Will people finally believe Juanita Broderick was raped by Bill Clinton?

Your desperation is showing, Natasha.

Go back to your borscht, bitch...

It seems that only liberals can be raped, and liberals are incapable of committing rape.

Bill and Donald are BOTH serial sexual assailaints.

[quote] assailaints

Oh, dear.

r3, what are you talking about. The Liberals of Hollywood are taking a beating.

No I don't believe Juanita Broderick at all. She is an adulterous and a liar. Having an affair with another man, not her husband while she claimed this happened. I think consensual and she needed to tell her boyfriend something.

[quote] what are you talking about. The Liberals of Hollywood are taking a beating.

Boris, you're just shit stirring.

I love this.

Every woman who claims rape should be believed, except the woman raped by Bill Clinton.

More proof of how hypocritical socialists are.

I believe he raped her.

Juanita Broaddrick denied under oath that she was raped. She changed her story 10 years later, but has never done so under oath. Funny that.

You know who did swear under oath that she'd been raped by a U.S. president? Ivana Trump, who swore Donald Trump raped her. Unlike Juanita, she's never recanted.

R9

You obviously don’t understand that a woman accusing a man of extreme power of sexual assault bears the responsibility of proof.

You are a typical apologist for government corporate power and the Clinton dynasty. Fuck off you stupid cunt.

Silence. Typical.

Spacey isn't even ACCUSED of 'raping' anyone. This smells like desperate shit stirring.

I can't help but like old Bill but he was not known for being picky about his women

[QUOTE]Juanita Broaddrick denied under oath that she was raped. She changed her story 10 years later, but has never done so under oath. Funny that.

She has ZERO credibility.

Hillary had her talking points down to be sure, but I'm still surprised that women don't find the fact that Hillary defended a child rapist when she was a practicing attorney, and that she pretty much blamed the rape victim . Surprised especially with all the outrage and women's marches since the election.

R5 What you say ??? She was having an affair ??? Of course she couldn't be raped. She's a slut. What was she wearing ? Bill Clinton would never rape a woman who was having an affair, of course. The very idea would be offensive to him.

*don't find [b]disturbing[/b] the fact that...

*don't find [bold]disturbing[/bold] the fact that...

r15, what you are claiming is completely untrue.

She plead out the rapist so that the child would not have to testify. The rapist pled guilty, you know this you just can't hellp yourself.

Stop being obssessed with Hillary.

As soon as people will believe that Trumpy raped all those women and then paid for their abortions. Had them shit and pee on him and made them all dress up like Ivanka.

Yes R19 she was thinking about the chilllllldren.

Bill and Donald should spend the rest of their lives behind bars, sharing a 6x6 cell.

The russkies are grasping at straws now....

R9 I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you do not know that Ivana Trump has indeed changed her explanation for the marital rape. She stated that she did not mean rape in the "literal or violent sense."

During the campaign she clearly said that the rape story from her deposition is "without merit." I would call that recanting wouldn't you?

Juanita never told the truth except by accident.

Does anybody have a link to a non-crazy article about this? I can’t filter out all the Vince Foster/Steve Bannon material.

R10, In other words, you can't explain why Broaddrick has never recanted her testimony under oath, the the personal attack instead of, say, expressing disgust at Trump's well-documented behavior.

R22, Nope, Ivana has been evasive, but she's never recanted. So, no, she's never said that Trump didn't yank out her hair and forcibly have sex with her after he was upset about the cosmetic surgeon she recommended. Thing is, she told a couple of friends about it at the time. The story was published in a book about Trump. (Curiously, while Trump has sued multiple times for libel, he didn't on this one. )

Now, Ivana's a fine example of someone doing a walk-back because of political pressure.

So why isn't this thread about Trump's violence toward women and the fact that his abusive behavior is well-known, but ignored by Deplorables and supposedly good Christian types like Mike Huckabee?

Because I think it's sort of funny/awful that Hollywood is behaving more responsibly about sexual predators than the so-called party of family values.

For R26

[quote]So why isn't this thread about Trump's violence toward women and the fact that his abusive behavior is well-know

Aren't there other threads about that?

It amazes me that people continue to defend Bill Clinton's behavior with women. There are assholes, criminals and abusers out there with both (R)s and (D)s next to their names.

I'm a Democrat. I think Bill Clinton was a great President. I think Hillary would have made a great president. I think Donald Trump is guilty as charged on everything. I believe all the women who stepped forward with their stories about Trump. I believe Cosby, Weinstein, O'Reilly, and Kevin Spacey are all guilty.

Unfortunately, I also believe Juanita Broderick. But I've been guilty of putting that nugget in the back of my mind. I hope for Clinton's sake I'm wrong and she is just an unfortunate nut case who deserves sympathy. But there's too much smoke around.

Why even entertain this. Anyone still pushing the Hillary chose to defend a rapist campaign meme should just be ignored. Why bother relitigating thoroughly debunked campaign smears. Hillary lost. She is now a private citizen. She's not running for shit else. Trump won and he now in hot hot water. As Mueller closes in on his crime family and the criminal enterprise, masquerading as his administration. So the deplorables chief strategy is lets re-up our bullshit smear campaign against the candidate who lost, because yeah that makes perfect sense. They are both transparent and stupid. Nine months in and members of your administration are being indicted. Which by the way has got to be some kind of record. And your're standing around pushing some debunked fiction about what the opponent (whom you beat) was doing in her 20's. Bitch please.

OP as far as I know none of these people have any criminal charges pending, so no they're not going to jail. And I'm sure that you're probably aware of that. But you needed to start a thread about Hillary and you had to find some way to attach her to something new. So that you could back track and re-up the election smears.

I'm not OP, but his thread isn't about Hillary. It's about Bill. It IS possible for Bill to be guilty, and for Hillary to be Not Guilty.

^^ or her.

Actually, no, not much on Trump's abuse of women--plenty of other threads, but those have taken a back seat.

Broaddrick's allegation was always unproveable, not the least because she conveniently forgot the date when the rape was supposed to occur and her friends to whom she told the story had a serious grudge against Clinton (he commuted the life sentence of the man who killed their father.) Her then-husband said he saw no signs of physical trauma and said she said nothing about it to him at the time.

It's just a classic case of reasonable doubt--and while the times have changed, the basic issues with Broaddrick remain. And, unlike, Cosby or Trump, there aren't 30 other women with similar stories.

Still don't see how Hillary Clinton is responsible for any of this, but reason isn't a Deplorable strong suit.

So, wonder what kind of threats Trump's 13-year-old rape victim received? There she was, all ready to talk and then *whoosh* she doesn't show. There's a witness in that case, too.

Trump's president now--that's why we should be talking about his abuse of women. Why aren't you?

most people believe it. Broderick experienced a horrible traumatizing event and certainly her right to speak out about it. Even Susan Estrich Robin article talking about how she believed Broderick's claims.

At the same time many of us can compartmentalize our feelings about this incident and the overall Legacy of Clinton's professional career. It doesn't seem like he had a habit of doing this in the event occurred nearly 40 years ago when there was a very different understanding related to sex and consent. The same event today would demand criminal prosecution, and maybe it should have back then as well but we know that that was not the case. The only real justice for Broderick is to be able to share her story and that it is now part of Clinton's over all legacy

How about me? Don't forget me!

Luckily for Bill this is all old news, it's been gone over numerous times. No one is going to be calling him out on twitter.

Another day, another thread exposing DL's legion of bigoted "liberal" hypocrites.

No, OP. She was a naughty wench, IMO.

I can, however, believe Paula Jones, that Clinton unzipped, looking for a quickie bj from a supposed admirer.

R21, Yes, it's likely HRC was, given her entire career advocating for children's issues.

R38, liberals believe in due process.

R39, yeah, unfortunately, I also think Paula Jones sounds credible.

R35, your expertise seems a little iffy given that you can't spell the woman's name. (Same with the OP--are you the same troll?)

[quote] most people believe it. Broderick experienced a horrible traumatizing event and certainly her right to speak out about it. Even Susan Estrich Robin article talking about how she believed Broderick's claims.

Perhaps most people whom you know believe it. But "most" of the general public? I don't know that that's quite true.

[quote] I'm not OP, but his thread isn't about Hillary. It's about Bill. It IS possible for Bill to be guilty, and for Hillary to be Not Guilty.

You know that's not true. Courtesy of the Republican attack machine, Hillary currently shoulders more of the blame for Bill's perceived flaws and perceived failures than he does. And what I am really challenging is OP's intention. You believe that OP is genuine. I do not. I think OP takes us for fools. Even if OP is genuine. There is no new evidence. These are 30 yr old allegations. Broderick sank her own credibility 30 yrs ago. Nothing has changed that. Nothing about this case is different. Attempting to attach these allegations to the current Hollywood bandwagon is ridiculous and dishonest. The current merry go round of Hollywood allegations don't make Broderick anymore credible.

I dont care about Bill and his wandering pecker, Ivan. This is 2017. Take your thread back to Moscow. Go away.

"Most people believe it"

What a great Trumpism. An assertion with absolutely nothing to back it up but stated as if with absolute authority.

Bravo.

OP, you're pond scum. Worse, you're the scum that pond scum thinks is pond scum.

In the story she describes, Bill Clinton (who she met for the first time that day), pushed her down and raped her without warning while restraining her in a room many others could have entered at any moment. Any man willing to do something that wild will have done it many other times. If Juanita was telling the truth there would be several other women coming forward. The fact that there are none is strong evidence she just made it up.

I believe her, but so what? I still support Hillary.

Russbot Trump troll thread.

R15 You are obviously not an attorney or familiar enough with the U.S. legal system. Hillary was assigned the case, and there are public defenders. An attorney is suppose to do diligent work in behalf of one's client. It does not mean the attorney endorses the alleged crime of the defendant or has to even like the individual. It is the judge and/or jury that decides.

TROLL THREAD OP,

Do some good. Go find the pee pee girls and see if they are OK. Many are worried.

R50, not every thread is a "troll" thread.

because she signed a sworn affidavit saying nothing actually happened, before all the filthy right wing 💰 came into play, I do believe the original Juanita Broderick!!!

I think the problem with the Republicans is that they have spent decades making the Clintons out to be their Liberal boogeyman to their base, that now that they are no longer in the picture the R's don't know who to replace them with....

Perhaps when Hillary is no longer in public life his protection will fall away. Still Teflon for The Lolita Express with Spacey, too.

R30

Isn’t it difficult to hold to neutrally incompatible ideas in your head? How can you believe that Bill Clinton is a serial rapist and a good man at the same time?

R35

What will you say when dozens and dozens of women start coming forward, emboldened by the Weinstein and Toback and spacey revelations?

Dozens of women have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault. How many more have come forward before you believe it?

[quote]Juanita Broaddrick denied under oath that she was raped.

Exactly. If any of the accusers had previously denied under oath that they had been raped, no one would be immediately believing them.

A good example are the MJ accusers who said in court they weren't molested, then later said they were. People question their stories ALL the time.

R42

Another man who will not believe a woman has been raped until she is dead. Fuck you r42

R47

You are part of the problem. If a woman is raped by a powerful man who happens to be a Democrat, you don’t believe them? How sickening.

What was it James Carville said about what you could scare up when you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park?…

R60

Another rape apologist. Sick.

No, she's ugly.

[quote] Now that the deluge of accusations of rape by powerful men has finally peaked, will people finally believe the women that accused Bill Clinton of sexual assaut? Clinton, Cosby, Weinstein, Spacey- All of them are scum, and deserved to be exposed. I hope all of them spend time in jail for their repeated sexual assaults of innocent people.

[quote] It seems that only liberals can be raped, and liberals are incapable of committing rape. Bill and Donald are BOTH serial sexual assailaints.

[quote] I love this. Every woman who claims rape should be believed, except the woman raped by Bill Clinton. More proof of how hypocritical socialists are.

[quote] R9You obviously don’t understand that a woman accusing a man of extreme power of sexual assault bears the responsibility of proof. You are a typical apologist for government corporate power and the Clinton dynasty. Fuck off you stupid cunt.

[quote] Silence. Typical.

[quote] Bill and Donald should spend the rest of their lives behind bars, sharing a 6x6 cell.

[quote] R30 Isn’t it difficult to hold to neutrally incompatible ideas in your head? How can you believe that Bill Clinton is a serial rapist and a good man at the same time?

[quote] R35 What will you say when dozens and dozens of women start coming forward, emboldened by the Weinstein and Toback and spacey revelations? Dozens of women have accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault. How many more have come forward before you believe it?

[quote] R42 Another man who will not believe a woman has been raped until she is dead. Fuck you r42

[quote] R47 You are part of the problem. If a woman is raped by a powerful man who happens to be a Democrat, you don’t believe them? How sickening.

[quote] R60 Another rape apologist. Sick.

OP are you done with this little bullshit charade of thread yet. Nice try but your efforts are quite transparent.

OP also started:

[quote] Here Are the Unanswered Questions About Wasserman Schultz's Awan Brothers IT Scandal Now the Awan scandal is shaping up to be a classic Wasserman Schultz snafu. While Awan was involved in a litany of shady business dealings, the congresswoman has made the case 1,000 percent worse for herself by refusing to talk to reporters and openly feuding with police. A conservative ethics group is now calling for a full probe. Unfortunately, much of the reporting on the case so far has come from Tucker Carlson's the Daily Caller, which is well known for pushing bogus stories about climate change and spewing fact-free nonsense. According to the Daily Caller's Luke Rosiak, House staffers hired four members of the Awan family as IT aides beginning in 2005 and continued paying them despite a series of red flags and security issues that likely should have been addressed long before 2017. Earlier this year, the U.S. Capitol Police revealed they are investigating the Awans for alleged data and equipment theft, but no one knows yet what might have been stolen; charges haven't been filed in that case. But once news of that investigation broke, every Democratic office — except Wasserman Schultz's — fired the Awans. Wasserman Schultz continued funneling money to Imran Awan. The Daily Caller has reported that Imran began liquidating his assets and trying to sell his properties. Then, last week, he was caught at Washington Dulles International Airport trying to leave the country. He was arrested on bank fraud charges, a case that's apparently separate from the ongoing Capitol Police probe.

Op so craaaazy......

R63

Your post is the equivalent of the Kevin Spacey response to sexual assault allegations.

Take one PC issue and conflate it with a horrible crime.

Fucking idiots like you aren’t the reason assault victims remain silent.

R63

Blocked.

[quote] Your post is the equivalent of the Kevin Spacey response to sexual assault allegations. Take one PC issue and conflate it with a horrible crime. Fucking idiots like you aren’t the reason assault victims remain silent.

When your crimes are exposed. Project your crimes onto your critics. That strategy certainly sounds familiar. Who else does that?

[quote] Blocked.

You're breaking my heart OP.

#MeToo!

[quote]And what I am really challenging is OP's intention. You believe that OP is genuine. I do not. I think OP takes us for fools.

The OP is the Idiot Libertarian Troll who's been hanging around DL for years. A little racist, a little misogynistic, a lot ignorant, and genuinely stupid. He doesn't like Hillary, as he's made clear several times over the years, so this is a fairly predictable thread for that moron.

[quote] If a woman is raped by a powerful man who happens to be a Democrat, you don’t believe them

R59 you might want to re-read R47 "I believe her".

Not to mention that our dear little friend is ignoring the evidence that Broaddrick lied. So we have trouble believing her not because it had anything to do with "a powerful man who happens to be a Democrat," but because it was investigated by the FBI and looked into by Ken Starr during his witch hunt of Clinton and neither found any evidence to support the allegations. That coupled with inconsistencies in her story and her sworn affidavit are sufficient to cast doubt on the case.

Frankly, having lived through the Clinton presidency as a young adult and seen how, from the get-go, the Republicans threw every last ounce of power they had, both legitimate and illegitimate, behind smearing the Clintons, I give the Clintons every benefit of the doubt. There were so many conspiracy theories that the then-naive Republican voters latched onto early and held onto like grim death, even to the point of ruining the functioning of the federal government and poisoning the well even to this day.

They have been tried and re-tried in the court of public opinion constantly since the early 1990s. Even now Hillary can't get away from the incredibly disproportionate hatred thrown at them. Of course some of it stuck. I know some of it must be true. But until any of these accusations are proved incontrovertibly, I'm not going to believe them, because that's the standard of proof anti-Clintonistas now have to meet. They brought it on themselves with 8+ years of crying wolf about them.

Only Republicans rape people.

Rape is spelled with an R, just like... Republicans hahahahahaha

Whatever happened with Bill's biracial child? Wasn't the child living in Arkansas?

R75

He’s still around. He looks just like Bill.

R73

I’ll bet you said the same thing about Bill Cosby, even after hundreds of women came forward accusing him of rape.

Since a paternity test showed that the child in question wasn't fathered by Clinton, I'm afraid you don't have a point, R75. I have no idea where Danny Williams is today but Clinton isn't his father.

[quote]He’s still around. He looks just like Bill.

LOL... No, he doesn't. Are you blind?

[quote]I’ll bet you said the same thing about Bill Cosby, even after hundreds of women came forward accusing him of rape.

See, this is where you whole effort here completely falls apart: we don't have "hundreds of women" coming forward to accuse Clinton of rape. And, of course, you have no reason to believe that R73 would say anything of the kind about Cosby. As usual, you're just making shit up.

That's where the Clinton story differs from the Weinstein story. That Clinton was a horndog is not in question. I have no problem believing that he'd basically fuck any woman with a pulse. But, aside from those three well-publicized (and highly problematic) examples, there is zero evidence that Clinton got off on the power dynamic, that he enjoyed preying on vulnerable women. Clinton's affairs were consensual.

That's in stark contrast to what we know of Weinstein's behavior and what the women coming forward are saying about Harvey. Now add to that that these came to light during the time when there was a huge cottage industry, and a shitload of money, focused on attacking the Clinton's, a cottage industry that continues to this day, and, again, there is a marked difference between the Weinstein story and the Clinton story.

The boy looks like a black Bill Clinton. He has asked for DNA from Clinton to verify his birth father. Bill Clinton has refused to give any DNA for testing.

That's probably because the paternity test was already done, moron. Clinton wasn't the boy's father.

Sorry, but these two just do not look alike, not even in these hand-picked pictures.

Actually, the fact that our resident Idiot Libertarian Troll is pushing these theories is pretty much proof that both of these stories are false. In over a dozen years of posting here, he hasn't gotten a single thing right.

R73, and you can bet that if there had been a scintilla of evidence corroborating her story, Starr would’ve included it in his report....

Lol. I love that the ultimate smear the right wing can think of is biracial child. They did it to McCain too. Bill's modus operandi is blowjobs with trashy and or chubby ladies. He's not a rapist or even a sex pest. He can hug his daughter without her pushing his hands away as he tries to cup her breasts (in front of a thousand people and tv cameras). There, I set you up for a Chelsea is ugly joke. You're so protective of women until you reveal her worth is only how fuckable she is.

There is far more evidence to support Juanita Broadrick than there is to support the charges made by Anita Hill. But Clinton's party affiliation and support for abortion and gay marriage makes the rape acceptable, according to the Social Justice Warriors.

R86

Glad you had the balls to post that. Bill Clinton is considered a God on Datalounge. You will end up banned because you decided to speak your truth.

R85

You’re claiming he isn’t a rapist? Despite all the evidence? How can you call your self a liberal when you refuse to believe women who have been assaulted by Bill Clinton?

R86, out of curiosity, why do you think that lying so blatantly is a good tactic to take here? Do you really think that we don't know that you're lying? And really stupidly, at that?

[quote]You’re claiming he isn’t a rapist?

Dunno about R85, but I am.

[quote]Despite all the evidence?

There isn't any, moron. That's precisely the problem. And see r79 for more, a post you have no answer for.

[quote]How can you call your self a liberal when you refuse to believe women who have been assaulted by Bill Clinton?

Moron, what does "liberal" have to do with asking for evidence? Or looking for a pattern? Or recognizing the tactics employed against both Clintons for decades?

[quote]Glad you had the balls to post that. Bill Clinton is considered a God on Datalounge.

Uh-huh. We'll just add this to the long, long list of unhinged accusations you've made here, none of which bear any resemblance to reality.

[quote]You will end up banned because you decided to speak your truth.

Interesting choice of words there: "your truth," as compared to, you know, *the* truth.

More pertinent to our current situation, OP, when will we believe the 14 women who have accused Donald Trump of sexual assault?

Why are so many of you dismissive of her allegations of rape, while you accept any allegation of rape by everyone else, especially if the perpetrator is a Republican.

It’s such hypocrisy.

R92

OP here-

I would love it if dozens and dozens of women finally found the courage to report sexual assault by Donald Trump.

However, that isn’t the issue.

The issue is that numerous women have accused powerful democratic donors/politicians of rape and the leadership of the democratic party has dismissed them or treated them like lying bitches.

When Republicans have been accused of rape, they have resigned immediately. Why don’t democrats feel the same obligation?

R92

“More pertinent to our current situation, OP, when will we believe the 14 women who have accused Donald Trump of sexual assault?”

I believe that Donald Trump has assaulted women repeatedly over the last few decades. I also believe that Bill Clinton has sexually assaulted women repeatedly over the last few decades.

Both of them are scum, but only idiots like you defend Clinton.

#MeToo

I was molestered at the Burger King Drive-Thru.

Juanita could be lying, but you all wouldn't think so if she accused Trump, would . You'd swear up and down it had to be true. The problem with your theory of her lying and changing her story (as victims commonly do hide their trauma for years) is that she's not the only one. There's a number of women, and you know their names, who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual aggression of different magnitudes. They may all be lying, but if you say they're all lying, please don't ever dare to say you support abused women, or sexual harassment laws, or anything of the sort. You don't. They;re not all lying, and you know that, because Bill Clinton had to pay in the one case where he was brought to court. Because he;s a soul-dead predator, and he always has been.

R97

It is called cognitive dissonance.

Collectivists are allowed to hold mutually incompatible beliefs because they are allegedly liberal.

For example, a free society cannot exist without unlimited free speech. Or, without the ability to forcefully defend oneself against government encroachment. Do you think that the USSR would have survived for 70+years If the peasants had been allowed to publish information freely and I own guns?

If citizens of the USSR had been allowed to own guns they would have overthrow the government decades before 1991.

Totalitarian government requires gun control, because if the little people are allowed to own guns, then the collectivist leaders will never be able to consolidate power.

It is sad that Democrats are the people demanding citizens be disarmed. If they want to survive, Democrats will reaffirm the ability of people to own guns.

Did Juanita go off the rails and claim Hillary knew because Hillary shook her hand at a fundraiser and thanked her for everything she did. That's something a politicians spouse says to every volunteer and donor they have to shake hands with.

I can believe parts of Paula jones story but her sister and brother in law somewhat discredited her by saying that Paula was bragging about it and excited about the encounter. Paula concedes that the right wing did use her politically and financially as she was pretty much broke after her settlement and did the penthouse layout and fought tonya Harding to raise money.

Linda Tripp destroyed Kathleen Wiley's credibility in her sworn testimony about her. Basically she said Willey was a pest that would try to find schemes to get bill Clinton alone including trying to get him to come to a empty home a friend of hers was selling.

Btw how many of trumps accusers have sketchy dates like Juanita did (she didn't remember when it happened) I mean the woman that accused trump in the late 70s remembered flight dates, where her seat was etc...also swearing under oath that something didn't happen then changing your story does undermine your credibility. Also her ex husband didn't see her with a bruised swollen lip and has said that multiple times.

R99

Rape apologists get blocked.

Also wasn't Paula jones credibility damaged by her and her legal teams claims that Bill Clinton had some very distinctive marks on his penis which turned out not to be accurate.

R100 ohhhh I'm shaking!

R99 Funny how these women's stories get picked apart by people who otherwise would believe any woman's sexual harassment story on principle. Bill Clinton was known to be a womanizer before he ever stepped in the national spotlight. It was obsessive behavior, and that kind of obsession gets worse and worse as time goes on. The Kennedys are living proof of that. How many women died or were ruined by that family's male entitlement ? Bill Clinton did it. We know he's lied about these things for years, so his word is absolutely no good. How can anybody say that Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita, Paula Jones, and I can't remember the others, are all lying, even thought they back up each others' stories and appear together in a group often ? And most of them have nothing to gain at this point, it;s an albatross around their necks.

Remember, R98, the use of pronouns can get you jail time in CA. The 4th Am is all but gone and the 1st is on its way.

I love how trolls simply ignore inconvenient truths--point out that Juanita Broaddrick said one thing under oath and another thing ten years later and conveniently forgot the date of the alleged rape (making it impossible to verify things such as whether Clinton was in the same town at the time)--and you get zero answer. In true troll fashion, they ignore these little problems, then come back a while later and just repeat the original harangue.

So let me turn it on you,, why should I believe Broaddrick? Because no one ever lies about rape? We know Broaddrick lied. It's just a question of when she did so. Under oath? Or when the GOP had launched a series of smear campaigns that continue to this day

Donald Trump's accusers, on the other hand, haven't denied their stories under oath and can say when and where the assaults happened. There's a consistent modus operandi and, of course, Donald's own words that he assaults women.

And yet his supporters voted for him. And the trolls here keep not dealing with it. Remember, Trump has more rape accusations against him than Clinton. But, then, that's what this is about--trying to get attention away from Trump.

R104 Oh Im so glad you brought up Trump. Tell me, do you search the internet trying to find inconsistencies in his accusers ? Do you doubt any of Bill O'Reilly's victims ? How about Roger Ailes' accusers, ever Google them ? Just wondering.

r104 both are scum. The problem is that the elitist press would not properly investigate the Clinton allegations. At the time, it was alleged there were other women who were assaulted who were scared to come forward to accuse a sitting President. They also saw what happened with Susan McDougal and wisely kept their mouths shut. The press wanted nothing to do with it, because

They will not investigate Jeffery Epstein, either, who has connections to both men.

Now that the mainstream media has new life (especially main newspapers) going after Trump, they are not going to risk their own positions in the Georgetown pecking order by investigating the actual story, rather than the politics. It goes well beyond either party, and even the country. It's a global, 1% problem.

[quote] Do you doubt any of Bill O'Reilly's victims ? How about Roger Ailes' accusers, ever Google them ? Just wondering.

How many of these women testified under oath that they were not assaulted? Because guess what, Broadderick did.

R107 Yesand Bill testified under oath and told the American people he had;t shades with Monica. Hmmmm. You might wanna check yourself. Did you even dare to answer my question really ?

Damin I wish D et you edit. The above should have said "he hadn't had sex with Monica" Srry

R104

Why should any man believe that a woman gets raped? They wear those clothes and parade around and deserve it!

Only women who want to get raped present themselves like sluts.

If Bill Clinton raped her, then she was inviting him to do it, and she wanted it, and nothing will ever change that.

I can’t believe that anyone would consider sexual contact with someone as hot as Bill Clinton rape. Even if she didn’t want it at the beginning, she definitely wanted it by the time he was inside her.

Bill never touched me

[quote] [R107] Yesand Bill testified under oath and told the American people he had;t shades with Monica. Hmmmm. You might wanna check yourself. Did you even dare to answer my question really ?

Juanita Broadderick destroyed her own credibility. End of story. Your logic is quite flawed to say the least. But the entire premise of this thread revolves around flawed logic. The idea, that the recent allegations against Winestein somehow make Broadderick (who testified under oath that she was not assaulted) more credible, is stupid.

r112, so did Rose McGowan by taking money for silence, making unhinged SM posts and publicly supporting a convicted pedophile when it suited her own career while accusing actors of enabling HW. That does make it look possible that she was someone who took the degrading deal and was angry it didn't translate into a career. Of course, that doesn't mean he didn't assault her, either.

What makes the allegations (and there were multiple ones, not just her) worth revisiting now is the similar way that Clinton was protected, the type of allegations (harassment and actual assault), and the fact that women can come forward without automatically being discredited. That, and the fact that TPTB might not be willing to carry these abusers anymore, even if it's for amoral business reasons. There might come a time when the Democratic Party will feel it's in their best future interests to tell the truth in order to achieve the greater good (like removing Trump, since they move in the same alleged abuser circles.)

R113 You're reaching.

Thread title:

Will people finally believe Juanita Broderick was raped by Bill Clinton?

The premise of the tread = Weinstein allegations have been made public = Clinton is guilty of rape.

The logic is flawed.

OP is using the Weinstein (who hasn't been formally charged or convicted) allegations to convict Clinton of a crime that the accuser testified did not happen.

This thread is absurd.

......

I wonder if dozens of women that were molested by Bill Clinton will come forward in this new environment.

[quote]Why are so many of you dismissive of her allegations of rape, while you accept any allegation of rape by everyone else, especially if the perpetrator is a Republican.

Why are you asking such stupid "when did you stop beating your wife" questions that we haven't fallen for since kindergarten?

[quote]It’s such hypocrisy.

Only in your own mind.

[quote]I wonder if dozens of women that were molested by Bill Clinton will come forward in this new environment.

No. If there were any such, they'd have come forward during his tenure, when Willey, Broaddrick, and Jones came forward. As I wrote in r79, that wasn't Clinton's style.

[quote]Why should any man believe that a woman gets raped? They wear those clothes and parade around and deserve it!

Moron, since nobody here has said anything even remotely resembling that, all you're doing is showing yourself to be a fool, not that we needed any further evidence of that.

[quote]Only women who want to get raped present themselves like sluts.

Like I said....

[quote]If Bill Clinton raped her, then she was inviting him to do it, and she wanted it, and nothing will ever change that.

Like I said....

[quote]I can’t believe that anyone would consider sexual contact with someone as hot as Bill Clinton rape. Even if she didn’t want it at the beginning, she definitely wanted it by the time he was inside her.

Like I said....

[quote]—Slut-shaming is normal for you people

You really are completely unhinged, aren't you?

[quote]I would love it if dozens and dozens of women finally found the courage to report sexual assault by Donald Trump.

Several have.

[quote]However, that isn’t the issue.

Uh-huh, only because it reveals your own hypocrisy.

[quote]The issue is that numerous women have accused powerful democratic donors/politicians of rape and the leadership of the democratic party has dismissed them or treated them like lying bitches.

Bullshit. Do you really think that making up shit like this is convincing anyone of anything? Well, anything other than the fact that you're a moron?

[quote]When Republicans have been accused of rape, they have resigned immediately. Why don’t democrats feel the same obligation?

I repeat: Do you really think that making up shit like this is convincing anyone of anything? Well, anything other than the fact that you're a moron?

Deflection - Deflection - Deflection

[quote]Juanita could be lying, but you all wouldn't think so if she accused Trump, would .

The pattern is there for Trump; the pattern is not there for Clinton. And, as repeatedly noted above, Broaddrick swore under oath that it had not happened.

[quote]You'd swear up and down it had to be true.

You mean like Broaddrick did?

[quote]There's a number of women, and you know their names,

Three, all three of whom have gaping holes in their stories and one of whom even Starr deemed completely not credible.

[quote]if you say they're all lying, please don't ever dare to say you support abused women, or sexual harassment laws, or anything of the sort. You don't.

Sorry, but I don't feel compelled to play your silly games.

[quote]Because he;s a soul-dead predator, and he always has been.

Uh-huh. Too bad you don't have any data to back that up.

Abusers have patterns. Juanita wasn't part of his pattern.

[quote]It is called cognitive dissonance.

Only if you're a moron. Oh, wait... I forgot who I was talking to.

Collectivists are allowed to hold mutually incompatible beliefs because they are allegedly liberal.

[quote]If citizens of the USSR had been allowed to own guns they would have overthrow the government decades before 1991.

You mean like the citizens of Iraq? You really don't know what you are talking about.

[quote]It is sad that Democrats are the people demanding citizens be disarmed. If they want to survive, Democrats will reaffirm the ability of people to own guns.

LOL... Like I said... Just making shit up.

[quote]This thread is absurd.

Well, yeah; it was started by our resident Idiot Libertarian Troll, who has been posting here 1000s of times over the past decade or so, not a single post of which was worth reading or had even a remote connection to the real world. It's all here in this thread: making shit up, childish insults, disconnection from reality, and so on.

[quote]What makes the allegations (and there were multiple ones, not just her)

Not really. Willey, Broaddrick, and Jones were the only ones and all three had gaping holes in their stories.

[quote]the similar way that Clinton was protected

Clinton wasn't "protected." To the contrary, there was an enormous right-wing attack farm going after him, looking for such stories, protecting and funding those who came forward.

[quote]There might come a time when the Democratic Party will feel it's in their best future interests to tell the truth in order to achieve the greater good (like removing Trump, since they move in the same alleged abuser circles.)

Uh-huh. I don't think you'd know the "truth" if it bit you on the ass, given the drivel you're posting.

It was precisely the *lack* of such stories, despite the money being spent and the encouragement and protection offered, that led people to decide that the allegations were, for the most part, simply not credible. Jones insisting that there were characteristic marks on Clinton's penis that were not, actually found. Willey changing her story multiple times. Broaddrick swearing under oath that nothing had happened and also changing her story multiple times.

What we do have are quite a few women who came forward to talk about consensual affairs. That Clinton was a horndog, nobody doubts. That he committed adultery many times over nobody doubts. That he was a sexual predator, serial abuser, and rapist few believe.

R121

Fuck Trump.

This is about how these men like Clinton are still revered while being sexual predators.

Trump is a sexual predator also, but that does not change the fact that Bill Clinton is also a sexual predator.

Too bad for you that you don't have any evidence that "Bill Clinton is also a sexual predator." But then, you never do have any evidence to support your fantasies.

R76, guess again. -R73

R130

You only believe what you want to believe unless it contradicts your ideology. If you believe all of these women, how can you not believe that Bill Clinton is also a serial sexual predator and rapist?

Because the evidence isn't there, moron, and the evidence *is* there that there was a "vast right-wing conspiracy" that was going after the Clintons.

Yes I do believe he raped her as well as other women.

He also flew on Epstein' s Lolita Express frequently. Sometimes with Spacey.

I thought that Russian folks were too drunk to post on the web?

Sad.