Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,085 posts)
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 12:14 PM Nov 2017

Juanita Broaddrick is a hypocrite, shameful opportunist and nothing but a shady partisan hack.




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:




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.
43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Juanita Broaddrick is a hypocrite, shameful opportunist and nothing but a shady partisan hack. (Original Post) Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2017 OP
My instinctive reaction to people's body language, responses, and reactions have rarely hlthe2b Nov 2017 #1
I disagree, Big Blue Marble Nov 2017 #4
I have doubt in both directions... Generally speaking I default to believing the victims. hlthe2b Nov 2017 #10
There should be no *default* into believing anyone. Just a good faith duty to investigate. Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2017 #12
Stop adding to what I said. I said my default was to believe them, but that does not preclude a hlthe2b Nov 2017 #15
A default position is a default position. Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2017 #16
No position is to discount the accuser. Benefit of the doubt is to believe them until the facts, hlthe2b Nov 2017 #17
And Trump's stunt with these women at the second debate... maddiemom Nov 2017 #23
"There should be no *default* into believing anyone. Just a good faith duty to investigate." LenaBaby61 Nov 2017 #30
The tragedy of Broaddrick Big Blue Marble Nov 2017 #22
I've read that she did MichMary Nov 2017 #7
That is not what I said at all. Very disingenous of you to say that MichMary hlthe2b Nov 2017 #9
There's no hard evidence she told anyone contemperaneously. Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2017 #11
I never believed her or Kathleen Wiley. Dawson Leery Nov 2017 #18
What about when Hillary said thank you Nevernose Nov 2017 #2
"Bannon is working on it. Good things are coming." Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2017 #3
Again. Why should I believe this woman? LenaBaby61 Nov 2017 #27
Come on now. It's not like Steve Bannon has ever been accused of any violence towards wom-- Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2017 #28
"Come on now. It's not like Steve Bannon has ever been accused of any violence towards women." LenaBaby61 Nov 2017 #31
She also doesn't believe any other victim RockaFowler Nov 2017 #5
Or perhaps her lawyer says that. nt Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2017 #6
Yep. It's a trap. kcr Nov 2017 #8
I always figured that Monica had a plan... Wounded Bear Nov 2017 #13
I have no idea what Monica wanted. Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2017 #14
I think she was like a groupie. She should have been allowed to keep it a secret JI7 Nov 2017 #19
My issue with Broaddrick and Bill Clinton's other women. politicaljunkie41910 Nov 2017 #20
I totally agree with you.. rainlillie Nov 2017 #21
if i remember correctly.... freddyvh Nov 2017 #24
This woman has made Clinton's rape allegation her friggin CAREER. ENOUGH SAID. Kirk Lover Nov 2017 #25
Yup. Was she lying then or is she lying now? N/t TexasBushwhacker Nov 2017 #29
The Dalai Lama??? guillaumeb Nov 2017 #26
If Ken Starr didn't find her credible Bettie Nov 2017 #32
He didn't find Kathleen Willey credible, either. kskiska Nov 2017 #34
And he was looking for something, Bettie Nov 2017 #37
And I'll just add this for good measure. Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2017 #33
This was a he said she said loyalsister Nov 2017 #35
I have never believed her Skittles Nov 2017 #36
If it happened, is it so far fetched that she would gravitate to his political enemies? Baconator Nov 2017 #38
Perhaps but it's her cavalier dismissal of allegations of abuse against other people that stands out Tommy_Carcetti Nov 2017 #39
Depends on the motive I suppose... Baconator Nov 2017 #40
Neither of the Clinton holds public office anymore standingtall Nov 2017 #41
If she's motivated by revenge... Baconator Nov 2017 #42
She's a discredited liar. Hope karma catches up to her real soon. beaglelover Nov 2017 #43

hlthe2b

(101,730 posts)
1. My instinctive reaction to people's body language, responses, and reactions have rarely
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 12:23 PM
Nov 2017

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)
4. I disagree,
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 12:48 PM
Nov 2017

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)
10. I have doubt in both directions... Generally speaking I default to believing the victims.
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 01:07 PM
Nov 2017

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)
12. There should be no *default* into believing anyone. Just a good faith duty to investigate.
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 01:16 PM
Nov 2017

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)
15. Stop adding to what I said. I said my default was to believe them, but that does not preclude a
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 01:44 PM
Nov 2017

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)
16. A default position is a default position.
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 01:47 PM
Nov 2017

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)
17. No position is to discount the accuser. Benefit of the doubt is to believe them until the facts,
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 01:50 PM
Nov 2017

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)
23. And Trump's stunt with these women at the second debate...
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 03:04 PM
Nov 2017

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)
30. "There should be no *default* into believing anyone. Just a good faith duty to investigate."
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 04:04 PM
Nov 2017

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)
22. The tragedy of Broaddrick
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 02:48 PM
Nov 2017

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)
7. I've read that she did
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 12:53 PM
Nov 2017

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)
9. That is not what I said at all. Very disingenous of you to say that MichMary
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 01:01 PM
Nov 2017


Your little "sad" snarky comment reminds me of someone... hmmmmmm. Who could that be?

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,085 posts)
11. There's no hard evidence she told anyone contemperaneously.
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 01:09 PM
Nov 2017

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)
18. I never believed her or Kathleen Wiley.
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 02:18 PM
Nov 2017

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)
2. What about when Hillary said thank you
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 12:37 PM
Nov 2017

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, didn’t she?

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,085 posts)
3. "Bannon is working on it. Good things are coming."
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 12:41 PM
Nov 2017




Juanita Broaddrick?
@atensnut

Bannon is working on it, @RealJamesWoods Good things are coming.





Again. Why should I believe this woman?

LenaBaby61

(6,965 posts)
27. Again. Why should I believe this woman?
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 03:52 PM
Nov 2017

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)
28. Come on now. It's not like Steve Bannon has ever been accused of any violence towards wom--
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 03:56 PM
Nov 2017
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/steve-bannon-domestic-violence-case-police-report-227432


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 Bannon’s 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)
31. "Come on now. It's not like Steve Bannon has ever been accused of any violence towards women."
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 04:06 PM
Nov 2017
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/steve-bannon-domestic-violence-case-police-report-227432


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 Bannon’s 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)
5. She also doesn't believe any other victim
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 12:48 PM
Nov 2017

She doesn't believe the Roy Moore Accusers
She doesn't believe the Donald Drumpf Accusers


Of course now she says





kcr

(15,300 posts)
8. Yep. It's a trap.
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 12:59 PM
Nov 2017

Anyone saying we now have to believe Juanita Broaddrick is revealing their agenda as far as I'm concerned.

Wounded Bear

(58,440 posts)
13. I always figured that Monica had a plan...
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 01:21 PM
Nov 2017

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)
14. I have no idea what Monica wanted.
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 01:31 PM
Nov 2017

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)
19. I think she was like a groupie. She should have been allowed to keep it a secret
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 02:30 PM
Nov 2017

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)
20. My issue with Broaddrick and Bill Clinton's other women.
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 02:36 PM
Nov 2017

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)
21. I totally agree with you..
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 02:44 PM
Nov 2017

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)
24. if i remember correctly....
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 03:23 PM
Nov 2017

she signed an affidavit saying she wasn't raped.

if that is true....what changed?

 

Kirk Lover

(3,608 posts)
25. This woman has made Clinton's rape allegation her friggin CAREER. ENOUGH SAID.
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 03:24 PM
Nov 2017

Plus, she testified twice under oath that he didn't do that...so really how can we believe her?

Bettie

(15,998 posts)
32. If Ken Starr didn't find her credible
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 04:09 PM
Nov 2017

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.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,085 posts)
33. And I'll just add this for good measure.
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 04:09 PM
Nov 2017





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)
35. This was a he said she said
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 04:54 PM
Nov 2017

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," it’s reasonable to ask if that’s 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.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,085 posts)
39. Perhaps but it's her cavalier dismissal of allegations of abuse against other people that stands out
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 05:38 PM
Nov 2017

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)
40. Depends on the motive I suppose...
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 05:50 PM
Nov 2017

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)
41. Neither of the Clinton holds public office anymore
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 06:10 PM
Nov 2017

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)
42. If she's motivated by revenge...
Tue Nov 21, 2017, 06:28 PM
Nov 2017

... she'll likely keep at it until her dying day.

Position be damned...

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Juanita Broaddrick is a h...