Bill Clinton wasn't elected (he hasn't held the "highest office in the land" for some years now)... so I am little confused at this sentiment?
What he says on the tape (in conjunction with perfectly credible statements from multiple witnesses) tells you everything you need to know. And BTW, the standard shouldn't be whether he's been criminally convicted or not; but "preponderance of evidence".
As in the, you know, rational, pragmatic "Would you even consider (for so much as half a second) hiring someone who made statements like that, in conjunction with statements his victims? Let alone electing him to the office of dog catcher?" sense.
However, it's also a completely immaterial to the subject of Donald Trump's behavior. And and to the subject of FB board member, and YC advisor Peter Thiel's attempt to obfuscate and normalize that "behavior" (i.e. sexual violence) -- even more so.
Preponderance of evidence is there is a greater than 50% chance of it being true. One person's word against another never meets that standard.
Broaddrick denied her accusations in an affidavit, and later retracted that denial. That destroys her credibility.
Edit: The only legit accusation is Paula Jones's, since Bill settled that case. Regardless, this is Bill Clinton. There is no evidence Hillary attacked Paula.
I don't have time to get into the fine-grain of it with you -- but if that's your impression then I'd suggest you look more closely into the basic event chronology. (What you're saying about counter-testimony has some relevance to the Wiley case; but to the Jones and Broaddrick cases, none to speak of).
Preponderance of evidence is there is a greater than 50% chance of it being true. One person's word against another never meets that standard.
The word of "one person" (who has been established to be pathological dissembler and obfuscator on the subject of, well, just about anything he opens his mouth about) against the generally consistent and credible statements of at least 15 accusers, to be precise. Combined with his irrefutable statements on tape.
Again... it all comes down to the "would you hire this person?" standard.
I don't think you can get much stronger than "bragged about it on tape".
Soon after the release of the video statement, Trump qualified the apology with the "it was locker room talk, Bill Clinton has done way worse on a golf course, I apologize if anyone was offended."
Too bad he didn't just stick with his original video statement!
So to (fairly) paraphrase: "The political and psychological reactions people are having to the fact that confirmed serial sexual predator (and all-around loathsome human being in general) Donald J Trump will be assuming the highest office in the land are far worse -- categorically worse -- then the fact itself. And BTW, as offensive, disgusting, and profoundly disturbing as what he said on that tape was -- on a deeper level I couldn't help thinking, hey, this sounds someone I can really relate to, and hitch my wagon with."
When I ask him if he can explain to Mr. Trump that climate change is not a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, he offers a Chinese box of an answer: “Does he really think that? If he really thinks that, how would you influence that? If he really thinks that and you could influence him, what would be the best way to do it?”
More liberally translated: "You know, I could never really make heads or tails of all this fact-based, hard-science-y stuff people keep obsessing about. Philosophy and politics were always so much easier. At the end of the day, though, what I guess what it comes down to is -- hey, maybe we're at risk of seriously and irrecoverably damaging the environment (and killing scores and scores of people in the process) if we don't radically change course, or maybe we aren't. But either way, if I can use my relationship to this administration to bring my radical political agenda into the mainstream -- it will all be worth it."