Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: doug from upland
If I am recalling the facts correctly, the WAPO article is making some inaccurate claims about Juanita Broaddrick. I'm paraphrasing because of copyright concerns, but here is the gist =>

1. They say she emerged after the impeachment trial with the allegations. I was thinking she was already on the record by that time.

2. They also say that Clinton flatly denied the claim. I don't think he ever actually denied it, did he?

3. They say there were inconsistencies in her story. Like what?

They should be called out on this and Juanita should have a chance to respond.

49 posted on 12/31/2015 2:30:33 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Ken H
1. They say she emerged after the impeachment trial with the allegations. I was thinking she was already on the record by that time.

She didn't "emerge" until after the impeachment trial. That is to say she didn't go public until after the impeachmennt trial.

However, she was on record well before that. Her story was part of the evidence that was accumulated by the investigators and, because of its delicate nature, was kept under lock and key in a capitol office. All the Representatives and Senators were invited to review this evidence, but few actually did. I don't think a single Democrat requested access to the room.

Those who did review the evidence expressed the appalling nature of numerous testimonies concerning Bill Clinton's predatory behavior.

So, yes, you are correct in your recollection. The Washington Post is clearly trying to marginalize Juanita Broaddrick's testimony.

50 posted on 12/31/2015 2:43:13 AM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H

Yes, she was on record. Dave Schippers sent an experienced female police officer to Arkansas to interview her regarding the rumors that were out there. The officer came back frightened. She believed that Clinton indeed was a rapist.

Clinton never spoke about it. His attorney said that Clinton never raped Ms. Broaddrick. At the time she was still married to her first husband, and her name was not Broaddrick.

Juanita did not want to relive the nightmare in public. When her name first surfaced, the Clinton slime team presented her an affidavit to sign telling her that if she just denied it, she would not have to ever be in court. They used that first false affidavit against her. She was told by the government that she would be under oath and she would have to tell the truth. So she did and recanted the first affidavit essentially taken under duress.


59 posted on 12/31/2015 8:54:22 AM PST by doug from upland (Some of you keep telling yourself -- Romney would have been as bad or worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H; hoosiermama

“2. They also say that Clinton flatly denied the claim. I don’t think he ever actually denied it, did he?”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/23/the-war-on-women-juanita-broaddrick-and-bill-clinton/

The NBC Dateline transcript states:

While the president and his lawyer declined to be interviewed on camera, through his lawyer the president did issue a statement saying any allegation he assaulted Broaddrick is “absolutely false” and when asked about it Wednesday the president said he had nothing to add to that statement.


62 posted on 12/31/2015 9:09:34 AM PST by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson