Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Isabel

Another Historic SC ruling -Bans on Gay Marriage Struck Down

Recommended Posts

Thanks for proving what I said was right. . .

 

From your link: " While Congress doesn't technically have the power to overrule a Supreme Court decision, it can take actions to lessen, or even negate, the effect of a court ruling. Congress can thereby render the court's interpretation obsolete, either by passing a new law or amending the old law to better achieve its original intent."

 

 

This is exactly what will likely happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to make up your mind. are they fascist Nazis or Commies? I don't think you know the difference.

 

I hate both fascist Nazis AND Communists. Multitasking.

 

So,

 

Where has this issue ever won at the ballot box?

Where has the Will of the People decided this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So,



Where has this issue ever won at the ballot box?



Where has the Will of the People decided this?



Even Liberal Socialist California voted Down this issue.




The United States/Legislatures Constitutionally Ratified the 14th Amendment.



So, while One Percent of the Country celebrates TYRANNY over the Civil Society through Soviet Politburo Judicial Activism in the Courts...?



It is not the Will of the People.


It is not American.


You are Wrong.



The Union tried a trick like this after the Civil War, against the South.



Reconstruction



The Democrats formed the Klu Klux Klan in response.


They were so effective, that the Republicans rescinded its Tyrannical policy.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for proving what I said was right. . .

 

From your link: " While Congress doesn't technically have the power to overrule a Supreme Court decision, it can take actions to lessen, or even negate, the effect of a court ruling. Congress can thereby render the court's interpretation obsolete, either by passing a new law or amending the old law to better achieve its original intent."

 

 

This is exactly what will likely happen.

Good for you! You can use Google! Too bad that cutting and pasting the first para you see doesn't mean you actually understand anything.

 

When that legislation is challenged in the courts, it makes its way back up to the SC who rule on it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So,

Where has this issue ever won at the ballot box?

Where has the Will of the People decided this?

Even Liberal Socialist California voted Down this issue.

The United States/Legislatures Constitutionally Ratified the 14th Amendment.

So, while One Percent of the Country celebrates TYRANNY over the Civil Society through Soviet Politburo Judicial Activism in the Courts...?

It is not the Will of the People.

It is not American.

You are Wrong.

The Union tried a trick like this after the Civil War, against the South.

Reconstruction

The Democrats formed the Klu Klux Klan in response.

They were so effective, that the Republicans rescinded its Tyrannical policy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I treat raping children as something bad.

 

Yeah, it is ... but raping women is apparently OK with you.

 

That's why you're so quick to defend Bill Clinton ... a sicko who arguably raped several women.

 

But at least you can spell the word "rape".

 

Your liberal arts eduKation was good for something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you! You can use Google! Too bad that cutting and pasting the first para you see doesn't mean you actually understand anything.

 

When that legislation is challenged in the courts, it makes its way back up to the SC who rule on it.

 

 

I'm sure you want us all to think you know what you're talking about but, of course, you don't. I will remind you that very few legislative appeals ever make it to the Supreme Court.

 

This error will eventually be fixed in various parts of the country. The Supreme Court cannot make laws in this country. I'm surprised you're that ignorant, but maybe I shouldn't be. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it is ... but raping women is apparently OK with you.

That's why you're so quick to defend Bill Clinton ... a sicko who arguably raped several women.

But at least you can spell the word "rape".

Your liberal arts eduKation was good for something.

Completely fabricated, knee-jerk stupidity that you bleat randomly at people without a thought in your broken head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So,

Where has this issue ever won at the ballot box?

Where has the Will of the People decided this?

Even Liberal Socialist California voted Down this issue.

The United States/Legislatures Constitutionally Ratified the 14th Amendment.

So, while One Percent of the Country celebrates TYRANNY over the Civil Society through Soviet Politburo Judicial Activism in the Courts...?

It is not the Will of the People.

It is not American.

You are Wrong.

The Union tried a trick like this after the Civil War, against the South.

Reconstruction

The Democrats formed the Klu Klux Klan in response.

They were so effective, that the Republicans rescinded its Tyrannical policy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, it is ... but raping women is apparently OK with you.

 

That's why you're so quick to defend Bill Clinton ... a sicko who arguably raped several women.

 

But at least you can spell the word "rape".

 

Your liberal arts eduKation was good for something.

Any charges filed?

Any indictments?

 

Any Convictions?

 

Nada, zero,

 

That make you a LIAR.

 

Bush Jr. however had rape charges filed against him by Margie S, she got killed for it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, Bea - you must be OUTRAGED at Bush as someone who arguably raped a woman.

 

Or is raping women OK with you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, you poor cons can't win for losing, can you.

 

------------------

June 26, 2015

 

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage across the United States Friday in a closely divided ruling that will stand as a milestone in its 226-year history.

 

The justices ruled 5-4 that states cannot deny gay men and lesbians the same marriage rights enjoyed for thousands of years by opposite-sex couples. Within days if not hours, the decision is expected to trigger same-sex marriages in states that still ban the practice.

 

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his 28-page ruling. "The Constitution grants them that right."

 

Within minutes, county clerks in Michigan, one of the states being sued by same-sex couples, said they would begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. "I cannot imagine forcing them to wait a moment longer," said Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum.

 

Kennedy announced the decision to a hushed courtroom; his colleagues watched stone-faced. As the sweep of his decision became clear, some in the audience embraced and cried.

 

"The past alone does not rule the present. The nature of injustice is that we do not always see it in our own time," he said.

 

In a show of the court's discord, Chief Justice John Roberts read for 10 minutes from his dissent, accusing the majority of overstepping their bounds and ignoring the Constitution. "Today, five lawyers have ordered every state to change their definition of marriage," Roberts said. "Just who do we think we are?"

 

Outside the court, hundreds of same-sex marriage proponents engaged in a spontaneous celebration with banners and flags, at times spilling up on to the court's plaza before being shooed back by police. The mood was joyous as a Ben & Jerry's ice cream truck passed between the court and the Capitol; the company is renaming its iconic Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough ice cream flavor in some outlets to "I Dough, I Dough."

 

Roberts delivered a similar message to supporters of same-sex marriage: "By all means, celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal," he said. "But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

 

The landmark ruling ends a legal battle that had brewed in the states for 45 years, from Minnesota in the 1970s to Hawaii in the 1990s and New England after the turn of the century. The final turning point came in 2013, when the high court forced the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages and allowed them to resume in California.

 

Had the court upheld gay marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Tennessee and Kentucky, it would have jeopardized federal court rulings striking down similar bans in 20 of the 37 states where same-sex marriage has been declared legal. Quickly, the number of gay marriage states could have been cut in half.

 

Instead, the court's finding that same-sex couples have a right to marry under the Constitution will make gay marriage legal in the remaining 13 states, from Georgia to North Dakota. It will end a standoff between federal and state courts in Alabama. And it will make battles over religious-freedom and non-discrimination laws the next battleground in the nation's continuing struggle with gay rights.

 

President Obama hailed the ruling from the White House Rose Garden before departing for South Carolina, where he was to eulogize black residents murdered in Charleston last week.

 

"This ruling will strengthen all of our communities by offering to all loving same-sex couples the dignity of marriage across this great land," Obama said.

 

Kennedy had authored the last three major rulings advancing the cause of gay rights, including the 2013 opinion in United States v. Windsor striking down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. For that reason, he was widely expected to be the author of the ruling that brings gay marriage to all 50 states.

 

 

-----------------

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/26/supreme-court-gay-lesbian-marriage/28649319/

They're finding themselves fumbling for answers in an America that is changing faster than they are.

 

I warned them 10 years ago this was coming. It's the arrogance and complacency of the conservative mindset.

 

They either don't believe it is happening, or are ignoring the fact that it is.

 

They're caught in a vicious cycle of moving farther right as the ideological and demographic shifts continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you want us all to think you know what you're talking about but, of course, you don't.

Your insecurities are showing again.

 

I will remind you that very few legislative appeals ever make it to the Supreme Court.

 

Legislation passed specifically to nullify and squirm around a SUPREME COURT DECISION most certainly would make its way there.

 

This error will eventually be fixed in various parts of the country.

 

Why don't you hold your breath.

 

The Supreme Court cannot make laws in this country.

 

The only one talking about that is you.

 

I'm surprised you're that ignorant, but maybe I shouldn't be. . .

 

Cry all you like, clown.

They're finding themselves fumbling for answers in an America that is changing faster than they are.

I warned them 10 years ago this was coming. It's the arrogance and complacency of the conservative mindset.

They either don't believe it is happening, or are ignoring the fact that it is.

They're caught in a vicious cycle of moving farther right as the ideological and demographic shifts continue.

Exactly.

 

They spend all their time telling each other comforting lies, and when reality finally bites them in the ass they are blindsided. "But how can it actually be happening? We all kept shouting that it wasn't true!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely fabricated, knee-jerk stupidity that you bleat randomly at people without a thought in your broken head.

 

Notice that she didn't deny defending the Clintons or the substance of the allegations of rape against Bill Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice that she didn't deny defending the Clintons or the substance of the allegations of rape against Bill Clinton.

What I noticed was that you didn't deny defending George Bush or the substance of the allegations of rape against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush Jr. however had rape charges filed against him by Margie S, she got killed for it too.

LOL! I love when you ClintonTruthers mention this because it always ends badly for you. The editor of the paper that published the story about Margie Schoedinger filing court papers alleging rape stated (http://rense.com/general32/bhh.htm) that "This report wasn't supposed to go up yet. I had heard she was a nutcase." According to the above source, her account (unlike Broaddrick's and the others against Clinton) was "confusing, rambling and incomplete." Here's what she filed: http://rense.com/general32/CCCIVIL217038-1-7.pdf . Unlike the (corroborated) allegations made by Broaddrick and other women against Clinton, Schoedinger's claims sound like those of a seriously deranged person. Which is probably why the lawsuit was never heard from again. That and the fact that she represented herself in the case (http://rense.com/general32/charged.htm ). Does that tell you anything, Hex?

Wow, Bea - you must be OUTRAGED at Bush as someone who arguably raped a woman.

 

Or is raping women OK with you?

 

No. You see, UNLIKE YOU WITH CLINTON, I can defend Bush against the allegations of rape with sourced facts.

What I noticed was that you didn't deny defending George Bush or the substance of the allegations of rape against him.

 

I just did you moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. You see, UNLIKE YOU WITH CLINTON, I can defend Bush against the allegations of rape with sourced facts

LOL.

 

Allegations against Clinton "They're all TRUE! He's a RAPIST, even though nothing was proven!"

Allegations against Bush "They're all LIES! He's not a RAPIST, because nothing was proven!"

 

ROTFL. What an obedient, well-trained whore you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allegations against Clinton "They're all TRUE! He's a RAPIST, even though nothing was proven!"

 

Nothing was proven?

 

David Schippers, a well respected prosecutor and life-long Democrat (at least up until Clinton's impeachment), who voted for Clinton twice for President (before the impeachment), and who the House Managers chose to head the investigation of Clinton during the impeachment, stated afterwords that had the statute of limitation on the rape of Broaddrick not expired, he would have prosecuted Clinton for her rape. He told the Washington Post that his staffers interviewed Broaddrick more than once and they "have assured me that she is the most credible witness that either one of them have ever talked to" and one of these investigators had worked with rape victims during her days with the Chicago police.

 

Julia Malone, of the Cox News Service, reported the following regarding what Ken Starr told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast on December 3, 1999:

 

Former independent counsel Kenneth Starr said Friday that President Clinton has yet to show remorse for deceiving the court in the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. ''In some way, through some manifestation of genuine sorrow and acceptance of responsibility, the president should get himself right with the law,'' Starr said....... The White House greeted Starr's recommendation with disdain. ……Starr also defended his decision to send Congress what he called ''sobering to the point of devastating'' material in which Juanita Broaddrick, a Little Rock nursing home executive, accused Clinton of having raped her when he was attorney general of Arkansas more than 20 years ago. That information was not included in the independent counsel's public report, Starr said, because it did not relate to possible obstruction of justice, which was the focus of his probe. However, he said it did relate to Clinton's ''fitness'' for office. ''I didn't think it was completely irrelevant. I had to be careful about what I was keeping from the Congress.'' Asked whether he believed Broaddrick's charges, Starr said he did not meet her, but added: "The investigators found her entirely credible."

”Entirely credible” and “sobering to the point of devastating.”

 

Now mind you, much of the evidence against Clinton is still locked up in the Ford Building. Only people like Schippers, Starr and the Congressmen who went over and looked at it in the days before the impeachment vote saw it all. Consider that many House members, who had been waffling about impeachment until doing so, walked out and voted for impeachment. Arizona Representative Matt Salmon told the Arizona Republic that what he saw in the Ford Building left him "nauseated." Delaware Representative Mike Castle was reduced to tears, according to CNBC's Chris Matthews. Matthews own assessment of the Juanita Broaddrick rape charge against Clinton was "I think it's believable. I think it's very credible. I know a reporter for the Washington Post who I've known for 20 years and she told me that she interviewed this woman and found her highly, in fact, totally credible.” He added, “Clinton sounds like a vampire.” Connecticut Representative Chris Shays said on talk radio that, based on secret evidence he reviewed during the impeachment controversy, he believes President Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, not once, but twice. If the evidence was as thin as you claim, I doubt any of those people would have made such bold statements, Isabel. Obviously, something was prove TO THEM.

 

The only defense often proffered by Clinton Truthers like you is to say Broaddrick signed an statement denying the rape. And it’s true that Broaddrick originally signed a sworn statement denying anything happened as part of the Paula Jones lawsuit. But let's look at how that came about.

 

On MEET THE PRESS in February of 1999, Bill Bennet (the brother of Bob Bennet, the President's personal lawyer in the Jone's suit) stated that Clinton's personal records document that he was at the hotel at the time of the rape. Bennet also said that White House staff on backgound were saying that Clinton was alone in the room with Broaddrick and that they had sex.

 

It was Bob Bennett who supplied Broaddrick with the first draft of the affidavit she signed, denying she was raped. A New York Times article said "On the advice of her lawyer, Bill Walters, a Republican state senator, she agreed to let him call a friend of his, Bruce Lindsey, White House deputy counsel, she said. After the call, the President's lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, faxed Walters an affidavit another woman had used to deny involvement with Clinton. She said Walters changed the names and facts and Mrs. Broaddrick signed it on January 2, 1998. Contacted Tuesday, Lindsey and Bennett would not comment."

 

Now not only was Bob Bennett Clinton's man, Bruce Lindsey was a *fixer* for Clinton who was implicated in numerous illegalities during the Clinton years (and was even named as an unindicted co-conspirator in one scandal). Wikipedia quotes Bill Burton, another former top Clinton official, as saying "There is no end to which Bruce wouldn't go for the president, There are things Bruce would do for the president that nobody else on Earth would do, and Bruce wouldn't even think twice about it." Clinton used Executive Privilege to keep Lindsey from having to talk to investigators numerous times ... in the Riady campaign finance scandal, the Lewinsky matter and in Whitewater. And as a reward for his faithful service (i.e., keeping the skeletons buried), Lindsey is currently working as the Chief Executive Officer of the Clinton Foundation, collecting a cool quarter million dollar salary.

 

Given what we know about the Clintons, is there any doubt about how far his "fixers" would have been willing to "go for" Clinton in the Broaddrick case? I suggest they would have been willing to pressure a woman into signing a false affidavit that they supplied. And do you know that during the Jones discovery, Clinton made a 158 minute phone call to someone named "Juanita". The day after that phone call is when Broaddrick had her lawyer apply to the White House counsel's office for a false affidavit sample. Connect the dots.

 

Even Wikipedia, a rather left leaning source at times, says this:

 

"She was so terrified. And the reason she was terrified was because she saw what had happened to Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers and all the rest of them." Although Broaddrick said no one had pressured her to file a false affidavit, she complained that she was being watched from parked cars, her home had been broken into, her pets released and her answering machine tape stolen while she and her husband were away briefly during the House impeachment probe.

And then there is Broaddrick's explanation. She said "I didn’t want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life. I didn’t want to go through it again.” Which is entirely possible, don't you think? Many women have done just that sort of thing rather than have to relive a violent rape and have their reputation dragged through the mud. And in this case we were talking nationally. And as the Clinton gang proved over and over, they certainly weren't above dragging a woman's reputation through the mud. Just before the Blue Dress surface, they were doing it to poor Monica.

 

Schippers said his staffers had developed evidence that showed obstruction of justice and physical intimidation of witnesses related to the accusations of sexual harassment and rape against the President. In his book, "Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment", Schippers wrote: “Let me tell you something. They (meaning Clinton's people) were all over that woman, and it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. ... Just to let her know 'We can do what we want.' By the time we had learned what they were doing to her, the decisions on witnesses had already been made." When asked whether he would have called the Clinton rape accuser to testify in the impeachment had he known about the witness tampering in time, Schippers admitted, "Yes, I would have tried to do it."

 

When news of the Broaddrick rape came out, Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, said "Any allegation that the president assaulted Ms. Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false." Of course, in 1978 Ms. Broaddrick was not known as Ms. Broaddrick but as "Mrs Hickey". And she alleged rape, not "assault". So I suppose technically Kendall told the truth. By parsing words like Democrats always do.

 

As to Clinton's direct response, there was none. When Sam Donaldson asked Clinton about the rape at a news conference, saying "Can you not simply deny it, sir?", Clinton deferred to his lawyer by saying "Well, my counsel has made a statement about the … issue and I have nothing to add to it." And he called it an ”issue"? Let's see what the "issue" was.

 

Here's is an excerpt from NBC's interview of Broaddrick describing the rape.

 

Broaddrick: "Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip (she cries). Just a minute... He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. (crying) And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No,’ that I didn’t want this to happen (crying) but he wouldn’t listen to me."

 

Myers: "Did you resist, did you tell him to stop?"

 

Broaddrick: "Yes, I told him ‘Please don’t.’ He was such a different person at that moment, he was just a vicious awful person."

 

Myers: "You said there was a point at which you stopped resisting?"

 

Broaddrick: "Yeah."

 

Myers: "Why?"

 

Broaddrick: "It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’ And that’s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip."

 

Juanita Broaddrick: "When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says ‘You better get some ice on that.’ And he turned and went out the door."

The NBC show reported that Broaddrick said she finally decided to tell what really happened because "she feared lying to a federal grand jury, and once Starr granted her immunity from prosecution for perjury — she agreed to come forward with details of her allegations against Clinton." That's entirely believable, too.

 

Another defense offered by ClintonTruthers is to claim the FBI called Broaddrick’s story “inconclusive”. Here is what Schippers had to say about that:

 

"That business of Broaddrick being deemed inconclusive is not true."

Schipper's staff (which included a former FBI agent) said Broaddrick's charges were corroborated by several witnesses interviewed by the OIC. Two of his investigators (the two who had first learned of the Broaddrick allegation) went to Arkansas for a meeting with Broaddrick and her lawyer. At the meeting she was reluctant to acknowledge the assault but in a telephone conversation to the investigators later that day, she spilled her heart out. For an hour and a half, she described the ordeal. The investigator, who had worked with rape victims during her days on the Chicago police force, told Schippers, "Juanita fits the pattern of the classic rape victim." And like I said, Schippers told the Washington Post that his staffers interviewed Broaddrick more than once and "have assured me that she is the most credible witness that either one of them have ever talked to."

 

The interviewers of Broaddrick at NBC came to the same conclusion. They said her rape allegation was highly credible. And these people spent hours and hours with Broaddrick.

 

A Fox News poll, conducted immediately following NBC's Broaddrick interview, showed that 54 percent of Americans believed Broaddrick's allegation. Only 23 percent found them untrue.

 

So don't be so sure Clinton couldn't have been convicted on the evidence that exists had the statute of limitation not expired. Don't be so sure Broaddrick wouldn't have been believed. Especially given some of the other evidence out there regarding Clinton and his staff's behavior.

 

For example, after questions surfaced dealing with Monica Lewinsky’s false statements in her affidavit, denying sexual contact with the President, which Clinton had earlier asserted was "absolutely true," one of the OIC lawyers asked Bill Clinton why he had allowed his lawyer, Bob Bennett, to tell a federal judge that "there is absolutely no sex of any kind." Clinton responded "Well, in the present tense that is an accurate statement." Clinton later responded to a direct question concerning the "completely false" nature of his statement as follows: ''It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the -- if he -- if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not -- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement." (Yes, this is the famous "is" statement of Clinton's). So I don't think Clinton would have made a very good defense witness. And don't think many of his associates would be lining up to act as character witnesses, either.

 

Not even Al Gore would directly defend Clinton. At a 1999 town hall meeting he was asked a question, by a woman named Katherine Prudhomme, about the Broaddrick rape. She asked "When Juanita Broaddrick made the claim, that I felt credible, that she was raped by Bill Clinton, did that change your opinion about him being one of the best presidents in history? And do you believe Juanita Broaddrick's claim?" In a stuttering 10 minute response, not once did Gore say he didn't believe Broaddrick's accusation or that he believed Clinton (or at least his lawyer). Instead, he claimed not to have seen the interview of Broaddrick (which is in itself such a transparent lie that Democrats never should have even considered him for President). Gore finally said "Whatever mistakes he made in his personal life are, in the minds of most Americans, balanced against what he has done in his public life as president". In other words, Gore (a typical Democrat?) was willing to forgive Clinton for a "mistake" (raping a woman) because he did many wonderful things in his public life (like sell America out, with Gore's help, to the Chinese Communists). You think that sort of *defense* would sell a jury?

 

And Broaddrick wasn't the only women Bill Clinton reportedly raped. There's a pattern of bad behavior that would surely find it's way into any trial.

 

In 1969, Oxford University asked Clinton not to return after Eileen Wellston charged that he raped her. In his book, Unlimited Access, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich reported that Clinton left Oxford and was told he was no longer welcome. And no one has ever disputed that. Why would he be unwelcome unless school officials believed he raped a woman? Why wouldn't he fight the expulsion unless he didn't want the accusation brought to the light of day? Also, according to Capital Blue, a retired State Department employee, who asked not to be named, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. He reportedly told Capital Blue that "There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma. But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of it." Obviously something happened about that time because Clinton suddenly left Oxford. And it wouldn’t be the first time that a university covered up a rape by one of it’s students.

 

In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, who was a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it.

 

Christopher Hitchens, in "No One Left to Lie To: the Values of the Worst Family", said he located another woman (a radical activist at the time of the assault) who alleged Clinton bit her on the lip (like Broaddrick) during an attempted rape in 1972 in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. But I'm sure you are asking ... was Bill in San Francisco in 1972? This confirms he was: http://www.nysun.com/national/clintons-berkeley-summer-of-love/66982/ ... that he and Hillary were living in Berkeley during the summer of 1972. And what did Clinton look like in 1972? Well that picture I posted to you above shows you.

 

And you want to sit there and claim nothing was proven?

 

Allegations against Bush "They're all LIES! He's not a RAPIST, because nothing was proven!"

You want to claim the allegations against Bush are in ANY WAY comparable to those against Clinton?

 

You’re a partisan moron, Isabel.

 

A vile, filthy mouthed one at that.

 

But god help me if I *misspelled* a single word in the above.

 

Because then you’d have good reason to simply ignore it all.

 

Right?

 

MORON.

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nothing was proven?

 

David Schippers, a well respected prosecutor and life-long Democrat (at least up until Clinton's impeachment), who voted for Clinton twice for President (before the impeachment), and who the House Managers chose to head the investigation of Clinton during the impeachment, stated afterwords that had the statute of limitation on the rape of Broaddrick not expired, he would have prosecuted Clinton for her rape. He told the Washington Post that his staffers interviewed Broaddrick more than once and they "have assured me that she is the most credible witness that either one of them have ever talked to" and one of these investigators had worked with rape victims during her days with the Chicago police.

 

Julia Malone, of the Cox News Service, reported the following regarding what Ken Starr told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast on December 3, 1999:

 

 

Entirely credible and sobering to the point of devastating.

 

Now mind you, much of the evidence against Clinton is still locked up in the Ford Building. Only people like Schippers, Starr and the Congressmen who went over and looked at it in the days before the impeachment vote saw it all. Consider that many House members, who had been waffling about impeachment until doing so, walked out and voted for impeachment. Arizona Representative Matt Salmon told the Arizona Republic that what he saw in the Ford Building left him "nauseated." Delaware Representative Mike Castle was reduced to tears, according to CNBC's Chris Matthews. Matthews own assessment of the Juanita Broaddrick rape charge against Clinton was "I think it's believable. I think it's very credible. I know a reporter for the Washington Post who I've known for 20 years and she told me that she interviewed this woman and found her highly, in fact, totally credible. He added, Clinton sounds like a vampire. Connecticut Representative Chris Shays said on talk radio that, based on secret evidence he reviewed during the impeachment controversy, he believes President Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, not once, but twice. If the evidence was as thin as you claim, I doubt any of those people would have made such bold statements, Isabel. Obviously, something was prove TO THEM.

 

The only defense often proffered by Clinton Truthers like you is to say Broaddrick signed an statement denying the rape. And its true that Broaddrick originally signed a sworn statement denying anything happened as part of the Paula Jones lawsuit. But let's look at how that came about.

 

On MEET THE PRESS in February of 1999, Bill Bennet (the brother of Bob Bennet, the President's personal lawyer in the Jone's suit) stated that Clinton's personal records document that he was at the hotel at the time of the rape. Bennet also said that White House staff on backgound were saying that Clinton was alone in the room with Broaddrick and that they had sex.

 

It was Bob Bennett who supplied Broaddrick with the first draft of the affidavit she signed, denying she was raped. A New York Times article said "On the advice of her lawyer, Bill Walters, a Republican state senator, she agreed to let him call a friend of his, Bruce Lindsey, White House deputy counsel, she said. After the call, the President's lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, faxed Walters an affidavit another woman had used to deny involvement with Clinton. She said Walters changed the names and facts and Mrs. Broaddrick signed it on January 2, 1998. Contacted Tuesday, Lindsey and Bennett would not comment."

 

Now not only was Bob Bennett Clinton's man, Bruce Lindsey was a *fixer* for Clinton who was implicated in numerous illegalities during the Clinton years (and was even named as an unindicted co-conspirator in one scandal). Wikipedia quotes Bill Burton, another former top Clinton official, as saying "There is no end to which Bruce wouldn't go for the president, There are things Bruce would do for the president that nobody else on Earth would do, and Bruce wouldn't even think twice about it." Clinton used Executive Privilege to keep Lindsey from having to talk to investigators numerous times ... in the Riady campaign finance scandal, the Lewinsky matter and in Whitewater. And as a reward for his faithful service (i.e., keeping the skeletons buried), Lindsey is currently working as the Chief Executive Officer of the Clinton Foundation, collecting a cool quarter million dollar salary.

 

Given what we know about the Clintons, is there any doubt about how far his "fixers" would have been willing to "go for" Clinton in the Broaddrick case? I suggest they would have been willing to pressure a woman into signing a false affidavit that they supplied. And do you know that during the Jones discovery, Clinton made a 158 minute phone call to someone named "Juanita". The day after that phone call is when Broaddrick had her lawyer apply to the White House counsel's office for a false affidavit sample. Connect the dots.

 

Even Wikipedia, a rather left leaning source at times, says this:

 

 

And then there is Broaddrick's explanation. She said "I didnt want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life. I didnt want to go through it again. Which is entirely possible, don't you think? Many women have done just that sort of thing rather than have to relive a violent rape and have their reputation dragged through the mud. And in this case we were talking nationally. And as the Clinton gang proved over and over, they certainly weren't above dragging a woman's reputation through the mud. Just before the Blue Dress surface, they were doing it to poor Monica.

 

Schippers said his staffers had developed evidence that showed obstruction of justice and physical intimidation of witnesses related to the accusations of sexual harassment and rape against the President. In his book, "Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment", Schippers wrote: Let me tell you something. They (meaning Clinton's people) were all over that woman, and it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. ... Just to let her know 'We can do what we want.' By the time we had learned what they were doing to her, the decisions on witnesses had already been made." When asked whether he would have called the Clinton rape accuser to testify in the impeachment had he known about the witness tampering in time, Schippers admitted, "Yes, I would have tried to do it."

 

When news of the Broaddrick rape came out, Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall, said "Any allegation that the president assaulted Ms. Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false." Of course, in 1978 Ms. Broaddrick was not known as Ms. Broaddrick but as "Mrs Hickey". And she alleged rape, not "assault". So I suppose technically Kendall told the truth. By parsing words like Democrats always do.

 

As to Clinton's direct response, there was none. When Sam Donaldson asked Clinton about the rape at a news conference, saying "Can you not simply deny it, sir?", Clinton deferred to his lawyer by saying "Well, my counsel has made a statement about the issue and I have nothing to add to it." And he called it an issue"? Let's see what the "issue" was.

 

Here's is an excerpt from NBC's interview of Broaddrick describing the rape.

 

 

The NBC show reported that Broaddrick said she finally decided to tell what really happened because "she feared lying to a federal grand jury, and once Starr granted her immunity from prosecution for perjury she agreed to come forward with details of her allegations against Clinton." That's entirely believable, too.

 

Another defense offered by ClintonTruthers is to claim the FBI called Broaddricks story inconclusive. Here is what Schippers had to say about that:

 

 

Schipper's staff (which included a former FBI agent) said Broaddrick's charges were corroborated by several witnesses interviewed by the OIC. Two of his investigators (the two who had first learned of the Broaddrick allegation) went to Arkansas for a meeting with Broaddrick and her lawyer. At the meeting she was reluctant to acknowledge the assault but in a telephone conversation to the investigators later that day, she spilled her heart out. For an hour and a half, she described the ordeal. The investigator, who had worked with rape victims during her days on the Chicago police force, told Schippers, "Juanita fits the pattern of the classic rape victim." And like I said, Schippers told the Washington Post that his staffers interviewed Broaddrick more than once and "have assured me that she is the most credible witness that either one of them have ever talked to."

 

The interviewers of Broaddrick at NBC came to the same conclusion. They said her rape allegation was highly credible. And these people spent hours and hours with Broaddrick.

 

A Fox News poll, conducted immediately following NBC's Broaddrick interview, showed that 54 percent of Americans believed Broaddrick's allegation. Only 23 percent found them untrue.

 

So don't be so sure Clinton couldn't have been convicted on the evidence that exists had the statute of limitation not expired. Don't be so sure Broaddrick wouldn't have been believed. Especially given some of the other evidence out there regarding Clinton and his staff's behavior.

 

For example, after questions surfaced dealing with Monica Lewinskys false statements in her affidavit, denying sexual contact with the President, which Clinton had earlier asserted was "absolutely true," one of the OIC lawyers asked Bill Clinton why he had allowed his lawyer, Bob Bennett, to tell a federal judge that "there is absolutely no sex of any kind." Clinton responded "Well, in the present tense that is an accurate statement." Clinton later responded to a direct question concerning the "completely false" nature of his statement as follows: ''It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the -- if he -- if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not -- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement." (Yes, this is the famous "is" statement of Clinton's). So I don't think Clinton would have made a very good defense witness. And don't think many of his associates would be lining up to act as character witnesses, either.

 

Not even Al Gore would directly defend Clinton. At a 1999 town hall meeting he was asked a question, by a woman named Katherine Prudhomme, about the Broaddrick rape. She asked "When Juanita Broaddrick made the claim, that I felt credible, that she was raped by Bill Clinton, did that change your opinion about him being one of the best presidents in history? And do you believe Juanita Broaddrick's claim?" In a stuttering 10 minute response, not once did Gore say he didn't believe Broaddrick's accusation or that he believed Clinton (or at least his lawyer). Instead, he claimed not to have seen the interview of Broaddrick (which is in itself such a transparent lie that Democrats never should have even considered him for President). Gore finally said "Whatever mistakes he made in his personal life are, in the minds of most Americans, balanced against what he has done in his public life as president". In other words, Gore (a typical Democrat?) was willing to forgive Clinton for a "mistake" (raping a woman) because he did many wonderful things in his public life (like sell America out, with Gore's help, to the Chinese Communists). You think that sort of *defense* would sell a jury?

 

And Broaddrick wasn't the only women Bill Clinton reportedly raped. There's a pattern of bad behavior that would surely find it's way into any trial.

 

In 1969, Oxford University asked Clinton not to return after Eileen Wellston charged that he raped her. In his book, Unlimited Access, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich reported that Clinton left Oxford and was told he was no longer welcome. And no one has ever disputed that. Why would he be unwelcome unless school officials believed he raped a woman? Why wouldn't he fight the expulsion unless he didn't want the accusation brought to the light of day? Also, according to Capital Blue, a retired State Department employee, who asked not to be named, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. He reportedly told Capital Blue that "There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma. But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of it." Obviously something happened about that time because Clinton suddenly left Oxford. And it wouldnt be the first time that a university covered up a rape by one of its students.

 

In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, who was a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it.

 

Christopher Hitchens, in "No One Left to Lie To: the Values of the Worst Family", said he located another woman (a radical activist at the time of the assault) who alleged Clinton bit her on the lip (like Broaddrick) during an attempted rape in 1972 in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. But I'm sure you are asking ... was Bill in San Francisco in 1972? This confirms he was: http://www.nysun.com/national/clintons-berkeley-summer-of-love/66982/ ... that he and Hillary were living in Berkeley during the summer of 1972. And what did Clinton look like in 1972? Well that picture I posted to you above shows you.

 

And you want to sit there and claim nothing was proven?

 

 

You want to claim the allegations against Bush are in ANY WAY comparable to those against Clinton?

 

Youre a partisan moron, Isabel.

 

A vile, filthy mouthed one at that.

 

But god help me if I *misspelled* a single word in the above.

 

Because then youd have good reason to simply ignore it all.

 

Right?

 

MORON.

 

:P

like most clinton stuff. Have a bunch to say. But lite on the charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to claim the allegations against Bush are in ANY WAY comparable to those against Clinton?

Allegations were made against both. Nothing was proven against either. Your interpretation of this? Clinton guilty, Bush innocent. Whore.

 

You’re a partisan moron, Isabel.

 

Pure projection, whore.

 

A vile, filthy mouthed one at that.

 

Oh, fiddle-dee-dee, Miss Scarlett!

 

But god help me if I *misspelled* a single word in the above. Because then you’d have good reason to simply ignore it all. Right?

 

What are you blithering about now? Oh, right - when I laughed at you for not knowing how to spell ballot, when you were sharing your brilliant legal analysis. ROTFLMFAO.

 

MORON.

 

Illiterate con whore.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allegations were made against both. Nothing was proven against either. Your interpretation of this? Clinton guilty, Bush innocent. Whore.

Like I said, you just showed your true colors, Isabel.

 

I need say no more.

 

Because you've lost all credibility.

 

But like most Truthers, you just don't realize it.

 

What are you blithering about now? Oh, right - when I laughed at you for not knowing how to spell ballot, when you were sharing your brilliant legal analysis. ROTFLMFAO.

Yes. Go ahead and laugh. But you forgot to mention to your readers that in your rant to me, calling me illiterate for misspelling a single word, you began with a run-on sentence … which is just as much a sign of illiteracy as misspelling a word (as I proved here: http://www.liberalforum.org/index.php?/topic/177671-obamacare-subsidies-ruled-ok-by-supreme-court/?p=1059173386 ), if not more so.

 

Just saying. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, you just showed your true colors, Isabel. I need say no more.

That's right - my true colors are to point out the hilariously obvious bias and hypocrisy you con stooges live for.

 

Because you've lost all credibility.

 

No, I haven't. You have. Not that you had any to start with.

 

Yes. Go ahead and laugh. But you forgot to mention to your readers that in your rant to me, calling me illiterate for misspelling a single word, you began with a run-on sentence …

 

No, I didn't.

 

which is just as much a sign of illiteracy as misspelling a word if not more so.

 

All of this is a sign of your desperation at being caught misspelling a simple word.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Letter to Republicans:

Marriage was fucked long before this ruling.

 

70% of men aged 20-34 are unmarried and have never been married. 50% of marriages end in divorce. The problems with marriage existed long before mainstream gay acceptance.

Take a moment to reflect on that.

 

-NW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Letter to Republicans:

 

Marriage was fucked long before this ruling.

 

70% of men aged 20-34 are unmarried and have never been married. 50% of marriages end in divorce. The problems with marriage existed long before mainstream gay acceptance.

 

Take a moment to reflect on that.

 

-NW

Yeah, but they don't really think it harms "marriage". They just like hating on gay people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...