A Visitor's Guide to
The Clinton LIEbrary and Urinal
((and the Hate goes on....)
Posted on 10/16/2005 11:36:46 AM PDT by wagglebee
=================================================
The story got it wrong. These are two of his sexual assault accusers. I'd love to see Eileen Wellstone make the trip.
I hope they remember to sign the guestbook and leave their comments. They should bring a notary with them so that their signed statements are not taken as a forgery by some "mean spirited" prankster.
Let his future archivists see what these women had to say about how he treated them.
Or would these pages from the guest register disappear down Sandy's pants only to be destroyed in private?
A Visitor's Guide to
The Clinton LIEbrary and Urinal
((and the Hate goes on....)
I don't believe Juanita Broderick. Her allegation is just too unrealiable. I doubt if a single jurisdiction in the United States could convict based off of the facts we have; furthermore, the statute of limitations had to have foreclosed any prosecution.
And what's "unreliable" about it, exactly? The events both before and after the attack have been corroborated by others. And only in Liberal Land, does corroborating evidence weaken the veracity of an accusation.
Hehehe...I guess that would be in the eye of the beholder.....
You've heard the old saying, I'm sure, that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Anyone with a modicum of decency would not agree with that statement, but I'm sure Slick Willy lives and breathes by it.
Carolyn
NO, but they were both up for investigation byh
IRA! It was Ms. Flowers who did the standing up!
Same for Ted Kennedy
Pubbies at their best during the time, nothing too detrimental against BJ, just go through bland motion of hearings was their MO.
"What a calloused, smarmy attitude! He ought to be completely embarassed."
We all know Clintoon was born without a embarassment gene. My question is why did these women visit in the first place? Haven't they had enough of that slime ball?
NOW and other women's organizations have been pretty clear on this point. Women do not lie about these things. Anyone who might believe Anita Hill (whose claims, even if they were true, are hardly harrassment) should believe Juanita. If her claims were the only ones ever made about Clinton, I might feel otherwise, but there is just WAY too much smoke not for there to be fire.
Do you really think Kathleen and Juanita are still in peril
with Bubba and the Beast out of the White House? Or, interpreted differently, do you feel that those SOBs get even, regardless?
Just because "Bubba and the Beast" are out of the White House does not make their enemies 'safe'. The "Beast" is in the SENATE and running for the White House. She probably has more power now than she did when Bubba was President.
Who cited NOW?
Anyone who might believe Anita Hill (whose claims, even if they were true, are hardly harrassment) should believe Juanita.
Who said I believe Anita Hill? This is the logical fallacy of association. You expect me to say, "Well, golly gee, Anita Hill was right, so Juanita Broddarick had to be right too." This is a red herring, since the facts of Anita Hill's allegations are in no way similar to Juanita Brodderick's. Anita Hill stepped forward with her allegations when Clarence Thomas was nominated for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. She alleged a less-serious offense (if it was an offense at all, and not just boorish behavior). There isn't really a burden of proof in a Congressional hearing, so anything that arguably would shed light on the moral character of the nominee is probably relevant and admissible. The worst Clarence Thomas was faced with was not being confirmed by the Senate.
Juanita Broddarick, on the other hand, came forward in 1998 to say that Pres. Clinton had allegedly raped her in 1977. This was subsequent to her sworn affidavits saying the exact opposite in 1992. She came forward only during the impeachment mess. She had no corroboration except hearsay witnesses, who would not be admissible since their testimony would have to be admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and would not be excited utterences because they did not happen until well after the alleged event.
Remember why I first posted - the previous poster said he couldnt comprehend why Pres. Clinton was not in jail, alleging that the American criminal justice system had been biased in his favor. I explained why a rape charge was untenable - that the complainant has credibility issues (she did wait 20 yrs.) and the statute of limitations quite likely precludes any prosecution.
Amazing. First time I've seen it. Looks a bit like an obilisk that couldn't stand upright.
Hillary always said "It's history and not for discussion. Once she even have the gall to say that "If it happens again, it will be kept private". Guess she controls Free Speech.
My comments were actually directed to your statement that Broaddrick's claims were unreliable, that is, that you don't believe them. I agree that Clinton could not be convicted, strictly as a function of the statute of limitations. Further, my point was more to impune the hypocrisy of NOW, which made the statement I provided in my initial reply to your post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.