[BostonGuy]

Does anyone consider how sketchy these stories are? By no means am I a Clinton fan, but here we have a story related by a person (whose integrity I am certainly not questioning) quoting an unnamed source, who quotes another unnamed source as saying an unnamed woman accused a well-known figure of a criminal act many years ago. That's not to say it's a lie, but it can hardly be considered fact.

I believe the reason the majority of the American public ignored Clinton's true, documented crimes is because of the huge amount of allegations that amount to nothing more than anonymous hearsay.

That being said, kudos to you for at least attempting to get some documentation here.

[doug from upland]

I appreciate your comments. I'm relating what I know from someone I trust. That's the best I can do. I wish the journalists who get paid for doing this stuff would go get the story.

[goldstategop]

I think Doug had good reasons for with holding the identity of the journalist. Still, there's no denying it fits a pattern. For Clinton, women live to service his needs first and foremost and he has no respect for them as people in their own right. And if they threaten him or they're perceived to, he does his outmost to tarnish and destroy their repuations. We all know how corrupt our Congress is and David Schippers couldn't believe hearing from a prominent U.S Senator to effect, "yeah even if he raped or murdered a woman, he still wouldn't be convicted." Clinton's legacy is corrupting every one around him. He only proved what his critics discovered in his character. Yes, he was a very talented person who could have achieved a great deal as President, but he chose to throw it all away in a reckless affair AND in breaking the laws of this country. He will be remembered forever as the Great Impeached.

[mewzilla]

There's documentation. What do you think is in the Ford Building? (And one wonders is it still there or have the Congress critters shredded it?)

[rwfromkansas]

I don't doubt the story myself. But, I think one reason these stories don't get more press is that there is little solid support for them it seems.

I write for my high school newspaper. I would like to report on Clinton rapes. After all, every little bit helps, no matter WHAT media it is in I think. However, I can't report on this or every other story that I have seen so far because the only evidence is hearsay. I need more than that.....documents etc. to begin to consider it journalistically credible enough to even mention it. There is supposedly some documents, according to doug's interview. But, what good does that do if the docs remain hidden away.....hidden away by people who even say they want the truth to get out about Clinton? The British journalist in question doesn't seem the slightest bit interested in talking about these documents.....and RELEASING THEM ever to the public.