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.


.

 

[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.


.

C'mon Republicans/rightwingers, this rape conspiracy claim against Bill Clinton has been part of your meme for over 20 years - I'd think you'd be able to at least try-----AT LEAST TRY to defend your conspiracy theory with some sort of fact-checkable evidence? Or, am I to believe you've always known your accusations were just 20 years of Republican bullshit?

Crickets!​

.

 

[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.

 

[The VOR]

.
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.


.

C'mon Republicans/rightwingers, this rape conspiracy claim against Bill Clinton has been part of your meme for over 20 years - I'd think you'd be able to at least try-----AT LEAST TRY to defend your conspiracy theory with some sort of fact-checkable evidence? Or, am I to believe you've always known your accusations were just 20 years of Republican bullshit?

Crickets!​

.

Okay, since none of the nutters will bite, I'll play devil's advocate/nutter.

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"
Come on now, we all know the FBI has been in the bag for the Clintons since day one.

- there are no direct witnesses
Hillary had them assassinated

- there is no physical evidence
Destroyed by the main stream media

- no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room
The witnesses were paid off with hush money from the Clinton Foundation

- Broaddrick took no photos
She did, but some black guy stole her camera

- Broaddrick kept no evidence
She did, but a second black guy stole the rest of the evidence

- the hotel has no record to confirm that Broaddrick stayed there
Obviously, she wasn't savvy enough to get a room at one of trump's hotels, and instead stayed at a democratically controlled hotel

- 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.
Hillary was holding a gun to her head at the time she signed that affadavit

 

[The VOR]

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.

You're too stupid to know what to believe.

 

[Lakhota]

.
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.


.

Thank you. People who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.

Trump trying to deflect from his own history of sexually assaulting women is sadly hilarious. His court date for raping a 13-year-old girl is only four days away - on October 14, 2016.

A federal lawsuit accusing Donald Trump of raping a 13-year-old girl during a party hosted by convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein 20 years ago in New York is still in the early stages. A pre-trial conference that was scheduled for September 9 was recently pushed back to October.

Donald Trump Rape Lawsuit: When Is the Next Court Date?

 

[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.

You're too stupid to know what to believe.

Do you ever post something that is not a trolling personal attack? Apparently are filled with rage and anger, go speak with a mental health professional.

 

[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!-

.

 

[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.

 

[LaDexter]

Bill did it.

Hillary attacked the victim.


There, that's what happened.

 

[bornright]

All rape accusations should be investigated to the fullest no matter who the accused is. Most are "he said she said". In most cases the man is deemed to be at fault even if there is no physical evidence except that sex took place. Wild Bill has had many complaints by many different women so one would tend to believe something did happen. One thing I have always felt unfair is when it has been proven that the woman lied generally they face no penalty even though it destroyed the accused. Perhaps it would be fair if the woman lied that she receive the same punishment as the male would have received had he been found guilty.

 

[Norman]

Here is what I think happened:

1. Bill has very violent, perverse sex habbits.
2. He was a president.
3. Women love high status males.
4. He had lot of sex with those women.
5. Some of them might have been slightly pissed that he just threw them away / was violent, afterwards.

And that's that. However, if they are going to call Donald misogynist over his locker room style banter, then this is a serious issue for sure. With that level of hysteria, he is to be considered a rapist without doubt.

It's amusing to watch as Hillary's "listen and believe" rhetoric doesn't quite work for her.

 

[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.

Unless the conspiracy theorists come up with some kind of evidence that, at this point, doesn't seem to exist, it's actually Broaddrick that should be making an apology for making an allegation 16 years after the alleged incident but...

But it looks to me like it's more likely Clinton and Broaddrick had consensual sex, then she told her friends, then married her lover then, and only then 16 years later did she change her story - that of course is just my speculation based on the facts as I know them.

This thread is yours and other conspiracy theorists opportunity to provide proof that Juanita Broaddrick's unsubstantiated allegation is anything more than a cover-up for having consensual sex with a governor she no longer supported. - g'head, make my day!

.

 

[LaDexter]

Juanita had nowhere to go since she was raped by... a Democratic Party state ATTORNEY GENERAL....


If you like corrupt justice officials, vote Hillary. She has no problem when her "prosecutors" rape innocent women.

Juanita's allegation came out during Paula Jones.

Was it OK for Bill to sexharass Jones?? He paid a million to settle...

 

[2aguy]

.
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.


.

You cite Sydney Blumenthal....hilary clinton's Renfield.........the guy who tried to spread the "Monica is a crazy slut" rumor to the Washington press and spread the birther issue to the press.....you cite that guy?

Vs. the friends and family members and the military members who all say these women told them at the time of the attack that they were raped and sexually assaulted.....?

 

[LaDexter]

Mr. Blumenthal is a big in the ISRAEL LOBBY and was very involved with funnelling weapons to ISIS through Benghazi...

He lacks a single molecule of patriotism to the US, and was investing in defense stocks, gold and oil big time during the first half of 2001.

 

[2aguy]

Here you go....do some research that doesn't come from the political operatives hilary used to silence these women.....

Slate magazine...claims of rape credible...


Juanita Broaddrick’s Rape Allegations Are Credible. Her Attacks on Hillary Clinton Are Not.

To be clear, I’ve always found Broaddrick’s claims about Bill Clinton credible, though only the two of them know the truth. Five people say she told them about the assault right after it allegedly happened. She denied the rape in a 1997 affidavit filed with Paula Jones’ lawyers but changed her story the next year, when she was interviewed by the FBI in the course of Kenneth Starr’s investigation.

At the time, some Clinton defenders treated her changing story as evidence of her untrustworthiness, but it seems perfectly plausible that, as she told the New York Times, she hadn’t wanted to go public but also felt she couldn’t lie to federal investigators. In the 1990s, Clinton defenders sometimes pointed to the fact that Broaddrick attended a Clinton fundraiser three weeks after she says he raped her. But we know it’s not uncommon for rape victims to blame themselves and continue to seek their rapists’ favo

10/1/16

Articles: Hill on Bill’s Women: 'We Reached Out to Them'

In August 1996, still worried about Perdue’s potential to disrupt the campaign, the Clintons had Democratic party operative Ron Tucker speak to Perdue. According to Perdue, Tucker told her, “There were people in high places who were anxious about me and they wanted me to know that keeping my mouth shut would be worthwhile.”

“Worthwhile” meant a GS-11 or higher job with the federal government. If she turned down the offer and talked to the media, “He couldn't guarantee what would happen to my pretty little legs.” After harassing phone calls and damage to her car, Perdue chose to go into hiding.

Perdue was the least of the Clintons’ problems in 1992. More potentially troublesome were the women that Clinton had assaulted, Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, and Paula Jones among others.

This week’s Post article pulls its punches on both Jones and Broaddrick. In thePost’s account, Jones was “groped” and Broaddrick was the victim of a claimed “sexual assault.” Yes, Clinton did grope Jones, but as she would later testify under oath, “Mr. Clinton then walked over to the sofa, lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told me to ‘kiss it.’"

As to Broaddrick, she was not merely assaulted. She was raped. “It was a real panicky, panicky situation,” Broaddrick told NBC’s Lisa Myers in February 1999. “I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’ And that’s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip.”

Immediately afterwards, a colleague found Broaddrick in her hotel room crying and “in a state of shock,” her pantyhose torn and her lip swollen. The Post made no mention of Hillary’s literal hands-on effort to silence Broaddrick. “She threatened me at that fundraiser,” Broaddrick said of an intimidating grip-and-grin with Hillary soon after the rape, “that’s foremost in my mind; I’ll never forget that; I’ll never forget that encounter.”

The Post article in question makes no mention of Gracen. As Iskoff reported in his 1999 book, Uncovering Clinton, Gracen had a one-off with Clinton in 1983 when Clinton was governor and she was serving as Miss America.

To assure Gracen’s silence during the 1992 campaign, Clinton campaign manager Mickey Kantor got together with Clinton’s friend and Hollywood producer, Harry Thomason, and they arranged for her to take a part in a mini-series then filming in Croatia.

There was a reason to get Gracen out of the country. Like Broaddrick, Gracen was married when she was sexually assaulted by Clinton. “It was rough sex,” Isikoff wrote, “Clinton got so carried away that he bit her lip, Gracen later told friends. But it was consensual.”

Writing before Broaddrick’s prime-time confession, Isikoff missed the lip-biting MO. He also failed to acknowledge that at least one of Gracen’s friends, Judy Stokes, had told the Paula Jones legal team that the sex was not consensual at all.

“Do you believe Clinton raped her?” investigator Rick Lambert asked her. “Absolutely,” Stokes replied. “He forced her to have sex. What do you call that?”

In April 1998, Gracen came to the embattled Clinton’s aid, this time by recanting an earlier lie that she had never had sex with Clinton. In a television interview, Gracen said of the 1983 encounter with Clinton, “What I did was wrong, and I feel very bad about it now.” Gracen denied that the sex was coerced and said almost laughably of Hillary, “I’ll apologize to her now. It was wrong.”

After her 1998 TV interview, fearing a subpoena from prosecutor Ken Starr, Gracen flew to the Caribbean where she went island hopping for several months. “She had no interest being drawn into the case,” wrote Isikoff. “She had already lied for Clinton once.”

Then as now, the media had no interest in discovering who arranged for Gracen’s faux apology or her sun-drenched flight from justice.

Despite her decades-long sexist and classist war on women, Hillary had confidence enough in the major media to tweet in November 2015, “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”




Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth?


Bill Clinton s ong history of sexual assault

Washingtonpost.com Special Report Clinton Accused

Clinton s list of ignored accusers - Illinois Review

Here is a post from U.S. message that lists clintons victims...

Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.

Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled.

Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton’s leased campaign plane in 1992, says presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.

Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, said that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November 1993. Willey became a target for a Hillary directed smear campaign after she went public.

Why Hillary Is Not Inevitable Bill s Sordid Past The Daily Caller
Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth
Bill Clinton has the real rape problem
Bill Clinton s ong history of sexual assault
Hillary s War on Women

Clinton s list of ignored accusers - Illinois Review

• Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
• Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
• Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
• Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
• Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
• Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
• 22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
• Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
• Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations

• Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
• Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
• 1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
• 1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
• Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
• Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
• Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
• Sally Perdue - post incident threats
• Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
• Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned

 

[2aguy]

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.

 

[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.

Unless the conspiracy theorists come up with some kind of evidence that, at this point, doesn't seem to exist, it's actually Broaddrick that should be making an apology for making an allegation 16 years after the alleged incident but...

But it looks to me like it's more likely Clinton and Broaddrick had consensual sex, then she told her friends, then married her lover then, and only then 16 years later did she change her story - that of course is just my speculation based on the facts as I know them.

This thread is yours and other conspiracy theorists opportunity to provide proof that Juanita Broaddrick's unsubstantiated allegation is anything more than a cover-up for having consensual sex with a governor she no longer supported. - g'head, make my day!

.

It's really unattractive to blame the victim...quite Clintonian of you, one might add.

 

[TooTall]

.
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.


.

I would not believe anything that Joe Conason, Gene Lyons or Sydney Blumenthal said.