The revival of the Juanita Broaddrick rape charges against Bill Clinton: coming soon?
Ronan Farrow seems to be revving up for some investigative research on the rape allegations Juanita Broaddrick has made for years against Bill Clinton:
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ronan Farrow said on HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher, that “credible” accusations of rape had been made against former President Bill Clinton by Juanita Broaddrick, adding that an investigation into the allegations is now “overdue.”
My opinion? Sure, look into it.
The following is the content of a post I wrote on the subject in May of 2016. Interestingly enough, the reason I took the topic up back then was that Trump had discussed it during his campaign for the presidency.
_____________________________________________
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.]
[ADDENDUM: That’s all I wrote in 2016. Later there was another discussion of her charges in a different thread, and I offered this comment there.]
At the time of the accusation, George Stephanopolis traveled to the hotel and to the room she had described. He looked out the window to see if her story was plausible. It was and we never heard any more about it.
I think I recall a fairly thorough investigation of these charges by an NBC reporter (!!!). She concluded that the charges were credible, and that many details of Broaddrick’s story seemed accurate. But I think it’s way too late for this to be resolved definitively. I tend to believe it, but then, I think Clinton is a creep in his personal behavior, so my belief is affected by my general opinion of him.
I tend to believe it, but then, I think Clinton is a creep in his personal behavior, so my belief is affected by my general opinion of him.
The people who dismiss it took Christine Blasey Fraud seriously, the absence of a single piece of evidence that she’d ever met Mark Judge or Brett Kavanaugh notwithstanding, and the absence of any set of circumstances which would have made it likely that she crossed paths with either notwithstanding.
It was NBC reporter Lisa Meyers, in 1999. She said nothing she found undercut Broaddrick’s story, which is not the same as saying it could be proved, either.
Yes, Art Deco, Broaddrick’s story had a great deal more credibility than Blasey Ford’s.
“The people who dismiss it took Christine Blasey Fraud seriously, …..”
Just another example of progressive wokeness. A conservative or Republican does it and they are all over that person, a leftist…meh…
Nothing will ever come of any investigation of Clinton. That train left long ago.
Kate:
Two things undercut her story.
The first is that she lied at least once, under oath. She first swore he didn’t assault her and a year later said he did. Which is the lie and which the truth?
The second is that her corroborative witnesses (the people to whom she told the story) all had a bone to pick with Clinton.
IMO the Clinton’s are capable of evil. I assume most people know of their long, sordid careers. A highlight was 4 dead in Benghazi. Mr Farrow should investigate “what difference does it make”.
The nice part about trying people in the press is the low evidentiary bar.
Sauce for the gander, as far as I’m concerned.
Neo, as I said, I don’t think it can be “proved” one way or the other. However, even Paula Jones, as I recall, made some equivocal statements, and she got nearly $1 million from Bill. The fact that corroborating witnesses had a bone to pick with Bill doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lying. It’s going to have to stay “unproved.”
As if on cue — “E. Jean Carroll sues Trump for defamation over rape accusation denial”
I doubt that Carroll’s suit will go far. She can’t “prove” Trump raped her, any more than Broaddrick can “prove” her charge against Clinton. Winning a defamation suit would, I think, require her to prove that he did what she says he did. She can’t.
What I find compelling in Broderick’s claim of rape is her relaying that Clinton seized her bottom lip between his teeth and bit down enough to act as an intimidation tactic. That’s an act that I can’t imagine anyone thinking of who hadn’t experienced it.
So glad to hear the Committee on Public Safety is back in operation! Ride on, Ronan, prince of the Jacobins!
My instinct and Holy Spirit tells me Demoncrats have difficulties controlling their sexual demons. That is why they are Demoncrats, which included Trum for most of his adult life.
Is there a surprise so many humans have problems controlling their Orange energy chakras?
Nothing will ever come of any investigation of Clinton. That train left long ago.
Clintons will be hammered flat by our Host of Heaven, if humans don’t do the job first.
While it may be credible, it was over forty years ago and there is no physical evidence. Open this case again and you provide an argument that this case is “just like” Kavenaugh’s.
There is no upside for the Republicans. You could never get a conviction. The downside is damaging Kavenaugh further.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter if what Juanita Broderick claims is “true” or not. She’s probably telling the truth, but that doesn’t matter.
Here’s what matters: Can her claims be proven beyond any reasonable person’s doubt? And the answer is clearly no. They’re just claims. That’s it. She has never offered a shred of proof of her claims … so fuck her. Too bad lady. If Bill Clinton really did rape you, then you did the worst possible thing you could ever do in that situation: You let him go free to rape again. You didn’t call the cops. You didn’t call the press. You didn’t get a rape kit.
You left him free to rape again.
So I have zero sympathy for you.
Maybe Bill Clinton did rape her. And that was bad. But what Juanita Broderick did was worse.
She kept quite until decades later.
There is no upside for the Republicans. You could never get a conviction. The downside is damaging Kavenaugh further.
Kavanaugh is only ‘damaged’ in the ‘minds’ of people who aren’t doing any thinking. I don’t think Broaddrick has any trouble demonstrating she and Clinton crossed paths at that particular time and place.
Kavanaugh’s detractors cannot get to first base, which is to present evidence that he or Mark Judge have ever met Christine Blasey. Youths in Montgomery County, Md. born between 1962 and 1968 numbered over 40,000 at that time, so it’s not as if it’s a small society we’re talking about. The addresses of the Blasey, Judge, and Kavanaugh families ca. 1982 are known. She lived six miles from one and eight from the other. She was enrolled at a girls’ school, Judge and Kavanaugh at a boys’ school. Her brother was not enrolled at the school attended by MJ and BK, and Mark Judge’s sister was not enrolled at her school. (BK is an only child). No one has come up with an old Polaroid with the two of them in the frame, or a diary entry referring to the two of them in tandem, or an affidavit from anyone who will attest that the two were acquainted or that both were in attendance at a particular event. (IIRC, only two people have been identified who claim to have been acquaintances of both CB and BK, and neither put BK and CB in the same room). The person whom she identifies as having introduced her to BK says he has no knowledge relevant to her claims. The four people she identified as having been present at this beer party all drew a blank. Astonishingly, BK managed to find among his effects his 1982 appointment calendar; neither her name nor her initials are on it.
But what Juanita Broderick did was worse.
What was your blood alcohol level when you hit ‘post’?
I agree with G. Britain that the lip business is what makes the story creditable. There has never been a scene like that coming out of Hollywood, and it sounds like something a lawyer would come up with. If it ended up in court, you can imagine the defense saying stuff like, it was consensual, I was in a “transport” of passion and did not know what I was doing, so sorry, etc., etc. The business about putting ice on it adds to that defense because it shows “concern” for her well-being. Only a truly evil person planning out rapes ahead of time with a lawyerly turn of mind would come up with all this.
“Kavanaugh is only ‘damaged’ in the ‘minds’ of people who aren’t doing any thinking.”
People who “aren’t doing any thinking” are 90% of the population. They let others do their thinking for them.
If Clinton is charged, the MSM will make the comparison, and the same drones that were inclined to believe the original false charges against BK will accept this as further “proof” of his guilt.
People who “aren’t doing any thinking” are 90% of the population.
You have a rather inflated sense of self.
Most people aren’t thinking about BK because the whole imbroglio is irrelevant to anything they can do anything about, not because they’re stupid globally.
Don’t you love that a son of Frank Sinatra and Mia Farrow is investigating the world for sexual misbehavior? Correction, “misbehavior.” The Lord works in mysterious ways.
“People who “aren’t doing any thinking” are 90% of the population.”
You have a rather inflated sense of self.[Deco]
He should improve himself, shouldn’t he, Deco? Imagine.
It’s pretty clear by now that the Clinton’s are immune and exempt from any and all laws that apply to everyday, normal folks.
There really is no law they could violate – including murder – for which they would be held accountable (think Ted Kennedy).
The liberal progressive ruling elites, the liberal progressive nomenklatura ( within the DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, State Dept., IRS, etc) and their supporting cast in the media, circle the wagons when one of their own is accused of anything and effectively shut down any investigation.
As an example, remember Sandy Berger’s theft of documents? What happened to him? Oh , that’s right, nothing at all.
And does anyone really think the “investigation” of the murder / suicide of Jeffrey Epstein will go anywhere? So far, there does not seem to be any investigation at all- and you can bet your house that there will not be one.
Recall the murder of that guy that supposedly leaked DNC computer files to Wikileaks; he was shot dead in front of his house / apt.
No witnesses, no clues, no nothing; how convenient.
No need to get into the 1 x 10^9 laws Hillary has broken.
Art Deco says: “Kavanaugh is only ‘damaged’ in the ‘minds’ of people who aren’t doing any thinking. ” Then Roy Nathanson says they’re 90% of the population.
This is something I wonder about and really don’t think I have a good answer for: the general question of just how successful is the media/Democrat effort to make their version of events the generally accepted one. By “generally accepted” I mean by a definite majority of the population at large. Specifically in this case, just to what degree is Kavanaugh “damaged” among people who don’t clearly fall into either the “red” or “blue” tribe?
By “damaged” I guess I mean, in Kavanaugh’s case, that any SC decision in which he goes against progressivism, will be *successfully* portrayed as tainted, and general confidence in the Court itself undermined. Emphasis on “successfully”–of course they will do that, but how much influence will it have? I’m not confident that polls can measure that.
Just thinking out loud here, no conclusion to offer. I do know that the only people I personally know with whom any of this stuff ever comes up in conversation are people who are strongly committed on one side or the other.
I guess one reason it’s especially on my mind at the moment is this piece in The American Conservative, which among other things is about the implications of a loss of acceptance of the legitimacy of authority:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/civil-war-begins-when-the-constitutional-order-breaks-down/
James O’Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII (twitter, video at link):
James O’Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII (video at link):
James O’Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII (video at link):
James O’Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII
This is something I wonder about and really don’t think I have a good answer for: the general question of just how successful is the media/Democrat effort to make their version of events the generally accepted one. By “generally accepted” I mean by a definite majority of the population at large. Specifically in this case, just to what degree is Kavanaugh “damaged” among people who don’t clearly fall into either the “red” or “blue” tribe?
A comfortable majority of people won’t give Kavanaugh any thought at all. Partisan Democrats were notable during that imbroglio for juxtaposition self-conscious lying to red-herring distribution to a pig-headed unwillingness to think anything through. Persuadable people are largely uninterested in day to day political controversy.
The Federalist, Chrissy Clark: Leaked: ABC News Anchor Claims The Network Squashed Jeffrey Epstein Story Three Years Ago
Project Veritas Exposes ABC News: Network Allegedly Killed Epstein Story Implicating Bill Clinton, British Family, and More
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/11/05/james-okeefe-project-veritas-epstein-n2555911
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=3lfwkTsJGYA
Gaslighting: Manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.
I am so sorry to hear that Ronan Farrow is depressed. I’m sure that his suicide next week will come as a shock to the family and friends he leaves behind — as well as Ronan Farrow himself.
But seriously… Nothing will come of it. If this was a serious threat, the Clintons would have buried the evidence — and witnesses — long ago. Better would be to put him on trial for his behavior on Epstein’s plane, in Epstein’s apartment, and on Epstein’s private island. There must be witnesses (e.g. staff).
I support Trump unequivocally and unabashedly.
See how easy that is? No need to qualify or otherwise make your support appear more palatable to others.
Trump has endured the unthinkable as a presidential candidate, a presidential elect, and now as president.
These support qualifiers are representative of those expressing them and not of Trump.
It’s ironic free thinkers are now heretics.
Mac on November 5, 2019 at 11:24 am said:
…
This is something I wonder about and really don’t think I have a good answer for: the general question of just how successful is the media/Democrat effort to make their version of events the generally accepted one. By “generally accepted” I mean by a definite majority of the population at large.
* * *
Not just this case, but the population at large gefintely accepts the narrative peddled by the MSM – because they never hear the other side.
Personal observation of a friend who is not an activist partisan of either side, but casually remarked “Trump should be impeached” in the middle of a general conversation.
Plus, a post by Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine which referenced, as a casual aside, the narrative of Trump mocking a disabled reporter — a story which has been so often debunked that a good chunk of his commenters called him on it and one of them cited it as the proximate cause of Straka founding #WalkAway.
If even a professional observer of politics, of the GOP persuasion, still accepts that kind of discredited narrative, what hope is there for people like my LIV friend?
Epstein was killed.
I believe that.
Broaddrick was raped / had unwanted sex with Clinton. She had sex. I think she did not clearly say “no”, and possibly wanted good sex — but she didn’t want her lip to be bitten.
Date, time, place more clearly remembered than anything about Kavanaugh, or even about Trump. The #MeToo feminists need to support Broaddrick or else they’re admitting it’s a selective, partisan outrage. Some feminists are on board with this.
Warren supporting women will likely be calling for more against Bill Clinton, as a way of keeping Hillary out, and even out of the limited press time.
There have been a lot of stories over the last couple of decades or so that reflect badly on the Left’s favorites, stories which the MSM has played down, dismissed, then, quickly moved away from covering, and essentially buried, and Juanita Broaddrick’s rape accusations against former President Clinton are an example of one of these stories.
Much more recently, though, we have had accused pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s supposed “suicide,” which the MSM covered, the current NYC Medical Examiner’s verdict of “suicide” was portrayed as settling the matter and, then, this story quickly disappeared from the MSM.
Epstein, you might remember, had many dozens of very rich, famous, and connected people, including Bill Clinton—fly, sometimes fly numerous times—on Epstein’s private airplane to his supposed “pedophile island,” and/or visit/hang out with/stay with him in his New York apartment—like England’s Prince Andrew.
There are rumors that Epstein had his premises wired for video and sound and, thus, supposedly had a lot of bad stuff on a lot of famous people; perhaps the source of his power, and years of immunity from public exposure and prosecution.
Naturally, if this were true, there would be quite a few powerful people who had all the reason in the world to want Epstein dead and silenced.
This last week famous forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden—the former New York City Medical Examiner who, at the request of Epstein’s brother, observed the current NYC Medical examiner’s autopsy of Jeffrey Epstein, and says that he has done or supervised some 20,000 autopsies—many hundreds of them strangulations—has given his opinion on FOX that, given what is now known—particularly the fact that not one but three different bones in Epstein’s neck were broken, the fact that the blood vessels in Epstein’s eyes were broken, plus the low height of the bedpost that the sheet was tied on, which Baden says the mechanics of which makes Epstein being able to strangle himself very unlikely—these facts indicate this “suicide” was more likely a “homicide.” Dr Baden quoted as saying that, in 50 years of doing autopsies, he has never seen this combination of bones being broken in a strangulation that was a suicide. *
In addition to this, you must also admit that the circumstances surrounding this supposed “suicide” are very, very fishy, and contain far too many “coincidences,” all of which would have made it much easier for someone to strangle Epstein unobserved.
The first thing to note is that, according to reports, there has been only one other supposed “suicide” (this one also perhaps doubtful, and of a mobster) in this facility over the course of the last 40 years.
Then, there were the vague reports in the MSM—some which said that Epstein had suffered “injuries to his neck area” as the result of Epstein trying to “hurt himself,” while other reports said that, instead, Epstein had been roughed up by his hulking ex-cop cellmate, who was in jail charged with killing four people.
Following these injuries, Epstein was put on suicide watch—which meant, among other things, reportedly replacing his regular cotton? bed sheets, which Epstein could conceivably use to harm himself, with some sort of much weaker paper mache like bed sheets—sheets presumably not strong enough to be used to fashion something which Epstein could use to strangle himself.
A few days later, Epstein was taken off suicide watch and, presumably, back came the bedsheets which could be used in a strangulation.
Next, Epstein’s hulking cellmate was transferred out of his cell, leaving Epstein all alone.
Then, the night that Epstein supposedly strangled himself, his guards—who were supposed to check his cell every 30 minutes (and if Epstein had still been on suicide watch, every 15 minutes in addition) unaccountably fell asleep for a few hours, so that there was a three hour or so period where Epstein was not checked on, during which the strangulation occurred.
In addition, at least two cameras that were supposed to monitor the cell Epstein was in suffered a mysterious “malfunction,” and reportedly didn’t record anything during the hours when the strangulation apparently occurred.
Dr Baden also pointed out that the NYC Medical Examiner’s office has not yet released any DNA evidence from the sheets, nor reported on whether there was any DNA evidence recovered from underneath Epstein’s fingernails.
I don’t know how this whole thing could be anymore of a set-up than it appears to be.
* See https://www.foxnews.com/us/forensic-pathologist-jeffrey-epstein-homicide-suicide
CBS fires former ABC staffer who blew whistle on network spiking Epstein accuser interview: report
Project Veritas: ABC Insider: Why I, alone, released the Amy Robach Epstein tape.
Oh. CBS didn’t fire the leaker, who still works at ABC. How ’bout that?
Then, the night that Epstein supposedly strangled himself, his guards—who were supposed to check his cell every 30 minutes (and if Epstein had still been on suicide watch, every 15 minutes in addition) unaccountably fell asleep for a few hours, so that there was a three hour or so period where Epstein was not checked on, during which the strangulation occurred. In addition, at least two cameras that were supposed to monitor the cell Epstein was in suffered a mysterious “malfunction,” and reportedly didn’t record anything during the hours when the strangulation apparently occurred.
You never quite know if you’re reading facts or factoids. If those are facts, it’s a smoking gun. Barr needs to get to the bottom of it.