Monday, October 10, 2016

Juanita Broaddrick’s Rape Allegation Is A Story About Bill Clinton, Not Hillary


Republican nominee Donald Trump told the world he would make former President Bill Clinton’s sexual history an issue in the 2016 presidential campaign. On Sunday, he did it.

Less than two hours before his debate with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, Trump held a press conference with several women who have accused former President Bill Clinton of various forms of sexual misconduct.

The most famous of these women is Paula Jones, whose sexual harassment lawsuit led eventually to Clinton’s impeachment in 1998. But the most serious allegation against Clinton comes from another woman who was at Trump’s side on Sunday.

That woman is Juanita Broaddrick, a retired Arkansas nursing home operator who says Clinton raped her nearly 40 years ago ― a charge that the former president has said is untrue. On Sunday night, Broaddrick and the other accusers sat in the debate hall in St. Louis, the cameras repeatedly panning to them.

“If you look at Bill Clinton ― far worse ― mine are words and his was action,” Trump said at one point during the debate. “His was what he’s done to women. There’s never been anybody in the history of politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women.”

Trump claims that these women’s stories are especially relevant now because Hillary Clinton has at various times tried to bully or silence them. It’s a shaky assertion that looks a lot like an effort to distract attention from Trump’s own record of misconduct, which includes not just lewd behavior but instances where Trump has been specifically, credibly accused of sexual assault. Trump has denied those accusations, but they dovetail with his very public history of misogyny.

Of course, that doesn’t necessarily mean Broaddrick’s rape allegation is untrue. Like so many allegations of sexual assault, Broaddrick’s story is both unproven and plausible. But its relevance to the 2016 election is a separate question.

Broaddrick’s tale ― which NBC’s “Dateline” first publicized in 1999 and BuzzFeed re-examined in August of this year ― begins in 1978, in Little Rock, Arkansas, when Bill Clinton was the state’s attorney general and running for governor. As Broaddrick tells it, she was volunteering for Clinton’s campaign and was supposed to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, she says, Clinton called her and suggested they meet upstairs, in a hotel room, because reporters were in the lobby. She agreed. When Clinton got to the room, she says, he raped her ― at one point biting her lip, causing it to bleed.

Two women have since said they saw Broaddrick in the hotel room, right after the alleged incident ― disheveled and, yes, with a blue, swollen lip. The women said Broaddrick told them she’d been raped by Clinton, but that she was afraid to say anything about it. She would remain silent until the late 1990s, when federal prosecutors were investigating Clinton’s personal history as part of the inquiry that exposed his now-infamous affair with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern.

It was not the first time lawyers had asked Broaddrick about the incident. Previously, when lawyers in the Paula Jones lawsuit approached Broaddrick directly, she had signed an affidavit in which she described being “hounded” by reporters about rumors of the rape.

“I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family’s privacy be respected,” she said in that affidavit. “These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.” But in response to the federal inquiry, Broaddrick said Clinton had raped her.

Clinton, who was by then president, denied the allegation, unambiguously and strongly, through his lawyer. Ken Starr, the lead federal prosecutor, ultimately deemed Broaddrick’s story “inconclusive.” When the tale came out in the media, and Broaddrick gave that 1999 interview to “Dateline,” the controversy got lost in the aftermath of Clinton’s impeachment and near-removal from office. And at that point the story faded ― until about a year ago, when Broaddrick began speaking out about it.

Broaddrick later told BuzzFeed’s Katie Baker that she was moved to speak out after hearing a series of comments that Hillary Clinton made about sexual assault ― specifically, about the importance of believing victims. Broaddrick has long claimed that Hillary tried to intimidate her, citing as proof a brief conversation the two women had during an Arkansas encounter shortly after the alleged rape. Here’s how Broaddrick remembers that conversation, as the BuzzFeed article described it:

Soon after, Broaddrick says, she ran into Hillary Clinton at a political rally Broaddrick had promised friends she would attend. Hillary shook her hand and thanked her for everything she had done for Bill. To Broaddrick, the gesture felt like a threat to stay silent. As attorney general and later governor, Bill Clinton was “the main person that regulated my business and my income,” Broaddrick said. “After she said what she did to me, I just thought, I will keep quiet.”
Broaddrick says that she went “ballistic” when she heard Hillary’s statements about sexual assault, and eventually sent out the following message on Twitter: “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73....it never goes away.”[...]

Trump and his supporters insist they aren’t simply trying to distract attention from Trump’s problems, or to disparage Hillary by reminding everybody of Bill’s history of unfaithfulness. The issue, they say, is how the former first lady behaved.[...]

Whether any of this is relevant to Hillary’s campaign is another question entirely. Broaddrick’s claim that Hillary Clinton meant to intimidate her is based on a conversation the two women had ― and how Broaddrick perceived it. “I have to go by what I felt then and the look that she gave me,” she told Breitbart News in a recent interview. “I felt like she knew, and she was telling me to keep quiet.”

To think that Hillary was trying to bully Broaddrick into keeping quiet about a rape, you have to believe that Hillary knew Bill had committed the rape. But that would mean, presumably, Bill had told her ― something he was unlikely to have done. Cheaters and rapists don’t tend to tell their wives about their deeds in real time. (And sometimes rapists convince themselves their encounters were consensual.)

Meanwhile, to think this part of Broaddrick’s story is wrong, you don’t have to believe she is trying to deceive anybody, or that she’s wrong about the other charge she makes. You simply have to believe she misinterpreted visual and tonal cues during a quick conversation with a relative stranger ― which is something that happens all the time, in all kinds of circumstances. It would be even easier to understand in the circumstances Broaddrick was under.

As for the relevance to the 2016 election, the most telling aspect is that Trump ― cornered politically, struggling to keep his candidacy alive ― has chosen to compare his behavior to the husband of his opponent. But he’s not running against him. He’s running against her.

43 comments :

  1. It goes to the hypocrisy of Cinton's claim that Trump is unfit to be President. If a man who actually committed the things Bill Clinton did could be President, then why should a man who only fantasizes about such things not be President? On the other hand a woman who breaks the law and deliberately erased 33,000 pieces of incriminating evidence belongs in jail and I hope President Trump keeps his word to have a special prosecutor investigate and prosecute her.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a very weak and emotional defense of Clinton. First she keeps on trying to call this unfortunate woman's story a tale. Then when she finally concludes that it is credible, she says that her understanding of Clinton's threats to remain silent are not credible. Sorry, but this is weak and worse. Imagine if someone were to defend Kolko Jr. like this? Imagine they would intimidate the victim and his family in this way? You would rightfully reject this defense very strongly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. sorry - it is simply saying that the black and white story being circulated by Trump supporters is very problematic

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here we go again - Bill Clinton is not running for president.

    There has been no evidence of Clinton committing a crime that is punishable by jail.

    Despite your insistence that Trump is normal and deserves to be president - the Republican party is increasingly moving in the opposite direction

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is evidence that she committed a crime punishable by jail. Destroying incriminating evidence, especially after it has been subpoenaed, is such an offense, I believe. Also making deals on the account of the country and it's security, for the sake of getting money for their (pockets) 'foundation' is such an offense to which there is ample evidence. Etc. Sharing classified information on an insecure server, is a serious offense too, probably treason.

    ReplyDelete
  6. so you don't know whether what she did was a crime but you "believe" and you simply make it up as you go along

    ReplyDelete
  7. Trump is normal in the way that many men who are brought up without our Torah values will talk disgustingly. Bill Clinton remained president despite his ABNORMAL, DISGUSTING ACTIONS and his wife defended him! She is a lying, crooked hypocrite. So the choice of the lesser of two evils is to me simple when I take into account what I personally know about Trump. He did a great mitzvah (regarding Andrew Ten, o"h, http://ijr.com/2015/11/461306-these-5-acts-of-kindness-reveal-theres-more-to-donald-trump-than-just-his-celebrity-persona/ ) whereas I have never heard anything even remotely similar about his opponent.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "There has been no evidence of Clinton committing a crime that is punishable by jail."
    Because the FBI Director quashed the investigation and did not send it to a Grand Jury.

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://www.city-journal.org/html/trumped-outrage-14777.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. Please!

    The following is the law:

    A person commits the crime of tampering with evidence when he or she knowingly: alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys. any record, document, or tangible object. with the intent to interfere with an investigation, possible investigation, or other proceeding by the federal government.

    And I didn't make anything up. All of the allegations I mentioned are real.

    Why are you so quick to accept incriminating evidence against bnei Yisroel who are alleged child molestors, but the most blatant evidence against a goya you refuse to accept and you defend her beyond reason?!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Harry everyone is aware of what you just stated and so far the government doesn't agree with your conclusions. Allegations are always real - they just are not always true

    The issue of dealing with child abuse is based primarily on the issue of rodef or sofek rodef - it has differently standards of evidence then a judicial procedure. Do you have a problem understanding the two? I have discussed this many times already.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Because he disagreed with your legal opinion

    ReplyDelete
  13. Trump is not normal even by the standards of those brought up without our Torah - as can be seen by the clear fact of widespread disgust with his comments.

    Clinton has gone through a significant amount of charges and investigation and it was decided that he could remain president. His wife has defended him at the time she presumed that he was innocent and that the victim claimed she wasn't a victim. Please produce evidence that she KNEW that a woman had been abused, raped by her husband and she still defended his actions. That is what Trump is claiming and I haven't seen any proof for this claim. If you have it please produce it. Trump is also a lying crooked hypocrite - see the Washington Post article I posted regarding the debate.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So then you obviously don't think that if we have a criminal as president, someone who would sell out to terrorists for a few bucks, that it could be harmful. No rodef problem there. I disagree. Furthermore, The government bodies that you are referring to, have been shown to be part of the corruption. The evidence is as loud as a siren. Everyone sees that it's just a coverup. Is it not clear to you that she destroyed evidence? Or could you believe that she didn't know what C means?

    ReplyDelete
  15. why are you ranting. You are making up a scenerio which has nothing to do with what is really happening. Basically a When did you stop beating your wife style argument"

    ReplyDelete
  16. since you present no evidence - we must conclude that these are your unstabantiated beliefs - not facts

    ReplyDelete
  17. True, but these beliefs are more credible IMHO, than Mrs. Clinton's denials.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh please. If she is so stupid as to have presumed her husband Bill was innocent then she certainly is too stupid as well as careless (as per the FBI Director) to be President. Or as we have seen from the transcripts of her speeches, she is quite adept at saying one thing in public and quite a different tale elsewhere which means she is always lying about something. I suggest you read Crisis of Character (ISBN 1455568880) instead of the Washington Post.

    Trump will certainly be no prize as President but at least he has people like Rudi Giuliani to help keep him in line. And if anything, chas v'shalom happens to President Trump, at least Mike Pence takes over.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Let's wait and see what President Trump's special prosecutor determines.

    ReplyDelete
  20. And what the Washington Post prints are facts? I will say it again, I KNOW from from personal knowledge that Donald Trump is a good man who helped add years of life to a Jewish child! He is a boor, a menuvol but at least he has redeeming qualities. Hillary Clinton has none.

    ReplyDelete
  21. While one shouldn't blame the wife for the husband's behavior - normally - here it's a bit different because they work closely together and because she references him often.

    Neither of these two cretins should be president obviously. Each has valid claims of the other's corruption and decadence. I don't know why anyone bothers supporting either one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  22. that one deed is not enough to justify his candidacy nor does it outweigh his behavior, his personality his ignorance or his many vile statements. And that is you sole basis. Obviously the many defectors from Trump of the Republican leadership see something that you don't have the ability to see

    ReplyDelete
  23. you obviously refuse to believe the reality that he is sinking like a lead balloon and will never make it

    ReplyDelete
  24. again you ignore the reality of the train of events. She is not stupid. You are living in an alternative universe with other Trump followers.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I believe in the reality of the Torah. Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of chanifa, hypocrisy. She hates Jews and embraced the Palestinians. Trump has many frum yidden who work for him who have nothing but praise for him. He is severely flawed, yes. So was John Kennedy. But for you to want the biggest crook to ever have resided in the White House to return there, what are you thinking? You should be davening tomorrow that Hashem spares us from the 3rd Term of Obama by NOT appointing the Wicked Witch of the West Wing as President. Hashem is the melech who rules our world and who HE selects as his instruments on this earth is reality!

    ReplyDelete
  26. He at least has that mitzvah to his credit and at the former Miss Wisconsin, Melissa Young, said he did similar for her family. The Wicked Witch of the West Wing has nothing even remotely close. She has committed crimes that lesser people have gone to jail for. And do not forget that Hashem may view that mitzvah Trump did for Andrew Ten, o'h, quite differently from the way you do. “Ben (the son of) Azzai said: Run to perform [even] a minor mitzvah
    (commandment) and flee from sin, for one mitzvah leads to another
    mitzvah, and one sin leads to another sin; for the reward of a mitzvah
    is a mitzvah and the ‘reward’ of a sin is a sin.” (Pirkei Avos)

    ReplyDelete
  27. For sure, these mitzvos definitively far outway the loose canon that is Donald Trump. We should pick a president of general solely on the basis of how many good deeds he has done and ignore his lack of competence in other areas that are relevant to the job.

    I am glad you know what G-d may or may not do and that clearly swings the balance to Trump. Wish I had access to that information too.

    You have got to be kidding but you obviously don't see how absurd your defense of Trump is.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I want someone to be President that I don't have to worry about knows how to handle the job. Yes Clinton is severely flawed - but Trump far outweights her in negative qualities.

    Repeated calling Clinton the Wicked Witch is a cute debate techinique which doesn't add anything to the discussion. Maybe I should start calling Trump the Fool

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yes hillary can handle the job very well. For her own personal gain. She doesn't care one iota for the good of the country. She has proven over and over that she is selfish and greedy and she will say one thing publicly and another behind the country's back. I suggest you look at how Trump handled the Wohlman Skating Rink. That is an example of a person who gets things done right!

    ReplyDelete
  30. And your definition of how Hillary would handle the Presidency is ludicrous. Obama was a disaster. Hillary would be a catastrophic disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes, the Republican defectors are afraid the Washington DC business as usual for them will be disrupted. Why do you think Trump won the primaries? Because the rank-and-file of the party are disgusted with the way Congress rolled over for Obama over the last 8 years.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hillary has demonstrated far more incompetence than Trump. Ask Upstate New Yorkers about the jobs she promised she would bring as a Senator. Look at what she has done as Secretary of State. Absolutely nothing good and plenty of bad.

    ReplyDelete
  33. And Trump would be beyond catastrophe - what a choice

    ReplyDelete
  34. And Trump has proven to be an altruistic saint in all his dealings?!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Absolutely not. But so far you cannot show me even one instance of Clinton doing anything remotely philanthropic like Trump has. So if altruism you're looking for, you're more likely to find it with Trump based upon his past behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  36. A president isn't inherently an altruistic person. The fact that Trump has one good mitzva to his name does not qualify him for any position of power

    ReplyDelete
  37. One mitzvah? He has at least 6 that I can list. How does Hillary, who has a track record of doing a lousy job in her positions of power, qualify her to a higher position of power where she is even more likely to do a lousier job. Four men died in Benghazi because of her. How many more will die?

    ReplyDelete
  38. sorry - you haven't demonstrated that Hillary has done a lousy job in her positions of power. You are simply repeating the same claims over and over again. Doesn't make them true.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Oh. That she promised she would bring jobs to Upstate NY failed to materialize AND in fact there were jobs LOST is not true?? That her Secretary of State office ignored pleas for assistance in Benghazi is not true? That she LIED to the families

    of those who died there and claimed it was the result of a video is not true?


    You are so caught up with your hatred of Donald Trump that you have lost all sense of logic and reason. That's a shame because it casts doubt on your postings about Tamar Epstein and Reb Shmuel. Luckily, I have obtained independent verification of those.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I doubt if you could find any elected official who been successful in office according to your standards.

    What about applying your standards to Trump - is there any actual evidence that he is a competent businessman?

    ReplyDelete
  41. So a politician who is unsuccessful part of the time is ok but a businessman must be successful ALL the time? Of course Trump has had had failures in business. Even Steve Jobs had failures too. But the proof Trump was successful most of the time is that he was able to enter the race for President in the first place.

    What is it you have against Trump? I can summarize my dislike for Hillary quite simply, she thinks she can lie and cheat with impunity and do whatever the hell she wants to without punishment, even to loot the White House itself! ( http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856 ) I do not want such a person as President.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Actually I have the same view of Trump

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.