After-Action Report: Doug from Upland confronts Susan Estrich LIVE in Claremont, CA

DFU | 11/01/2005 | self

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Doug just filed a brief After-Action report via cell phone, posted here on his behalf.

Self-described rape victim and attorney Susan Estrich came to Pomona College and gave a speech about the media. About 75 mostly Liberals were in attendance. From the back of the room, DFU asked the second question of the evening of Estrich-- specifically why she would avoid speaking with Clinton rape accuser Juanita Broaddrick. According to Doug, she said several words in reply and quickly changed the subject, calling on another audience member.

Is it possible that DFU was the ONLY person with a REAL question at a speech about the MEDIA, out of a crowd of 75?

Doug will join this thread as soon as he arrives back at his desk.

[Keith in Iowa]

She's the Queen of Denial...

If she met with Juanita, Suzie-babe would have to admit that which she's trying desperately to suppress: Clinton is indeed everything that she fears he is, and does not want to admit.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Bump and FYI Ping

[del4hope]

I admire Doug's courage and persistance.

[JRios1968]

Hey Susan

[Archytekt]

Rock on DFU, Rock on!

[decal]

"Suzie-babe would have to admit that which she's trying desperately to suppress"...that it never happened to her.

[Mrs Zip]

ping

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

You'd think a compassionate female attorney who was genuinely a rape victim would act to thwart--and help prosecute--a predator. But she's a Liberal. While this thought seems harsh and I hope I'm wrong--maybe Susan actually feels she deserved the way she was treated--and that Juanita deserved the way SHE was treated.

Or maybe Susan is TERRIFIED of facing the truth about her 'hero' Bill.

By her cowardice and silence, she's enabling a monster to continue to roam. But, at least she's selling books.

I pray that her conscience drives her to the point where she must break her silence.

[Keith in Iowa]

>>>>Or maybe Susan is TERRIFIED of facing the truth about her 'hero' Bill.<<<<

There you have it...

[armymarinemom]

If she met with Juanita, Suzie-babe would have to admit that which she's trying desperately to suppress: Clinton is indeed everything that she fears he is, and does not want to admit.

You hit the nail on the head.

[Mia T]

great work, Doug. This one issue, the clintons' 30-year history of abusing women, has the potential to bring down the clinton candidacy--fast. Hard to believe, but many clintonoids DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF JUANITA BROADDRICK.

the clinton-clinton-Broaddrick kind of rape, according to Susan Estrich


THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy
(clip included)


ESTRICH IMPEACHED BY HER OWN WORDS,
EXPOSES STOCK HILLARY PLOY: EXPLOIT WOMEN
my amazon.com review


STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: ED KLEIN AND SUSAN ESTRICH AGREE ABOUT HILLARY


ESTRICH BOOK EXPOSES STOCK HILLARY PLOY: EXPLOIT WOMEN


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


CLINTONS' DOCUMENTED ABUSE OF WOMEN


hillary clinton is a "CONGENITAL LIAR"
("I am not a crook")


retrograde feminist fraud positions herself as victim (again) in order to win White House
[FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!]


NOTE THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN CLINTON REACTION TIME AND CONTENT TO THE TWO RAPE CHARGES


CATCHING THE CONSCIENCE OF THE KINGFISH
differential reaction to the two rape charges snares the clintons


HILLARY FLUNKED D.C. BAR EXAM
"the smartest woman in the world" sought less competitive venue

[ncountylee]

Good for Doug, he has my admiration.

[Fledermaus]

The last time Susan was on the Sean Hannity radio show he talked about how she got "stuck in Boston" without a car that some radio/tv station promised her.

Sean got her taken care of (I don't remember the details, I think she called him about going to be late to be on his show) by getting her a car. He then babbled on about how she was a rape victim (I think in Boston at that) and she was "freaking out" being on the street...maybe her car broke down...I don't remember. She felt "paralyzed" and didn't want to get out at night in public or something.

Anyway, I immediately thought about how liberals like her are so helpless. She was going to miss the show because she couldn't call a cab? Rent a car? Hire a limo? No, Sean had to take care of it.

[kimosabe31]

I pray that her conscience drives her to the point where she must break her silence.

Like all leftists, susan ostrich is a sub-human without any conscience whatsoever. The truth is what they wish it to be. She claims to have been raped. I doubt it.

[Mia T]

REAL RAPE BY PROXY

And then we have the Susan Estrich proxy.

Susan Estrich is the Democrat political operative who put Dukakis in a tank and would put hillary in the White House. Amazon.com sales rank suggests another tank for Susan: Following her sales pitch on Hannity and Colmes the other night, her book, The Case for Hillary Clinton went from bad to worse, (It instantly sustained a 10% decline to #8517. As I type this, it is #12,244.)

Ms. Estrich also wrote Real Rape, a book about the clinton-clinton-Broaddrick kind of rape. But that was before she was tapped by the clinton machine to cover for... and revise the predatory history of... a couple of real rapists.

'Simple rape' is what the system calls this clinton kind of rape... Simple as opposed to aggravated. 'Simple rape,' a horrendous misnomer that only perpetuates the injustice. 'Real Rape' is what Ms. Estrich called it. But, as I said, that was before she was tapped by the clintons.

In the cases on which this book focuses, the man is not the armed stranger jumping from the bushes--nor yet the black man jumping the white woman, the case that was most likely to result in the death penalty prior to 1977, and the stereotype that may explain in part the seriousness with which a white male criminal justice system has addressed "stranger" rape. Instead the man is a neighbor, an acquaintance, or a date. The man and the woman are both white, or both black, or both Hispanic. He is a respected bachelor, a student, a businessman, or a professional. He may have been offered a ride home or invited in. He does not have a weapon. He acted alone. It is, in short, a simple rape.

Susan Estrich, Real Rape

In 'simple rape,' the system invariably revictimizes the victim and protects the rapist.

This horrible perversion of justice was the impetus for her book, so, of course, Ms Estrich knows exactly what is going on here between the clintons and Broaddrick. (To be expanded upon in future posts.)

Worse still, Ms. Estrich uses the horror of her own purported rape to obfuscate the casuistry and rapelies required to spin yet another rapist presidency. Estrich is contemptible.

This is the usual clinton rube arrogance rooted in stupidity (of which this interview tonight is but another example).

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 and that her 'expertise' and prior utterances would be used against them... and her.

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

Estrich's reaction to Juanita Broaddrick is the typical opportunistic, dishonest feminist reaction. (See article, Salon.com.)

While most, if not all of the women who contributed to the salon.com piece believed Juanita, (liberals as well as conservatives), some feminists were in denial; they conveniently relied on false premises to assuage the cognitive dissonance.

One recurring false premise (a premise that Estrich relies on): although Juanita was credible, clinton couldn't be a rapist because he never raped before (or since).

Notwithstanding the fact that not all rapists are serial rapists, did they never hear of Eileen Wellstone et al?

Shame on them.

 

"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

HANNITY'S ESTRICH INTERVIEW: THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF BROADDRICK

While Sean Hannity correctly zeroed in on the clinton rape of Juanita Broaddrick, one of the issues that should automatically disqualify missus clinton for any position of power, he sabotaged his own line of attack.

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

Hannity of all people should know this. He interviewed Broaddrick on precisely that point. (A video and analysis of that interview to follow.) Broaddrick described to him in shocking detail the meeting with hillary clinton that occurred several weeks after the rape. missus 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 Hannity's original Estrich-Broaddrick interview, he was honest about the real issue. But even then he ultimately failed because he neglected to expose the following clinton casuistry being spun by Estrich:

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

This book should be required reading... for Susan Estrich.

 

ADDENDUM:

Ignoring the facts of the case, ignoring the 'real rape' paradigm, indeed, ignoring her own writings on 'real rape,' Susan Estrich, on Hannity and Colmes, pimping for yet another rapist presidency, dismissed out of hand Juanita Broaddrick's credible charge, that she was raped by the clintons.

In response, Juanita Broaddrick has offered to meet with Susan Estrich to discuss the matter. Estrich turned her down flat. (SUSAN ESTRICH RESPONDS TO JUANITA BROADDRICK'S OFFER TO SPEAK ABOUT HER RAPE -- "not interested")

SPECIAL NOTE ON THE O'REILLY'S ESTRICH INTERVIEW

Susan Estrich is not nearly as dumb as she appeared in this interview. She was tentative by design. (Hers.) I will post a separate analysis of the interview.

For now, note the following:

1. When O'Reilly questioned her pointedly, Estrich was loath to express her support for hillary clinton openly and directly.
   
2. Estrich again inadvertently reveals both missus clinton's stealth scheme and her vulnerability. (I will explain in future posts.)

Mia T, 10.27.05
THE DANGER OF RUNNING VICARIOUSLY
Bill O'Reilly chews up and spits out the hillary clinton candidacy
(clip included)

COMPLETE ARTICLE

 

[Brian Allen]

#12 BUMP!

Blessings -- Brian

[doug from upland]

"I'd be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal," boasted former Time magazine White House correspondent Nina Burleigh about Bill Clinton. She made her offer known to Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz when he called to discuss a piece Burleigh penned in the July/August Mirabella magazine detailing her lust for Clinton.

Susan Estrich is Nina Burleigh with a law degree.

[BykrBayb]

How did you find such a flattering photo of her? Are you sure it's not photoshopped? She's uglier than that.

[onyx]

Didn't you go with him?

[doug from upland]

I was near the back of the room in historic Bridges Auditorium at Pomona College. It was about half full with about 75 or 80 people, probably more females than males. This wasn't million man math. I actually quickly counted and probably got within about five either way.

She must have gotten some tips from Greta van Sus about a plastic surgeon because she did have a different look. That voice, however. Oh, that awful grating voice.

She spoke about the media seeking the lowest common denominator to report. About 2/3 of the audience raised its hand when she asked if they read the newspaper everyday. No hands went up when she asked who watches the evening news on television. Now that was good news.

She finished with the story about an attorney who Susan she wanted to be a pundit. So she lost some weight, became more blonde, took outrageous positions, and became a best selling pundit who talks about treason. Yep, Ann Coulter.

Then she asked questions. To the first one she blabbed on and on for about 5-7 minutes. I wondered if I'd get my chance. Finally, she called on me.

I told here that I heard her on Hannity dismisses Juanita Broaddrick's rape charge against Bill Clinton and taking Clinton's side. "Juanita has publicly said that she wanted to speak with you. Why won't you hear a fellow rape survivor's story before branding her as a liar." I would bet that only a handful of these very bright Pomona college students even knew about Juanita Broaddrick. I hope a few of them will wonder about it.

[doug from upland]

I only decided to go at the last minute. I had a business confrence call and got there about 45 minutes late.

[onyx]

LOL! GOOD WORK, Doug!
Absolutely excellent.

[Jrabbit]

What did she say? Or did she completely ignore you?

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

GO DFU!!!!!!!

I'm surprised Doug didn't turn into stone after looking into the face of Medusa!

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

[doug from upland]

Whoops. I accidentally erased her answer.

She didn't want to judge.....blah blah blah.....didn't want to open up the pain.....blah blah blah blah. When I told her that she already judged --- she believed Bill Clinton and wouldn't even hear the side of the fellow rape survivor, she again said she wouldn't speak with her. I said, Susan, I'm asking again, will you speak with her. Her answer was no, she won't revisit it. That's not why we're here tonight.

[doug from upland]

I was far enough away at the back.

[doug from upland]

[BykrBayb]

That looks more like her.

[Jrabbit]

What a cowardly hag! She doesn't want to revisit it?? She never "visited" it in the first place!!

I wonder if the old harpy has worn out her Bubba kneepads yet?

I always believed Juanita. And deep inside the black heart of Estrich, she also knows it's true.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

You deserve a special FReeper Citation Star award for "gallantry in action"!

[HangFire]

Great job as usual dfu!

[hosepipe]

More important than the answer to the question..
She HAS been asked.. Suggest saving this thread..
Bully, Doug.. nice work..

[Rockitz]

You da man, Doug!

[SweetCaroline]

BUMP

[doug from upland]

I didn't see the point of hanging around for the book signing.

---

'Women in Media Speakers Series' tonight in Claremont
- Caroline An

CLAREMONT - Pomona College is kicking off its `Women in Media Speakers Series' tonight with Susan Estrich, former Democratic strategist and current Fox News TV commentator.
Estrich will speak on "Perspective and Bias: The Political Scene and How the Media Covers It." She is the author of the recently published book "The Case for Hillary Clinton."

The talk begins at 7 p.m. at the Bridges Hall of Music, 150 E. Fourth St., followed by a question-and-answer session and book signing.

[Shortstop7]

Oh man......those links need to be sent around the world now.

Thanks.

[Shortstop7]

I don't believe it either. I'm a Hannity fan, and still say that I believe he helped win the last election. But I do get weary of hearing Estrich, McCain, and Buchanan on his show. Recently added Coulter to that list. I don't know what I'm gonna don if McCain is the nominee. Would someone please find Fred Thompson? We need him.

[Nam Vet]

Personally, I doubt she was ever really raped. Hippies of her time/age personalized every bad thing imaginable. I speak from personal experience with the better looking women of her ilk way back.

Nam Vet

[doug from upland]

I think we may know the author of this review. :)

Customer Reviews
Average Customer Review:
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.

13 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

the clinton-clinton-Broaddrick kind of rape, according to Susan Estrich, October 25, 2005
Reviewer: concerned woman - See all my reviews
Susan Estrich is the Democrat political operative who put Dukakis in a tank and would put hillary in the White House. Amazon.com sales rank suggests another tank for Susan: Following her sales pitch on Hannity and Colmes tonight, her book, 'The Case for Hillary Clinton,' went from bad to worse, (It instantly sustained a 10% decline to #8517. As I type this, it is #12,244.)

Ms. Estrich also wrote 'Real Rape,' a book about the clinton-clinton-Broaddrick kind of rape. But that was before she was tapped by the clinton machine to cover for... and revise the predatory history of... a couple of real rapists.

'Simple rape' is what the system calls this clinton kind of rape... Simple as opposed to aggravated. 'Simple rape,' a horrendous misnomer that only perpetuates the injustice. 'Real Rape' is what Ms. Estrich called it. But, as I said, that was before she was tapped by the clintons.

"In the cases on which this book focuses, the man is not the armed stranger jumping from the bushes--nor yet the black man jumping the white woman, the case that was most likely to result in the death penalty prior to 1977, and the stereotype that may explain in part the seriousness with which a white male criminal justice system has addressed 'stranger' rape. Instead the man is a neighbor, an acquaintance, or a date. The man and the woman are both white, or both black, or both Hispanic. He is a respected bachelor, a student, a businessman, or a professional. He may have been offered a ride home or invited in. He does not have a weapon. He acted alone. It is, in short, a simple rape."
--Susan Estrich, 'Real Rape'

In 'simple rape,' the system invariably revictimizes the victim and protects the rapist.
This horrible perversion of justice was the impetus for her book, so, of course, Ms Estrich knows exactly what is going on here between the clintons and Broaddrick.
Worse still, Ms. Estrich uses the horror of her own purported rape to obfuscate the casuistry and rapelies required to spin yet another rapist presidency. Estrich is contemptible.

This is 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 and that her 'expertise' and prior utterances would be used against them... and her.

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

Estrich's reaction to Juanita Broaddrick is the typical opportunistic, dishonest feminist reaction.
(See Salon.com article, 'Salon Mothers Who Think: We believe you, Juanita (we think).' Also: Google 'Did he rape that woman, Juanita Broaddrick?')

While most, if not all of the women who contributed to the salon.com piece believed Juanita, (liberals as well as conservatives), some feminists were in denial; they conveniently relied on false premises to assuage the cognitive dissonance.

One recurring false premise: although Juanita was credible, clinton couldn't be a rapist because he never raped before (or since).

Notwithstanding the fact that not all rapists are serial rapists, did they never hear of Eileen Wellstone et al?
(Google: 'Juanita isn't the only one: Bill Clinton's long history of sexual violence against women dates back some 30 years')

Shame on them.

"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"


HANNITY'S ESTRICH INTERVIEW: THE CLINTONS' RAPE OF BROADDRICK

While Sean Hannity correctly went directly to one of the issues that should automatically disqualify missus clinton for any position of power, the clinton rape of Juanita Broaddrick, he sabotaged his own line of attack.

Hannity's setup question, whether hillary 'believed' bill, was a dodge. And a not very artful one, at that. As Sean Hannity well knew, 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.

Hannity of all people should know this. He interviewed Broaddrick on precisely that point. Broaddrick described to him in shocking 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 Hannity's original Estrich-Broaddrick interview, he was honest about the real issue. But even then he ultimately failed because he neglected to expose the following clinton casuistry being spun by Estrich:

1. the 'statute of limitation' on rape should apply to the clintons in the 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. (Google: NANO-PRESIDENT: the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton) And with it, inexorably, 9/11. (Google: WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM? Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?)

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.

This book should be required reading for Susan Estrich.

ADDENDUM:

Ignoring the facts of the case, ignoring the 'real rape' paradigm, indeed, ignoring her own writings on 'real rape,' Susan Estrich, on Hannity and Colmes, pimping for yet another rapist presidency, openly disputed that Juanita Broaddrick was raped by the clintons.

In response, Juanita Broaddrick has offered to meet with Susan Estrich to discuss the matter. Estrich turned her down, cold. (Google: SUSAN ESTRICH RESPONDS TO JUANITA BROADDRICK'S OFFER TO SPEAK ABOUT HER RAPE -- "not interested")

[doug from upland]

I certainly believe she was raped. She says she waited a long time to talk about it. Gee, just like Juanita Broaddrick. It is a shame that she will publicly proclaim that Juanita is not telling the truth while not having the decency to at least speak with her and hear it from her own mouth.

---

BRAVERY
Susan Estrich speaks out

BY KRISTEN LOMBARDI


SURVIVOR: Estrich is still grateful to the BARCC.

---

Syndicated columnist Susan Estrich ranks high among high-powered women. She was the first woman to run a US presidential campaign. And the first woman to receive tenure from Harvard Law School. Estrich also survived a rape. This Thursday, May 24, the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center (BARCC) — whose volunteers aided Estrich after she was raped in the Back Bay 27 years ago — will celebrate her tireless advocacy of victims’ rights by granting her the first Susan Estrich Courage Award. She will then give a talk about her experience and the state of rape law. The Phoenix spoke with her recently.


Q: Give us a preview of your speech Thursday.

A: I will speak [about how] I feel a lifetime of debt to the crisis center. I learned about the BARCC in an examining room at Boston City Hospital in 1974, the bad old days [for victims]. I had been raped in the parking lot behind my apartment building.... I was unbelievably uncomfortable. The police just said, “Next stop, Boston City.” The doctor couldn’t believe such a thing would happen in Back Bay. This woman entered the room. She was from BARCC.... I remember her looking at the doctor, saying, “I believe it. Why don’t you just do your examination?” I thought, “My God, I have a friend.” The one group that understood what I was going through was the BARCC.


Q: You didn’t speak about your assault for years. What finally prompted you to do it?

A: I got stronger. I’ve always said [survivors] should speak out when they’re ready. The first time I taught a rape-law class at Harvard, I told my students, “I will try to be fair, but I’m not objective on this subject.” I got late-night calls from someone claiming to be one of my students who said, “It sounds like you enjoyed [being raped], and would enjoy it again.” I thought, “Is this the price of speaking out?” I get enormous satisfaction from speaking out.... But it has its costs.


Q: How have we changed in how we treat rape victims?

A: There have been major changes in the law. Virtually every state has enacted rape-shield legislation. Most have gotten rid of definitions for resistance and force. Our procedures for treating rape victims have changed. But it’s still tough. No one out loud argues that no means yes. But talk to a woman who is raped by a man today. You still hear about the DA not wanting to prosecute, the man hiring an investigator to look into her past, the questions of whether she invited the rape or asked for it.


Q: Where is the legal debate around rape headed?

A: We’re going through another critical time in rape-law reform. The conflict between the defendant’s desire to secure information about the victim and the victim’s desire to maintain her privacy is the next frontier. Massachusetts is very protective of defendants’ rights. I have nothing against this. But we must remember why we needed to pass rape-shield laws in the first place. In protecting the rights of defendants, we must make sure we don’t declare open season on victims again.

Estrich will speak at the BARCC annual fundraiser at 6 p.m. this Thursday, May 24, at MIT’s Walker Hall, 142 Memorial Drive, Cambridge. Tickets for the fundraiser — which features a buffet dinner and a silent auction — are $100. Call BARCC at (617) 492-8306.

Issue Date: May 24 - 31, 2001

[Nam Vet]

Question: Did she ever file a complaint when it occured?

Nam Vet

[doug from upland]

She did. But she didn't publicly talk about it until much later. She understands why women don't talk about for years. Unfortunately, she doesn's seem to want to understand that about Juanita.

[river rat]

"I pray that her conscience drives her to the point where she must break her silence."

Surely you jest!

A Leftist Clintonoid lawyer with a CONSCIENCE!

Hell, not so long as she has all that DNC/DNA splattered on her bib..

Semper Fi

[The Red Zone]

she must think that getting bonged by a president is an intrinsic honor

[Mia T]

In all fairness to Broaddrick, it's much easier to file a complaint when the rapist is a carjacking black stranger wielding an ice pick on a Harvard-connected victim than when the rapist is the white, 'acquaintance' Dixie Mafia DA 'twofer' (with a reputation for inflicting bodily harm on enemies), running for Governor of the state in which the rape occurred and on which the victim depends for the survival of her fledgling nursing-home business.

[bmwcyle]

My favorite posts are after action reports. Thanks for all who take the time to better America.

For those who sit at the keyboard, get out and help!

[hershey]

Excellent job, Doug!!!! Like most Liberals, Estrich is a flaming hypocrite.

[Baynative]

You have a point: liberals need victimhood status to make themselves complete. That could indeed explain why Estrich would deny her own anguish an support a rapist and his enabler. It is akin, I'd say, to marrying one's rapist. Maybe a shrink would tell us it is the same syndrome that makes women line up to marry killers like Eric Menendez and Scott Peterson.

My bet, however, is that she is just another shallow liberal academian who fabricated her rape scenario to sell a book and claim some fame; like the professor who trashed her own car in Irvine or the ones who spread Lynx hair in the forest to support their thesis. that's why it was easy to clam up about it as soon as the Clintons called.