What has that op-ed got to do with the fact that a Republican Prosecutor Ken Starr didn't find Broaderick, Wiley, Jones etc not credible as accusers? Why should Democrats trust their accusations when a prosecutor and a judge found them not credible?
Starr was not investigating any of the cases involving these women and made no judgement of their credibility. He was solely focused on investigating the actions of Clinton while he was president. The only place where where Paula Jones came up was Bill Clinton's perjurious testimony in that suit where Bill denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. We all know, of course, this led directly to Bill Clinton's impeachment after the blue dress showed up.
"In his deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. On the basis of the evidence provided by Monica Lewinsky, a blue dress with Clinton's semen, Ken Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious.
During the deposition in the Jones case, Clinton was asked, "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" The definition included contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of a person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of that person, any contact of the genitals or anus of another person, or contact of one's genitals or anus and any part of another person's body either directly or through clothing.[24][25][26] The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Clinton flatly denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky.[27] Later, at the Starr grand jury, Clinton stated that he believed the definition of "sexual relations" agreed upon for the Jones deposition excluded his receiving oral sex."