[beachn4fun]

You know I must agree with him, in essence, even though I don't usually like his point of view. IF this rape occurred, why wait until 20-some years later to bring it to the attention of the world? If not for some political reason, why not wait until Clinton was no longer President to bring charges? She waited this long another 4-8 years wouldn't have mattered. Women need to learn that if they want to be taken seriously on issues like this, be prepared and have better timing! Even if this is true, I have a hard time with taking it seriously BECAUSE of the timing. NOT because it didn't happen.

[Mudboy Slim]

"Even if this is true, I have a hard time with taking it seriously BECAUSE of the timing. NOT because it didn't happen."

If Clinton violently raped someone 20 years ago, he's still a violent rapist...it's not something you can undo. Fact is, there are at least 2-3 other women who claim Clinton forced himself on them, including a classmate of his when he was at Oxford and a Miss America pageant contestant. I'm not sure how you cannot take this seriously, it's further evidence of what a huge mistake it was to have this SEXUAL PREDATOR serve two terms as POTUS.

FReegards...MUD

[Rennes Templar]

I think at that time in Arkansas that she was afraid and/or felt she would be demonized if she reported. There was still more of a taboo around reporting it then, as many rapes were not reported. Now look at Kobe Bryant. His alleged victim reported it immediately.

[Mia T]

In fact, Broaddrick didn't voluntarily come forward.

Did you watch the NBC Primetime clintonrape interview, reproduced above?

[chimera]

Fear is probably a big factor. I can see how Ms. Broaddrick would have been reluctant to bring out the issue. She was (likely) raped when Clinton was Attorney General in Arkansas. That is a position with some power. He went on to bigger things from there, Governor, and, unfortunately, President. Those positions allow a person to bring the enormous power of various government machinery to bear on single individuals. We know how he used it to try to fix the Paula Jones case. He sent out gumshoes and strong-arm goons to intimate and otherwise silence critics and witnesses. He was sending a message: don't mess with me if you want to stay healthy. Ms. Broaddrick probably got the not-so-subtle message.

So, naturally, the question arises, why then did she bring it out at all? Why not continue to live in fear? All I can guess is that living in continual fear brings its own kind of torture. At some point an individual must decide if they can continue doing that, or try to purge those memories and feelings through some kind of cleansing, which often involves revelation of the truth to others around you. Everyone has their limit in this regard, and my guess is that Juanita reached hers, and had to try to break free of the past and purge those demons as best she could.

Just my guess playing amateur psychologist.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

So, if a politician has a private army of investigators and bully boys, to follow him around and "deal with bimbo eruptions", and his victims are intimidated into silence by threats of violence or public destruction, he can just blow it off when his ability to continue the intimidation is blunted 15 or 20 years later, and his past deeds float to the surface of public awareness?

If that "get away free" principle doesn't apply to the sexual predators in the Roman Catholic clerocracy, and their enablers, why should it apply to a sexaually predatory civil magistrate and his enablers?

I'm sympathetic to the point that the criminal justice system needs an absolute statute of limitations for most crimes, to avoid politically motivated abuse by prosecution (using the taxpayer's pockets as an endless source of funding). However, such behavior should be subject to civil sanctions through Tort process by the individuals who have been harmed (just as has been happening with the RMC clerics and their bishops).