Juanita Broaddrick: "After Bill Clinton viciously raped me - he said, "Don’t worry, I’m sterile due to mumps when I was a boy.”

[MAGA Macho Man]

Saw this tweet earlier and it got me thinking that I guess this confirms Webb Hubbell is the father of Chelsea Clinton.

 

[Doc7505]

Saw this tweet earlier and it got me thinking that I guess this confirms Webb Hubbell is the father of Chelsea Clinton.

View attachment 883631

Gee, somebody had it in for him.... Poor Chelsea, she never knew her real dad. Just think of all that plastic surgery she's gone through since and it hasn't helped one iota..

 

[konradv]

Saw this tweet earlier and it got me thinking that I guess this confirms Webb Hubbell is the father of Chelsea Clinton.

View attachment 883631

This is a current event?!?!

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

This is a current event?!?!

Yes, look at the date of the tweet!

 

[konradv]

Yes, look at the date of the tweet!

A tweet is an event? Get a life!

 

[toobfreak]

Juanita Broaddrick: "After Bill Clinton viciously raped me - he said, "Don’t worry, I’m sterile due to mumps when I was a boy.”​

Now how would poor Juanita know that unless it were true! Guess we will have to look through Billy's medical records.

 

[MinTrut]

Saw this tweet earlier and it got me thinking that I guess this confirms Webb Hubbell is the father of Chelsea Clinton.

View attachment 883631

This is not a current event.

This is old - though still repulsive - news.

Clinton's a serial rapist.

 

[Dragonlady]

This is not a current event.

This is old - though still repulsive - news.

Clinton's a serial rapist.

At the time that Broaddick and Clinton had their one night stand, Anita was married to one man and having an affair with another. She told both men that Clinton raped her. Yet she continued to work on his campaign and never distanced herself from him.

Now divorced from her first husband, and married to her lover, Anita Broaddrick signed an affidavit in the Paula Jones Trial saying Bill Clinton did not rape her. Ken Starr threatened to arrest her for perjury, using her ex-husband's testimony that she told him Clinton raped her, unless she recanted that affidavit and said he raped her.

Broaddrick was reluctant to tell her story. She declined opportunities to be interviewed for years and when investigators for Paula Jones, who also accused Clinton of sexual harassment, approached, she rebuffed them.

On Jan. 2, 1998, she provided those investigators with a sworn affidavit.

"During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies," she said. "Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family."

https://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497291071/a-brief-history-of-juanita-broaddrick-the-woman-accusing-bill-clinton-of-rape

Starr gave her immunity from prosecution if she recanted her affidavit, and promised to send her to jail, if she didn't. So Anita changed her story - again.

So which time was Anita telling the truth - when she went home after the incident and only told the two other men she was involved with that she was raped, when she willingly signed an affidavit saying she was never raped, or when she was threatened with jail unless she said Clinton raped her.

Common sense says that the only story that makes sense is her affidavit in the Jones Trial. She was under no pressure to say it never happened. She wasn't risking her marriage in saying it wasn't true.

The coerced rape claim made after Starr's threats and the coercion involved has invalidates it completely. That testimoney would NEVER be admissable in a trial.

 

[MinTrut]

At the time that Broaddick and Clinton had their one night stand, Anita was married to one man and having an affair with another. She told both men that Clinton raped her. Yet she continued to work on his campaign and never distanced herself from him.

Now divorced from her first husband, and married to her lover, Anita Broaddrick signed an affidavit in the Paula Jones Trial saying Bill Clinton did not rape her. Ken Starr threatened to arrest her for perjury, using her ex-husband's testimony that she told him Clinton raped her, unless she recanted that affidavit and said he raped her.

https://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497291071/a-brief-history-of-juanita-broaddrick-the-woman-accusing-bill-clinton-of-rape

Starr gave her immunity from prosecution if she recanted her affidavit, and promised to send her to jail, if she didn't. So Anita changed her story - again.

So which time was Anita telling the truth - when she went home after the incident and only told the two other men she was involved with that she was raped, when she willingly signed an affidavit saying she was never raped, or when she was threatened with jail unless she said Clinton raped her.

Common sense says that the only story that makes sense is her affidavit in the Jones Trial. She was under no pressure to say it never happened. She wasn't risking her marriage in saying it wasn't true.

The coerced rape claim made after Starr's threats and the coercion involved has invalidates it completely. That testimoney would NEVER be admissable in a trial.

I appreciate your take on this particular situation, but Clinton's a serial rapist.

 

[JoeB131]

Saw this tweet earlier and it got me thinking that I guess this confirms Webb Hubbell is the father of Chelsea Clinton.

View attachment 883631

Yeah, I'd take Juanita Broderick more seriously if she didn't file TWO Affadavitts claiming she never had sex with Clinton.

If she could tell us the date that this happened to her.
Or the Room number of the hotel.
Or could provide proof that either she or Clinton ever registered at that hotel.
Or if she hadn't accepted an appointment to a state commission from Clinton after he supposedly raped her.
Or if she didn't continue to show up at Clinton fundraisers and events after he supposedly raped her.

Or if she hadn't changed the details of her story multiple times. (For instance, back in the 1990s, she made no mention of Hillary, until Hillary was running against Trump, and then Hillary supposedly "threatened" her by thanking her for her support. )

 

[skews13]

This is a current event?!?!

Posted this at 1:27 AM.

This troll has no life.

 

[JohnDB]

I appreciate your take on this particular situation, but Clinton's a serial rapist.

I don't know about him being a serial rapist...

The fact of Epsteins Island, underage girls as well as the numerous other instances of his sexual improprieties....

He is a deviant...A rapist? Dunno....because some women take a kernel of truth and explode it into something it wasn't.

It's not like people have sex publicly....for the whole world to witness (unless you are a porn producer)

Rape is all about domination and control...not sex itself. I don't see that behavior in Bill....desire and perversion yes...domination and subjugation no.

 

[jbrownson0831]

Posted this at 1:27 AM.

This troll has no life.

Hahahahahahaha skrewey calling someone else a troll with no life.
The difference is that he has a brain right skrewey??

 

[JoeB131]

This is not a current event.

This is old - though still repulsive - news.

Clinton's a serial rapist.

I will admit, Clinton is a womanizer, and if Hillary had any integrity, she'd have kicked him to the curb.

But there's no evidence he ever raped anyone. All the women who came forward either admitted to consensual relationships or were straight up lying like Brodderick.

I appreciate your take on this particular situation, but Clinton's a serial rapist.

Based on what?

Let's limit this conversation to just Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Willey, the three women who have made "accusing Clinton of misconduct" their permanent jobs since the 1990s.

Juanita Broderick was a liar, as stated above. She either lied in her affidavit, or she's lying now, or maybe she lied on both. (That her relationship with Clinton was consensual, but she found there's money in accusing him of rape.) .

Kathleen Willey is a liar. After this supposed incident in the White House, she continued to lobby Clinton and his staff for a job to pay off the massive debt she had from her husband who offed himself. This is not something a rape victim does. Not to mention all of her other acts of fraud, like hiding assets by transferring them to her children so that her husband's creditors couldn't get at them.

But even if you take her claims at face value, that Clinton made a pass at her, that isn't rape. When she said no, Clinton stopped. Not Rape.

then you have Paula Jones. You know, the one who posed for Penthouse to raise money to pay off her lawyers after they kept most of her settlement and still demanded more. (Thereby proving MOST people look better with their clothes on.) At face value, Clinton supposedly exposed himself to her, but then backed down when she said no.

She also made a claim that Clinton's male member had a "distinguishing characteristic," which is not supported by either Clinton's medical records OR any of the women who did have relationships with him.

Now, all that said, Clinton is a creep. He has very little honor, and it's a shame we keep electing people like him and Trump. Used to be adultery was a career killer in politics, as it should be. If your wife can't trust you, why should I?

 

[jknowgood]

Yeah, I'd take Juanita Broderick more seriously if she didn't file TWO Affadavitts claiming she never had sex with Clinton.

If she could tell us the date that this happened to her.
Or the Room number of the hotel.
Or could provide proof that either she or Clinton ever registered at that hotel.
Or if she hadn't accepted an appointment to a state commission from Clinton after he supposedly raped her.
Or if she didn't continue to show up at Clinton fundraisers and events after he supposedly raped her.

Or if she hadn't changed the details of her story multiple times. (For instance, back in the 1990s, she made no mention of Hillary, until Hillary was running against Trump, and then Hillary supposedly "threatened" her by thanking her for her support. )

You believed Kavanaugh's accuser when she couldn't recall when or where. Can I say hypocrite?

 

[Blaster]

Clinton's a serial rapist.

Yep.

 

[pknopp]

At the time that Broaddick and Clinton had their one night stand, Anita was married to one man and having an affair with another. She told both men that Clinton raped her. Yet she continued to work on his campaign and never distanced herself from him.

Now divorced from her first husband, and married to her lover, Anita Broaddrick signed an affidavit in the Paula Jones Trial saying Bill Clinton did not rape her. Ken Starr threatened to arrest her for perjury, using her ex-husband's testimony that she told him Clinton raped her, unless she recanted that affidavit and said he raped her.

https://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497291071/a-brief-history-of-juanita-broaddrick-the-woman-accusing-bill-clinton-of-rape

Starr gave her immunity from prosecution if she recanted her affidavit, and promised to send her to jail, if she didn't. So Anita changed her story - again.

So which time was Anita telling the truth - when she went home after the incident and only told the two other men she was involved with that she was raped, when she willingly signed an affidavit saying she was never raped, or when she was threatened with jail unless she said Clinton raped her.

Common sense says that the only story that makes sense is her affidavit in the Jones Trial. She was under no pressure to say it never happened. She wasn't risking her marriage in saying it wasn't true.

The coerced rape claim made after Starr's threats and the coercion involved has invalidates it completely. That testimoney would NEVER be admissable in a trial.

Bill was scum. Quit defending him. For the life of me I can not understand how those who still defend Bill can condemn Trump supporters when they defend him and visa versa.

I can't fathom anyone defending either of them.

 

[JoeB131]

You believed Kavanaugh's accuser when she couldn't recall when or where. Can I say hypocrite?

Well, because she was a distinguished academic who didn't change her story every five minutes.

Bill was scum. Quit defending him. For the life of me I can not understand how those who still defend Bill can condemn Trump supporters when they defend him and visa versa.

I can't fathom anyone defending either of them.

I think it's a matter of defending them against false charges.

Clinton is a womanizing creep. He's not a rapist.

 

[pknopp]

Well, because she was a distinguished academic who didn't change her story every five minutes.



I think it's a matter of defending them against false charges.

Clinton is a womanizing creep. He's not a rapist.

That is at best arguable. Do you feel a womanizing creep is what we should have lead the country? Being a womanizing creep is someone you feel you need to defend?

 

[boevans]

Clinton sounds as bad as Trump.