We’re told the time of judgment is upon Bill Clinton at last. In the wake of the Weinstein-Halperin-Moore revelations that have shaken the foundations of the country’s cultural and political elites, liberals are acknowledging Clinton’s conduct toward women was unconscionable.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes got the ball rolling when he tweeted: “Democrats and the center left are overdue for a real reckoning with the allegations against him.” This week, the New York Times published an op-ed called “I Believe Juanita” — thus accepting the single most incendiary charge ever leveled at the former president.

This one was not about Clinton propositioning women, as he did with Paula Jones in 1991. Or having had affairs with them, as with Gennifer Flowers in the 1980s. Or making advances on them in the Oval Office, as was the case with Kathleen Willey in 1993. Or having sought out an underling for sex, as was the case with Monica Lewinsky in 1995 and 1996.

No, the Times’ Michelle Goldberg said she believed Juanita Broaddrick, who says Clinton violently raped her in 1978 when he was Arkansas attorney general.

It was painful, Hayes and Goldberg acknowledged, to bring these matters up because they feared they’d look like they had somehow surrendered to a right-wing lynch mob. Hayes complained about how “gross and cynical and hypocrtical [sic] . . . the right’s ‘what about Bill Clinton’ stuff is.”

Goldberg said liberals were right to be skeptical of women’s claims against Clinton during his presidency due to the right-wing campaign to delegitimize him: “In this environment, it would have been absurd to take accusations of assault and harassment made against Clinton at face value.”

Just replace “Clinton” in that sentence with “Trump” and you have the gist of the conservative defense of the current president.

Yet Goldberg cannot keep herself from seeing a truth that was evident during the Clinton presidency to anyone with eyes to see: Bill Clinton was a sexual reprobate whose ascension to the Democratic nomination after the revelation of his relationship with Flowers during the primaries was a hinge moment in American history.

No one before him would’ve survived it. He did by denying it hotly — and was saved from perdition’s flames by his Hillary. She sat there on “60 Minutes” and supported him even as she said she wasn’t the type of woman who’d just “stand by her man.” Later, Clinton acknowledged the five-year Flowers affair in testimony before an independent counsel.

In 1998, when the news of his liaison with Lewinsky became public, the Clintons did it again. Bill said he did not have sexual relations with Miss Lewinsky, and Hillary went on the “Today” show and said her husband had unjustly been placed in the target sights of a “right-wing conspiracy.”

If you want to know how Roy Moore of Alabama might survive these charges against him and win the Senate race in December, look no farther than Hillary Clinton’s words. Again, replace “right-wing” with “left-wing” (or “GOP establishment”) and you have the entirety of Moore’s defense.

The Clinton play in the wake of the Lewinsky revelation was to signal to their supporters and the entire Democratic liberal left that any crack in their defense of him would allow a Puritanical right-wing flood to engulf the country.

And anyway, even if you believed he’d done it, what had he done? It was a peccadillo, really nothing more than the sainted JFK had done in his tragically shortened time in the Oval.

Moore is saying exactly the same thing to conservatives: Allow yourselves to believe in the truth of these claims and you are going to surrender this country to godlessness and transgenderism.

And anyway, what did Moore do that was really so terrible? After all, Joseph was an older man and Mary was a younger woman, right?

Clinton won the argument in 1998. And if you want to see his monument, look around. His wife became a popular Democratic politician in the wake of her 1998 crucible. And then, in the last cycle, she ran the worst presidential campaign in US history and lost the race to a man she couldn’t plausibly or effectively criticize for his conduct toward women.

After all, hadn’t Hillary Clinton been married to the man who had so lowered the standards for presidential behavior that he made Trump an acceptable choice?

So many Trump supporters had watched in disgust as Clinton escaped from his due reckoning, survived his impeachment and readied to re-enter the White House as the First Gentleman. And many of them said to themselves, 18 years later, “if it was OK for Clinton to tell Paula Jones to ‘kiss it,’ it’s fine by me that Trump said he wanted to ‘grab women’ by the . . .”

Which means this, Michelle Goldberg. If you or people like you had believed Broaddrick in 1998, or Jones in 1994, or Flowers in 1992, and said so, here’s what might have happened. Clinton might have been impeached and removed, in which case, guess who would have been president? Al Gore.

Which means you might not have gotten George W. Bush in 2000. And, most important, you wouldn’t have President Trump today.

Nice work, liberals.