The Rape Allegation Against Bill Clinton... explained

[Star]

.
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.

You didn't have to tell us, we already knew! Rightwingers/Republicans are willing to convict a person on nothing more than hearsay but-----but thanks for the confession anyway.
.

 

[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?

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.....

Assuming that Clinton supporters are not totally brain-dead, their denials are merely pretense. They'd rather not admit that they couldn't care less if one of their icon's is a rapist.
This view, lack of character, fits with the fact that the man they put in the White House endorsed infanticide....



And this applies:

"The deniers first deceive themselves that they are sincere in their adherence to falsehoods. Thus they cannot be faulted for acting on genuinely held views. But in truth, they have cultivated an ignorance of the facts, what Thomas Aquinas called ignorantia affectata. An ignorance so useful that one protects it at all costs, in order to continue using it in one’s own self interest. This ignorance is not exculpatory, but inculpatory. Forgive them not, for they know full well what they do.'
RICHARD BADALAMENTE

 

[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.

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

You didn't have to tell us, we already knew! Rightwingers/Republicans are willing to convict a person on nothing more than hearsay but-----but thanks for the confession anyway.
.

A quick review:
Clinton is a rapist
Obama supported killing of infants born of a botched abortion
Ted Kennedy was both a killer and a traitor to the nation

...and Joseph Stalin murdered millions.


That's the Cliffnotes version of the Left.



Even shorter:
"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky