The Juanita Broaddrick rape accusation
The topic of Juanita Broaddrick’s rape accusation against Bill Clinton has come up again this campaign season, a result of Donald Trump bringing it up in an interview with Sean Hannity.
Although anyone who reads this blog regularly knows I have no hesitation to criticize Trump vigorously, this is not an instance where I’m going to do it. Trump’s point is a valid one, and not only because Broaddrick’s accusations are serious enough to be at least potentially credible (particularly since there are people who swear she told them the story close to the time it allegedly occurred, back in 1978). It also is particularly relevant for Trump, who was recently the target of an article in the NY Times alleging various rather mild offenses on his part towards women, which even if true were deemed unoffensive by a lot of readers.
That does not mean, however, that Broaddrick’s allegations are true. We don’t know if they are or aren’t, and a good case could be made for either position. The full story is a complicated one, but you can read the pros and cons of it here if you’re interested. That Slate piece was published in 1999, when Broaddrick’s accusations surfaced, and it points out various inconsistencies in her story (including her saying under oath that Bill Clinton did not assault her, and then one year later saying he did). Also, several of the witnesses who said she told them the story long ago had beefs with Bill Clinton and might have a motive to lie. Lastly, although there is no question that Bill Clinton has been a major philanderer who came on to women at the drop of a—whatever, no one else but Broaddrick has ever alleged that he raped her.
That does not mean that Broaddrick is lying, however. She might indeed be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The problem is that there are good arguments for either side. What does my gut tell me on this one? My gut says it just doesn’t know.
[NOTE: More details here.]
My brain tells me Billy Boy is a serial molester and sometime rapist. Among other crimes, many financial.
My gut says we are not in a court of law where all are innocent til proven guilty. My gut says Clinton is as guilty of rape as OJ is of murder. My gut and my brain agree!
My gut tells me Broaddick’s story is is true, but I have to admit I am no admirer of Bill Clinton. Before him I always thought our presidents were honorable men with a certain amount of class. He taught me that is not true. What my mother told me when I was young is the truth: anyone in American can grow up to be President.
It seems to me as if there’s another issue here: The NYTimes feels comfortable publishing a serious hit piece about Trump. Perhaps we’ve reached a new low regarding attacks on public figures. If that’s the case Bill Clinton is certainly fair game and Hillary is fair game as an enabler and defender.
Why would the country take the risk and put him back in the White House.
He will bring Jeffery Epstein and his young girls to the WH for orgies. Count on it. Who can do anything to him? Impeach him? Hillary won’t divorce him.
Guess we will never know for sure.
I went to the link, and lo and behold found an article by Bill Press, and surprise, he is defending Clinton. Added a little levity to my day.
F:
I’m not sure why you’d call the Times’ piece on Trump a new low. Nothing the least bit new about it. Remember this 2008 one about McCain supposedly having an affair?
Frog:
I’m not using some arcane or nitpicky legal standard. There are plenty of excellent reasons to doubt Broaddrick’s veracity, including her recanting.
I try to be fair to both sides. My brain and gut tell me this one’s too close to call, and it also doesn’t fit Bill’s usual m.o..
I could be wrong, memory being an iffy thing, but I seem to recall that a British gal told of a similar experience with Bill while he was a student in England. So, she might not be the only one
Rhetorical questions;
Is it plausible that a victim of rape would after years of trying to put that violation behind her, wish to keep her name out of the Paula Jones media spotlight and thus sign an affadavit absolving her rapist?
Does testimony by witnesses who dislike the accused automatically invalidate that testimony, even when witnesses with no axe to grind testify to the same details?
Is it significant that Billy boy has paid large sums of money to other accusers, who then dropped any further pursuit of the matter?
“Guilty as hell, free as a bird…” Bill Ayers
“Innocence, forever in the dock. Tyranny, forever on the throne.”
What’s the matter with you, Neo? How could you doubt Ms. Broderick? After all, “Women who say they’ve been raped should be believed!”
Richard Saunders:
Yes, I have the quaint habit of trying my best to apply the same standards to everyone, and not rush to judgment. I take every accuser with the same grain of salt. I have noticed that lying is not unheard of in these matters, on BOTH sides.
Richard Saunders’s point makes the REASON this particular allegation is relevant. And potentially damaging to the current democrat front-runner.
That campaign puts huge emphasis on women’s issues. We hear continually from the left about ‘rape culture’ and why women who might be victims must be heard. But not if her hubby – she recently said he would be in charge of running the economy – is the accused?
Crooked Hillary indeed.
As a top pol, Bill’s behavior is TYPICAL of the sexual drive and entitlement felt by that class of men.
If you are not aware, EVERY top pol has a seriously enhanced sex drive — both sexes.
This enhancement comes from self-perception — from the brain.
So Bill’s DRIVE — from WAY back — would’ve been FAR higher than average Joe’s can imagine.
His impulse control would’ve been far weaker.
This reality crosses all cultures — and all times.
So I can’t imagine Bill not laying his hands on her.
The usual progression of his lust would have the babe submitting to him. The fact that she was married, yet cheating, complicates the equation.
The weight of the evidence is that Bill figured her to be a slut — and came onto her like a jon.
He felt — feels — no guilt whatsoever.
The rough sex DID occur.
For Bill, his victim was into ‘role play.’
Whereas for her, the episode is of shame and pain.
“No!” just didn’t mean anything. Bill was not, and is not, a self-limiting personality.
When you consider the phrase that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, it becomes necessary to analyze what actually goes on with men in positions of power. For one thing, it appears that many women are attracted to men in high places. I have no doubt that there are women who are willing to have engage in liaisons with rich and powerful men. Even some who would not object if they came on to them unexpectedly.
Consider all the girl friends that JFK had – none accused him of anything untoward, but his brother Teddy wasn’t so lucky. Of course there was money to keep people quiet.
Then there was LBJ. A coarse man who engaged in extramarital relations, but manage to keep them quiet. Ford, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Bush 41 were all gentlemen who, as far as I know, didn’t cheat on their wives.
That brings us to Bill. He was a philanderer as Attorney general of Arkansas, and as Governor. I have no doubt that he made advances to many women who reciprocated in kind. He got over confident in his ability to overwhelm women who were “beneath” him. He used them like Kleenexes – they were disposable. His encounters with Broaddrick, Paula Jones, and Kathleen Willey didn’t turn out like so many of his other conquests. But such activities did not sink his political career because the Democrats considered it all “private,” and the voters bought it.
Joe Klein’s book, “Primary Colors,” was written about the Clinton campaign of 1992 and named the campaign worker who was responsible for suppressing “bimbo eruptions.” All with the overt knowledge of Hillary. The Clintons have had an “arrangement” for many, many years. For Hillary to claim she is a champion of women is much like the wife of criminal saying she is a champion of crime victims.
I have no doubt that Trump has had many affairs and girl friends. He may even have tried to force himself on some unwilling women. But so far none have accused him of that. If Bill’s affairs of libidinous nature are “private,” I see no reason why Trump’s aren’t private as well. Fair and balanced, right?
It seems that the “innocent until proven guilty” only applies for political fellows. The left has lynched Cosby without a single piece of evidence just because he supported conservative views. Now here “Billy Boy” is a serial rapist even when no a serious single piece of evidence has been introduced to support such a statement (the issue that led to the impeachment was consensual).
It seems that if you go to court under a rape accusation what the judge should ask you is “who you voted for?”, and that’s enough to sentence.
That’s no better than the left did with Bill Cosby.
And that’s sad. Very sad.
“The issue that led to the impeachment was consensual.”
No. The issue that lead to impeachment was lying under oath about it – the crime of Perjury.
…otherwise, I agree. There *is* a double standard that seems to be related to your politics.
@Roy
Yeap, that’s what I was saying.
The impeachment was because lying under oath, not because of any rape. The sexual relation was consensual the whole time, there was no rape. Of course, lying under oath is a very serious crime, but it’s not the kind of crime that makes you a rapist, which is that Clinton is being called here.
It seems that the “innocent until proven guilty” only applies for political fellows. The left has lynched Cosby without a single piece of evidence just because he supported conservative views.
The thing is, Broaddrick isn’t the only person Clinton had problems with.
Whereas the Left is an expert at digging up dirt on Republicans, and when they can’t find any, they will make them up, as they did with Herman Cain. The reason why the Left is very good at this is because more than half of all Democrat politicians have blackmail material on them concerning sexual affairs or incidents of one kind or another. They reach for this because it’s something Democrat operatives are experienced with.
Tuvea
Just curious, but are you aware that Hillary Clinton has defended rapists before in court by attacking their victims as harlots and what not? Then laughed about it later when the supposed defendant was guilty and actually a rapist, not just alleged?
Clinton has no problems with forcible penetration. The only issue is whose family gets paid off or benefits.