Well, you don’t quite have 5 witnesses, but you do have 5 people that support her, saying they were told about it real-time.
Witnesses would be people who either saw it happen, or were there immediately after it happened...such as right after the attack.
In any case, the article is fair for what it covers, but I would add a few more factors to it:
1) Did she, or her supporters, ‘time’ their accusations to damage Clinton? Answer: No.
2) Is she a raging conservative that simply hates Clinton because he’s pro-choice? Answer: No. In fact, she was a volunteer for him - meaning she really thought highly of his political views.
3) Was she ‘handled’ by conservative activists? Answer: No.
4) Did she flat-out lie about stuff, like being afraid to fly? Answer: No
In the end, this would still be a tough call, but my call would be that Bill Clinton would have no business in politics or as a judge, but there still wouldn’t be enough evidence to convict him in court.
those were really good questions you wrote out.
You think and write well