Posted on 06/24/2010 10:51:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
She saved the pants which may have some "fluid" on them.
There are those who've said if Monica hadn't saved the dress, there would have been no proof in that case either.
That was Mark Halperin's excuse as to why he didn't cover the John Edwards affair with a paid campaign staffer. Mark DID report on the rumored McCain/Lobbyist affair though.
Her reticence was probably due to the incredible war of hate that was lavished on Clinton’s victims, as well as the undeniable fact that - whatever the result - she really is going to have trouble getting work.
A large percentage of people who would even ask for a masseuse are natural Gore-supporters.
The article is tame, he’s toast, the police report: http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/06/24/heres-the-al-gore-masseuse-police-report/
Lacks credibility? Drudge says the local media sat on the story for 2 years. I’d say it’s the MSM that lacks credibility.
ALL THE EX-PRESIDENT'S SCANDALS
Nurse backs up Clinton rape charge
Attended Broaddrick's wounds after alleged assault in Arkansas
June 26, 2003
[a few excerpts from article...]
Kelsey recalls Broaddrick saying the meeting with Clinton began with small talk, and "she was a little surprised he was by himself."
"She said he was showing her locations outside the window there in Little Rock, and then, all of a sudden, he just kind of grabbed her and started kissing her," remembers Kelsey.
"He overtook her and pushed her to the bed, and from that point on it was just a rape."
Kelsey says Broaddrick explained how her lip became swollen: "He bit her lip to try to keep her from struggling with him."
Thanking Katherine Harris for robbing him of the Presidency.
Front page of The Enquirer.
Tipper got a tip on this...that’s why the split up, she wanted out since he wanted release.......of the news.
“Legitimate” news organization such as the New York Times, Washington Post, or CNN I suppose. It is sad commentary to me that news organizations that routinely misrepresent, slant, or fail to report negatives about their left-wing buddies are considered legitimate. Granted, the Enquirer is not what I would consider legitimate either. But they sometimes get the story totally right while the "legitimate" news organizations are trying to bury the story.
I will grant the Enquirer this — They’ve had a string of successes in exposing a lot of scandalous behavior among our politicians and celebrities ( John Edwards and Jesse Jackson being prime examples ).
Having said that, I would have to caution everyone in simply accepting pointblank, everything they report without verifying first.
They have had to eat crow in many of their past exposes as well.
Some examples :
* In 1981, actress Carol Burnett won a judgment against the Enquirer after it claimed she had been seen drunk in public at a restaurant with Henry Kissinger in attendance. The fact that both of her parents suffered from alcoholism made this a particularly sensitive issue to Burnett. Under U.S. law, in order to be guilty of libel against a public figure such as Burnett, a publication must be shown to have knowingly, or with reckless regard for the truth, disseminated facts that were false and defamatory, making Burnett’s successful suit unusual in the world of American tabloid journalism.
* A 2002 article alleged that male members of the family of kidnapping victim Elizabeth Smart were involved in what the article termed a “gay sex ring.” Subsequently, two reporters from the Salt Lake Tribune were fired after it was learned that they had been paid $20,000 for the story, which they had fabricated.
The salacious details of the Smart story were retracted by the Enquirer, and a rare apology was issued to the Smart family. One of the fired reporters acknowledged that his behavior was unethical, but expressed surprise that the story had been taken seriously, stating, “When I dealt with the Enquirer, I never dreamed that I was accepting money for ‘information’.
* The Enquirer settled a libel lawsuit lost a lawsuit suit brought by actress, Kate Hudson in 2006.
* The Enquirer settled a libel lawsuit with the wife of Gary Condit out of court in 2003.
* The Enquirer had to issue a public apology to Actress Cameron Diaz. The apology concerned a story it had run in 2005 entitled “Cameron Caught Cheating” which turned out to be false.
.... and more.
Suffice it to say that they have been right and they have been wrong. CAUTION should be the order of the day for the sober reader.
I can’t wait for Gore to be arrested, charged and jailed.(S)
Sure. They lacked credibility when they broke the John Edwards story too.
This sounds perfectly believable to me. If the story claimed the sexual contact was wanted, then it becomes unbelievable.
I don't think your caution is necessary. It is a given. Most freepers are not so stupid as to believe everything that the National Enquirer publishes. If you have that impression I think you are misjudging your fellow freepers. However, it is a fact that the National Enquirer has a track record of getting some stories right while the MSM is getting the story wrong or not even reporting it. This fact alone causes many of us to not be able to automatically dismiss the report. Only time will tell, but I seriously don't thing you need to worry about us "simply accepting pointblank" everything reported. Give us some credit!
Regardless the jokes we make about how Gore comes across to us, how we may feel about him, this is so real, it makes her tale credible to me. A friend of mine was gah-gah because Biden and his party were at the next table in a restaurant where she was having dinner. That Teflon-coating she describes is there, we all know it, we've seen it time and time again. And these men, these pols, especially the ones who aren't all that good-looking, they get off on having women practically dripping all over them, they learn to be able to abuse the power of the office, celebrity by imposing themselves on the more vulnerable.
It makes me crazy; as I say, they've got endless numbers of willing participants ready to go at the drop of a hat ... it's got to be the power trip, that they do this to women who aren't at all interested. I dunno, it must bruise the ego or something, (incredulous voice) "What do you mean, you don't want to??"
One of the probable reasons she was reluctant to come forward earlier is that she knows his people would try to drag her through the dirt, much like Clinton’s folks did. And someone who works as a masseur may well have things in their life they don’t want being made public.
Oh really, it doesn't instill confidence, does it? Hmm ... let's see if I can come up with a comparable ... OH YES, ANITA HILL. Y'all didn't seem to have much trouble believing her story, though 1) she didn't file any police report and 2) the only witness during the Thomas hearings who could testify that Hill told her (Hoerchner, sp?) that Hill's boss was harassing her testified to those conversations occurring years before Hill worked with Thomas.
Yeah, so much for this guy's opinion ... next?
The 62-year-old former VP was in Portland at the time of the alleged incident – Oct. 24, 2006 – and we saw the $540 massage bill.
The Oregon sexual assault allegation comes days after other reports of Gore’s cheating surfaced. The National Enquirer reported last week that the Gore divorce was caused by Tipper’s jealousy over other women, including “an environmentalist named to a prominent cabinet position by Gore when he was vice president, a sexy Hollywood actress, a gorgeous massage therapist” and “a Tennessee Titans cheerleader.”
Also, Star magazine reported that Al Gore had a two year affair with Laurie David, the ex-wife of Seinfeld creator Larry David. “The rumor is completely and totally untrue. I adore Al and Tipper and consider them part of my family,” Laurie David responded in a written statement. Neither Al nor Tipper Gore has responded to any of these allegations.
I’m not clear on one point, (it’s hard to get there from some of the comments of posters, you understand) — are we only hearing this now because she did go to the Enquirer? Does she give a reason why now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.