I guess you didn't bother to go there?

In a court of law, such flip-flopping would be enough to invalidate her testimony. But this is the court of public opinion, which doesn't work by the same rules. And, to be honest, conventional wisdom on such matters has now shifted rather dramatically since 1999. Nowadays, it holds that women are practically never lying when they say they've been raped -- but that it "fits a common pattern" for them to first falsely claim they hadn't been raped just to save themselves from public exposure. Ironically, HRC herself has buttressed this conventional wisdom, in saying that women who make rape accusations have to be "heard and believed."

She reversed course after Starr's goons got through with her.

based on a racist and sexist platform. That alone makes Donald Trump unqualified to be President

to learn about questionable testimony from 18 years ago...that has a weak link to the current candidate through her husband...from a woman who is sitting next to Trump right now and is working for his campaign...posted anonymously on a website that is known to attract sock puppets who work to distract us from real issues

showing that the woman swore there was nothing between them. Not anonymous nor at a questionable site.

Sorry I bothered to post this, I guess.