For over twenty years, Juanita Broaddrick has openly refused to go under oath to either claim that a) Bill Clinton did sexually assault her or b) she was coerced into testifying earlier that Bill Clinton did not sexually assault her.
She has had ample opportunity during that long time to do so--in fact she once filed a open records lawsuit against the Clinton administration alleging they were hiding evidence against the alleged assault, but then refused to prosecute her case or offer herself up for deposition.
To me, that suggests a willingness to lie or at least distort the truth--that where there are little or no legal consequences, one can say what they want, but if forced into a corner where there may be repercussions for lying, they shy away.
For all we know, Christine Blasey Ford could have lied under oath in her testimony to Congress. (I never said I thought what she said was the definite truth, only that I found her testimony credible) But at the very least, she allowed us the opportunity to consider her credibility.
Reade and Broaddrick don't seem to want that.
To be fair, Reade's allegations are in their infancy. So perhaps she might decide to go under oath after all. And if that happens, we can try to objectively and without bias judge her credibility for what it's worth.
But there's no excuse for Broaddrick.