The Rape Allegation Against Bill Clinton... explained

[rightwinger]

.
I'm one of those people who believes a woman's rape allegation should be taken seriously and believed-----believed right up to the moment when/if the evidence supports or doesn't support the allegation.

I find the most damning parts of the investigation into Juanita Broaddrick's allegation are:
- the FBI's investigation found the evidence to be "inconclusive"
- there are no direct witnesses
- there is no physical evidence
- no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room
- Broaddrick took no photos
- Broaddrick kept no evidence
- the hotel has no record to confirm that Broaddrick stayed there
- Broaddrick signed an affidavit stating "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton." before being pressured by Paula Jones's lawyers.

The rape allegation against Bill Clinton, explained
Oct 9, 2016

<snip>

In their 2000 book The Hunting of the President, Joe Conason and Gene Lyons note that the FBI investigated the allegation for Starr's independent counsel office and found the evidence "inconclusive." There are no direct witnesses and no physical evidence to back up the accusation. "It’s important to note — and Broaddrick concedes — that aside from her, there are no witnesses and as far as we know; no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room, or even the hotel," Myers said in the NBC broadcast. "She took no photos, kept no evidence, and the hotel has no records to confirm that she stayed there." That said, there are plenty of rapes where the victim has no physical evidence or good witnesses with which to back up her story. The lack of those categories of evidence makes the key question in the case, "Do we believe Broaddrick, or do we believe Clinton?"

In his memoir The Clinton Wars, White House aide Sidney Blumenthal notes that when Paula Jones's lawyers first approached Broaddrick, she refused to cooperate, and upon being subpoenaed signed an affidavit saying, "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton." Only after that did she file another affidavit insisting the assault did occur, at which point, Blumenthal argues, she "had no standing as a reliable witness."

<snip>

If Clinton haters think they can debunk what I wrote and C&Ped above, I suggest you read the entire article - who knows, maybe you'll find something you can glom onto.


.

Hillary set the whole thing up

 

[2aguy]

3 women claim he raped them, at least a dozen say he sexually assaulted them, they told friends and family at the time of the attack and one woman, a member of the Air Force, serving on Air Force One, told her military chain of command......all of these people are lying...and only bill clinton is telling the truth.....right?

 

[rightwinger]

3 women claim he raped them, at least a dozen say he sexually assaulted them, they told friends and family at the time of the attack and one woman, a member of the Air Force, serving on Air Force One, told her military chain of command......all of these people are lying...and only bill clinton is telling the truth.....right?

Let's see the evidence
That is the way things work in this country

A woman claims Trump raped her when she was 13........does that one count too?

 

[Star]

Do we believe the woman who said she was raped by Bill or the perv serial wife cheating pig who put a cigar into a young womans vagina then stuck it in his mouth...duh we believe the woman who claimed she was raped.

Why do you believe Broaddrick's changed story but not her original story? What other unsupported conspiracy theories do you believe?

Is that all ya got, he said, she said...?

I will always give her/any woman the benefit of the doubt right up to the point when the evidence abandons her word. To convict someone of the very-very serious crime of rape, there has to be proof and in this case there is no there... there. And-----and in this case there's more evidence that Broaddrick told the truth when she signed an affidavit that there was no criminal act by Bill Clinton.
After signing the affidavit, Broaddrick only reluctantly changed her story when pressured to do so by Paula Jones lawyers and by that time Broaddrick had switched her party affiliation.

C'mon, rightwingers/Republicans/Clinton haters, you've had 20 years to hone your conspiracy theory and all you can come up with is 'he said, she said? -pewsh!-

.

Here you go twit......

Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth?

She Changed Her Story:


In 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did notassault her. In 1998, Broaddrick told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she wasraped. Eventually, Broaddrick described the rape for several major news organizations.



Clinton Is Innocent: Broaddrick is either a liar or has an unreliable memory.

Clinton Is Guilty: Broaddrick's initial denials indicate only that she shunned publicity.

That's why she never reported the rape; rebuffed advances from Clinton's political enemies who, in 1992, urged her to go public; and lied to Paula Jones' lawyers.

She eventually told the FBI the truth in 1998 only because her son--a lawyer--advised her against lying to federal investigators. (At the time, it was reasonable to suspect she'd be hauled before a grand jury.)

She granted media interviews only after her name was released by Paula Jones' lawyers, and after tabloids printed wildly untrue stories about her. Given her aversion to politics and celebrity, Broaddrick would seem to have little or nothing to gain by falsely accusing Clinton of rape. Clinton, on the other hand, has plenty to gain from falsely denying her charges.



She Told Friends:

Five people say Broaddrick told them about the rape immediately after it occurred.

A friend and co-worker named Norma Kelsey says that, 21 years ago, she found a dazed Broaddrick with bloodied lip and torn pantyhose in their shared hotel room and Broaddrick explained that Clinton had just raped her.

(Clinton is supposed to have bitten her on the lip just before raping her.) Her current husband--then her lover--says Broaddrick told him about the rape within a few days of the event. Broaddrick was, at the time, married to another man, whom she didn't tell about the assault. And three of Broaddrick's friends--one of whom is Kelsey's sister--say she told them about the rape shortly after it supposedly occurred.




Clinton Is Guilty: If five friends say her story hasn't changed over 21 years, we can conclude that either that she's an unusually consistent liar or that her memory is reliable.



A Pattern of Behaviour?

Paula Jones accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in a hotel room. Kathleen Willey accused him of groping her in the Oval Office. And, by his own admission, Clinton has been dishonest with the American people before when it comes to sex.

Your two post muse is interesting for the base, but the opening sentence of your two posts says it all and debunks all the speculation that comes after - "To be clear, I’ve always found Broaddrick’s claims about Bill Clinton credible, though only the two of them know the truth."

Keep posting speculations, I'm sure rightwing/Republican/Clinton haters love reading theories more than actual facts.
.

 

[BluesLegend]

Do we believe the woman who said she was raped by Bill or the perv serial wife cheating pig who put a cigar into a young womans vagina then stuck it in his mouth...duh we believe the woman who claimed she was raped.

Why do you believe Broaddrick's changed story but not her original story? What other unsupported conspiracy theories do you believe?

Is that all ya got, he said, she said...?

I will always give her/any woman the benefit of the doubt right up to the point when the evidence abandons her word. To convict someone of the very-very serious crime of rape, there has to be proof and in this case there is no there... there. And-----and in this case there's more evidence that Broaddrick told the truth when she signed an affidavit that there was no criminal act by Bill Clinton.
After signing the affidavit, Broaddrick only reluctantly changed her story when pressured to do so by Paula Jones lawyers and by that time Broaddrick had switched her party affiliation.

C'mon, rightwingers/Republicans/Clinton haters, you've had 20 years to hone your conspiracy theory and all you can come up with is 'he said, she said? -pewsh!-

.

God get a clue your guy Bill has no shred of credibility, none. He is a proven LIAR, and admitted LIAR. Hello earth to Star

 

[LaDexter]

A woman claims Trump raped her when she was 13........does that one count too?

No, because she is a Hillary campaign operative and the accusation was never made until the campaign. The Brodderick accusation against Bill was told to many in real time, and is credible given the suspect.

 

[bodecea]

.
I'm one of those people who believes a woman's rape allegation should be taken seriously and believed-----believed right up to the moment when/if the evidence supports or doesn't support the allegation.

I find the most damning parts of the investigation into Juanita Broaddrick's allegation are:
- the FBI's investigation found the evidence to be "inconclusive"
- there are no direct witnesses
- there is no physical evidence
- no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room
- Broaddrick took no photos
- Broaddrick kept no evidence
- the hotel has no record to confirm that Broaddrick stayed there
- Broaddrick signed an affidavit stating "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton." before being pressured by Paula Jones's lawyers.

The rape allegation against Bill Clinton, explained
Oct 9, 2016

<snip>

In their 2000 book The Hunting of the President, Joe Conason and Gene Lyons note that the FBI investigated the allegation for Starr's independent counsel office and found the evidence "inconclusive." There are no direct witnesses and no physical evidence to back up the accusation. "It’s important to note — and Broaddrick concedes — that aside from her, there are no witnesses and as far as we know; no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room, or even the hotel," Myers said in the NBC broadcast. "She took no photos, kept no evidence, and the hotel has no records to confirm that she stayed there." That said, there are plenty of rapes where the victim has no physical evidence or good witnesses with which to back up her story. The lack of those categories of evidence makes the key question in the case, "Do we believe Broaddrick, or do we believe Clinton?"

In his memoir The Clinton Wars, White House aide Sidney Blumenthal notes that when Paula Jones's lawyers first approached Broaddrick, she refused to cooperate, and upon being subpoenaed signed an affidavit saying, "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton." Only after that did she file another affidavit insisting the assault did occur, at which point, Blumenthal argues, she "had no standing as a reliable witness."

<snip>

If Clinton haters think they can debunk what I wrote and C&Ped above, I suggest you read the entire article - who knows, maybe you'll find something you can glom onto.


.

What a positively revolting Clinton Rape Apologist you've become.

Where is the indictment? The conviction?

Why is it that all Drumpf minions have COMPLETELY ABANDONED the American belief that one is not guilty of a crime unless charged and convicted of it? More anti-Americanism from the Deplorables.

 

[LaDexter]

LOL!!!

So because Bill and Hillary didn't go to prison but the other 12 Whitewater partners did, Bill and Hillary were just wonderful and innocent???

LOL!!!

 

[rightwinger]

A woman claims Trump raped her when she was 13........does that one count too?

No, because she is a Hillary campaign operative and the accusation was never made until the campaign. The Brodderick accusation against Bill was told to many in real time, and is credible given the suspect.

Broderick was not a campaign operative last night?

How much did Trump pay her?

 

[boedicca]

.
I'm one of those people who believes a woman's rape allegation should be taken seriously and believed-----believed right up to the moment when/if the evidence supports or doesn't support the allegation.

I find the most damning parts of the investigation into Juanita Broaddrick's allegation are:
- the FBI's investigation found the evidence to be "inconclusive"
- there are no direct witnesses
- there is no physical evidence
- no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room
- Broaddrick took no photos
- Broaddrick kept no evidence
- the hotel has no record to confirm that Broaddrick stayed there
- Broaddrick signed an affidavit stating "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton." before being pressured by Paula Jones's lawyers.

The rape allegation against Bill Clinton, explained
Oct 9, 2016

<snip>

In their 2000 book The Hunting of the President, Joe Conason and Gene Lyons note that the FBI investigated the allegation for Starr's independent counsel office and found the evidence "inconclusive." There are no direct witnesses and no physical evidence to back up the accusation. "It’s important to note — and Broaddrick concedes — that aside from her, there are no witnesses and as far as we know; no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room, or even the hotel," Myers said in the NBC broadcast. "She took no photos, kept no evidence, and the hotel has no records to confirm that she stayed there." That said, there are plenty of rapes where the victim has no physical evidence or good witnesses with which to back up her story. The lack of those categories of evidence makes the key question in the case, "Do we believe Broaddrick, or do we believe Clinton?"

In his memoir The Clinton Wars, White House aide Sidney Blumenthal notes that when Paula Jones's lawyers first approached Broaddrick, she refused to cooperate, and upon being subpoenaed signed an affidavit saying, "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton." Only after that did she file another affidavit insisting the assault did occur, at which point, Blumenthal argues, she "had no standing as a reliable witness."

<snip>

If Clinton haters think they can debunk what I wrote and C&Ped above, I suggest you read the entire article - who knows, maybe you'll find something you can glom onto.


.

What a positively revolting Clinton Rape Apologist you've become.

Where is the indictment? The conviction?

Why is it that all Drumpf minions have COMPLETELY ABANDONED the American belief that one is not guilty of a crime unless charged and convicted of it? More anti-Americanism from the Deplorables.

One doesn't need an Indictment to form one's own judgement of a situation, silly wabbit.

 

[bodecea]

Do we believe the woman who said she was raped by Bill or the perv serial wife cheating pig who put a cigar into a young womans vagina then stuck it in his mouth...duh we believe the woman who claimed she was raped.

Why do you believe Broaddrick's changed story but not her original story? What other unsupported conspiracy theories do you believe?

Is that all ya got, he said, she said...?

I will always give her/any woman the benefit of the doubt right up to the point when the evidence abandons her word. To convict someone of the very-very serious crime of rape, there has to be proof and in this case there is no there... there. And-----and in this case there's more evidence that Broaddrick told the truth when she signed an affidavit that there was no criminal act by Bill Clinton.
After signing the affidavit, Broaddrick only reluctantly changed her story when pressured to do so by Paula Jones lawyers and by that time Broaddrick had switched her party affiliation.

C'mon, rightwingers/Republicans/Clinton haters, you've had 20 years to hone your conspiracy theory and all you can come up with is 'he said, she said? -pewsh!-

.

God get a clue your guy Bill has no shred of credibility, none. He is a proven LIAR, and admitted LIAR. Hello earth to Star

You know what your Drumpf said about Bill Clinton's accusers back in the day?

 

[bodecea]

.
I'm one of those people who believes a woman's rape allegation should be taken seriously and believed-----believed right up to the moment when/if the evidence supports or doesn't support the allegation.

I find the most damning parts of the investigation into Juanita Broaddrick's allegation are:
- the FBI's investigation found the evidence to be "inconclusive"
- there are no direct witnesses
- there is no physical evidence
- no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room
- Broaddrick took no photos
- Broaddrick kept no evidence
- the hotel has no record to confirm that Broaddrick stayed there
- Broaddrick signed an affidavit stating "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton." before being pressured by Paula Jones's lawyers.

The rape allegation against Bill Clinton, explained
Oct 9, 2016

<snip>

In their 2000 book The Hunting of the President, Joe Conason and Gene Lyons note that the FBI investigated the allegation for Starr's independent counsel office and found the evidence "inconclusive." There are no direct witnesses and no physical evidence to back up the accusation. "It’s important to note — and Broaddrick concedes — that aside from her, there are no witnesses and as far as we know; no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room, or even the hotel," Myers said in the NBC broadcast. "She took no photos, kept no evidence, and the hotel has no records to confirm that she stayed there." That said, there are plenty of rapes where the victim has no physical evidence or good witnesses with which to back up her story. The lack of those categories of evidence makes the key question in the case, "Do we believe Broaddrick, or do we believe Clinton?"

In his memoir The Clinton Wars, White House aide Sidney Blumenthal notes that when Paula Jones's lawyers first approached Broaddrick, she refused to cooperate, and upon being subpoenaed signed an affidavit saying, "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton." Only after that did she file another affidavit insisting the assault did occur, at which point, Blumenthal argues, she "had no standing as a reliable witness."

<snip>

If Clinton haters think they can debunk what I wrote and C&Ped above, I suggest you read the entire article - who knows, maybe you'll find something you can glom onto.


.

What a positively revolting Clinton Rape Apologist you've become.

Where is the indictment? The conviction?

Why is it that all Drumpf minions have COMPLETELY ABANDONED the American belief that one is not guilty of a crime unless charged and convicted of it? More anti-Americanism from the Deplorables.

One doesn't need an Indictment to form one's own judgement of a situation, silly wabbit.

Ah...so it's just an opinion. Ok. We've all got one of those. They don't stand in for Rule of Law tho.

 

[bodecea]

3 women claim he raped them, at least a dozen say he sexually assaulted them, they told friends and family at the time of the attack and one woman, a member of the Air Force, serving on Air Force One, told her military chain of command......all of these people are lying...and only bill clinton is telling the truth.....right?

And where are the indictments? Why would they not report to the police?

 

[LaDexter]

You know what your Drumpf said about Bill Clinton's accusers back in the day?

He parroted the "US" media, just like he did on Howard Stern about Iraq.

So, he isn't a genius. He is still a huge improvement over Parkinson's Hillary...

 

[boedicca]

.
I'm one of those people who believes a woman's rape allegation should be taken seriously and believed-----believed right up to the moment when/if the evidence supports or doesn't support the allegation.

I find the most damning parts of the investigation into Juanita Broaddrick's allegation are:
- the FBI's investigation found the evidence to be "inconclusive"
- there are no direct witnesses
- there is no physical evidence
- no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room
- Broaddrick took no photos
- Broaddrick kept no evidence
- the hotel has no record to confirm that Broaddrick stayed there
- Broaddrick signed an affidavit stating "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton." before being pressured by Paula Jones's lawyers.

The rape allegation against Bill Clinton, explained
Oct 9, 2016

<snip>

In their 2000 book The Hunting of the President, Joe Conason and Gene Lyons note that the FBI investigated the allegation for Starr's independent counsel office and found the evidence "inconclusive." There are no direct witnesses and no physical evidence to back up the accusation. "It’s important to note — and Broaddrick concedes — that aside from her, there are no witnesses and as far as we know; no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room, or even the hotel," Myers said in the NBC broadcast. "She took no photos, kept no evidence, and the hotel has no records to confirm that she stayed there." That said, there are plenty of rapes where the victim has no physical evidence or good witnesses with which to back up her story. The lack of those categories of evidence makes the key question in the case, "Do we believe Broaddrick, or do we believe Clinton?"

In his memoir The Clinton Wars, White House aide Sidney Blumenthal notes that when Paula Jones's lawyers first approached Broaddrick, she refused to cooperate, and upon being subpoenaed signed an affidavit saying, "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton." Only after that did she file another affidavit insisting the assault did occur, at which point, Blumenthal argues, she "had no standing as a reliable witness."

<snip>

If Clinton haters think they can debunk what I wrote and C&Ped above, I suggest you read the entire article - who knows, maybe you'll find something you can glom onto.


.

What a positively revolting Clinton Rape Apologist you've become.

Where is the indictment? The conviction?

Why is it that all Drumpf minions have COMPLETELY ABANDONED the American belief that one is not guilty of a crime unless charged and convicted of it? More anti-Americanism from the Deplorables.

One doesn't need an Indictment to form one's own judgement of a situation, silly wabbit.

Ah...so it's just an opinion. Ok. We've all got one of those. They don't stand in for Rule of Law tho.

No, it's my considered judgement based upon the facts at hand.

And as your candidate has said:

"I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard."

Hillary, September 14, 2015

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported"

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 23, 2015

 

[LaDexter]

1990 before the ABA. Hillary said

WHEN a woman accuses a man of sexual harassment, WE SHOULD BELIEVE THE WOMAN

When Paula Jones sued her "husband," it became "a vast right wing conspiracy."

When Paula Jones won and settled for 1 million bucks, Hillary shut up...

 

[PoliticalChic]

.
I'm one of those people who believes a woman's rape allegation should be taken seriously and believed-----believed right up to the moment when/if the evidence supports or doesn't support the allegation.

I find the most damning parts of the investigation into Juanita Broaddrick's allegation are:
- the FBI's investigation found the evidence to be "inconclusive"
- there are no direct witnesses
- there is no physical evidence
- no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room
- Broaddrick took no photos
- Broaddrick kept no evidence
- the hotel has no record to confirm that Broaddrick stayed there
- Broaddrick signed an affidavit stating "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton." before being pressured by Paula Jones's lawyers.

The rape allegation against Bill Clinton, explained
Oct 9, 2016

<snip>

In their 2000 book The Hunting of the President, Joe Conason and Gene Lyons note that the FBI investigated the allegation for Starr's independent counsel office and found the evidence "inconclusive." There are no direct witnesses and no physical evidence to back up the accusation. "It’s important to note — and Broaddrick concedes — that aside from her, there are no witnesses and as far as we know; no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room, or even the hotel," Myers said in the NBC broadcast. "She took no photos, kept no evidence, and the hotel has no records to confirm that she stayed there." That said, there are plenty of rapes where the victim has no physical evidence or good witnesses with which to back up her story. The lack of those categories of evidence makes the key question in the case, "Do we believe Broaddrick, or do we believe Clinton?"

In his memoir The Clinton Wars, White House aide Sidney Blumenthal notes that when Paula Jones's lawyers first approached Broaddrick, she refused to cooperate, and upon being subpoenaed signed an affidavit saying, "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton." Only after that did she file another affidavit insisting the assault did occur, at which point, Blumenthal argues, she "had no standing as a reliable witness."

<snip>

If Clinton haters think they can debunk what I wrote and C&Ped above, I suggest you read the entire article - who knows, maybe you'll find something you can glom onto.


.

What a positively revolting Clinton Rape Apologist you've become.

Where is the indictment? The conviction?

Why is it that all Drumpf minions have COMPLETELY ABANDONED the American belief that one is not guilty of a crime unless charged and convicted of it? More anti-Americanism from the Deplorables.

"Only three out of every 100 rapists will ever spend even a single day in prison, according to a new analysis by RAINN of Justice Department data. The other 97 will walk free, facing no consequences for the violent felony they have committed. Because rapists tend to be serial criminals, this leaves communities across the nation at risk of predators. ... "This staggering statistic sends a clear message to offenders that they can commit this horrible crime and get away with it. The single most important thing we can do to prevent rape is to put more rapists in prison," notes Scott Berkowitz, RAINN's president and founder."
https://rainn.org/news-room/97-of-every-100-rapists-receive-no-punishment


"Uday: career of rape, torture and murder
He was a monster even by the standards of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a sadist with a taste for cruelty so extreme that even his father was forced to acknowledge that his first-born son would not be a worthy heir."
Uday: career of rape, torture and murder

Bet you're waiting for an indictment, huh?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

^ Bill in Hell, facing his victims

 

[PoliticalChic]

3 women claim he raped them, at least a dozen say he sexually assaulted them, they told friends and family at the time of the attack and one woman, a member of the Air Force, serving on Air Force One, told her military chain of command......all of these people are lying...and only bill clinton is telling the truth.....right?

Let's see the evidence
That is the way things work in this country

A woman claims Trump raped her when she was 13........does that one count too?

I remember when you said that after Harry Reid said that Romney never paid any taxes....

Oh, wait....you didn't.

 

[2aguy]

3 women claim he raped them, at least a dozen say he sexually assaulted them, they told friends and family at the time of the attack and one woman, a member of the Air Force, serving on Air Force One, told her military chain of command......all of these people are lying...and only bill clinton is telling the truth.....right?

And where are the indictments? Why would they not report to the police?

Against the Attorney General of the State....against the Governor of the State.....against the President of the United States....women had a hard time coming forward on bill cosby and he was a comedian.......moron.....