Posted on 10/21/2005 2:18:09 PM PDT by doug from upland
At 11:37 am this morning, I received an email from USC professor of law, Susan Estrich.
After hearing Estrich discuss her new Hillary book with Sean Hannity on October 11, I was a little upset. Estrich was essentially calling our friend Juanita Broaddrick a liar. She had spoken with her friend Bill Clinton, and, of course, Bill denied that he raped Juanita. That was good enough for Estrich. Bill could lie to his wife, lie to his daughter, lie to his attorney, lie to his secretary, lie to reporters, lie to his cabinet, lie to the court, and lie to the American people while pointing his finger at us, but by some cosmic mystery that is beyond human comprehension, Bill would not lie to her. Okay then. So, Juanita was not telling the truth. She is a liar. Unfortunately, this teacher of law students, this officer of the court, this person who purports to be so fair and open-minded, had not heard the other side of the story. She has never spoken with Juanita. Yet, Juanita is a liar. A known liar and perjurer told her so. Well, something needed to be done about that.
An initial conversation was held with Ms. Estrich's secretary at USC inquiring about the willingness of Estrich to speak with Juanita if it could be arranged. That was followed up with an email.
Juanita then contacted me through FReepmail with the good news -- she wanted to meet with Susan. She had some things she wanted to tell her. Certainly, Estrich, as a fellow rape survivor, would be interested in speaking with Juanita, right?
Another phone call and email to Estrich's office gave her the good news. Apparently, it was not very good news to Estrich. Here is the email received from her this morning ---
What? She is not interested? A fellow rape survivor wants to speak with her after comments were made on a radio show and Estrich is not interested?
If she were honest, rather than merely being a Bill Clinton sick-o-fant, here is the email she should have sent to me ---
If anyone is interested in taking some action, I would appreciate your help. Until Estrich speaks with Juanita and hears her story, why would any talk show host on our side have the sick-o-fant on the air to sell her book? If you participate on blogs, please spread the word.
We all know why Estrich won't meet with her. She is afraid to hear the truth. If she heard the truth, it would be an incredible moral dilemma. How does a rape survivor side with a rapist against a fellow rape survivor and dare show herself on television ever again?
Just imagine her course of action had the rapist been named Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, or George W. Bush.
Susan, I once had some respect for you when you and I had good discussions on your Los Angeles weekend radio show. Now, the sight of you and the sound of your voice simply make me ill. You are a phony.
SUSAN ESTRICH CONTACT INFORMATION
Susan Estrich
Robert Kingsley Professor in Law and Professor of Law and Political Science
Phone: (213) 740-7578
E-mail address: sestrich@law.usc.edu
At least the American people had enough sense not to give him a Democrat congress.
Janet Reno and Sandy Berger? Talk about incompetence squared! Not to mention the Jimmy Carter fools... the Democrats have a shallow bench!
Yes, Moynihan was not pleased with Hillary. Neither was his wife. The Hillaryites make a big deal, however, of him allowing her announcement to be at his farm. His unfavorable remarks tend to be forgotten.
Chris Matthews is simply an *ss.
Howard Kurtz, WASHCOMPOST, 1999
David P. Schippers, chief investigator for the House Judiciary Committee Republicans during the impeachment proceedings, said Tuesday that his staffers interviewed Broaddrick more than once and "have assured me that she is the most credible witness that either one of them have ever talked to."
Kurtz, WASHCOMPOST, 1999
Asked about Broaddrick's allegation at a news conference earlier in the day, President Clinton said: "Well, my counsel has made a statement about the . . . issue, and I have nothing to add to it." Attorney David E. Kendall's statement called the charge "absolutely false."
(Note: Kendall loves saying "absolutely false." That is what he told me when I ambushed him at the Appellate Court in Los Angeles.)
I'm sorry - I can't stand to listen to her voice, let alone what she says!
And I think bulldogs may be due an apology.
Tell me this isn't a real quote. If it is, please post the source.
Of course that was not a real quote in No. 49.
Not a real quote..... but it should be! It expresses her position on the matter, but I don't expect she'll ever state it with such candor.
Oh good........you are "in the know" about the details.
Please enlighten us.
Estrich is just a rotten, bitter old hag. Can't believe Hannity gives her the time of day. It just boosts that nasty ego of hers.
Dowd and Ivins are the same. Waste of good time.
I remember that Kathleen Willey did not indicate any problem with Bill Clinton after his alleged "groping" of her. I say "alleged" because it was never proven. She needed a job and the only way she could get employment was to appeal to Bill Clinton, the same person she later accused of sexual advances. BUT...she continued to treat him affably AFTER those transgressions!
Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Slick Willy raped her remains unproven also. How many years went by before she found a reason to report it? Both cases are based on the "he said, she said" scenario. Ergo, how does one conclude both of these women have told the truth, that their accusations CANNOT be in question?
Either or both of these women may be telling the truth, the whole truth. Too bad they don't have a "blue dress" to back up their claims.
Aside from all that, if "that woman", Hillary, runs & wins the presidency in '08, half of the country will have to be inoculated against HPM (Hillary-President-Madness).
It was a cat.
By the way, notice out of Bill Clinton's lips he doesn't deny he raped Juanita.
If he ever did that he would be subject to a civil lawsuit and she and all her witnesses would have their day in court against slick Willey.
If he EVER denies himself what she is saying, she can legally go after him for slander.
FBI files ... ?
This to me is a defining, illuminating issue - even though it has not been treated as one by the Left.
In any case, it is the perfect kind of case to tell a liberal what they are truly about.
"You don't want to discuss Broadrick, even though in your heart of hearts - you know it's true - and I KNOW you know it's true - so save your lame protests for someone who believes your tired BS. And what that indicates about you and your ilk, is that you are not about principle, not about justice, but about raw competitition for power, just so you can then bring about the perfect regime in order to institute, among other things, "equality for women" and
"justice" for the common folk?
This not only makes you corrupt, but stupid as a box of rocks. Now you can go back to denying this logical lockbox, by covering your ears."
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.