[Mia T]

Only proposition Greer?

Makes sense...the coward would never risk bodily harm...to himself.

All the President's victims II:

More on Bill Clinton's long history of sexual violence against women

 

Capitol Hill Blue

2/21/99 Daniel J. Harris & Teresa Hampton

 

 

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Two weeks, Capitol Hill Blue first published an account

of more than a dozen women who have reported being either assaulted or

raped by Bill Clinton over the last 30 years. Since that story was first

published, Juanita Broaddrick, one of the women mentioned in this story,

has gone public with an interview and two other victims have given us

permission to use their names. The updated story appears below)

 

 

 

By Daniel J. Harris

& Teresa Hampton

Capitol Hill Blue

 

Juanita Broaddrick's terrifying story of a violent rape by Bill Clinton

is only one of more than dozen cases of sexual assualt by the President

that go back 30 years.

 

Capitol Hill Blue has confirmed that the charge is but one of many

allegations of sexual assault by the President.

 

A five month investigation into the President's questionable sexual

history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days,

with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little

room for the word ''no.''

 

Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas woman who worked on Bill Clinton's

campaign when he was attorney general, told NBC's Lisa Meyers two weeks

ago she was raped by Clinton. NBC, under intense pressure by the White

House, shelved the interview. The White House also threatened Fox News

Tuesday after it reported the story. Broaddrick finally took her story

to The Wall Street Journal, which published her account of the brutal

rape at the hands of the future President.

 

But Broaddrick's story is only one account of many sexual assaults by

Clinton. Among the other incidents:

 

 

•A 1969 charge by a Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said

Clinton assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford

University campus where the future President was a student. A retired

State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed

this week that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report

with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but

claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the

case;

 

•In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that

she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, who was a law student at the

college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted

by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident;

 

•In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that

then-law professor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his

office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand

inside her blouse. Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him and

she left the school shortly after the incident. Several former students

at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential

interviews;

 

•Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's attorney general campaign, said he

raped her in 1978;

 

•From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas,

state troopers assigned to protect the governor reported seven

complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force,

himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview

that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's

next?";

 

•Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in

1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him

shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now

married with the last name of Gracen, told an interviewer she did have

sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. She later recanted that

interview and said had been threatened by Clinton supporters into

claiming the sex was consensual.

 

•Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case

against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the

then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the

case with Jones recently with a cash payment.

 

•Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says

Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room

during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her

against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed

loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel

suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which

point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the

incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she

wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left

Washington.

 

•Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed

her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during

an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in

a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear

campaign after she went public.

 

In an interview with Capitol Hill Blue this week, the retired State

Department employee said he believed the story Miss Wellstone, the young

 

English woman who said Clinton raped her in 1969.

 

''There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered

severe emotional trauma,'' he said. ''But we were under tremendous

pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged

with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I

heard of it.''

 

Miss Wellstone, who is now married and lives in London, confirmed the

incident when contacted this week, but refused to discuss the matter

further.

 

Capitol Hill Blue also spoke with the former Miss James, the Washington

fundraiser who confirmed the incident, but first said she would not go

public because anyone who does so is destroyed by the Clinton White

House.

 

''My husband and children deserve better than that,'' she said when

first contacted two weeks ago. After reading the Broaddrick story

Friday, however, she called and gave permission to use her maiden name.

 

The other encounters were confirmed with more than 30 interviews with

retired Arkansas state employees, former state troopers and former Yale

and University of Arkansas students. Like others, they refused to go

public because of fears of retaliation from the Clinton White House.

 

Likewise, the mainstream media has shied away from the Broaddrick story.

 

Initially, only The Drudge Report and other Internet news sites have

actively pursued it.

 

The White House did not return calls for comment.

 

Copyright 1999. Capitol Web Publishing

 

Capitol Hill Blue is published daily on the web. Some material is ©The

Associated Press and © Reuters NewMedia.

[Mia T]

the logic of pathologic self-interest:

There was a third chance to get rid of the co-rapists. In '98 when there was still time to stop bin Laden...

The failure to remove the clintons in '98 was a monumental failure and is directly traceable to the logic of pathologic self-interest. Recall in particular:

• THE LIEBERMAN PARADIGM: (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president)
• THE SHAYS SYNDROME (clinton is a rapist; therefore clinton is a fit president)

The Lieberman Paradigm debuted on the floor of the Senate during Joe's misconstrued and erroneously applauded Monicagate speech.

The Shays Syndrome, hardly an aberration, was adopted by the entire Senate as the impeachment show trial deus ex machina of choice.

Shays, you may recall, examined the evidence in the Ford Building, concluded that clinton did, indeed, rape Broaddrick -- "VICIOUSLY!" AND "TWICE!" he declared-- and was going to vote to impeach, but changed his mind after a tete a tete with the rapist.

Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton had given Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...

Well, with the help of the 100 corrupt and cowardly cullions, clinton walked. The senators' justification for their acquittal votes requires the suspension of rational thought (and, in the curious case of Arlen Specter, national jurisdiction).

--Mia T, Musings: Senatorial Courtesy Perverted

THE OTHER NIXON

by Mia T

Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson, posthumously misappropriated.

Shameless pharisees in stark relief crowd the Capitol frieze:

Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Bryan, Byrd, Cohen, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Gore, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moynihan, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer.

These are the 28 sitting Democratic senators, the current Vice President and Secretary of Defense -- clinton defenders all -- who, in 1989, voted to oust U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon for making "false or misleading statements to a grand jury."

In 1989 each and every one of these men insisted that perjury was an impeachable offense. (What a difference a decade and a decadent Democrat make.)

Senator Herb Kohl (November 7, 1989):

"But Judge Nixon took an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth. As a grand jury witness, it was not for him to decide what would be material. That was for the grand jury to decide. Of all people, Federal Judge Walter Nixon certainly knew this.

"So I am going to vote 'guilty' on articles one and two. Judge Nixon lied to the grand jury. He misled the grand jury. These acts are indisputably criminal and warrant impeachment."

 

Senator Tom Daschle (November 3, 1989):

"This morning we impeached a judge from Mississippi for failing to tell the truth. Those decisions are always very difficult and certainly, in this case, it came after a great deal of concern and thoughtful analysis of the facts."  

 

Congressman Charles Schumer (May 10, 1989):  

"Perjury, of course, is a very difficult, difficult thing to decide; but as we looked and examined all of the records and in fact found many things that were not in the record it became very clear to us that this impeachment was meritorious."

 

Senator Carl Levin (November 3, 1989):

"The record amply supports the finding in the criminal trial that Judge Nixon's statements to the grand jury were false and misleading and constituted perjury. Those are the statements cited in articles I and II, and it is on those articles that I vote to convict Judge Nixon and remove him from office."

 

* * * * *

"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself," observed the philosopher Hannah Arendt. "What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core."

If hypocrisy is the vice of vices, then perjury is the crime of crimes, for perjury provides the necessary cover for all other crimes.

David Lowenthal, professor emeritus of political science at Boston College makes the novel and compelling argument that perjury is "bribery consummate, using false words instead of money or other things of value to pervert the course of justice" and, thus, perjury is a constitutionally enumerated high crime.

The Democrats' defense of clinton's perjury -- and their own hypocrisy -- is three-pronged. 

ONE:

clinton's perjuries were "just about sex" and therefore "do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense."

This argument is spurious. The courts make no distinction between perjuries. Perjury is perjury. Perjury attacks the very essence of democracy. Perjury is bribery consummate.

Moreover, (the clinton spinners notwithstanding), clinton's perjury was not "just about sex." clinton's perjury was about clinton denying a citizen justice by lying in a civil rights-sexual harassment case about his sexual history with subordinates.

TWO:

Presidents and judges are held to different standards under the Constitution.

Because the Constitution stipulates that federal judges, who are appointed for life, "shall hold their offices during good behavior,'' and because there is no similar language concerning the popularly elected, term-limited president, it must have been perfectly agreeable to the Framers, so the (implicit) argument goes, to have a perjurious, justice-obstructing reprobate as president.

clinton's defenders ignore Federalist No. 57, and Hillary Rodham's constitutional treatise on impeachable acts -- written in 1974 when she wanted to impeach a president; both mention "bad conduct" as grounds for impeachment.

"Impeachment," wrote Rodham, "did not have to be for criminal offenses -- but only for a 'course of conduct' that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States...A person's 'course of conduct' while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress...The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."

Hamilton (or Madison) discussed the importance of wisdom and virtue in Federalist 57. "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

(Contrast this with clinton, who recklessly, reflexively and feloniously subordinates the common good to his personal appetites.)

Because the Framers did not anticipate the demagogic efficiency of the electronic bully pulpit, they ruled out the possibility of an MTV mis-leader (and impeachment-thwarter!) like clinton. In Federalist No. 64, John Jay said: "There is reason to presume" the president would fall only to those "who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue." He imagined that the electorate would not "be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."

(If the clinton debacle teaches us anything, it is this: If we are to retain our democracy in this age of the electronic demagogue, we must recalibrate the constitutional balance of power.)

THREE:

The president can be prosecuted for his alleged felonies after he leaves office. (Nota bene ROBERT RAY.)

This clinton-created censure contrivance -- borne out of what I have come to call the "Lieberman Paradigm" (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president) -- is nothing less than a postmodern deconstruction in which the Oval Office would serve for two years as a holding cell for the perjurer-obstructor.

Such indecorous, dual-purpose architectonics not only threatens the delicate constitutional framework -- it disturbs the cultural aesthetic. The senators must, therefore, roundly reject this elliptic scheme.

In this postmodern Age of clinton, we may, from time to time, selectively stomach corruption. But we must never abide ugliness. Never.