# Bill Clinton and Jones/Willey/Broaddrick, revisited **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2017, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564 "2017-11-24T00:17:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/21 "2017-11-24T17:48:58Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Not sure what you’re objecting to. Lack of concern for facts, and result-driven argument. The usual for this board. > [@](#): > > I think we agree that something inappropriate happened between BC and the three women (four, if we count ML). Yes, and that’s between Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. It’s nobody else’s business. > [@](#): > > the women did come forward with a complaint. Please go learn about Richard Mellon Scaife. > [@](#): > > I’m not being both-side-ist. We’re discussing Bill Clinton and the allegations of questionable conduct wrt these women. In the context of Trump’s pussy-grabbing and Moore’s pedophilia, among other things. Yes, an attempt to fend off dismissals by Republican partisans that the concerns about them are themselves partisan is both-sides-ism even from Democrats. It’s pre-emptive surrender of the moral (relative) high ground, and unnecessary. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/22 "2017-11-24T18:55:35Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Please go learn about Richard Mellon Scaife. [Here’s what I learned](https://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/bill-clinton-richard-mellon-scaife-eulogy-109670) about Bill Clinton when I was learing about Richard Mellon Scaife. > [@](#): > > Bill Clinton on Saturday fondly memorialized one of the key financiers of what Hillary Clinton years ago deemed the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” > > Speaking at a private memorial service in southwestern Pennsylvania for Richard Mellon Scaife, who died last month, Clinton recalled how, after his presidency, he built a “counterintuitive friendship” with the conservative billionaire, according to an account of the speech in one of the newspapers Scaife owned. > > … > > “He fought as hard as he could for what he believed, but he never thought he had to be blind or deaf” to other views, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review quotes Clinton saying of its former publisher. A spokesman for Clinton declined to comment. > > Scaife confidant Christopher Ruddy, who rose to prominence on the Clinton scandal beat at the Tribune-Review, arranged Clinton’s appearance at Saturday’s memorial. Afterward, he acknowledged his former boss “was the bete noire of the Clinton administration during those years, sort of like what the Kochs are to the Obama administration today.” > > But Scaife became enamored with Clinton’s post-presidential philanthropic work on AIDS in Africa and other issues, and a thaw began, said Ruddy, now CEO of the conservative media outlet Newsmax, in which Scaife was a minority shareholder. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > In the context of Trump’s pussy-grabbing and Moore’s pedophilia, among other things. Yes, an attempt to fend off dismissals by Republican partisans that the concerns about them are themselves partisan is both-sides-ism even from Democrats. It’s pre-emptive surrender of the moral (relative) high ground, and unnecessary. Relative moral high ground, indeed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/23 "2017-11-24T19:53:00Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Revisited? > > For God’s sake, why??? > > The only reason it’s coming up again is to distract us from the current ones. > And there are people foolish enough to fall for that. Even here on the SDMB. Yep. It is Karl Rove and company. We have two things going here: “whataboutism” and trying to get people desensitized to the idea of sexual harrassment. The GOP really wants that scum creep from Alabama to win, they cant afford to lose a Senate seat. “Whataboutism” is even practiced here. It is a cheap propaganda tool dating back to Molotov and Goebbels. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2017, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/24 "2017-11-24T19:55:22Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Have you actually went back and checked the accusations? The consent issue isn’t there for these women. The women being brought up in this thread all claim there was no consent. And, of course, if there is no consent, the age issue isn’t particularly relevant. Who cares now? Is Bill running for office? No, the questions you are asking are brought out by the GOP , Karl Rove and the Kremlin. They want to distract voters from the child molester Moore. ---
**Author:** ![SarahWitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@SarahWitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SarahWitch)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2017, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/25 "2017-11-25T07:57:07Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Back during the 1990s, Richard Mellon Scaife’s hirelings dug up all the dirt they could find on Bill Clinton, and threw it at him in the hopes that some of it would stick. At the end of the 1990s, that was pretty much where we left things, with respect to the assorted accusations of Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick. > > But in the past few weeks, I’ve encountered numerous Doper comments to the effect that Bill Clinton almost surely committed sexual assault or sexual harassment. > > However, when making these claims, nobody’s linked to any definitive revisiting of the evidence against Clinton. > > So, when and how did we get from ‘lots of smoke but probably no fire’ ca. 1999, to ‘yep, there almost surely was fire’ ca. 2017? > > I’m certainly open to the notion that Bill Clinton committed sexual harassment or sexual assault, but just saying he did without any supporting evidence doesn’t cut the mustard, certainly not here of all places. > > So, those of you making these claims, this is your thread. Make your case, please. I have zero faith in lawyers, because 99% don’t remember the basic things taught in law school; rather they’re simply bureaucrats who can’t see the forest for the trees-- i.e. what the law means, vs. what it says; and so basically you’ll get a big speech of gibberish about why nothing is _ever_ illegal, if you’re a victim of some wrongdoing. I state this, because it’s entirely believable that someone like Juanita Broaddrick hasn’t been helped by a lawyer who understands laws like 18 USC 242, as well as 42 USC 1983, which allows a person acting under color of law to be prosecuted and sued if they violate a person’s constitutional rights. Here, Bill Clinton allegedly used his office of the state attorney general, to lure Juanita into a hotel room under pretense of discussing matters of state in order to rape her etc. And the same can go about her claims of Hillary’s “intimidating” her. While I’m not saying this is a slam-dunk, my point is that just because he wasn’t able to successfully prosecute Billary, doesn’t make them innocent. It’s not just a matter of statute-of-limitations, but the ability of attorneys to make the punishment fit the crime. We’ll just have to watch and see what happens now. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2017, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/26 "2017-11-25T12:34:52Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > [Here’s what I learned](https://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/bill-clinton-richard-mellon-scaife-eulogy-109670) about Bill Clinton when I was learing about Richard Mellon Scaife. Long afterward, as you may note, along with _nihil nisi bonum_. What have you learned so far about Scaife’s activities during Clinton’s presidency and campaigns? Apparently at least you now know the name, which does count for something. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2017, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/27 "2017-11-25T13:44:43Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Long afterward, as you may note, along with _nihil nisi bonum_. > > What have you learned so far about Scaife’s activities during Clinton’s presidency and campaigns? Apparently at least you now know the name, which does count for something. Clinton, the ever charming charlatan that he is, managed to cozy up to one of his worst detractors. Perhaps you find that an admirable characteristic. I find it damning and further proof of his capacity for duplicity and manipulation. Aside: You are not my better, nor am I your apprentice. If you continue in this manner of talking down to me, I feel no further obligation to respond. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2017, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/28 "2017-11-25T14:22:47Z")
That’s the sort of thing someone with a lack of command of the facts says. The shortcoming is not mine. ---
**Author:** ![SarahWitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@SarahWitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SarahWitch)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2017, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/29 "2017-11-25T23:06:17Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Clinton, the ever charming charlatan that he is, managed to cozy up to one of his worst detractors. Perhaps you find that an admirable characteristic. I find it damning and further proof of his capacity for duplicity and manipulation. I think you’re giving Bill too much credit, and not seeing Hillary for the master manipulator that she is. Bill is a common sociopath, who are generally small-time shyster lawyers and crooked politicians; but examining Hillary’s record, she was behind him every step of the way running damage-control and backstabbing his political opponents while pushing him to higher office as her avatar, after which she cast him aside once he had served his purpose in January of 2001. This is one reason that I believe that she is a full-blown psychotic, and not simply delusional narcissist, psychopath or bi-polar case that she seems to be other times, since psychosis can mimic those conditions; but her ruthless ambition and demeanor bear this out. Sadly, nobody who is anybody, dares to point this out, because they want to keep their jobs and fear retaliation from her; so it’s safer for them to toe the line; but bloggers can safely speak the truth. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2017, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/30 "2017-11-25T23:24:09Z")
> [@SarahWitch](#): > > I think you’re giving Bill too much credit, and not seeing Hillary for the master manipulator that she is… A truly masterful manipulator gets what they want from you and you like them. Hillary is mediocre at it, she’s Shirley from HR. See? ---
**Author:** ![SarahWitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@SarahWitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SarahWitch)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2017, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/31 "2017-11-26T00:03:26Z")
Shirley you _jest_. If that were true then she’d\* be\* in HR. Don’t be fooled; she’s been fooling a large part of the country for 25 years, and I’m willing to bet they’re all on the same end of the Bell Curve-- the\* far left. \* Try to at least stay in the middle of that. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2017, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/32 "2017-11-26T06:41:41Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Have you actually went back and checked the accusations? The consent issue isn’t there for these women. The women being brought up in this thread all claim there was no consent. And, of course, if there is no consent, the age issue isn’t particularly relevant. > > And have you looked at what tactics were used to discredit them? Do they not seem a lot like the same ones used to discredit legitimate rape victims today? > > Broaddrick even told many different people about the rape situation at the time. You know, the same sort of thing we count as very persuasive in other situations. > > We may have had scandal fatigue before, both in the 90s and in 2016. But, looking back, Broaddrick, at the very least, seems quite credible. > > I even went into it specifically hoping I’d find out why it was not credible, and failed. But all you have to do is read her account, [as reported by Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick#Allegations_against_Bill_Clinton), to see that it seems perfectly credible. > > I doubt Jones. I doubt Willey. I can’t find a way to doubt Broaddrick. Just because we resolved the situation in the 90s or that it’s being used in a partisan way doesn’t mean that we can dismiss it. I have a way to doubt Broaddrick. She had three “witnesses”: two were sisters whose father had been murdered by someone whose sentence Bill Clinton commuted; the third was the man she was allegedly having an affair with. (They later married.) Just because there is a way to doubt her doesn’t mean I think Clinton was innocent of all allegations of sexual misconduct. But if “Boys will be boys” is truly the attitude of Trump defenders–and I wish it weren’t–then logically, they must apply the same odious standard to Bill Clinton. This is the price paid for lowering moral standards: if you do so with one political figure, you must do so for all accused of the same behaviors. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2017, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/33 "2017-11-26T12:41:25Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I even went into it specifically hoping I’d find out why it was not credible, and failed. But all you have to do is read her account, [as reported by Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick#Allegations_against_Bill_Clinton), to see that it seems perfectly credible. > > I doubt Jones. I doubt Willey. I can’t find a way to doubt Broaddrick. Just because we resolved the situation in the 90s or that it’s being used in a partisan way doesn’t mean that we can dismiss it. From your link: > [@](#): > > Broaddrick says Bill Clinton did not speak to her at the event [three weeks after the alleged assault], but Hillary Clinton approached her, took her hand, and said "I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate what you do for him.”[10] When Broaddrick moved her hand away, she says, Hillary Clinton held on to her and said, “Do you understand? Everything that you do.”[10] Broaddrick says she felt nauseated and left the gathering. Broaddrick says she interpreted the incident as Hillary Clinton thanking her for keeping quiet. We each come in with our own sets of biases, but this feels to me like it dropped in out of some other universe. Suppose Broaddrick’s interpretation is correct. It would mean that Bill had told Hillary about their encounter, which at this point Hillary would have had no other way of knowing about. Not only does that make no sense on its face, but it’s inconsistent with Bill’s actions in later ‘bimbo eruptions,’ notably Lewinsky. Alternatively, she could remember the encounter correctly while misinterpreting it. That doesn’t really make sense either. To Hillary, she’s presumably just a random person who’s started volunteering for Bill’s campaign. The initial remark is consistent with that - a bit of boilerplate thanks to a random volunteer from the candidate’s wife. But the followup is totally out of left field, makes no sense at all. And of course the third alternative is that this didn’t happen. Well, maybe the initial boilerplate remark did. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2017, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/34 "2017-11-26T13:22:29Z")
I’m not sure why we must assume there was no other way for Hillary to find out other than hearing it from Bill. Broaddrick told 4 people right after the alleged incident, and surely you know that wives find out about their husband’s affairs from other people all the time. The wikipedia article says there were rumors of the incident floating around “for years”, so the news did make it’s way into the public domain. That is not to say that the rumors had to have reached Hillary in 3 weeks (the time between the two events), but it’s certainly possible. Especially if we assume that HRC had her antennae on alert, which is certainly possible. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2017, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/35 "2017-11-26T18:50:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m not sure why we must assume there was no other way for Hillary to find out other than hearing it from Bill. Broaddrick told 4 people right after the alleged incident and surely you know that wives find out about their husband’s affairs from other people all the time. OK, but if Hillary found out about this as the result of a circulating rumor, then her followup makes even _less_ sense. Hillary can’t be thanking Juanita for keeping quiet, because _she hadn’t been doing so_. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/36 "2017-11-26T19:00:40Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > OK, but if Hillary found out about this as the result of a circulating rumor, then her followup makes even _less_ sense. Hillary can’t be thanking Juanita for keeping quiet, because _she hadn’t been doing so_. She may have misinterpreted a threat as a thank-you. IOW, the message was supposed to be: STFU, or else. It’s also possible Bill did tell Hill, but told her a different version of the story. _Honey, she came onto me like a sow in heat back at Uncle Jakes hog farm. I pushed her away, and she she got injured. She threatened to go the press and claim she was assaulted, but I convinced her to stay quiet._ Whether Hill believed Bill or not, her reaction could have been the same. The issue though, is that “the only way…” is almost always wrong, and in this case there are other ways. There are also more than 3 alternatives. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2017, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/37 "2017-11-26T21:49:54Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Sigh. You must have only recently heard the name Lewinsky. > > Please get your facts straight. Those of us who lived through that period don’t need to go back and learn them. I lived through that period, too. That’s specifically how I know what I’m talking about. Lewinsky and Paula Jones were the big ones and always in the news. Broadchurch wasn’t. And, yes, you very, very much need to go back and read up on the situation if you are just going by your memory from 20 years ago. Even if you were aware of more than I was at the time, you cannot make good arguments based on our inherently faulty human memory. Finally, as I find myself needing to say way too often: If I’m wrong, REFUTE me. This empty rhetoric is useless. My takeaway is that you can’t prove me wrong, or you would have done so rather than just snark. Snark is not a substitute for an argument. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2017, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/38 "2017-11-26T21:56:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s also possible Bill did tell Hill, but told her a different version of the story. _Honey, she came onto me like a sow in heat back at Uncle Jakes hog farm. I pushed her away, and she she got injured. She threatened to go the press and claim she was assaulted, but I convinced her to stay quiet._ Whether Hill believed Bill or not, her reaction could have been the same. This is precisely the scenario I considered earlier in holding back on blaming Hillary. Sure, she may have known, but she could also be like many, many other wives who believe their husbands and don’t think they could possibly do these bad things. But, with Bill, I definitely fall on the side that he probably raped Broadchurch. And what I described in my first post is 100% entirely my own personal journey on all of this, and one that seems to fit that of others. The partisanship of the attacks led me to believe it was false. Then the horribleness of Trump and the fact that he used it only reactionarily made me doubt her again. But people brought it up again, so I went and read about it, and realized that I can’t find anything in her story that makes her different from other women who I have no trouble believing. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2017, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/39 "2017-11-26T22:24:38Z")
Another reason for my skepticism is that while not excluding the possibility that this was a one-off, and Bill Clinton had never pulled a stunt like this before or since, it does seem like that’s the exception. Most men who commit sexual assault don’t do it just once. Yet in the nearly two decades since Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape, and in the more than a year since Trump paraded her and Jones and Willey around at the debate with Hillary Clinton, there haven’t been any other accusers come out of the woodwork. OTOH, it’s only a couple of months since Harvey Weinstein. I guess we’ll see. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2017, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564/40 "2017-11-27T01:17:01Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Yet in the nearly two decades since Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape, and in the more than a year since Trump paraded her and Jones and Willey around at the debate with Hillary Clinton, there haven’t been any other accusers come out of the woodwork. There was never any secret that he fooled around, and there are a number of other names of wholly-consensual partners out there. There is certainly no way his wife was oblivious, either personally or as his professional partner. We \*all \*knew he was a horndog both times we elected him, but we also all knew it wasn’t the business of anyone but his wife and family. What should get your attention is that no non-consensuality was ever alleged outside the Arkansas Project / Starr Investigation defamation-campaign effort to find, and if necessary buy or create, some. Not before it or since. Odd, ain’t it? We do have Lewinsky’s statements that Starr tried to suborn it from her, though. And the Jones suit being dismissed for what the judge had to conclude was complete lack of substance. And Willey’s testimony that it didn’t happen. So what else is left to rationalize this latest round of underinformed recreational indignation with? ETA: \*\* BigT\*\*, the name of the person you choose to believe on the basis of your historical research, evidence notwithstanding, is spelled _Broaddrick_. It’s right there in the thread title. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bill-clinton-and-jones-willey-broaddrick-revisited/802564.md?page=3)