What I do remember was that Kenneth Star did say that her claim was inconclusive. No problem for the Captain Ahab crew; I do think it was Star and the right wing media, besides leaking embarrassing items of Broaderick too, who did threaten Broaddrick to come out anyhow or else she would be accused and sent to a jury for lying under oath and other things.
Back then IIRC her son and many others thought that it was likely that she would be in trouble for filing an affadavit with Paula Jones’ lawyers saying Clinton did not assault her. Ratting on Clinton with inconclusive accusations or not makes sense under that pressure.
So I’m sure Hillary will be backing off her claim that rape accusers should be believed and supported, since there is no evidence disproving her claim.
I dare say that what Hillary said was un-American and unbefitting a lawyer. People are innocent until proven guilty. It doesn’t mean that we should necessarily disbelieve rape accusers, but assuming belief also assumes guilt on the part of the accused. Fine for an average citizen, not so fine for a Presidential candidate who is supposed to take an oath to defend our Constitution.
That only works by willfully ignoring that originally Broaddrick even refused to play along and even signed an affidavit claiming that she was not violated.
The case of Broaddick shows that it has little to do with what you are claiming here as Kenneth Star can tell you.
Which proves nothing. But there is evidence in support of her claim. First, the lip biting, which Gennifer Flowers corroborated is something Clinton does, and second, her friends say she told them about the rape right after it happened. The Starr investigation didn’t just find some lady and tell her to say she was raped.
Of course it proves nothing to you since it would make you look ridiculous by omitting that detail. And Starr also saw that lip biting as inconclusive because it is more likely that she explained that away originally to him as consensual. The point is that even Starr decided to not use Brodderick as she would most likely be trounced as an unreliable witness in the courts.
Again, she came forward by denying that she was raped, changing her history under duress. You are only falling into the stupid argument ways. The point stands, “She should be believed” does at least require an accusation that was not contradicted by her own testimony.
But then again stupid arguments are par for the course for you.
In general, women who say they have been attacked should be believed and supported. Hillary is right on this.
It’s entirely reasonable to believe this while also accepting that false rape accusations occur. So, in general, you should believe and support women who say they have been victimized, while recognizing that false accusations still occur.
They should be believed and supported, as long as her husband isn’t the accused. Then they should be disbelieved and a campaign to discredit them should begin, with Clinton surrogates saying incredibly nasty things like “If you drag a $50 bill through a trailor park…”
“All women should be believed” just means all women are entitled to due process. It does not mean that all women who claim to have been raped are entitled to a conviction of the accused. Bubba’s accusers got their due process.
From reading the summaries of the Broaddrick case that I can find, any ‘campaign’ to discredit her (if such a campaign existed) was lead by journalists and Broaddrick herself.
Broaddrick was probably telling the truth, but which time – when she said the rape occurred, or when she said it absolutely didn’t and Bill made no advance on her? With no other evidence or witnesses, it’s not possible to logically and reasonably determine which instance is true.
If one is inclined to believe that Bill Clinton is an evil rapist and Hillary is her monstrous enabler, then that would lead you in one direction. I’m not convinced (and I especially don’t hold Hillary responsible for any crimes or misbehavior of her husband).
Even if Broaddrick’s reports of rape are 100% true, it wouldn’t change my vote – Hillary as the wife of a rapist (if true) is still a much, much better option as America’s next President than any of the Republicans running. The country would be far, far better, safer, more prosperous, more free, etc., with her in charge than with any of the Republicans (especially Cruz, Trump, or Rubio). It would change my opinion of Bill Clinton, but not of whether Hillary or the Republican is a better choice for President. That’s how incredibly bad for America any of the Republican candidates are, in my view.
And GIGO, I don’t know if you’re whitewashing this on purpose, but perhaps you missed the multiple witnesses to Broaddrick’s condition right after the alleged rape?
Someone roughed that woman up that day. And she claimed she was raped by Clinton right away. She just didn’t claim it in public, only to people close to her.
adaher’s newfound feminism is touching. Why didn’t the alleged victim file charges? What is the source of that last quotation? In one of the links he did supply, she says she’s now a Trump supporter. Money talks.
adaher’s, also been posting in the thread about how the Oregon fools might affect GOP candidates. He’s on their side. The guntoting idiots, not the candidates.
Why can’t he put some of that energy into explaining why one of his candidates would make a good President? Has he given up on them?
