In the week between Christmas and New Year’s, Bill Clinton’s trysts as governor, presidential candidate and president came roaring back into the limelight. Those activities, some decades old, involve both adulterous affairs and at least three allegations of sexual abuse and assault.

To any objective observer, putting Bill back in the White House is a dangerous proposition to the safety of women in the White House. Doing so also sets a poor example for sexually abusive men, who may be inspired to think they, too, can avoid legal repercussions for their actions — and could set up millions of abused women to be troubled by seeing a man who views women as sexual objects rewarded with a position of enormous influence.

But for all the attention that rightly lands on Mr. Clinton for what he’s done, it’s possibly an even more important question to ask why Mrs. Clinton hasn’t been held accountable for enabling her husband’s actions.

Again, the case against the former president is sound. As noted liberal Ruth Marcus noted in her Washington Post column that Bill Clinton has  “preyed on” women “and in a workplace setting where he was by far the superior. That is uncomfortable for Clinton supporters but it is unavoidably true.”

Mark Steyn also noted Clinton’s criminal activities, poignantly highlighting the moral ineptitude of U.S. mainstream and liberal media when it comes to treatment of former “America’s Dad” Bill Cosby — recently charged with drugging and sexually assaulting a woman in 2004 — versus Bill Clinton:

Nobody needed criminal convictions to drop Cosby — just multiple accusations of sexual assault and some out-of-court payouts. But multiple accusations of sexual assault, out-of-court payouts and the loss of his law license are apparently not enough to bar Bill Clinton from another eight years in the White House.

Hillary is no innocent in Bill’s activities either. As Derek Hunter wrote at Townhall.com, “She was more than just an enabler. Hillary was a co-conspirator.”

Consider just two bits of evidence:

First, it was Hillary who in 1998 publicly dismissed the (often criminal) claims against her husband as a non-story. In fact, according to the then First Lady, the real story was “this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”

As Hunter noted, “The media, being the media, followed her lead and this ‘conspiracy’ became the story. The Clinton machine even painted Monica as a ‘stalker’ crushing on a sweet, trusting, father figure Bill.”

Second, in a moment of pure hypocrisy considering what she said 17 years ago, Hillary Clinton tweeted last year, “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”

Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported. https://t.co/mkD69RHeBL

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 23, 2015

It didn’t take long for an audience member in New Hampshire to hold her accountable. “You recently came out to say that all rape victims should be believed? But would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones? Should we believe them as well?” asked a woman.

“Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence,” responded Clinton.

Well, that’s quite a reversal — not quite how she treated Paula, Monica, Juanita and the other women when her husband’s reputation was on the line.

Hypocrisy is nothing new to politicians, and especially to the Clintons. What is new is that Hillary is willing to literally endanger women inside the White House and around the nation if elected. Self-described feminists like Joy Behar, who called Bill “a dog” but said she’d back him because he supports abortion, really ought to ask themselves: Who is worse, the offender, or the woman who enables him?