Posted on 11/14/2017 5:44:04 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
A liberal New York Times columnist has written that she believes Juanita Broaddrick’s allegation that Bill Clinton raped her.
The headline of Michelle Goldberg’s current New York Times column is “I believe Juanita.” Goldberg explains:
“Of the Clinton accusers, the one who haunts me is Broaddrick . . . Put simply, I believe her.”
Adds Goldberg, “it’s fair to conclude that because of Broaddrick’s allegations, Bill Clinton no longer has a place in decent society.”
Get the rest of the story here.
(Excerpt) Read more at finkelblogger.com ...
I think you’re right, but Podestas are Clinton too.
“It’s late in the game, but is the liberal firewall that has been protecting Bill Clinton for decades finally breaking?”
Could be. The Liberals know they have to push the Clintons aside to find new blood for 2020. The Clintons are holding them back.
Well, I think this is just to push Moore out of the race. The New York Times (which once destroyed Tawana Brawley) is now the biggest race baiting/male baiting publication on the planet. Well, outside of The Guardian.
I’d read a few other Michelle Goldberg columns before cheering.
She better have a good lock on her doors.....................
She looks like she was every bit of 10 years old when BJ was POTUS...................
“...... is the liberal firewall that has been protecting Bill Clinton for decades finally breaking?”.....
Not just Slick Willy but the Pants Suit Hag as well. Unfortunately, both will have left this life for some time BEFORE the real truths about their corruption will ever come out.
Dems have seen the signs; Clinton Crime Family Inc. is close to justice (either on earth or the Lord’s) and they need to push them out. The idea of Chelsea keeping the mob active does not appeal to them in the least.
Thirty years too late.
Thanks. I seem to recall having read some. I was not impressed enough to note...or follow. Definitely not timely. There is probably some other “agenda” at work here, noted by astute posters.
I would say no. This is merely a cynical ploy to use the new claims of 40 year old sexual harassment as a weapon against political opponents.
But even the liberals cannot stomach the hypocrisy of the weak and feeble charges of a non crime by Judge Moore to the first degree rape of Juannita by Bill Clinton. Now that the DNC is done with the Clintons they are no longer being protected for the political toxic waste they are. This could destroy his presidential legacy. Whatever happens to Roy Moore, Clinton’s punishment should be 100 times worse.
This also accents the soaring, cataclysmic hypocrisy of liberal feminists such as Gloria Steinem, who gave Billy the Rapist a pass. When they could have cowered in silence they arrogantly stood up for him at the expense of his many female victims.
After 40 years I think the threshold should be a felony. This new harassment standard can destroy a lot of lives. Maybe it should, but it will destroy many of those, and the DNC will use it through their lackies in the press. They are accusing Moore of “staring” at young women as contributing evidence. Now we are in Stalinist show trial land, millions of men do that everyday.
Look what they are doing to Sean Hannity for giving Moore a fair hearing?
They are trying to silence opposing voices. I despise the Left’s Stalinism. It’s toxic plumes erupt every day trying to cripple our freedoms.
Too little, too late. Thanks governsleastgovernsbest.
Bill Clinton has outlived his usefulness to the Dim party, so now he will be tossed under the bus. To Dims, party is first and foremost forever.
> Bill Clinton no longer has a place in decent society.
That’s why the Bush family considers him one of their own.
I used an older, flattering pic of her.
Goldberg is 42, so she would have been 26 when Clinton left office in 2001, 18 when he became president.
Fake but accurate?..............
She was. That’s an OLD pic.................
Clinton repeatedly lied about sexually harassing Paula Jones, but ended up paying her $850,000.
Innocent, eh?
Just like how Candice Bergen came out and said that Dan Quayle did indeed have a point about unwed motherhood.
Twenty hears after he NEEDED her to do that!
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.