Do left-wing journalists have any responsibility for checking their facts, or is it okay just to lie to support any of their favored candidates?

Recently, Andrea Mitchell of NBC, in response to Donald Trump's reminding Sean Hannity's viewers of Bill Clinton's assault of Juanita Broaddrick, claimed that Ms. Broaddrick's assertion of rape has been "discredited."  I have closely followed Bill Clinton's marital meanderings for over 20 years, with particular regard to Ms. Broaddrick's very serious charge, and I am completely unaware of any authoritative assertion of such a discrediting event.  Perhaps Ms. Mitchell would be kind enough to provide a scintilla of evidence for her charge.

In response to the public airing of one of Bill Clinton's many marital misadventures, David Broder, a then liberal reporter for the equally liberal Washington Post, observed that Bill Clinton doesn't have an inappropriate relationship with women; he has an inappropriate relationship with the truth (a kind and generous understatement, to be sure).  Apparently, Ms. Mitchell suffers from the same affliction.

Ms. Broaddrick did not volunteer the fact of her rape by Bubba; she was outed in connection with the Paula Jones controversy (another instance of a Bill Clinton sexual assault). When she did come forward – reluctantly, at first – her story included the fact that she had informed various people close to her of the rape, and she did so contemporaneous with the event's having taken place.  She did not prosper as a consequence of this disclosure, and in addition, she was a Democrat and a Bill Clinton supporter prior to his having raped her.

Unless Ms. Mitchell has some bit of information that has escaped the attention of the rest of us, I suggest that she offer Ms. Broaddrick an apology.  Failing to do this, I suggest that NBC fire her.

The "rape thing" is interesting in that it reveals Hillary's role as both an enabler of her husband's reckless sexual wanderings and the vicious manner in which she went after the women who were the objects of these wanderings.  Also, her current position on the subject of sexual assault reveals just how inept and lacking in judgment she is.  You will recall that several months ago, Hillary informed us that a woman's charge of having been sexually assaulted should be taken seriously.  When someone had the obvious common sense of asking if that included the women that her husband had sexually assaulted (i.e., Ms. Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, etc.), Ms. Clinton's only response was to qualify her previous statement with this non sequitur: "Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence."

Applying that rationale to the Broaddrick situation, what clarity does that provide?  None!  Broaddrick is a believable source, and Bill Clinton is a confirmed liar – or as Bob Kerry, fellow Democrat, observed, "a very good liar."

Why, you would think, would Hillary ever want to coax the subject of sexual assault or challenge Trump regarding her husband's sexual behavior when her husband has been a serial philanderer from the point of their engagement and even before, during their courtship?