General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJuanita Broaddrick is a hypocrite, shameful opportunist and nothing but a shady partisan hack.
Link to tweet
You are under no obligation to believe her claims against Bill Clinton simply because of the news other more current allegations of sexual harassment and assault against notable figures. There's nothing that requires you to believe her, and certainly not some misguided sense of guilt that you think now you should have taken her seriously.
Nothing about her seems to cry like someone who should be taken seriously.
Feel free to check out her Twitter page and tell me whether she comes off as someone who is a credible yet silenced victim of abuse, or alternately, someone with a blatant and unabashed political agenda.
https://twitter.com/atensnut
First, her profile picture is her with Sean Hannity. So there's that.
But much, much worse is her cover photo. It shows her--along with three other women--sitting right next to Donald Trump. The picture was taken at a press conference right before the second debate and right after the Access Hollywood tape had come out. You know, the tape where Donald Trump bragged about kissing women against their consent and wanting to "grab them by the pussy"?
Seriously......if you are the legitimate victim of sexual assault by a high profile individual, a blatantly transparent photo op next to Donald Trump right after the Access Hollywood tapes became public would be the very last thing you would want to do.
If you continue to read her Twitter feed, you'll see her go off on what could best be described as generic right wing rants that have nothing to do with the Clintons or allegations of sexual assault. She attacks Jim Comey, Congresswoman Fredericka Wilson, Joe Biden, Michelle Obama's fashion, goes on rants about immigration, posts Ben Garrison cartoons, communicates with "Doctor" Sebastian Gorka, and posts lots and lots and lots of heaping praise on Donald "Grab them by the pussy" Trump.
Also interesting is her especially pointed attacks against Megyn Kelly, even after Kelly had come out and alleged she was the victim of sexual harassment at Fox News. For example:
Link to tweet
Now, say whatever you will about Megyn Kelly, positive, negative or (in my case) completely neutral. But again, why would someone who claims to be the victim of sexual assault go off so heavily on someone else who claimed to be the victim of unwanted sexual advances apparently because she didn't jibe with your political candidate of choice?
Perhaps all of this could better be excused as bitter vigilantism by a silenced abuse victim, but only if Broadrrick's story was more substantiated and believable from the get-go. The fact that two of the people Broaddrick claims supported her story happened to be friends of hers with a long standing decades long beef against Bill Clinton for commuting a death sentence against their father's killer is notable. The fact that Broadderick denied being assaulted under oath is even more notable.
But that Ken Starr--who would have given his left nut to destroy Bill Clinton if he could--couldn't find Broaddrick credible enough to use during his unbridled special counsel investigation, speaks vast volumes as to why I should be hesitant to believe Juannita Broaddrick.
Listen, even though I'll honestly admit that yes, I am a fan of Bill Clinton, the guy is far from perfect, both politically and personally. We all know through the Monica story (and before that, Gennifer Flowers) he seemed to have a weakness when it came to women, although those stories represented completely 100% consensual relationships with adults. That all said, given the headlines today, is it absolutely out of the realm of possibility that he had acted inappropriately at some point in the past? Certainly not. And that's not just directed towards Bill Clinton, but to literally everyone and anyone. Tom Hanks. Barack Obama. The Dalai Freaking Lama. There are no sacred cows out there. Just ask Bill Cosby, who most of us loved and adored until about a few years ago.
But no, I have a hard time specifically believing Juanita Broaddrick, and you shouldn't fall victim into the trap that we now have to believe her because the times somehow require that we do.
Nor should anyone feel guilty or embarrassed or ashamed if they say they don't believe Juanita Broaddrick.
hlthe2b
(101,730 posts)been off target. Granted that doesn't apply to accomplished actors or, perhaps sociopaths, but generally I trust my gut on these things.
Broddrick never came across as genuine to me and while I can honestly say that I've not delved back into her claims for many many many years, as I recall she had no others that could support her story--no one that she told at the time or even within a few months or year of the supposed incident. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that is what I recall. Beyond the fact the entire "Arkansas project" seemed to have its tentacles in any and all things that ever involved the Clintons, so I was always suspicious. Bill Clinton was a philanderer and a "sexual fool" IMO, yes. But there is a considerable step from that to rape as she claimed.
Big Blue Marble
(4,978 posts)when I heard her original story on Sixty Minutes twenty years ago, she seemed as
credible as other women whom I have heard share their rape experiences.
hlthe2b
(101,730 posts)Bill Clinton was not the "good guy" that we WANTED him to be in this context, for sure. While I do not believe HRC has necessarily been treated fairly on on all this, she is a pragmatist and may well have defended him in very inappropriate ways, including the manner that Broaddrick claimed.
That said, I don't remember all the details of Broaddrick's original account, so I will continue to give her benefit of the doubt vis-a-vis her claims.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)A person claiming to be the victim of abuse, assault or harassment has every right to have his or her claim taken seriously, sensitively, in good faith with due diligence to nothing but getting to the truth of the matter.
We shouldn't feel obligated to immediately believe any one's account over the other or out of "default."
Broaddrick first publicly made her claims in the late 1990s. They were investigated by none other than Ken Starr, who didn't find her to be reliable.
Since the Starr investigation and the initial onset of Broaddrick, there hasn't been anything that has come to public light that has bolstered her claims or made her statement more believable than it would have been in the 1990s.
hlthe2b
(101,730 posts)change of mind as more facts come out. Any REASONABLE person is going to do this. But, unlike some, my default is NOT to DISBELIEVE them immediately.
Damn it, I am so tired of the "gotcha" attacks on others, taking one phrase out of context and running with it. Want to know how you SHOULD have handled this? Perhaps give me benefit of the doubt and ask ME if that is what I meant.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)And of course nothing stops anyone from changing from that default position, but when the claims are as serious as they are for both the accuser and the accused, I like to take a wait and see before I take any sort of position.
hlthe2b
(101,730 posts)their account, the reliability of the accuser is justifiably brought into doubt.
"No position" is why so many incidents are never investigated to begin with and thus the perpetrators continue to do so. "No position" is why Trump got by with 16 accusers and the access hollywood tape with voters blithely voting him into office as his victims languish for any "justice".
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)was rock-bottom even for him, considering his past. Hillary handled things graciously, but I've always wondered why Trump was permitted. Did he pay for airtime? Whatever you think of Bill Clinton, the Trump stunt was truly unprecedented AND unpresidential.
LenaBaby61
(6,965 posts)Anybody who knows the Emmit Till story can say with confidence that there should be NO default to believing anyone accusing anybody of rape, and that there HAS to be a good faith duty to investigate, and even then in the Till case, the murders got off Scott free and went on to live their lives. Emmit paid the ultimate price because his accuser was believed. Now here we are years and one lynching/murder later, and his accuser said that she lied about what she accused Emmit Till of, and will be writing a book I believe telling the "real" story
Big Blue Marble
(4,978 posts)is that she seems to have become a bitter woman who allows herself to
be weaponized. I was so angry with her last year for appearing at the debate
as Trump's guest (Willey too.). She greatly diminishes her credibility when
she plays the victim card for the benefit of the Republicans.
And to stand with Trump against the women he abused was beyond the pale.
MichMary
(1,714 posts)tell five other people contemporaneously, and that they believed her.
Sounds like you mostly don't believe her because of her politics. That's sad.
hlthe2b
(101,730 posts)Your little "sad" snarky comment reminds me of someone... hmmmmmm. Who could that be?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Her later husband--then paramour--David Broaddrick claims she told him about the assault but apparently gave rather inconsistent statements on what he says she told him.
Two other alleged witnesses were sisters who were angry that Clinton, while Governor, had commuted the death sentence of the man who killed their father.
For what' its worth, none of the allegations were ever publicized until the late 90s around the time of the Lewinsky story. Broaddrick herself initially denied the assault under oath before later changing her story.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Juanita loves to bash other victims of sexual assault.
Her conservative is showing through, as only she can claim to be a "victim' and no one else.
Thanks to the poster for placing those tweets into the evidence box.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)And it was clearly a coded death threat?
She made a lot of fame and fortune the moment the statute of limitations for perjury ran out, didnt she?
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Link to tweet
Juanita Broaddrick?
@atensnut
Bannon is working on it, @RealJamesWoods Good things are coming.
Again. Why should I believe this woman?
LenaBaby61
(6,965 posts)Even before Bannon et al came along, I didn't believe her story. She testified under oath 2 times and said that Bill Clinton didn't rape her, then once she wasn't under oath she said Clinton did rape her.
She's now aligned herself with tRumputin, and with a Nazi sleaze in Bannon.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Trump campaign CEO once charged in domestic violence case
The 1996 charges were later dropped due to witness unavailability.
By HADAS GOLD and JOHN BRESNAHAN
| 08/25/2016 09:06 PM EDT
Stephen K. Bannon, the new CEO of the Donald Trump campaign, was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, battery and dissuading a witness following an incident in early January 1996, though the case was ultimately dismissed, according to a police report and court documents.
The Santa Monica, Calif., police report says that Bannons then-wife claimed he pulled at her neck and wrist during an altercation over their finances, and an officer reported witnessing red marks on her neck and wrist to bolster her account. Bannon also reportedly smashed the phone when she tried to call the police.
While the case ended when Bannon's ex-wife did not appear in court, the incident presents a new problem for the Trump campaign following the hiring of the controversial Bannon. He went on leave from Breitbart News, where he is chairman, to take over the Trump campaign.
LenaBaby61
(6,965 posts)Trump campaign CEO once charged in domestic violence case
The 1996 charges were later dropped due to witness unavailability.
By HADAS GOLD and JOHN BRESNAHAN
| 08/25/2016 09:06 PM EDT
Stephen K. Bannon, the new CEO of the Donald Trump campaign, was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, battery and dissuading a witness following an incident in early January 1996, though the case was ultimately dismissed, according to a police report and court documents.
The Santa Monica, Calif., police report says that Bannons then-wife claimed he pulled at her neck and wrist during an altercation over their finances, and an officer reported witnessing red marks on her neck and wrist to bolster her account. Bannon also reportedly smashed the phone when she tried to call the police.
While the case ended when Bannon's ex-wife did not appear in court, the incident presents a new problem for the Trump campaign following the hiring of the controversial Bannon. He went on leave from Breitbart News, where he is chairman, to take over the Trump campaign.
I see your point completely Tommy_Carcetti
RockaFowler
(7,429 posts)She doesn't believe the Roy Moore Accusers
She doesn't believe the Donald Drumpf Accusers
Of course now she says
Link to tweet
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)kcr
(15,300 posts)Anyone saying we now have to believe Juanita Broaddrick is revealing their agenda as far as I'm concerned.
Wounded Bear
(58,440 posts)to have an affair with Bill and write a tell all book later. But she got tripped up by the more savvy folks in DC who usurped her position.
There are instances where these situations are honey traps. It's not just the Russians who do that.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)If you ask me, probably it was just a combination of her having access to the President of the United States who also has a rather magnetic persona about him as well as stately good looks (admittedly an attractive combo), and him being notoriously impulsive when a woman showed her affection towards him.
My opinion on Monica has always been completely neutral. She did pursue a married man, but that married man should have had the better sense not to go with it. She's neither a hero nor a villain in my book.
Whatever it was, it was nothing but consensual. Ultimately very stupid and reckless on Bill's part, but consensual nonetheless.
JI7
(89,182 posts)And maybe tell people privately throughout her life.
And years later written a tell all book and make money from it.
That's how it should have been.
politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)During the Ken Starr chronicles, (I was a political junkie even then) a man wrote a book about the Clintons and he explained that in order to understand what went on there you had to know what the social scene in Little Rock, Arkansas, was like. He said that the town didn't have much going on but that the upwardly mobile had very active social scene with lots of parties thrown by bored wealthy socialites whose husbands didn't pay a lot of attention to their wives, and that they even had a lot of wife swapping that went on among this group of people, even at these parties and elsewhere. All consensual. All the women seemed to love Bill Clinton because he was everything their husbands weren't, handsome, attentive, and could charm their 'pants' off, though he didn't need to. They gladly obliged. But Bill Clinton wasn't wealthy so they had no plans to leave their husbands. They just wanted the excitement and the sex. Hillary and Bill were both intelligent, ambitious and both had plans that went beyond Arkansas.
Now as far as Juanita Broaddrick goes, on the day of the alleged rape, she was supposed to meet Bill in the coffee shop of a hotel to discuss business related to her work at a nursing home she ran. Once there, Bill Clinton talked her into going upstairs to a room he had reserved, where they could talk better. She went willingly. Once inside, she stated that the only furniture in the room was a bed. At that point it was obvious they were not going to do much talking. She let him kiss her and she didn't seem to have a problem until he 'got rough' and 'bit her lip'. But the sex continued. It was only when he was through and got ready to leave that she felt 'used', like some women do when they find out that they were, (as some of our mothers use to warn us about) just a warm place to put it. I imagine she felt used and cast aside, and was probably angry once she thought about it, but I don't think that her buyer's remorse fit the definition of rape in that day and age.
rainlillie
(1,095 posts)She heard the p#ssy grab comments just like the rest of us and still allowed herself to be used like a prop during the debate. Some women do lie about being victimized by men. I think the climate is so hot now, that if any man is accused people automatically think he's guilty.
freddyvh
(276 posts)she signed an affidavit saying she wasn't raped.
if that is true....what changed?
Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)Plus, she testified twice under oath that he didn't do that...so really how can we believe her?
TexasBushwhacker
(20,044 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Not the Dalai Lama.
Recommended.
Bettie
(15,998 posts)enough for his purposes...just doesn't scream credible to me, since he was willing to go all in on pretty much anything he could find.
kskiska
(27,041 posts)Bettie
(15,998 posts)anything to pin on Clinton.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Link to tweet
Juanita Broaddrick?
@atensnut
To All who are belittling me about my support of Trump. Accusations against him went NOWHERE-Don't you get it-NOWHERE!
9:32 AM - 12 Oct 2017 from Arkansas, USA
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)We'll never know the truth. It's tricky, but the liberal position is to believe the woman
"There is a crucial tension between "believe survivors" and the "Juanita Broaddrick is lying" position of some Clinton defenders, lacking further information. When Hillary Clinton tweeted during the campaign that "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported," its reasonable to ask if thats true of Juanita Broaddrick, too."
A more balanced position is to admit that it's he said she an acceptable truth could only be possible if they both shared the same story. It's not going to happen. We don't know.
Yes, the GOP was relentless in trying to dig up as much dirt as possible. In the end, that there was something to find is his own fault. His denial resulted in a horrifying rounds of questioning where Monica Lewinsky had to confirm her voice listening to hours and hours of recordings that she described as her worst self. If that humiliation weren't enough she had to walk through a world where people who saw or talked with her knew embarrassing details that noone would want the public to know. He could have prevented that. Lewinsky takes full responsibility for her part in the relationship. And points out that the victimization came when she was scapegoated and humiliated as she listened to those tapes, and publicly. She had to stand in check out lines where the sold tabloids with her face on the front page. Imagine applying for a job knowing that the HR dept. knows the story. She had no choice but to tell her story and she had to navigate a world that condemned her, while he had a team of supporters who ignored the possibility that it might be a painful ordeal for her, while he went on to be impeached but never lost support of a partisan team.
It's possible to take a second look now that we are beginning to see the frequency of sexual advances and and discomforting suggestive actions without bringing politics into the discussion. The women who are coming forward voluntarily are revealing the protective mechanisms that have permitted powerful men to sexually abuse women. Giving some thought to how system has protected sexual abusers includes re-evaluating our public response to various incidents because it has been accepted as a fact of life.
Bill Clinton could contribute significantly to the challenge to the system that accepted his own behaviors when a woman (who I assume he cared about on some level) contributed to the kind of humiliation he knew she experienced and she still has to live with.
His vague apology didn't mention the women who were dragged into the disaster of his own making. Recognizing that would go a long way towards dismantling to patriarchal arrangement that oppressses women economically and socially.
Skittles
(152,966 posts)she is a repuke hack
Baconator
(1,459 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,085 posts)Two days after the Access Hollywood tapes get released and she's sitting right next to Donald Trump. That just doesn't seem normal to me.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)Again, assuming her claims are true...
She might care more about getting back at the Clintons and less about being a straight shooter across the board on sexual harassment/assault.
Enemy of my enemy and all that... Doesn't mean she is a pure white angel or anything. She may just want vengeance.
standingtall
(2,785 posts)so there is no reason for her to refuse to believe the accusers of Roy Moore unless it is just about politics.
Baconator
(1,459 posts)... she'll likely keep at it until her dying day.
Position be damned...