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
No, she says she made the statement immediately. Perhaps she did but just reading where she claimed that means nothing.
We also just have her word that she was believed. The fact that no one was ever caught doesn't help.
As I recall, Ms. Broaddrick's contemporaneous statements to her friends and relatives were much closer in time than "a few days" later, and there were also the direct, contemporaneous observations of those people of her physical injuries.
I'm not at all convinced these statements would be excluded as hearsay, and, although I would have to go back and look at the facts more closely, my initial reaction is that these statements would indeed be admissible as evidence against Clinton.
Huh?
Oh, come on. I may only have a copy of her memoriors, true. The police reports, however, are out there.
Broaddrick has no such paper trail.
You're grasping at straws.
When you have a copy of that police report then you can quote from it, just repeating Estrich's statements means very little.
The only hearsay exception I can think of that would allow her friends' statements (which were not contemporaneous, as I recall) is the excited utterence exception - but it would be hard to demonstrate that Broaddrick was "excited" much more than 12 hrs. or so after the event.
To: jude24
So basically, all you have is her statement, probably made years after the alleged event with no corroboration by anyone else.
99 posted on 10/21/2005 4:21:01 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I was referring to Estrich's statement not Juanita's.
Doh, now I really, really apologize. You were talking about Estrich's rape. Sorry.
I finally got it. I'm going to my room now.
We should enmasse request that Hannity provide Juanita equal time on the show to rebut Estrich's perverted liar charges and the character assasination of Juanita by Estrich and to demand an apology. Estrich is not interested in hearing the truth according to her two word e-mail to you, the exact words "not interested". Hannity's audience fairly needs to hear that after Hannity allowed Estrich to say those horrible things on his show.
IIRC I think it was that very evening she made statements to her friends and/or relatives, and when they observed her physical condition.
If you wanted to look into it some of the old articles describing what and when she reportedly said and to whom, they are probably in the FR archives.
This might make an interesting case to consider the application of the "excited utterance" exception with your evidence professor and your friends.
I put it on Hannity's blog. I don't know that Juanita wants to go on Sean's show again.
It would have been on either O'Reilly or Hannity and Colmes, with the latter being more likely I think. I don't think it was a Sunday show.
She can call Juanita liar but that doesnt change the fact Susan is plug-ugly.
I used my words carefully. She did not say liar. But that is what we were to conclude if she believed Bill Clinton was telling the truth. Juanita must be lying if her friend Bill was telling the truth.
I have seen pictures of Estrich when she was young and she wasn't that bad looking. She certainly did not age well tho.
She doesn't want to know the truth? Or is it that she does know the truth but would prefer to cover up for Bill and Hill?
I don't believe her for a second. Not one bloody second. Liars readily believe other liars.......there's a hint for you, Doug.
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.