Replies

Changing the topic to another set of clinton crimes, the rape of--and threats against-- Broaddrick by the clintons:

Because Broaddrick was both explicitly and implicitly threatened by the clintons during the period of legal exposure, cannot the argument be made that the statute of limitations in this case should be extended?
There is a movement afoot to remove the statute of limitations on rape.

This change would, it seems to me, differ in kind from the usual change in statute as it relates to the very issue of the time limit for legal action. It seems logical that in this case grandfathering should be the default condition. Has anyone ever made this argument?

Statutes of limitations or "repose" serve a useful function in ridding society of disputes and threats of disputes even though they are arbitrary and will inevitably do injustice in particular cases.

Certain cicumstances are recognized a tolling a statute of limitation or functionally doing so. I believe but am not certain that the general rule is the statute runs from the time when the crime is complete, and further that as long as the perpetrators of a crime are actively engaged in concealing it, the crime continues, but this should be verified before anyone tries to leverage it to any particular conclusion.

If for example, a rape occurred 20 years ago and the rapist said, if you report this I will kill your mother, then finally the mother dies of natural causes, so now the victim reports the rape.. well thats a scenario that would test what I am saying may be a grounds for arguing the statute never really ran.

Although the powerful position of Bill Clinton, and the very nature of the assault, help explain the victims decision not to report the incident for twenty years in this case, its probably not enough to support a late prosecution. Implied threats could render statutes of limitations meaningless if they were sufficient basis for ignoring the limitations period.

I would be against dropping statutes of limitations altogether even as to rape. Understanably murder has no SOL. But citizens need to not live in fear that hard to prove or disprove stale allegations might be brought against them by government long after key witnesses have died, facts are naturally forgotten, and the potential for a meaningful defense had evaporated.

Whats missing from the Broderick story is not a prosecution, but a responsible MSM, which would have been askng WJC on any occassion on which he presented himeself to the press whether or not he denys the rape allegation. If he says anything other than he did it, it opens the defamation option, but Broderick may now be a "public figure" so thats problematic. Nonetheless, it is the MSM which is giving WJC a pass at this point that is the real problem on this issue now.