RUTHFULLY YOURS

Since Hillary announced that her husband would be joining her on the campaign trail, people have been debating whether or not it’s fair for the GOP to attack Bill’s sexual misdeeds in order to indirectly attack her.

This makes sense. After all, we’re talking about a guy who has been accused of the sexual assault of more than ten women. Think about it: How is her appointing him really any different than if she’d appointed Bill Cosby?

But here’s the thing: The real issue isn’t whether or not to attack Bill to indirectly attack Hillary — it’s about directly attacking Hillary for how she herself treated the women involved.

Hillary Clinton claims to be pro-women, yet has actively worked to ruin lives of so many of them. She’s running on a “feminist platform” — she’s even dared to say that sexual-assault survivors have a “right to be believed” — despite the fact that what she did to the women who accused Bill went far beyond not believing them.

She attacked them.

When allegations of sexual misconduct emerged during Bill’s 1992 presidential run, she’s reported to have said “Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” Multiple people also report that she called the women “sluts” and “whores” — you know, for daring to be raped. A private investigator named Ivan Duda claims that, after Bill lost his second governor’s race, Hillary told him: “I want you to get rid of all these b****** he’s seeing . . . I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control.”

RELATED: Hillary, Not Trump, Forced Us to Revisit Bill Clinton’s Scandals

And there are multiple reports of her and her detectives doing just that. Kathleen Willey — whom Bill allegedly sexually assaulted in 1993 — claims that detectives hired by Hillary threatened her and her children and even killed her cat. Juanita Broaddrick, who accused Bill of raping her in 1978, reports that she was also threatened by Hillary.

Oh, and let’s not forget — she had no problem blaming the (very true) allegations that Bill was having an affair with Lewinsky on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Anything to save a man’s career, amirite?

Does this woman sound “feminist” to you?

The sheer number of accusations against her (there are actually far too many for me to have included all of them in this article) should make anyone worth their marbles at least question Hillary’s claim that she’s an “advocate for women.” After all, this is not just a single report; it’s consistent, repeated pattern of despicable behavior.

Sure, some of the claims (like the cat murder) may sound outlandish — and there’s no doubt that many feminist activists would point this out to defend their hero. Keep in mind, however, that going by their modern’ mantra that “all accusers have a right to be believed,” they’d actually have to automatically believe all of them. What’s more: Their ideology would also dictate that even Bill’s so-called “consensual” affairs would be reason enough to not support him.

In the ’90s, Hillary was able to allegedly refer to the 22-year-old intern who agreed to a sexual relationship with her boss — the president — as a “narcissistic loony toon.” In fact, even when asked, she’s refused to deny that she said it.

These days, however, many feminists believe that a sexual relationship between a subordinate and a superior could never be considered entirely consensual. Certainly, a sexual relationship between the most powerful man in the world and a young intern would fall into this category. In fact, the same power-relationship principle could also apply to the affairs Bill had while he governor of Arkansas — like the one with Gennifer Flowers (whom Hillary called “trailer trash”) and the one with former Miss Arkansas Sally Perdue (who reports that the Clinton Machine threatened to physically harm her if she didn’t keep her mouth shut.)

Make no mistake: There is absolutely nothing feminist about Hillary Rodham Clinton. It’s clear as can be, but for some reason, people are choosing not to see it.

“Feminist” activist Lena Dunham — who has said that “any man who takes advantage of a woman sickens” her and has criticized people for not being harder on R. Kelly despite the sexual assault allegations he’s faced — will be campaigning for Hillary Clinton. So basically, people who listen to “Remix to Ignition” bother her, but not someone who not only remains married to an alleged serial rapist but also reportedly worked to ruin his accusers for the sake of his career.

Some people, thankfully, have begun to notice this hypocrisy. Last month, a reporter asked Hillary if her comment that all sexual assault survivors had a “right to be believed” meant that we should also believe Broaddrick, Willey and Paula Jones (who sued Bill for sexual harrassment in 1994).

Hillary’s answer: “Everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

Um. Just one problem: There is absolutely no evidence disproving the stories of Broaddrick, Willey or Jones, and you would think that “feminists” would stand with them and the others against Hillary — but it seems they’re too caught up in the hype of a potential female president to do anything but support her.

But I’m not. I’m a woman; I support women — and that’s exactly why I could never support Hillary Clinton.

— Katherine Timpf is a reporter for National Review Online.