION to masturbate in their presence but women quoted in the New York Times original report revealed they remained frozen in place as he did so.

      Still, I maintain that none of the women who have gone public “gave consent” to Mr. C.K. to expose his penis and masturbate to ejaculation in their presence. That is except for comedian Sarah Silverman who recently said she did tell her friend Louis CK to go ahead and masturbate in front of her on occasion. Other than Silverman I can find no reports of any woman who gave him similar permission.

      While it’s true that Mr. C.K.’s letter of apology never used the words “without consent” I think it is pretty clear that he a.) admitted to the charges of the women who spoke to the NYT’s, b.) he expressed remorse for committing a sexual act in front of unsuspecting women and c.) he promised to step back and examine his behaviors.

      Again, I think Mr. Battaglia raises an important point – I should have substituted a word in that paragraph he cited:

      “In this #MeToo era of enlightenment, how is it that a man (C.K.) who has admitted to exposing himself to UNSUSPECTING women without their consent can be treated so differently than a man (Clinton) who has been accused of multiple acts of hands-on sexual assault and even rape?”

      P.S. Just for the record, I spend an inordinate amount of time “researching through source material” and conducting original reporting. And I try very hard never to “regurgitate” false narratives.

  5. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 12:56 pm

    Twitter pal DLB @60bourbon writes:

    when is Trump getting his FULL investigation? How many women is it 17-18 ??

  6. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 12:58 pm

    DD replies:

    Investigate him too (but under law it will have to wait until after his presidency) But point is why shun Louie CK’s act while at the same time buying $$ tickets for #Clinton’s upcoming speaking tour. Something ain’t equal there.

  7. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 1:15 pm

    ABQ Journal Reader Ron Hammond writes:

    Hi Diane:
    I just wanted to express an appreciation for your great columns. I especially appreciated your columns on guardianship. These columns have started a movement to improve that terrible situation. I especially appreciate them at my age of 73.

    Your current column on Bill Clinton is spot on. Can’t stand both of them: power and money hungry hypocrites, control freaks, etc. Love that great cartoon on Bill also. Keep up the good work.

    Ron Hammond
    Santa Fe, NM

  8. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 2:50 pm

    Facebook Friend Angela N Baskerville writes:

    I’ve never really viewed Monica Lewinsky (sp?) as a victim. More so, an opportunist. I don’t think she fits into the category of the “me too” victims.

    • Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 2:51 pm

      Roy Merritt replies:

      I disagree. ML was an intern. If the allegations from Judd against Weinstein applies, when it was Judd who offered (by her own statement).

  9. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 2:52 pm

    Facebook Friend Michael De Lazzer writes:

    Disagree. By that standard, every woman Trump was with was an opportunist. They certainly had more to gain than he. // He’d still be denying the Lewinsky affair if it weren’t for a blue dress. He left that young girl hanging as bait for the press. She was 22 and he was supposed to be the adult in the room.

    Juanita Broaddrick, Ginnifer Flowers. Clinton is no saint. His behavior puts him in the same position as Matt Lauer. If you’re going to hold the current president accountable (and we should), Diane’s argument is more than fair.

  10. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 2:53 pm

    Facebook Friend Madeline Michele Hovey writes:

    Oh good grief can you guys move on from Bill. We have a sitting president who has allegations against him and we see him on TV every day all day long spewing his hate.impeach Let’s make sure we bring up Bill. In my opinion this is just a typical Republican post

    • Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 2:55 pm

      DD replies:

      Madeline Michele Hovey – I think we are all capable of separating topics. The topic of THIS column was the inequality of how society treats those accused of serious sexual improprieties. Everything does not have to come back to Trump (who I do not support, btw) And I sorta resent you waving away my work with “this is just a typical Republican post.” I am not, nor have I ever been, a Republican. I am a lifelong registered INDEPENDENT.

  11. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 2:56 pm

    Facebook Friend Linda Ellis writes:

    Cash flow must me low at the Clinton household

  12. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 3:06 pm

    Facebook Friend Keith Austin writes:

    He got “Me-Too’d” to death back in the day and paid up, settled out of court, or they didn’t have enough evidence to convict. What else would you like to see happen? Impeachment for cheating on his wife with a gal at work?

  13. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 3:06 pm

    DD replies: Ummmm. Clinton WAS impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19th, 1998, Keith. And while you are correct that he paid out $$ ($850,000 to Paula Jones) there was never a case brought, a trial held in which he might (or might not) have been convicted.

    There was also no nationwide movement to ostracize Clinton following all the allegations against him as there has been with Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, Les Moonves, Louie C.K., Dustin Hoffman, Kevin Spacey, et. al. In other words – if we want men to be allegation free then shouldn’t that extend to that to ALL MEN? Including both Democratic and Republican Presidents? Problem there is, of course, under law a sitting President cannot be put on trial.

    • Diane Dimond on November 7, 2018 at 1:55 pm

      Austin replies to Dimond:

      Keith Austin Yes. He was impeached. Flat joke. Sorry. So now that the movement to hold all men accountable is hotter than ever, how far back do we dig to prosecute? And who is in the “pool” of candidates? I’m not arguing AGAINST calling men out. But now that it’s been deemed “okay” to really go for it with the last couple years of Cosby and Weinstein, I feel the best you can do is shed daylight on all accusations. Didn’t they just do that with Kavanaugh? So we now know that going back to high school parties from 30 years ago is okay, that’s another step. Like I said, they’ve already spent years on Bill Clinton, so next would be to go back and see if Obama assaulted someone in high school? What are the limits or are their limits? It’s apparent that going after Franken for pinching a butt is equal to the intensity we go after Cosby, but will this evolve or settle in to something else?

  14. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 3:08 pm

    Facebook Friend Bill Voinovich writes:

    The allegations against Clinton have been glossed over in one word…..MONEY…….

  15. Diane Dimond on November 5, 2018 at 3:08 pm

    Facebook Friend Ronnie Latimer writes:

    The Clintons are untouchable

  16. Diane Dimond on November 7, 2018 at 1:54 pm

    Facebook Friend Vincent Martin writes:

    maybe there was no ‘nationwide movement to ostracize him’ because Monica was a WILLING PARTICIPANT, unlike the VICTIMS of the scum bags you’ve named that mentally or physically assaulted their victims!

    • Diane Dimond on November 7, 2018 at 1:54 pm

      DD replies:

      Okay, so Monica liked it. What about Broadderick, Willey, the woman in England, Leslie Millwee, the anchorwoman. They were not WILLING PARTICIPANTS if you believe what they say. What about them, Vincent? We just ignore their charges while paying rapt attention to those from Professor Ford against Judge Kavanaugh? I’m not advocating for or against any of these women’s charges – i just think they should all be handled the same way.

      • Diane Dimond on November 7, 2018 at 3:27 pm

        Vincent Martin replies:
        – times change, and with that change, societal changes occur. We don’t still enslave a total class of citizens because we LEARNED how to correctly treat them. In the past 30 years, we’ve learned how frequent, serious, under/unreported, and how stigmatizing assault is for victims. We as a society have a responsibility to CHANGE when we deem something inappropriate, and have done so. That does not mean we must offer retribution for a WILLING participant, no matter what ‘crime’ may have been perpetrated upon them.
        As far as your thought that all claims should be handled the same way- I agree. However, as a responsible citizenry, we understand the POTENTIAL difference of a scotus nominee case versus one that does not potentially impact all of our citizenry, and therefore SOME people may have placed a higher priority on that case.

        • Diane Dimond on November 7, 2018 at 3:29 pm

          Keith Austin replies:

          Again, those were taken as far as they could go, so what else do you want done to Clinton? And if you’re suggesting they be handled “the same way”, what do you mean? Garrison Keillor and Al Franken got treated the same way Cosby and Weinstein were treated. They had to “go away” even after apologizing.

          • Diane Dimond on November 7, 2018 at 3:30 pm

            DD replies to Keith Austin:

            Keith, I reject the notion that those women’s allegations against Clinton were “taken as far as they could go.” History shows those women were intimidated both privately and very publicly … but never did a law enforcement entity take the allegations seriously or investigate in any way. Clearly, none of them got to testify before Congress on what happened to them.
            And, if you are familiar with my body of work here you’ll know that I have written extensively about the unequal treatment of men who are accused of sexual misconduct. What Keillor and Franken were alleged to have done is clearly not nearly as serious as what Weinstein or Spacey is alleged to have done. I have preached context when sex abuse cases against men arise….asking ourselves, “How serious an infraction was this?” Is a pat on the backside as egregious as attempted rape – no way.

  17. Diane Dimond on November 19, 2018 at 9:58 am

    Twitter Pal Diplomtc_Immnty@Diplomtc_Immnty writes:

    Shhhhh…..those women don’t count.
    @BillClinton ruins the #MeToo narrative

  18. Diane Dimond on November 19, 2018 at 9:59 am

    Twitter Pal Pob1085@Pob1085 writes:

    Great article! But you fail to explain, why comedian Louis C.K. should not get the same treatment as President Bill Clinton. You only want it the other way around.

    • Diane Dimond on November 19, 2018 at 9:59 am

      DD replies:

      Wrong. I want equal punishment for equal crimes. Louis CK is, for all intents and purposes, ostracized from society. Bill CLinton, who is alleged in much more serious crimes (rape) is celebrated. Not fair. Not equal

Leave a Comment