Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones in the past . . . You know, the women that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy
(A) Those cases were investigated. Broaddrick's was investigated by Ken Starr, who declared the evidence "inconclusive." It's possible there was sexual assault, but if Starr thinks there wasn't enough evidence, the evidence for a conviction wasn't there.
Starr also investigated Willey's claims, and discovered that she had repeatedly lied under oath. Also, on March 19, 1998, Julie Hiatt Steele declared in an affidavit that Willey asked her to lie about the incident. Willey was most likely lying when she made her claim.
Jones claimed sexual harassment, not rape. Again, this was investigated, and the mark she claimed to be on Clinton's penis did not exist. Eventually, Susan Webber Wright, who was appointed to the bench by G.H.W. Bush, dismissed Jones' suit as being without legal merit.
In all three cases, the investigations were done. The only allegation I can view as possible is Broaddrick's.
(B) Politifact looked into Trump's claim that H. Clinton "viciously" attacked Bill's accusers, and found it to be mostly false. The only definite attack they found was Hillary's decision to release some letters written by Willey. This hardly qualifies as destruction.
(C) Ford's allegations should get the same treatment as Broaddrick's, Willey's, and Jones': an impartial investigation should be set up, and the claims evaluated.