ESTRICH BOOK EXPOSES STOCK HILLARY PLOY: EXPLOIT WOMEN

Sean Hannity, Hannity & Colmes, WABC, FoxNews, Susan Estrich | 10.12.05 | Mia T

[Mia T]

ESTRICH BOOK EXPOSES STOCK HILLARY PLOY: EXPLOIT WOMEN
(even as ABC's "Commander-in-Chief" exposes ploy's premise as false)

by Mia T, 10.12.05

 

 

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.

G. K. Chesterton

 

While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.

These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.

Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous, troglodyte mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary, forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."

It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."

Mia T, 10.02.05
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM

HILLARY'S "BLUEPRINT"
(addendum to OPEN LETTER TO SEAN HANNITY)
Mia T
10.11.05, 10 PM
The Hannity-and-Colmes (Estrich) Interview

As for defusing the clinton "blueprint" laid out by Estrich, an intellectually honest interview would have done a helluva lot more than all that excessive handwringing you exposed us to tonight.

"America's once-in-a-lifetime chance to break the world's most prominent glass ceiling and elect a female president of the United States." -- Estrich, The Case For Hillary Clinton

This Estrich eyewash exposes clinton's central strategem: tie the fate of all women to the fate of the clinton candidacy in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote, (recognizing that the women's vote is hardly a lock for hillary. A not insignificant number of leftist women can't stomach missus clinton and are actively working to short-circuit her candidacy.)

Estrich argues that missus clinton is qualified, that indeed missus clinton is the only woman who is qualified. If either claim were true, the clinton agitprop would have modeled the protagonist in ABC's latest clinton infomercial, "Commander-in-Chief," after missus clinton.

But it did not.

The clinton agitprop machine modeled its "Commander-in-Chief" exemplar after missus clinton's infinitely more qualified potential opponent, Condi Rice.

(For the reasons, goto HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM)

(viewing requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

STEP 1

 

This clinton-Estrich ploy to get the women's vote, and perhaps even more so, the ploy's utter transparency, are an insult to all women.

The clintons' fundamental error is always the same: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.

Mia T
OPEN LETTER TO SEAN HANNITY ON ESTRICH INTERVIEW, THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF BROADDRICK
(with addendum)

 

OPEN LETTER TO SEAN HANNITY ON ESTRICH INTERVIEW, THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF BROADDRICK (with additions, corrections, addendum)


Dear Mr. Hannity-

It appears that you allowed your "friendship" with Susan Estrich affect your interview this afternoon. (Or was it the favorable mention in Estrich's shameless new polemic, The Case For Hillary Clinton?)

While you correctly went directly to one of the issues that should automatically disqualify clinton for any position of power, the clinton rape of Juanita Broaddrick, you sabotaged your own line of attack.

Your setup question, whether hillary 'believed' bill, was a dodge. And a not very artful one, at that. As you well know, the issue isn't whether hillary 'believed' bill; the issue is whether hillary participated. In that rape as well as in all the other rapes and predations.

You of all people should know this. You interviewed Broaddrick on precisely that point. (A video and analysis of that interview to follow.) Broaddrick described to you in detail the meeting with hillary that occurred two weeks after the rape. hillary clinton went to that meeting for the express purpose of warning Broaddrick to keep her mouth shut. (She and the rapist entered the room, she approached Broaddrick (whom she had never met before) while a slinking rapist stayed behind, she proceeded to warn Broaddrick, she and the rapist immediately left.)

In your original Estrich-Broaddrick interview, you were honest about the real issue. But even then you ultimately failed because you neglected to expose the following clinton casuistry being spun by Estrich:

1. the 'statute of limitation' on rape should apply to the clintons in Broaddrick rape,

2. the postmodern construction of 'rape,' i.e., the definition of rape is subjective, i.e., what is considered rape by the victim isn't necessarily considered rape by the rapist,

3. the definition of rape has morphed over time, i.e., what is rape today wasn't necessarily rape in the '70s.

 

On point 1, the statute of limitation on rape applies in a court of law, not in the voting booth. The question we are deciding isn't whether the clintons should be thrown in the slammer (another matter for another day); the question is less onerous, (from the clintons' perspective, anyway): Do the clintons have the character to be president?

The reductio ad absurdum is Christopher Shays' comment, made after he viewed the Ford building evidence on the rape of Broaddrick: "I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say it that way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."

And yet Shays voted not to impeach. Purportedly because he asked the wrong question. ("Where was the obstruction of justice?") (Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton gave to Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...)

And so we had two more years of the clinton Nano-Presidency. And with it, inexorably, 9/11.

Regarding points two and three: Juanita's bitten lip, swollen to twice its normal size, the hallmark of a serial rapist, is the obvious counterexample.

I hope you do better tonight. Instead of hawking Susan's book, try, for a change, to REALLY nail the clintons. If women truly understood the clintons' 30-year history of abuse of women, there would be no way these two profoundly dysfunctional scourges would be elected dogcatcher.

Sincerely,
Mia T
October 11, 2005

P.S. How you can respect a rape victim (Estrich), whose view of these two rapists bends with the political wind, is beyond me.

Addendum: HILLARY'S "BLUEPRINT"
(10.11.05, 10 PM)
The Hannity-and-Colmes (Estrich) Interview

As for defusing the clinton "blueprint" laid out by Estrich, an intellectually honest interview would have done a helluva lot more than all that excessive handwringing you exposed us to tonight.

"America's once-in-a-lifetime chance to break the world's most prominent glass ceiling and elect a female president of the United States." -- Estrich, The Case For Hillary Clinton

This Estrich eyewash exposes clinton's central strategem: tie the fate of all women to the fate of the clinton candidacy in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote, (recognizing that the women's vote is hardly a lock for hillary. A not insignificant number of leftist women can't stomach missus clinton and are actively working to short-circuit her candidacy.)

Estrich argues that missus clinton is qualified, that indeed missus clinton is the only woman who is qualified. If either claim were true, the clinton agitprop would have modeled the protagonist in ABC's latest clinton infomercial, "Commander-in-Chief," after missus clinton.

But it did not.

The clinton agitprop machine modeled its "Commander-in-Chief" exemplar after missus clinton's infinitely more qualified potential opponent, Condi Rice.

(For the reasons, goto HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM)

(viewing requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

STEP 1

 

This clinton-Estrich ploy to get the women's vote, and perhaps even more so, the ploy's utter transparency, are an insult to all women.

The clintons' fundamental error is always the same: They are too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age isn't about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.

[RetiredArmy]

This is not going to play well at the NY Slimes and the communist DNC.

[balrog666]

So who is Estrich really working for here?

[Rummyfan]

Please don't use the words Estrich and expose in the same sentence!

[henkster]

"Commander in Chief" is nothing but a shabby MSM Hillary Clinton Infomercial.

[skip_intro]

This thread needs pictures.

What do you think of her new face?

[skip_intro]

Here's another one.

Looks like she got here teeth done, too.

[stayathomemom]

What do you think of her new face?

I think it is better than the old one. Did she get a new face?

[Holicheese]

Looks like she got her whole head done.

[skip_intro]

Did she get a new face?

Looks like it to me.

Unfortunately, the voice is still the same.

[Rummyfan]

She should go back to harassing the editor of the LA Times!!!

Never has anyone gottten so much mileage out of managing a loser's (Dukakis) losing campaign!

As for her new face..... they must have had to use a jackhammer and a reciprocating saw!

[moondoggie]

What do you think of her new face?

I noticed the hook in her nose was gone!

[Prost1]

Your efforts are overwhelming!

And I am a fast reader...a very fast reader...

[Mia T]

ping

[BigFinn]

Extreme Makeover

But as they say..."You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear."

[go-ken-go]

I just can't believe this is S. Estrich.

[Baynative]

Her bio says she wrote a book called "Real Rape" (Harvard Press 1987).

I'm looking for excerpts or a cheap copy on Amazon. It would be interesting to hear how her opinions were altered to protect the "Demon from Dogpatch."

[countrydummy]

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jla]

bump

[ncountylee]

Mia T, please keep up the great work, the beast must be stopped.

[sine_nomine]

The weird mannerisms are there. The gravel voice is worse!

Didn't she write a column against the Clintons' involvement in Democrat politics, saying they were ruining the party?

What a conversion!

Could someone run that column?

[bmwcyle]

bttt

[jetson]

THIS CAN'T BE SUSAN ESTRICH. THEY MUST HAVE SEWN ON A NEW MOUTH FIVE TIMES SMALLER.

[HarleyLady27]

Have you seen Mary Tyler Moore lately???? When they did her new face job they pulled her eyes up to her hairline...she looks soooo funny....

[Mia T]

I think you are referring to Estrich's warning of Democrat death by clinton-induced anoxia...

Get the Clintons Off the Stage
St. Petersburg Times ^ | 5/15/03 | Susan Estrich

The Clintons are back.

Sidney Blumenthal-much hated former Clinton aide, ethically challenged former journalist-$850,000 advance in hand, has a new book out on May 20, attacking everyone who ever attacked him or the Clintons, rehearsing once again the old right wing conspiracy, every attack on them, answered. The right wing conspiracy revived, answered, again.

Hillary's book is next.

Could somebody please tell these people to shut up? The Clintons suck up every bit of the available air. Nothing is left for anyone else. They are big, too big. That's the problem.

The 2004 candidates need a chance to get some attention, to rise to Clinton's level, which they never will do as long as the likes of Sidney Blumenthal are playing into the hands of conservatives in insisting on debating the scandals of the 1990's. The Republicans shouldn't have impeached him for it, but he shouldn't have given them the ammunition. And we shouldn't still be discussing it.

Why are we? Or more accurately, why are they?

Not because it serves the interests of the Democrats of the future.

It doesn't help Howard Dean, or John Kerry, or Dick Gephardt. It gets Sidney on TV shows. If the issue is ethics, no one has less than Sidney Blumenthal. He used to call me during the Dukakis campaign, which I was running and he was supposed to be covering, to offer covert advice, which if I accepted might result in better coverage. Much later, when I criticized him, he tried to get me into trouble with my editors. All the while, I was defending his boss. That's Sidney. He's Hillary's best friend. No wonder the Republicans are delighted to see him return to the spotlight.

It raises money for their causes.

The Bill and Bob (Dole) show has proven to be a collossal bore. The ratings have fallen. Is anyone getting the message? I fear not.

Let's not mince words.

Hillary Clinton is never going to be president of the United States. There is no more divisive figure in the Democratic Party, much less the country, than the former first lady. And I like her. But many women don't. Even Democratic women. Even working women. Not to mention nonworking, independent, non political women. She can be a great senator. She's smart, hard-working and effective. She is much respected among her peers.

But the more people who talk about her as a future president, the less attention the current candidates, who might win, receive.

Revisiting the scandals of the past does no service to the Democrats of the future.

Bill Clinton is a brilliant man. But the more attention he gets, the more the Democrats of the future suffer. He would be the first to say this, if it weren't about him.

Enough with the Clintons. Please. Not for the sake of the Republicans. But for the Democrats.

THE GREAT FISH moved silently through the night water, propelled by short sweeps of its crescent tail. The mouth was open just enough to permit a rush of water over the gills. There was little other motion: an occasional correction of the apparently aimless course by the slight raising or lowering of a pectoral fin--as a bird changes direction by dipping one wing and lifting the other. The eyes were sightless in the black, and the other senses transmitted nothing extraordinary to the small, primitive brain. The fish might have been asleep, save for the movement dictated by countless millions of years of instinctive continuity: lacking the flotation bladder common to other fish and the fluttering flaps to push oxygen-bearing water through its gills, it survived only by moving. Once stopped, it would sink to the bottom and die of anoxia.

Peter Benchley, Jaws

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
PLAY MOVIE
CINDY SHEEHAN'S JUMP-THE-SHARK MOMENT?
(idea by PJ-Comix, metaphor + logo by Jon Hein)
by Mia T, 9.01.05

The stream of puffery rising from the clintons' perpetual promotion machine seems unbroken and endless. (The discontinuous miasmic belches are imperceptible.)

This clinton-machine effluence defies not only the laws of logic and decency but also the first law of thermodynamics -- conservation of energy.

That is, if one fails to considers entropy.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the quality of energy in a closed system is degraded irreversibly. Physical, chemical, and electrical energy transform into thermal energy --heat. Reversing the process, e.g., heat into physical energy, cannot fully occur within the system without an inevitable loss of energy in the form of irretrievable heat. Energy is not destroyed; it is merely unavailable for producing work. The irreversible increase of this nondisposable energy in the universe is measured by the abstract dimension called entropy.

Clinton corruption is all about the irreversible degradation of the energy in our closed system. A leftist band of heat-producing useful idiots is currently assisting in the clintons' $8-million--make that $20 million--revisionist assault....

There is a lot of talk these days, most notably by voluble nervous Democratic operatives like Susan Estrich, about the clintons sucking up the oxygen, but no one is paying attention to the irreversible transformation of light into irretrievable heat by the clintons.

Once we understand that the latter process is irreversible, we will begin to do what we must.

Mia T, 6.23.05
CLINTON RAPES, REVISIONISM, USEFUL IDIOTS AND ENTROPY (an update)

 

[Mia T]

Only hillary's hairdresser knows for sure, but it looks to me like Susan had a brow lift, an eye job, a peel, perhaps some nose tweaking and a haircut and color by hillary's people, Isabel and company. In fact, hillary probably ordered her face overhaul to go along with her opinion overhaul

I suspect Susan didn't have the works. If you block out that famously agape orifice, you will see that her lower face is in pretty good shape in the 'before' pic. All those exaggerated mouth movements probably kept the old jawline taut. ;)

As opposed to hillary's jawline...

There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that. ... Furthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism

GEORGE WILL, SLEAZE, THE SEQUEL

[FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!]

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

[Mia T]

Excellent idea. Please let me know if you find anything. Thx. 

 

The Wall Street Journal

EDITORIAL
October 18, 2000

Did he rape that woman, Juanita Broaddrick?

thanx to WorkingClassFilth for the video
special thanx to Jim Robinson

The closest... Clinton has ever come to answering allegations... he raped an Arkansas woman in 1978 is a distance measurable only in light-years.

After Juanita Broaddrick made the accusation in 1999, [Clinton]'s attorney, David Kendall, alone answered, saying any such charges were "absolutely false."

Of course, attorney Robert Bennett believed... Clinton when he said he hadn't had sex with Monica Lewinsky and defended the president then on no toss sturdy grounds.

Thus while lawyers can spare Mr. Clinton awkward moments at the podium in which he has to say, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" or "I did not fondle that woman, Kathleen Wlley" or "I did not rape that woman, Mrs. Broaddrick," their comments are, in effect, non-denial denials.

Given the silence from the West Wing, Mrs. Broaddrick this week sought answers from Hillary Clinton, whose telescopic feminism apparently sees injustice to women everywhere except the kind which occurs closer to home.

.In a letter to Mrs. Clinton recalling their meeting shortly after the reported assault occurred, she wondered about the significance of Mrs. Clinton's words to her at that time. Thank you, Mrs. Broaddrick says Mrs. Clinton told her, for "everything you do for Bill."

"What did you mean, Hillary?" her letter continued. "Were you referring to my keeping quiet about the assault I had suffered at the hands of your husband only two weeks before? Were you warning me to keep quiet?"

The not-so-subtle implication of the letter is that Mrs. Clinton is, in fact, her husband's enabler. Dealing with her husband's promiscuity and worse might keep her from dealing with the important issues facing the people of New York, namely her candidacy. One might call it a Faustian bargain except that even Mephistopheles might not lower himself to sign such a deal....

EXCERPT
COMPLETE ARTICLE

[sine_nomine]

Yes, thanks for reposting it.

A conversion back to the Clinton cause? Or at least to Clintonian plastic surgery?

[PGalt]

Thanks for your work Mia T.

Run Hillary Run!

[Fenris6]

Al Queda plotted 9-11 while Bill was chasing interns around the oval office.

Hillary couldn't control her own husband - why should she be trusted with the Presidency?

[Baynative]

In response to your doubts...

[Baynative]

No book excerpts yet. But, I found this tid bit in her bio. Not only is she infatuated with a rapist (after claiming to have been raped herself), it turns out she worked for an adulterer/killer:

..."Estrich's scholarly interests are in law and politics, criminal law and gender discrimination. Prior to joining the USC faculty, Professor Estrich taught at Harvard Law School. Her scholarly publications include Getting Away with Murder: Politics, Crime, and the Rule of Law; Real Rape; Dangerous Offenders (with Moore, McGillis, & Spellman); and "Sex at Work." She was the first woman president of the Harvard Law Review. Professor Estrich was special assistant to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and staff counsel and special assistant to the chief counsel for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Professor Estrich teaches criminal law, gender discrimination, and election Law at the University of Southern California Law School.

[Baynative]

Sidebar: (I don't know if she wrote her own jacket notes. But, if this spelling and grammer is an indication of her education...sheez)

Real Rape
Susan Estrich
Many men believe that they can force women to have sex against there will and that it isn't rape--at least, not if the man knows the women and doesn't beat her up or wield a wepon. The law's casual treatment of such rape cases is the subject of this pioneering book, which is both a powerful exposé of the often shocking facts and a trenchantly written call for reform.

[Mia T]

excellent! grammar notwithstanding, this book should be a treasure trove. have you located a copy?

HEAR SUSAN ESTRICH: hillary plays 'the victim' for votes

[Mia T]

You're welcome.

A conversion back to the Clinton cause? Or at least to Clintonian plastic surgery?

Indeed.
In fact, hillary probably ordered Susan's face overhaul along with her opinion overhaul

[Baynative]

I havent found the book at a cheap price, yet. And I am oppossed to paying a liberal the going commercial rate for anything if the money is going to aid their cause.

But, this review gives a good indication of the attitude taken in the book and ... especially how shallow and hypocritical Estrich herself is in view of the Broaderrick, Jones and Willey experiences.

Susan Estrich. Harvard University Press, $15.95. The strange man held an ice pick to Susan Estrich's throat. "Push over, shut up, or I'll kill you,' he said. She obeyed. After he raped her, he drove away in her car, never to be caught.

Thirteen years later, Estrich's fear and anger still linger. Her memory of being violated animates her teaching of sex discrimination at Harvard Law School (where I was her student) and, now, a provocative book. In Real Rape, Estrich focuses not on violent attacks by strangers but on what she calls "simple rape': a man the victim knows--a date, ex-boyfriend, or estranged husband--bullies or tricks her into sex against her will, without brandishing weapons or breaking bones. Simple rape, Estrich argues, is still real rape and deserves punishment.

Few people question the wisdom of locking up men who leap from the bushes with ice picks. But most men, and many women, assume that a little psychological, and even physical, arm-twisting is a legitimate part of the mating game. Estrich disagrees. Forced sex wounds its victim, even if she knows the man and unwittingly has put herself in a vulnerable position. That goes for the cheerleader who gets drunk at a fraternity party and the woman whose date simply won't take "no' for an answer after she invites him up for coffee. A woman ought not to have to risk injury by attacking her attacker, she adds.

Estrich acknowledges that recent legal changes have favored rape victims. "Shield' laws prevent defense attorneys from introducing irrelevant evidence of a victim's past sexual conduct. Courts and legislatures have eased rules that a victim must notify police immediately after being attacked and that her testimony must be corroborated. The demand that women demonstrate "utmost' (read: superhuman) resistance in the case of simple rape has become, in most instances, a requirement of "reasonable' resistance.

Despite these adjustments, Estrich contends that courts continue to distrust women who claim they were raped under any but the most harrowing circumstances. Victorian notions that respectable ladies would prefer to die than have their virtue sullied intertwine with pseudo-Freudian truisms about women's "unconscious desire' to be forcefully dominated. Estrich skillfully dissects the case law to reveal how such dubious and contradictory assumptions go unchallenged in court. More important, these assumptions--filtered through the actions of trial judges, lawyers, and law enforcement officials--reinforce the popular view that most victims of simple rape "asked for it.'

Estrich offers many convincing examples, including this 1984 case from North Carolina: The victim's former boyfriend told her he had a "right' to have sex with her. He added that he would "fix' her face to show he "was not playing.' During their previous "consensual' relationship, he had beaten her, and she had passively engaged in intercourse. Despite the victim's protest that the relationship was over, the man undressed her, pushed her legs apart, and penetrated her. She cried.

The North Carolina Supreme Court overturned the man's conviction. The court noted that the intercourse was against the woman's will, but it found that the defendant had not used "force,' as proven by the victim's failure to resist more strenuously. The court, says Estrich, scorned the woman's reaction as that of ""sissies' in playground fights. It is the reaction of people who have already been beaten, or never had the power to fight in the first place. It is . . . the most common reaction of women to rape.'

Estrich urges courts to shift their attention from how much force was used and whether it was resisted to the defendant's intent. Surprisingly, American courts rarely debate intent in rape cases, preferring to focus on overt acts. But Estrich would convict a man for "negligently' ignoring a woman's refusal to have sex. If the defendant acted "unreasonably,' as defined by the court, he could not claim that he mistook "no' for a playful "yes.' Criminal law punishes other negligent behavior. Negligent homicide or manslaughter can lead to a prison sentence. Estrich predicts that it would take only a few rape convictions under a negligence standard for men to get the message and begin respecting a woman's right to refuse sexual advances.

Estrich has drawn an audacious line in the dirt. Her solution, however, contains a major flaw: the definition of "reasonable' behavior. A defendant could argue that where he comes from, everyone expects a man to keep asking, even when a woman says no. He kept asking his girlfriend, and she kept saying no, until finally she didn't say anything and they had sex. No physical force. Would a typical jury call that unreasonable and therefore rape? Should genuine confusion send a man to prison?

It's not too harsh to call Estrich's solution a lawyer's answer, with all the slipperiness that implies. Negligence and reasonableness have little meaning apart from a particular social context. Estrich envisions a "reasonable man [of] the eighties' who has shed all vestiges of the species' sexist past. She doesn't argue that this man actually exists but implies that changes in the law will contribute to his emergence. Details of the mutation remain a mystery.

COPYRIGHT 1987 Washington Monthly Company COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

[Mia T]

Thanx. We will no doubt be able to impeach Estrich with her own words.

The usual clinton rube arrogance rooted in stupidity.

The clintons figured that Estrich in their corner would make clinton serial rape and predation just disappear, not understanding that her presence would only intensify the scrutiny or that her 'expertise' and prior utterances would be used against them... and her.

Indeed, by twisting her own scholarship, Estrich indicts the clintons as surely as the twisting double helix on that blue Gap dress.

 

"Crucial to this protective wall was the secret police, a group of private detectives hired to protect hillary and 'Saturday night bill.' Their tactics included digging up dirt on women who might be linked to bill in order to cow them into silence. There is even some evidence of possible physical intimidation."

HEAR DICK MORRIS

"I got the letters from Pellicano to these women intimidating them. I had tapes of conversations from Pellicano to the women. I got handwritten letters from the women."

[Pellicano played a critical role in Mr. Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign by "suppressing" "inconvenient" accounts from several women, by concocting fraudulent "proof" (later discredited) that Gennifer Flowers doctored the damning tape of clinton, and again inside the clinton operation in January 1998, four days after the Monica Lewinsky story broke, to falsely paint Monica as simply a lying stalker, a claim later discredited by clinton's own DNA.]

MARY MATALIN
1997, CBS

There is reason to believe that he is a rapist ("You better get some ice on that," Juanita Broaddrick says he told her concerning her bit lip), and that he bombed a country to distract attention from legal difficulties arising from his glandular life, and that... [f]urthermore, the bargain that he and his wife call a marriage refutes the axiom that opposites attract. Rather, she, as much as he, perhaps even more so, incarnates Clintonism

GEORGE WILL
SLEAZE, THE SEQUEL

 

Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays said on a talk radio show Wednesday that, based on secret evidence he reviewed during the impeachment controversy, he believes President Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, not once, but twice.

Talk-show host Tom Scott of Clear Channel Broadcasting, New Haven (WELI 960) asked Shays about the mysterious impeachment "evidence room," prompting the GOP moderate to say that Broaddrick "disclosed that she had been raped, not once, but twice" to Judiciary Committee investigators.

Shays, who is often hailed by the New York Times for his independent judgment and good sense, found the evidence compelling:

"I believed that he had done it. I believed her that she had been raped 20 years ago. And it was vicious rapes, it was twice at the same event." Asked point blank if the president is a rapist, Shays said, "I would like not to say that it way. But the bottom line is that I believe that he did rape Broaddrick."

HEAR CHRISTOPHER SHAYS
'Shays Shocker Clinton Raped Broaddrick Twice'
National Review Online
By NR staff
8/02/2000

The rape took place while Bill was running for governor. Hillary came bursting into the room to talk to two people, one of whom I personally know.

She said "You won't believe what this [expletive] did now. He tried to rape some b*tch."

It was the job of these two to squelch the story.

doug from upland to Sean Hannity,
WABC, 10/16/00




 

"Who is Juanita Broaddrick? I've never heard of her!" cried Betty Friedan, the founder of modern feminism. Friedan's outburst came at last Friday's conference, entitled "The Legacy and Future of Hillary Rodham Clinton." Held at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. D.C., the event offered a chilling microcosm of an angry, divided America.

For nearly an hour, a five-woman panel had been debating whether Hillary qualified as a "feminist heroine." I thought Broaddrick's claim of having been raped by Hillary's husband had some bearing on this point, so I broached the subject during the question-and-answer period. Friedan's dyspeptic denial followed.

Was Friedan telling the truth? Maybe. And maybe all those millions of Germans who professed ignorance of the death camps were telling the truth too. The problem is, having admitted her ignorance, Friedan showed no interest in exploring the matter further. And that was the problem with the Germans too.

Totalitarian impulses flourished at the conference. Taking a page from Soviet psychiatry, some Clintonites suggested that Hillary hating might be a mental illness.

Richard Poe
The Hillary Conspiracy

"If you look at white women, and I think that was the key to this election, Kerry won 45% based on the exit polls--but they're generally in agreement--Kerry won 45%, Bush won 55% of white women. By contrast, Bush won only 45% of white women in 2000, so he upped is percentages by 10 points. In 1996, bill clinton won 48% of white women compared to Bob Dole's 43%. That is a huge, huge difference. I don't think you can lay all that at the doorstep of moral values. I think that this president unabashedly and abjectly took the issue of terror and used it to terrorize... white women."

HEAR HAROLD ICKES
Washington Journal
Nov. 8, 2004
C-SPAN

"It's no longer acceptable to say that the abuse and mistreatment of women is cultural. It should be called what it is: criminal."

Hillary Clinton
addressing the UN, 3.4.99

[Baynative]

You do great work. It is always enlightening to see your posts and forward them to my non-Freeper friends.

For years I have ranted about the one party system in Washington D.C. that is made up of political celebrities who simply choose which side to pander too; like an actor choosing drama or comedy.

You enforced my theory when you added the quote from Mary Matalin who made token comments about the Clinton attack team and married one of it's managers.

I've written a little 'review' for Amazon that they may not wish to publish, we'll see.

[Registered]