Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

personreal

Wonder Why Mueller Hasn't Approached Assange?

Recommended Posts

PERSON:  WHY have you been in here discussing Clinton's sordid history with women when you aren't really informed on that subject?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Scout said:

AGAIN.....page 4-5

Page 4..."His accusers haven't appeared in front of the media and signed affidavits proclaiming that he did NOT rape them." 

 

Page 5..."Bill Clinton has been accused by people that like to change their story frequently." 

 

I asked you to please explain and you replied..."Seriously?  :lol:"

 

Yes please...seriously.

 

Page 5..."I will give you a hint for your obviously very faulty memory:   'Juanita Broderick' (sp?)"

 

Could you give me a hint as to what you're claiming Juanita did...did she change her mind about the accusations against Bill?

 

Page 5..."Everybody knows he paid to make her go away.  She knew it was going to be her only chance to pay for her nose job, so she decided to drop it for money (her original goal)." 

 

Why would Bill want her to go away if her case had no merit?

 

Page5...I asked you to provide a link with proof...your response..."No, that is your job."

 

 

You never answered the questions straight up...why?

 

You're the one that made the claim...should you be the one provided proof?

 

Page 5...I said, "So Bill was innocent, yet he paid her big bucks anyway?"  Your reply, "So Paula wasn't lying, yet she took money to drop the case?"

 

Why didn't Bill say, "Hey Paula, you're lying So I'm not going to pay you $850K"?

 

Page 5..."By the way, Paula Jones never accused Clinton of rape.  I DO wish you people would find legitimate news sources.  You post stupid things like this all the time." 

 

I never said Paula accused Bill of rape. You implied that I said it.

 

Page 5...You said, "If the case had had merit, Paula wouldn't have settled."

 

If the case didn't have merit why did Bill pay her $850K?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 5..."I will give you a hint for your obviously very faulty memory:   'Juanita Broderick' (sp?)"

 

Could you give me a hint as to what you're claiming Juanita did...did she change her mind about the accusations against Bill?

 

=====================

 

This indicates you are not well informed enuf to participate equally in this exchange. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Scout said:

Historically, Democrats have far, far better stock markets than Repubs. 

 

You don't seem dumb enough to believe that.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scout said:

Page 5..."I will give you a hint for your obviously very faulty memory:   'Juanita Broderick' (sp?)"

 

Could you give me a hint as to what you're claiming Juanita did...did she change her mind about the accusations against Bill?

 

=====================

 

This indicates you are not well informed enuf to participate equally in this exchange. 

Still nothing to back up your comments.

 

I knew you would dodge again.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, personreal said:

Page 4..."His accusers haven't appeared in front of the media and signed affidavits proclaiming that he did NOT rape them." 

 

Page 5..."Bill Clinton has been accused by people that like to change their story frequently." 

 

I asked you to please explain and you replied..."Seriously?  :lol:"

 

Yes please...seriously.

 

Page 5..."I will give you a hint for your obviously very faulty memory:   'Juanita Broderick' (sp?)"

 

Could you give me a hint as to what you're claiming Juanita did...did she change her mind about the accusations against Bill?

 

Page 5..."Everybody knows he paid to make her go away.  She knew it was going to be her only chance to pay for her nose job, so she decided to drop it for money (her original goal)." 

 

Why would Bill want her to go away if her case had no merit?

 

Page5...I asked you to provide a link with proof...your response..."No, that is your job."

 

 

You never answered the questions straight up...why?

 

You're the one that made the claim...should you be the one provided proof?

 

Page 5...I said, "So Bill was innocent, yet he paid her big bucks anyway?"  Your reply, "So Paula wasn't lying, yet she took money to drop the case?"

 

Why didn't Bill say, "Hey Paula, you're lying So I'm not going to pay you $850K"?

 

Page 5..."By the way, Paula Jones never accused Clinton of rape.  I DO wish you people would find legitimate news sources.  You post stupid things like this all the time." 

 

I never said Paula accused Bill of rape. You implied that I said it.

 

Page 5...You said, "If the case had had merit, Paula wouldn't have settled."

 

If the case didn't have merit why did Bill pay her $850K?

 

 

 

 

Scout would have answered my questions honestly with evidence, but he's busy.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Scout said:

Page 5..."I will give you a hint for your obviously very faulty memory:   'Juanita Broderick' (sp?)"

 

Could you give me a hint as to what you're claiming Juanita did...did she change her mind about the accusations against Bill?

 

=====================

 

This indicates you are not well informed enuf to participate equally in this exchange. 

 

I addressed this previously with you, Scout ... and you ran off.

 

Here:

 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/210576-bill-oreily-is-no-longer-with-fox-news/?page=6&tab=comments#comment-1059854338

 

Quote

 

   On 4/19/2017 at 5:31 PM, Scout said: 

Juanita Broderick has signed at LEAST one affidavit indicating she lied about her Clinton tale.

Yeah about that …

 

Schippers explained the reasons that Broaddrick lied in her affidavit. He said "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." Speaking of Willey, Schippers said “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.’” Code Shearer, who worked for the Clintons, was identified by Chris Matthews (not exactly a right wing source) as the man who approached Willey near her home, asked her about her punctured car tires and her kids and lost cat, and then said "Get the message?" That’s the type of people Broaddrick was facing. She had reason to be afraid. Just ask Ron Brown and Vince Foster.

 

And keep in mind that Bruce Lindsey was involved in Broaddrick getting the affidavit sample that she used from the Whitehouse. Lindsey was a *fixer* for Clinton who was implicated in numerous illegalities. Bill Burton, another former top Clinton official, said "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. Given what we know about the Clintons, is there any doubt about how far his "fixers" might have been willing to "go for" Bill in this case?

 

He would have been willing to pressure a woman into signing ANY false affidavit that they supplied. They wouldn’t even need to be explicit about their desire. The woman might simply feel she was being constantly watched, find her home broken into, find her pets released, and find her answering machine stolen … all of which Broaddrick testified happened. She’d get the message. And what a coincidence that during the Jones discovery, they found that Clinton made a 158 minute phone call to someone named "Juanita" … and that the day after that phone call a woman named Juanita Broaddrick had her lawyer apply to the White House counsel's office for an affidavit sample. You don’t have to be a genius to connect the dots here. You just have to realize that the affidavit template was supplied by the Clinton Whitehouse … an affidavit that another woman used to falsely deny involvement with Clinton (want to guess who, Scout?). In fact, it was the same type of affidavit that almost all the women in the Paula Jones case got. And we know who lied in that case, don’t we?

 

The fact is that Broaddrick tried desperately not to be involved in this matter at all. She didn’t want to relive it after all these years. She didn’t want to be smeared by Clinton’s gang. 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 her life would have been dragged through the mud nationally. And as the Clinton gang proved over and over, they certainly weren't above dragging a woman's reputation through the mud. In fact, just before the Blue Dress surface, they were doing it to poor Monica. Remember? So I completely understand why Broaddrick might have filed a false affidavit. That you can’t understand that just shows how out of touch you are with the horror of being raped by someone in a position of almost absolute power and then being raped again by the rapist’s lawyers and the media. Just saying ...

 

Now once Broaddrick was forced to come clean, she sought no money … didn’t even ask to be paid for interviews. She sought no book deals. She made no profit from the accusation. So what was her motivation for going after a sitting President,? Issuing an affidavit denying the rape to avoid this going public is nothing more than a form of trying to make it all go away which was what she wanted from the very beginning. Furthermore, she had nothing to gain by admitting the affidavit was false. It put her at risk of perjury charges. Finally, she explained her reasoning to the satisfaction of the FBI, NBC interviewers, David Schippers, Ken Starr and most of the public (in polls taken shortly after she came forward to admit the truth). If you can’t accept that, Scout, perhaps we should wonder what’s wrong with YOU? 

 

The reason Broaddrick finally came forward and admitted to the false affidavit is that she was advised by her son, a lawyer, not to lie to the FBI. That’s all a matter of record. Even the NYTimes reported it: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/24/us/on-tortuous-route-sexual-assault-accusation-against-clinton-resurfaces.html?pagewanted=2 . You don’t lie to the FBI. Not unless you’re a Clinton and have the MSM to protect you. Eventually, she was granted immunity by Starr for her admission that she did lie in the affidavit before she agreed to talk to the FBI. And when all is said and done, Scout, there are 4 witnesses who contradict her denial in the affidavit. She had told those people she was raped long before the matter even came to the attention of the Jones investigators and the IOC. Some of the witnesses testified that they saw physical evidence of that rape (emotional distress, torn pantyhose and a swollen, bloodied lip), so by that standard, the Broaddrick case has more evidence than most rape cases. Only one possibility is consistent with what she told those people years ago, what she told people before being pressed into signing the affidavit by the White House fixers, and what she told the world after the FBI began to grill her under threat of perjury. And that's that Bill Clinton raped her and that she did indeed lie in the affidavit. 

 

Besides, as I told maineman on another thread, the evidence in this case was sufficient to convince David Schippers, the life-long Democrat (at least up until Clinton's impeachment) who twice voted for Clinton and who ran the impeachment effort for the House Managers, that Bill raped her. He publicly stated that had the statute of limitation not expired on the crime, he would have charged Clinton with rape. The evidence was sufficient to convince both of the government investigators who interviewed her. One was a former FBI agent and the other worked with rape victims during her days on the Chicago police force. They told Schippers that she fit the pattern of a classic rape victim and that she was the most credible witness that either one had met. The evidence was sufficient that Ken Starr characterized it to reporters as “sobering to the point of devastating”. The 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. ''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." The evidence was sufficient to convince all but a few of the Congressmen who went to the Ford building where it was kept … something that not one Senator (to their everlasting shame) ever did. Some of the Congressmen spoke publicly about what they saw. One said he left the building “nauseated”. Another was reduced to tears. A third even said that, based on the still secret evidence he viewed in the Ford Building, Clinton raped Broaddrick not one but twice. The evidence was sufficient to convince the interviewers of Broaddrick at NBC and they spent hours and hours with her. A Fox News poll conducted immediately following the one-time NBC broadcast of her interview showed that 54% of American believed Broaddrick and only 23% found her not credible. The evidence was sufficient that even Chris Matthews, a DemocRAT hack if there ever was one, called it “believable.” He said “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.”

 

And on top of that, Scout, the truth is that Bill Clinton had a long history of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment accusations by dozens of women. If you’d like, I’ll be happy to review some of those many, many accusations ... several of which are rapes. So you can’t even claim it would have been *unlike* him to rape Broaddrick. No, in fact he has all the characteristics of serial rapist for whom a rape attempt would have been very much *in character*. Just saying ...  :D

 

 

Your response?

 

CRICKETS.

 

As you say ... Wonder Why?

 

B)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Scout said:

AGAIN.....page 4-5

Scout is on the run from his own claims.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BeAChooser:

 

But nothing happened to those other women for Juanita to fear so we know that is just silly.  I think it was quite lucrative for each of them, however.   I bet Broadrick's gotten a piece of that action, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on top of that, Scout, the truth is that Bill Clinton had a long history of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment accusations by dozens of women.

 

==========================================

 

I think this is a deeply flawed statement relative to the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scout said:

BeAChooser:

 

But nothing happened to those other women for Juanita to fear so we know that is just silly.  I think it was quite lucrative for each of them, however.   I bet Broadrick's gotten a piece of that action, eh?

 

See, folks?  

 

He's still running.  

 

Still spinning.  

 

Still obfuscating.  

 

Still lying.

 

And still proving himself to be a real CRETIN ... just the sort of person who would defend a serial rapist.

 

My offer stands, Scout.

 

Just say the word and I will detail Bill Clinton's long history of rapes, sexual assaults and sexual harassment accusations by DOZENS of women.

 

So that you can’t EVER claim it would have been *unlike* him to rape Broaddrick. 

 

You game ... or still hiding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for this list of dozens of women.  Must be credible source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Scout said:

I'm waiting for this list of dozens of women.  Must be credible source.

Scout is officially on the run from the claims he made.   LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Clinton were truly guilty of rape and evidence supported it, you would not have to make embellished claims about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, personreal said:

Scout is officially on the run from the claims he made.   LOL

You are out of the conversation now, Person.....remember?.... you didn't even know anything about Broaddrick, so this is over your head.  B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe someone is silly enuf to use third person quotes from a Schipper's "NOVEL" as evidence!   :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scout said:

You are out of the conversation now, Person.....remember?.... you didn't even know anything about Broaddrick, so this is over your head.  B)

We're still waiting for you to link us to your claims.

 

I know it's hard for you to type while you're on the run.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schipper's is a paid employee of the Republican organization.  That is really silly to cite him.  Sheesh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Scout said:

I'm waiting for this list of dozens of women.  Must be credible source.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SixShooter said:

 

Sure looks like he's unavailable for contact. LMAO

Scout is running from his own words.

 

I love it!   LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

See, folks?  

 

He's still running.  

 

Still spinning.  

 

Still obfuscating.  

 

Still lying.

 

And still proving himself to be a real CRETIN ... just the sort of person who would defend a serial rapist.

 

My offer stands, Scout.

 

Just say the word and I will detail Bill Clinton's long history of rapes, sexual assaults and sexual harassment accusations by DOZENS of women.

 

So that you can’t EVER claim it would have been *unlike* him to rape Broaddrick. 

 

You game ... or still hiding?

 

Um, I "said the word" quite a while ago.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Scout said:

And on top of that, Scout, the truth is that Bill Clinton had a long history of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment accusations by dozens of women.

 

==========================================

 

I think this is a deeply flawed statement relative to the truth.

 

Is that you challenging me to back up my statement?   

 

Happy too.

 

But let's start with some more details about the Broaddrick rape ...

 

There were 7 witnesses.  They were (1) the victim … who says she was raped, (2) Bill Clinton, (3) a women who saw Broaddrick immediately after the assault and who said Broaddrick told her she was raped, (4) a man who saw Broaddrick a short time after that and who says she told him she was raped, and (5) (6) (7) 3 other women … all of whom said Broaddrick told them she’d been raped by Bill Clinton.  Some of the witnesses testified that they saw physical evidence of that rape (emotional distress, torn pantyhose and a swollen, bloodied lip), so by that standard, the Broaddrick case has more evidence than most rape cases.

 

As I said to that COWARD, mm, the evidence was sufficient to convince David Schippers, the life-long Democrat (at least up until Clinton's impeachment) who twice voted for Clinton and who ran the impeachment effort for the House Managers, that Bill raped Broaddrick. He publicly stated that had the statute of limitation not expired on the crime, he would have charged Clinton with rape.

 

The evidence was sufficient to convince both of the government investigators who interviewed her. One was a former FBI agent and the other worked with rape victims during her days on the Chicago police force. They told Schippers that she fit the pattern of a classic rape victim and that she was the most credible witness that either one had met.

 

The evidence was sufficient that Ken Starr characterized it to reporters as “sobering to the point of devastating”.   The 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. ''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."

 

The evidence was sufficient to convince all but a few of the Congressmen who went to the Ford building where it was kept … something that not one Senator (to their everlasting shame) ever did. Some of the Congressmen spoke publicly about what they saw. One said he left the building “nauseated”. Another was reduced to tears. A third even said that, based on the still secret evidence he viewed in the Ford Building, Clinton raped Broaddrick not one but twice.

 

The evidence was sufficient to convince the interviewers of Broaddrick at NBC and they spent hours and hours with her. A Fox News poll conducted immediately following the one-time NBC broadcast of her interview showed that 54% of American believed Broaddrick and only 23% found her not credible.

 

The evidence was sufficient that even Chris Matthews, a DemocRAT hack if there ever was one, called it “believable.” He said “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.”

 

The truth, that I'm going to prove to you, is that Bill Clinton had a long history of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment accusations by dozens of women.  

 

He has all the characteristics of a man for whom a rape attempt would have been very much *in character*.  

 

Now in the Broaddrick rape allegation, the truth is that Clinton did not personally deny the rape. Most (all?) innocent men would issue a personal denial that they raped anyone.  They would stand before a camera and deny it.  Not Clinton.   His only statement about it was made through his lawyer, Bob Bennet, who issued a terse and very carefully worded statement ("Any allegation that the president assaulted Ms. Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false.”).  When parsed, that statement cannot be considered a denial because in 1978 Ms. Broaddrick was not known as Ms. Broaddrick but as "Mrs Hickey" and she alleged rape, not "assault".  So technically the statement may be true but only if one parses words like Democrats always do ... like the Clintons ALWAYS DO. This, by the way, was the same lawyer who told a federal judge that there was “absolutely no sex of any kind between Monica and Bill” ... another example of parsing.    Just saying …

 

Furthermore, there is NO evidence that Bill could not have commited the crime.  NONE.   Most (all?) innocent men would have offered an alibi in a case like this.  Right away.   They’d have provided their location at the alleged time of the rape as their defense.   Police would check it out and that would be that, if the accused was indeed there.  But not Clinton.   No, Bill and his lawyers have refused to this day to say where he was that day.  Nor has a single witness come forward to claim Bill was with them that day.

 

Furthermore, Bill Clinton has previously issued denials related to some of the many assault and harassment accusations … denials which eventually turned out to be false.  He’s even lied about having sex in consensual cases.   These facts don’t give one confidence that Bill’s lawyer denial is worth anything at all.   And  Bill’s various lawyers over the years have been caught lying and obfuscating about many other matters as well.   They seem to have a habit of playing fast and loose with the truth and the law.    It’s not unlike Bill’s legal assistants to do things that only a lawyer would view as ethical to protect him.  That’s been found true in scandal after scandal.  So his lawyer simply isn’t trustworthy either.

 

Seriously, Scout … do you really want to go down this path … risk what little remains of your credibility in defense of Bill Clinton in the Broaddrick case?
 
Because Broaddrick probably wasn’t the only one.
 
There is a mountain of smoke regarding non-consensual sex by Bill Clinton.

 

For example, in 1969, Oxford University asked Bill Clinton not to return after 19 year old Eileen Wellstone accused him of rape. 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 this woman? Why wouldn't he fight the expulsion unless he didn't want the accusation brought to the light of day? Also, according to one source, a retired State Department employee stated "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 that's not something done lightly if you're career minded.
 
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton, who was a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by a media outlet confirmed that an incident had occurred.  The woman was also tracked down and confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give the media permission to use her name.     And given the way the media and people like you have treated these women, can anyone blame her?
 
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 during an attempted rape in 1972 in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park.  And yes, Bill and Hillary were living in Berkeley at the time of this alleged assault.

 

In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students.
 
In fact, from 1978 to 1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening
 
Beverly Lambert, an investigator in the Paula Jones case, provided details of Clinton's assault on a "young woman lawyer" that he met at a Democratic fundraiser in Little Rock in the late '70s. The incident had been mentioned in a book by Clinton Biographer Roger Morris, "Partners in Power." The victim had talked to Morris on condition of confidentiality. He wrote "A young woman lawyer in Little Rock claimed that she was accosted by Clinton while he was attorney general and that when she recoiled he forced himself on her, biting and bruising her."  Lambert said he interviewed her and her husband several times back in 1992/1993.  After the fundraiser at a popular waterfront restaurant, known then as Fisherman's Wharf, Lambert said ”She offered Clinton a ride home. And once he got her alone in her car, he grabbed this woman and assaulted her. He did his trademark thing; exposed himself, asked her to 'kiss it,' and pushed her head down into his lap.” Rick and Beverly Lambert's investigative materials were turned over to the House Judiciary Committee after they had been subpoenaed by the Office of Independent Counsel. Some believe that it is their evidence that convinced wavering congressmen to change their vote for impeachment.
 
Rick and Beverly Lambert have said they interviewed 209 witnesses, uncovering leads on previously unknown incidents involving Clinton and providing additional details about events already known to the public. A number of "promising leads" were abandoned when the Jones case was dismissed. Among the leads not followed up was one that involved the rape of a 14-year-old girl at a Little Rock cocaine party.   That incident is said to have happened in 1984, at a party hosted by Dan Lasater, who later went to jail for supplying cocaine to underage girls (pardoned by Clinton 6 months into a 30 month sentence). In exchange for the drugs, they were supposed to agree to have sex with men he invited to his soirees.  By numerous accounts, Lasater was one of Clinton's closest associates in the 1980s.   As told to Lambert, the 14-year-old was rendered unconscious by a deliberate overdose. When she came to she was half-naked, with the governor of the state of Arkansas (Clinton) on top of her.  According to Lambert, the young assault victim fled Arkansas when Governor Clinton won the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination. The private detective, along with several reporters, traced the woman to California. After a stakeout that lasted several days, they concluded she had been tipped off and fled town, never to be seen or heard from again.

 

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
 
Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown.   Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual but close friends of Ward said she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.  It's worth noting that she said Clinton bit her on the lip (just like Broaddrick claimed).   This admission is in Michael Isikoff's book "Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story".  Judy Stokes, one of her friends, swore in the deposition she gave in the Jones case that Gracen had "tearfully told her in the mid-1980s that Clinton forced her into sex in the back of a limousine in 1982."  Rick Lambert, the investigator for the Paula Jones legal team is on record saying: "I talked to Judy Stokes for an hour and a half. At first, she was reluctant to burn her bridges with Liz (Gracen). But I finally asked, 'Do you believe Clinton raped her?' She said, 'Absolutely. He forced her to have sex. What do you call that?' Stokes was totally convinced it was rape." Ken Starr, when he was investigating Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit, issued a subpoena to have Gracen testify but she eluded the subpoena, at one point leaving the country to do so. Paula Jones' attorneys were also unable to track Gracen down because she had made various unscheduled trips in and outside the country.  Why was she hiding if Clinton did nothing?

 

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser said Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She said she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room.   Reached at her home by the media, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.
 
Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
 
Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.  And by the way, Scout, none of these women were paid for their stories, contrary to what you suggested ... low-life that you are.

 

So let's review the list ...


- Paula Corbin Jones (harassment).
- Kathleen Willey (assault).
- Liz Ward Gracen (rape).
- Juanita Broaddrick (rape).
- Sally Perdue (harassment).
- Monica Lewinsky (harassment).
- Dolly Kyle Browning (harassment).
- Oxford University student, Eileen Wellston (rape).
- a 22-year-old student at Yale in 1972 (rape)
- a woman activist when Bill was in San Francisco that 1972 (rape)
- University of Arkansas student (Kathy Bradshaw?) (assault)
- Little Rock legal secretary Carolyn Moffet (assault)
- Sandra Allen James, another political fundraiser (assault)
- Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's campaign plane (molested)
- another flight attendant that can be seen in video shot on board Clinton’s plane by ABC News (molested)
- Helen Dowdy, wife of one of Hillary’s cousins (harassment)
- Becky Brown, Chelsea’s nanny and wife of L.D. Brown, an Arkansas State Trooper (harassment)
- the seven women who complained to Arkansas state troopers between 1978 and 1980 (assault)

 

That’s TWO DOZEN right there, and I’m sure I missed a few.

 

If fact, given what's coming out about Harvey Weinstein (Bill's good friend) now, I bet there were HUNDREDS of abused women in Bill Clinton's case.   

 

And maybe once Hillary and those defending the Clintons are gone, they'll feel safe enough to come out and reveal the TRUE legacy of the Clintons.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scout said:

 

Um, I "said the word" quite a while ago.....

Scout is on the run.   LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have provided names - and that is all.  David Schippers was NOT a Democrat when he decided to go after Clinton.  Nor was he one when he wrote a book about it. 

 

ALL of those women have received income because they claimed to be victims of Clinton AFTER decades of never saying anything.  The Presidency brings out the stories, eh?

 

Clinton's stories are innuendo.  Trump's are actually supported by evidence.  It is a sad day when rumor is given the weight of affidavits and legal documentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...