https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/10722580/bill-clinton-juanita-broaddrick
In their 2000 book The Hunting of the President, Joe Conason and Gene Lyons note that the FBI investigated the allegation for Kenneth Starr's Independent Counsel office, and found the evidence "inconclusive." There are no direct witnesses and no physical evidence to back up the accusation. "It’s important to note — and Broaddrick concedes — that aside from her, there are no witnesses and as far as we know, no one saw Clinton enter or leave Broaddrick’s room, or even the hotel," Myers said in the NBC broadcast. "She took no photos, kept no evidence and the hotel has no records to confirm that she stayed there." That said, there are plenty of rapes where the victim has no physical evidence or good witnesses with which to back up their story. The lack of those categories of evidence makes the key question in the case, "Do we believe Broaddrick, or do we believe Clinton?"
In his memoir The Clinton Wars, White House aide Sidney Blumenthal notes that when Paula Jones's lawyers first approached Broaddrick, she refused to cooperate, and upon being subpoenaed signed an affidavit saying, "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton." Only after that did she file another affidavit insisting the assault did occur, at which point, Blumenthal argues, she "had no standing as a reliable witness." That's one interpretation. But it often takes a while for rape accusers to come forward, so Broaddrick's initial unwillingness to relay the allegation is hardly airtight proof she's lying.
No one besides Bill Clinton and Juanita Broaddrick knows the true story here — and ultimately, the matter comes down to which of their two accounts one believes. There is certainly not enough here to convict Clinton in a court of law, even if there weren't a statute of limitations. There's no physical evidence. There's just Broaddrick's and her friends' words against Clinton's.
I assume this is meant to contrast with Trump civil rape conviction. My understanding is that the evidence against Trump was Jean's testimony and her friends testifying now that Jean told them about it at the time. Of course there was a lot of character evidence against Trump but that does not prove the crime. Accordingly, would Broadrick be able to win against Clinton?
ReplyDeleteTrump's public bragging about sexual abuse clearly is not in his favor in a trial regarding claims of sexual abuse. There is nothing comparable in Clinton's case. Trump is his own worst enemy
DeleteIn summary: when a popular Democrat rapes multiple women, there's always an extenuating circumstance, excuse or denial that is to be accepted.
ReplyDeleteWow Totally ignore facts and make up an alterative world, Trump was successfully sued for defamation. Who is suing Clinton?
DeleteHa! That defamation charge was completely Trumped up. And $86 million! Really?
Delete