Ezra Klein promoting "both sides-ism" asking us to believe partisan hack Juanita Broaddrick.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Link to tweet

Basically, the argument is, if we are to believe Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford's allegations that she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh in 1982, we're therefore somehow also morally obligated to believe Juanita Broaddrick's claim that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton in 1978.

Notwithtstanding the fact that Ford has actually testified under oath as to her allegations, and the only time Broaddrick has ever gone under oath in a 1998 affidavit, she specifically denied ever being assaulted by Clinton.

Notwithstanding the fact that while both Ford and Broaddrick have claimed to have told people about their alleged assaults after the fact, only Ford's witnesses have gone under oath saying so.

Notwithstanding the fact that Broaddrick's main witness claiming to have seen her after the alleged attack, Norma Rogers, is known to have had a longstanding grudge against Bill Clinton for signing off on the commutation of a sentence against her father's killer.

Notwithstanding the fact that Broaddrick's claims sound like the script of a bad Lifetime movie and are filled with logical absurdities, such as the fact that she voluntarily attended a Clinton fundraiser just weeks after the alleged attack.

Notwithstanding the fact that Ken Starr--a man so obsessed with Clinton that he turned an already-investigated claim over an Arkansas land deal into a steamy expose into Clinton's sex life, a man who made Susan McDougal's life a living hell just in the hopes it would bring down Bill Clinton--heard Broaddrick's story and found no use for it.

Notwithstanding the fact that Broaddrick has taken to social media and gladly embraced right-wing figures who have been accused of acts of sexual misconduct themselves, such as James Woods and Eric Bolling.

Notwithstanding the fact that just two days after the Access Hollywood tapes broke during the 2016 campaign--where Donald Trump bragged about kissing women against their will and wanting to "grab them by the pussy", Juanita Broaddrick literally raced to Donald Trump's side and posed with him at a press conference, dismissing his talk as "just words" and stauchly defending and promoting Trump ever since.

Nothwithstanding the fact that Broaddrick has notably disparaged and viciously attacked other women raising claims against sexual misconduct even before they've had a chance to tell their story, simply because the people being accused are prominent conservatives like Donald Trump, Roy Moore, Brett Kavanaugh and others, and most notably relentlessly attacked Dr. Ford herself, who hasn't had the benefit of having 19 years to sell her story and still has managed to take the extra step of swearing under oath (unlike Broaddrick).

No.

No.

No.

Juanita Broaddrick is not "credible." She is a vile hypocrite, a partisan hack, a liar, a huckster, a charlatan, and a woman who knows if she now dared give sworn testimony claiming she was assaulted by Bill Clinton in 1978 she'd risk being charged with perjury based on the fact she has previously denied under oath ever being assaulted.

We are under no obligation to "believe her." She has had 19 years to peddle her story, during which time she has never given any sworn testimony or presented any sworn testimony from others to support her dubious claims, but she'll gladly take the exposure over Twitter, or on Sean Hannity, or on Infowars, to trumpet her claims.

And she'll gladly pledge allegiance to and literally stand beside a man, a supposed president of the United States, who has been caught on video tape fantasizing about assaulting women.

And she'll gladly disparage, name call and attack other women who unlike her have actually taken the brave step of going on the record and under oath as to what they allege have happened, simply because she doesn't like that they're going after someone who she identifies with politically.

No, I don't believe her, I don't need to be told I have to be believe her, and she can go to hell for all I care.

I've liked some of the work Ezra Klein has done over the years, but this is either serious laziness on his part or a misguided sense of guilt.

[Atticus]

1. Nail, meet hammer. Well said. nt

[badhair77]

2. I've noticed people who were not following the Monica mess in the 90s or those

who were not alive then have a new fascination with these women and now want to hear from them. If I recall her story has changed several times over the years and she relishes the attention. Trump and company used those women at that debate and they played along. Bill was no saint but I’m done with all of them since that move.

[loyalsister]

7. I followed it carefully

and am embarrassed to remember that joined the very same kind of partisan line up we just saw with Trump and Kavanauh supporters. The economy was good and there were some social gains, so in the end I bought into a presidents will be boys campaign that demonized women who dared tell their stories.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. But if you actually look into Broaddrick and Willey's claims there are some serious flaws with both

Last edited Mon Oct 15, 2018, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

So ascribing it all to "Presidents will be boys" is doing the facts a disservice.

With Lewinsky, it might be different. But Lewinsky will forever remain a consensual affair, so it's apples to oranges.

And even assuming "Presidents will be boys" was a hastily given excuse in 1999 to Broaddrick's claims, the flippancy of such a response doesn't change the fact that Juanita Broaddrick has had 19 years since going public to substantiate her claims with actual sworn testimony and has not done so.

Contrast that with Dr. Ford, who bolstered her claims with sworn testimony within days of her claims coming public.

[loyalsister]

9. Remarkable

It's amazing how similar the efforts to discredit accusers sound. Why didn't she come forward sooner? Ignoring the power differential, be it physical or defined by social positioning of workplace norms. Legitimate rape, etc....
All deployed by people who want to protect powerful men who have taken advantage of their physical or professional power to sexually victimize people.
Lewinsky has very clearly stated that the power differential was exploited, and that the bullying that took place afterwards was abusive.
The abusers were those who demonized her. That means me and everyone else who lined up to shame and try to discredit her. And on and on it goes as the defense continues reinforcing the discouragement to report and personal & professional destruction of women who experience any form of sexual predation in the interest of protecting heroes.
Something significant happened between the time of accusations by Dr. Ford and Juanita Broadrick. Me too led some women to challenge the protective system that continuously victimizes victims who come forward.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. Where did I ever attack Broaddrick on the grounds she didn't come forward sooner?

Curious how you extrapolated that from me.

That's the least of Broaddrick's concerns, if you ask me.

[loyalsister]

18. "Serious flaws in her story"

Kavanaugh supporters identified flaws in Dr. Ford's story. They were not entirely wrong if your standard is immediate report, and physical evidence beyond all doubt. They also claimed that he voice was irrelevant, since he was never proven guilty. It's a familiar standard when it comes to suspicious of Juanita Broadrick. In both cases the powerful man got the benefit of the doubt and the woman's story was considered suspicious. It's a standard M.O. and me too has been identifying the persostance and the prevalence. Still many are refusing to acknowledge the possibility that maybe we fell for it at another time because we saw the perpetrator as one of our heroes.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

23. People do these types of cases a great disservice by lumping them all together.

Essentially, packaging them as either to be believed or to be disbelieved based on whatever point of view the person is coming from.

Approaching them individually on a case-by-case basis and weighing the facts after putting any biases aside is the only way to go about it.

Ford and Broaddrick's claims are alike only in the fact they allege they were sexually assaulted decades ago by individuals who would go on to positions of high power and prominence, and that they didn't immediately report the assaults but claimed they did tell friends after the fact.

That's where the similarities end.

Ford was willing to put her allegations under oath via sworn testimony.

Broaddrick did not.

Ford was willing to get friends she claimed she told about the attack to give sworn statements to that effect.

Broaddrick did not.

Broaddrick's claims were investigated by a special prosecutor with an infamously vested interest in bringing down Bill Clinton, and yet who had little to no value for her testimony.

Ford had no such audience.

Broaddrick signed an affidavit stating she was not sexually assaulted contrary to what she deemed "rumors."

Ford did not.

Broaddrick is on record as having voluntarily attended an event with Bill Clinton just weeks after she claims he assaulted him.

Ford had no such willful interactions with Brett Kavanaugh.

Broaddrick has viciously attacked other women claiming they were victims of sexual misconduct simply because she agrees with the personal politics of the person being accused.

Ford has engaged in no such activity.

You ask me why I'm suspicious of Juanita Broaddrick where I'm not of Ford? That's the reason why.

It's not who she's accusing. It's not the fact that she claims the attack happened years ago. Those things get filtered out when I put personal biases aside. But the rest of that behavior simply is not consistent with someone who is a victim of these sorts of things.

[loyalsister]

31. I'm talking about the responding MO.

The responses in defense of men who have been accused is standard- in the media, and in courtrooms. Attack and or cast doubt on the victim's credibility by any means necessary. Bill Cosby, Brett Kavanaugh, Roy Moore, Matt Lauer, Harvey Weinstein..... all had their defenders and attackers. Progressive heroes have theirs.

[Charlotte Little]

34. You are way over-generalizing this

There are women who lie. Just as there are men who lie.

I'm a woman. I'm also a #MeToo.

I don't believe every woman and I look at each case separately. This is why saying "just believe the women" is dangerous and could (will) cause major backlash. While false reporting is rare, when politics are involved, we should be skeptical. There should absolutely be an investigation. Which is why it was so poignant that Dr. Ford asked repeatedly for an FBI investigation and took a lie-detector test (the day of her grandmother's memorial if IIRC).

Ford should have been granted the investigation she requested. It's a tragedy she wasn't and that it was all a farce. I believe someday the facts will come out.

Ditto for Al Franken. He got booted without an investigation mostly because of allegations made by a woman in bed with Roger Stone.

As for Broaddrick, she was asked three times under oath and her story was not the one she's telling today while not under oath.

It's a no-brainer to me, and I won't be shamed into changing my opinion.

For reference: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/19/opinion/bill-clinton-lawyer.html

"As to Juanita Broaddrick, in 1998 she three times denied under oath that the president had assaulted her: in an affidavit, in sworn deposition testimony and in sworn deposition testimony reaffirming her affidavit. She apparently tried to recant her affidavit when interviewed by the independent counsel, Kenneth Starr. The independent counsel investigated the matter but did not bring charges. Ms. Broaddrick gave an interview on network TV in February 1999 stating her views at length."

[JHan]

11. Women feeling more comfortable coming forward, (not just women either) is good..

...and I fully support it.

And I support the MeToo movement while having caveats about "belief". I know "BelieveWomen" is nuanced but belief for me is a facet of rape culture. We don't require "belief" when it comes to other crimes. If someone makes a false report of theft or some other crime, we don't make judgments about all people who make reports of a similar nature ( as we tend to do with the minuscule percentage of rape allegations that are false). Belief should have nothing to do with it when the focus should be on treating allegations seriously and with professionalism.

I took Juanita so seriously, I read the Starr Report, and way too much other material, where I wonder which Juanita to believe - the one under oath who stated she was not raped by Bill or the one who claims he raped her ( when she's not under oath), all the while using her Twitter account to attack women who accuse people she likes of sexual assault?

Lewinsky has very clearly stated that the power differential was exploited, and that the bullying that took place afterwards was abusive.

Lewinsky's view at the time was that Clinton was her "sexual soulmate".

And at the time Gloria Steinem said..

"We’re not against sex; we’re against the use of sex to cajole, humiliate, coerce’ ‘If we say a 21- to 24-year-old has no sexual will, we’re going against the whole struggle for self-determination and taking responsibility for our own lives."

Lewinsky continued to maintain in 2014 that it was a fully consensual relationship. "I will always remain firm on this point"

Now with MeToo she's thinks maybe she wasn't able to fully consent to the affair.
Steinem too has changed her perspective on consent, preferring "affirmative consent". I think this change in perspective needs to be interrogated..Wendy Kaminer tries in this piece and I think she raises salient points:

"Lewinsky is still taking some responsibility, assuring us that her newfound understanding of consent as ‘moot’ in the context of the Clinton affair does not erase her ‘responsibility for what happened’. ‘So often have I struggled with my own sense of agency versus victimhood’, she writes, apparently struggling still. Her account of this struggle is fascinating, mainly because she explicitly attributes it to feminism’s changing messages – without wondering about the depth, authenticity or fundamental meaning of deeply personal beliefs and emotions so strongly influenced by cultural politics and the need to belong: ‘In 1998’, she recalls, ‘we were living in times in which women’s sexuality was a marker of their agency – “owning desire”… it’s very likely that my thinking would not necessarily be changing at this time had it not been for the #MeToo movement – not only because of the new lens it provided but also because of how it offered new avenues for safety that comes from solidarity.’

I wish Lewinsky well in her own poignant quest for solidarity. When she speaks of the trauma of being ‘publicly outed and ostracised’ in her early 20s, I don’t think she’s exaggerating or indulging in melodrama. She wasn’t just turned into a national punchline. She was viciously targeted by prosecutor Ken Starr and the FBI, who threatened to prosecute her mother, investigate her father, and imprison her for decades if she didn’t cooperate in their crusade against President Clinton. Her brief account of this in Vanity Fair is entirely plausible. Prosecutors routinely extort cooperation (and also guilty pleas) with such tactics.

As I recall, the young Lewinsky stood up to the FBI when they ambushed and isolated her in a Washington hotel. Whether she was brave or merely foolhardy, she had a lot of nerve – and good reason to believe in her agency."

I dislike infantilization of young women, I'm a young woman myself. She expressed a desire to pursue Clinton, why ignore her agency? What narrative does that feed? What benefit does that serve? Monica comes across as someone whose judgment was poor - She did some immature things, and the abuse she suffered happened once those details became public, which is where the power plays occurred, and not as a result of the affair itself. Bill Clinton bears the greatest responsibility here because of his status and willingness to indulge in an affair with a misguided young woman, an affair he knew would come to nothing in the end: this was grossly irresponsible, disgusting and unethical. There needs to be collective responsibility for the way she was bullied and made a punchline and by collective I mean the American public, but I am not going to diminish her agency while acknowledging the challenges she faced.

[loyalsister]

16. "Agency"

Is it not possible for agency to be diminished when threats, incentives, indimidation, and manipulation are employed by the person who has the most power? Is that not what defines the problems with significantly powerful individuals having sexual relationships with their subordinates?
Steinham had it wrong. And me too is revealing why. Bill Clinton could be the strongest ally in the interest of breaking down the wall of protection if he offered sincere support and a means culpa. But, that might be a bridge to far since it protects his legacy and maintains the loyalty of powerful and unconvinced supporters who may have skeletons in their own closets. The structure will remain as long as alleged supporters maintain their loyalty to the heroes who also happen to be prominant bad actors.

[JHan]

17. You're conflating the aftermath of the affair with the affair itself..

We can't spin our own narratives , and ignore the facts.

Are we going to ignore Monica's own words? Are we saying that a young woman cannot possibly fully consent to a relationship with someone of a higher social status than they are? where was the intimidation at the start of the affair?

Again, are we just going to forget her desires in this?

[loyalsister]

19. Maybe give some thought to our previous interpretations as Monica Lewinsky has

According to her own words:

Until recently (thank you, Harvey Weinstein), historians hadn’t really had the perspective to fully process and acknowledge that year of shame and spectacle. And as a culture, we still haven’t properly examined it

.

For two dec­ades, I have been working on myself, my trauma, and my healing. And, naturally, I have grappled with the rest of the world’s interpretations and Bill Clinton’s re-interpretations of what happened. But in truth, I have done this at arm’s length. There have been so many barriers to this place of self-reckoning. Clinton’s re-interpretations of what happened. But in truth, I have done this at arm’s length. There have been so many barriers to this place of self-reckoning.

The reason this is difficult is that I’ve lived for such a long time in the House of Gaslight, clinging to my experiences as they unfolded in my 20s and railing against the untruths that painted me as an unstable stalker and Servicer in Chief. An inability to deviate from the internal script of what I actually experienced left little room for re-evaluation; I cleaved to what I “knew.” So often have I struggled with my own sense of agency versus victimhood. (In 1998, we were living in times in which women’s sexuality was a marker of their agency—“owning desire.” And yet, I felt that if I saw myself as in any way a victim, it would open the door to choruses of: “See, you did merely service him.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/monica-lewinsky-in-the-age-of-metoo

[JHan]

21. I raised the difference in her recollections..

The piece I quoted addressed it directly - and the point remains, do I ignore her agency( yes agency) then? Do I ignore what she said in 2014 where she maintained it was fully consensual? Her MeToo piece in Vanity Fair is an interesting counterpoint to the one she wrote in 2014, and what she said herself to Barbara Walters.

See it's difficult for us to admit that we may have done something stupid in the past, that we exercised poor judgment. Her experience in the moment at the time was very different, in retrospect she's questioning whether she had agency, she wants solidarity in the current feminist movement of MeToo, yet she has said her experience was not a MeToo one... why is it so horrific to imagine that she made a choice here? why is this unimaginable for us? A young woman boasting to her friends that she was going to earn her "kneepads" is a young woman with intent. I don't judge it, I never judge sexual desires in this context. She does bear some responsibility for acting on those desires. None of this negates Bill Clinton's responsibilities.

Look, I'm in my mid 20's, I'd like to think my choices aren't seen as some example of me not knowing what I want.

[loyalsister]

28. Did you read the piece I posted?

As she has heard from other women she clearly see herself as a person who can stand insolidarity with the me too movement. She also mentioned that she might have seen it differently at the time if she had not felt so alone. Notice she referred to Clinton and his minions? Anyone who refuses to listen to her is an enabler going forward. Continuing to defend the indefensible simply because the economy was good and some feminist advances were made is complicity in the ongoing systemic pattern of protecting powerful men regardless of the damage to the women they assault or exploit.

[JHan]

30. I read that piece several times when it first came out.

My friends and I talked about, I also read her 2014 piece - and I looked up her interview with Barbara Walters. I read the Starr Report, I'm aware of the claims in her book she co wrote with Andrew Norton( ?)

You haven't really addressed what I put to you, - the initiation of the affair and the idea that she could have entered it willingly. Which she did - as I said to you before, the way she was treated - the abuse she suffered - came in the aftermath of the affair becoming public. In the 2014 piece, she places the greatest blame on Ken Starr and his minions.

I am not contending that she suffered abuse - she did. I am wondering why agency is so problematic now? Why does she feel the need now to question whether she acted on her own desires from years ago when she clearly did? Why retract her own agency, which she strongly expressed previously? Just because a movement says this is what we should do now, doesn't mean we accept this unreservedly. That's why the change in view is important and requires interrogation. As much as I support MeToo I also interrogate some of the ideas that sprung forth as a result - like the idea of "belief" - while supporting the movement on a whole.

[loyalsister]

35. We all review our histories

Many people understand life events differently as time passes. We reflect, learn, and evolve with time and experience. I first began to rethink it when someone close to me went through something very similar to what Monica Lewinsky described. It started out consensual, then it became abusive because the man made promises and issued threats to control her and the situation. He had enough power to either destroy or facilitate her professional potential.
We did not, as a culture recognize the weaponization of that power differential because it has been buried beneath an overly optimistic idea that women truly have full agency in a country still dominated by powerful men. Me too has begun to reveal that we have not progressed as far as we thought. Some of us are finally listening and respecting the sense of victimization millions of people are now recognizing and revealing as part of their histories. Many of the stories are moments where they thought they were in control, largely because of a lie. The lie being that our agency is clearly demonstrated simply because we make choices in sexual relationships. In the situation I described above, a women believed she was in control because she was thrilled by the attention thought she was exploiting a sexual relationship to her professional advantage. Then she discovered that it was more complicated than she originally, and she was no longer operating with full agency. She was coerced into continuing the relationship with threats of losing the opportunities she thought she would have by her own design. It took a long time and help from people who cared about her for her to sort it out and realize that he was using his power to control her.
Monica Lewinsky described her own process and reconsidered her perception of consent in the context of a relationship where she had less control than she thought because of his power.
A lot of people prefer to protect the power and legacy of someone they admire, rather than entertain the possibility that that person doesn't and didn't actually deserve such loyalty. Some have an incompressibly high threshold of tolerance for lapses or even violations of ethics and basic decency.
Those and other dismisive responses effectively support a patriarcal power arrangement that has permitted men to victimize women without questions or accountability. It is finally being questioned - with some hypocritical caveats. Susan Collins is one of the most destructive proponents who I had had some hope for. Unfortunately, she is not the only one who has disappointed me.

I hope the predicted changes materialize, but I don't have very high expectations when alleged supporters of selected victims continue to protect the most powerful and high profile offender.

[JHan]

38. Yes, understanding evolves over time. I never disputed that.

What I am asking is for us to examine how it evolved in this context.

And let's get this out of the way: I am not one of the "People who prefer to protect the power and legacy of someone they admire" rather than deal with the behavior. I've said repeatedly Bill Clinton's behavior was wrong. I can explain more why his behavior was terrible but the disagreement here pertains to Monica's own agency.

If you read the Vanity Fair piece carefully, you'll see that her strongest recollection of abuse occurred in the aftermath of the affair becoming public (I keep saying this) She doesn't dive into the period when the affair started. When everything became public was when she was turned into a punchline and a pariah. She has said her worst experiences of abuse was at the hands of Ken Starr and how they went after her and her family. And yes, Bill Clinton's defenders at times went too far.

However, this doesn't change the dynamics at the start of the relationship. I do not agree that a young woman cannot possibly pursue sex or consent to sex with someone who is more powerful than she is ( even in a work environment) - it's an absurd position. If Bill left Hillary for Monica would we even have such a conversation?

We're familiar with the ways the Patriarchy is problematic - systems of power generally are ( especially in a work environment)- and when there's strong-arming, force and manipulation we should call it out. But there's also lots of engagement with systems of power. Sometimes these games are of a sexual nature since sexuality is a powerful force. I have been attracted to people more powerful than myself ( and older ), I know the power of my own sexuality and I've flirted with the idea of using it to my advantage but I never indulged. I own that desire, I don't judge it --- and if some feminists want to claim that these desires aren't my own as if I'm a child, on that score they're on their own

[lapucelle]

33. I've read the piece you posted.

Last edited Wed Oct 17, 2018, 08:18 PM - Edit history (1)

It opens with an anecdote about a chance siting of a man in a restaurant.

How do I know him? Where have I seen him? The Man in the Hat looked familiar, I thought, as I peered over at him a second time.

snip====================================

He was part of a small group that had just exited the main dining room. They were now gathering their belongings, likely vacating what was to be our table. And then it clicked. He looks just like . . . no, couldn’t be. Could it?

A student of Karma, I found myself seizing the moment. Whereas a decade ago I would have turned and fled the restaurant at the prospect of being in the same place as this man, many years of personal-counseling work (both trauma-specific and spiritual) had led me to a place where I now embrace opportunities to move into spaces that allow me to break out of old patterns of retreat or denial.

snip===============================================

I found myself shaking his hand even as I struggled to decipher the warmth he evinced. After all, in 1998, this was the independent prosecutor who had investigated me, a former White House intern; the man whose staff, accompanied by a group of F.B.I. agents (Starr himself was not there), had hustled me into a hotel room near the Pentagon and informed me that unless I cooperated with them I could face 27 years in prison. This was the man who had turned my 24-year-old life into a living hell in his effort to investigate and prosecute President Bill Clinton on charges that would eventually include obstruction of justice and lying under oath—lying about having maintained a long-term extramarital relationship with me.

snip=================================================

I turned and introduced him to my family. Bizarre as it may sound, I felt determined, then and there, to remind him that, 20 years before, he and his team of prosecutors hadn’t hounded and terrorized just me but also my family—threatening to prosecute my mom (if she didn’t disclose the private confidences I had shared with her), hinting that they would investigate my dad’s medical practice, and even deposing my aunt, with whom I was eating dinner that night. And all because the Man in the Hat, standing in front of me, had decided that a frightened young woman could be useful in his larger case against the president of the United States.

Americans young and old, red and blue, watched day and night. We watched a beleaguered president and the embattled and often disenchanted members of his administration as they protected him. We watched a First Lady and First Daughter move through the year with grit and grace. We watched a special prosecutor get pilloried (though some thought he deserved it). We watched an American family—my family—as a mother was forced to testify against her child and as a father was forced to take his daughter to be fingerprinted at the Federal Building. We watched the wholesale dissection of a young, unknown woman—me—who, due to legal quarantine, was unable to speak out on her own behalf.

None of this is to say that Monica Lewinsky does not hold Bill Clinton accountable. (I suppose this is the part about "Clinton and his minions".)

Just four years ago, in an essay for this magazine, I wrote the following: “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.” I now see how problematic it was that the two of us even got to a place where there was a question of consent. Instead, the road that led there was littered with inappropriate abuse of authority, station, and privilege. (Full stop.)

People should read the Vanity Fair story in its entirety. Ms. Lewinsky gives a powerful, complex, and nuanced account of an episode in her life and it's aftermath as only she can. She is the expert. It it is her story.

[blm]

3. Same subject comes up at the end of EVERY damn election cycle since 2000.

It gets pushed into by media always desperate to show they are willing to bend over backwards to prove they will repeat the GOPs narrative on demand....when needed.

[oasis]

37. +1

[JHan]

4. I'm bewildered by this because ..

when I'm asked to believe Juanita, which Juanita? Am I supposed to ignore what she said under oath ? Am I supposed to pretend there was no investigation? How does that work?

I'd really this explained to me.

[NewJeffCT]

5. I'm wondering that, too

she had a chance to tell her story under oath and it "mysteriously" changed when she had the penalty of perjury hanging over her head.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. Little remembered fact about Broaddrick. In 1999, she sued the White House and DOJ.

She claimed they had files on her claims and wanted them released to the public.

The DOJ and White House responded to the suit by filing sworn claims that they had no special files on Broaddrick, and moved for summary judgment, asking for the case to be permanently dismissed.

At that point, Broaddrick would have to counter with some sort of sworn evidence of her own to keep the case from being dismissed. It didn't have to be substantial or dispository in her favor. It didn't have to be live testimony. It could have been a mere affidavit or two. Anything. As courts say, a mere "scintilla" of record evidence creating a dispute of fact would avoid summary judgment.

If there were any time for Broaddrick to have her chance to put forth some sort of sworn claim about the basis of her claims, this was it.

She out refused to do it. She provided zero sworn statements on her behalf.

Her only bit of testimony she filed? A transcript from "Hannity and Colmes."

And not once in the following 19 years has she provided any sort of sworn statement supporting her allegations. Not from her. Not from anyone else. No one.

Meanwhile, Dr. Ford does exactly that, and Broaddrick immediately brands her a liar.

She's a terrible person.

[uponit7771]

15. Seems like that's the most tangible difference; Ford wanted FBI investigation Brodrick recanted ...

... under oath.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

12. I believe Juanita --- Under Oath Juanita, that is

the one who said in her sworn affidavit that nothing happened with Bill.

I don't, however, believe Roger Stone Book Collaborator Juanita, who later changed her story to say she was raped, and attacks other accusers (if the accused has an "R" by their name) as "liars" and "not real victims."

[FakeNoose]

20. Bill Clinton was most assuredly a horndog

... but he was never a rapist. I doubt he ever did anything that could be called sexual assault. When he was young and handsome he had a female fan club a mile long, and you can bet they weren't just asking for autographs.

Whether Broaddrick was in that fan club, I don't know and I don't care. She had her chance to testify against him and that's when she said nothing happened.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

24. I think it's plausible something happened with Paula Jones but I don't think it was non-consensual.

The way David Brock originally sold the story back when he was with the Spectator was that something consensual went on between Jones and Clinton. The trooper who testified in the suit seemed to say that Jones made it a point to want to go up to Clinton's room, and knowing Bill's infamous weaknesses, I wouldn't be surprised if something happened.

I'm thinking the whole affair angle lost some of its sensationalism once the Gennifer Flowers thing came out as being true, and they needed to take it to the next level. Then Willey and Broaddrick got brought into the mix with even worse claims.

Willey I feel somewhat sorry for. I don't believe her at all, but I do think she has some legitimate mental problems that need to be dealt with, and some money issues to boot. She was heavily exploited by Trump and Roger Stone during the 2016 election.

Broaddrick, on the other hand, is a truly vile person and a partisan hack.

[BlueStater]

13. Even if Clinton actually raped her, we're still allowed to be disgusted with her hypocrisy.

She supports Trump, who allegedly assaulted over a dozen women and also raped his first wife, and, as you pointed out, disgustingly painted Dr. Ford as a liar during the whole Kavanaugh fiasco. She's certainly no friend of assault victims.

[Scurrilous]

14. K&R

[Blue_Tires]

22. They ought to start impeachment proceedings

Oh, wait

[Hortensis]

25. Even Ken Starr had to discard her after intense

investigation. Even Kavanaugh said she had no credibility and believed that using her story, which she couldn't keep straight, much as they wanted to be able to, would likely be disastrous. Back at the time, btw, she was having an extramarital affair, so yet another man in the picture.

I checked her out myself in 2015-2016. Woman of very bad character presiding over as vicious a nest of Hillary-deranged groupies as one could find. For some reason she loathed Hillary far more than Bill.

Not the same AT ALL!

[JHan]

26. Her twitter feed is disgusting.

I know of no survivor of sexual assault who drags women who come forward the way she does..

[Hortensis]

29. Yes. Even disgusting, bad people can be raped, and

although she herself severely undermines her claims, there'll never be a way of being 100% sure.

Fwiw, my take about Bill is similar to FakeNoose's. Bill's one of those men who genuinely likes women and their company, and vice versa. Hours on the phone between assignations are his style.

But what really doesn't fit in any universe is a profoundly insulting false equivalence between a woman vouched for by many for her good character and a disgusting person like Broaddrick.

[Docreed2003]

27. It's interesting how this story seems to pop up at opportune moments

I'm, frankly, a bit surprised that the story didn't include Juanita's discription of encountering Hillary at the fundraiser after the alleged attack, where Juanita asserts that Hillary's body language and words were threatening to her, as if Mrs Clinton were involved in this in some way.

That story was especially popular amongst some circles in late summer 2016.

I think the contrast between Dr Ford and Mrs Broaddrick's stories is obvious. As others have said, I believe Juanita's story...the one she told under oath. Her current self seems to be more concerned with adulation and applause from the extreme right.

[IluvPitties]

32. If you slept with Bill willingly, you are not a victim.

We cannot be stretching this to the point it becomes irrelevant. If you are coerced or forced to do stuff you don't want, or you face unwanted advances, you have a case.

If you have consensual sex with someone as an adult and then regret it, you don't have a case.

They are bringing this shit up about Bill because of the Kavanaugh fiasco. Monica was a victim of Republicans, and so was Hillary, Anita Hill and Dr. Ford.

[Vinca]

36. Hold her to the GOP standard: show us the evidence.