SUSAN ESTRICH RESPONDS TO JUANITA BROADDRICK'S OFFER TO SPEAK ABOUT HER RAPE -- "not interested"

email from Susan Estrich | 10-21-05 | Doug from Upland

[operation clinton cleanup]

At least the American people had enough sense not to give him a Democrat congress.

[operation clinton cleanup]

He surrounded himself with compromised people.

Janet Reno and Sandy Berger? Talk about incompetence squared! Not to mention the Jimmy Carter fools... the Democrats have a shallow bench!

[hummingbird]

It was Nita Lowey who stepped aside. And it was Lowey who was by her side outside her home at the microphone when Hillary lied about her FJB comment.

Thanks for the correction, dfu! I remember, visually, the press conference & the look on the faces of Hillary the usurper and Nita the vanquished. ("It is seared in my memory," doncha' know!)

Wasn't Lowey the heir apparent to Moynihan's seat? How do you think HRC was able to bust Lowey down like that? Not everyone could get away with that; it has to take something "special" to not only steal the seat but to have the aggrieved party attend the press conference in apparent support.

And something else that has always baffled me. This is from Chris Matthews' msnbc bio:

"Matthews spent 15 years in politics and government: he worked in the White House for four years under President Jimmy Carter as a Presidential speechwriter and on the Government Reorganization Project, in the U.S. Senate for five years on the staffs of Senator Frank Moss (Utah) and Senator Edmund Muskie (Maine), and was the top aide for Speaker of the House Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, Jr. for six years."(http://www.msnbc.com/news/330815.asp?cp1=1)(emphasis mine)

Before and after his retirement, Moynihan made several disparaging remarks about HRC. Moynihan's wife even repeated some of them. Matthews revered Moynihan. What keeps Matthews from being "in your face" with Hillary? (He certainly didn't reserve his ire in his interview with Michelle Malkin.) Why won't he take HRC on, if for no other reason than to stand up for Moynihan's memory?

[doug from upland]

Lowey didn't dare stand in the say of the queen.

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.

[doug from upland]

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."

[doug from upland]

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.)

[GOPPachyderm]

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.

[I'm ALL Right!]

Tell me this isn't a real quote. If it is, please post the source.

[doug from upland]

Of course that was not a real quote in No. 49.

[Enchante]

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.

[doug from upland]

DO NOT MISS THIS LISTING ON EBAY MOCKING ESTRICH UNMERCIFULLY

[RightOnline]

You can't be serious........did you pay attention to this case at all???

[Shortstop7]

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.

[IIntense]

Is there tolerance on this thread for questioning the unanimous viewpoints?

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).

[A CA Guy]

These two were not the only women, like most predators, he had quite a list. These two were among the more well known.

Broaddrick did show herself to several people and a nurse and discussed with them what Bill Clinton did, but she was afraid of him because of the power he already held in the state and he did threaten her regarding her business just as Wiley had her dog disappear and then a stranger popping up asking about what happened to her dog.

Clinton also lied under oath to avoid financial liability in a civil suit and as President attempted to deny a citizens right to a fair trial after using his office as President to slander her.

In addition Bill also gave China the ability to upgrade their missile guidance technology and rocket systems so their nukes could finally reach every city in the United States.

Bottom line is that Clinton was always a predator of women and also while President put all of us in jeopardy from other nations with technology gifts.

[caryatid]

Wiley had her dog disappear and then a stranger popping up asking about what happened to her dog.

It was a cat.

[A CA Guy]

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.

[caryatid]

What keeps Matthews from being "in your face" with Hillary?

FBI files ... ?

[A CA Guy]

Thanks, but the main point being a stranger coming up to discuss what they shouldn't know regarding a mysterious disappearance of the family pet is a concern.

[guitfiddlist]

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."