Posted on 05/24/2003 12:19:27 AM PDT by kattracks
In interviews last week on his book "The Clinton Wars," former White House advisor Sidney Blumenthal defended the former first couple against an array of allegations - including one that both Clintons have avoided talking about like the plague.
But in remarks to radio host Sean Hannity on Tuesday and again on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" Friday night, Blumenthal argued that Clinton rape accuser Juanita Broaddrick had been found to be not credible by a private investigator hired by the GOP.
And while Blumenthal was careful to avoid calling the Arkansas businesswoman a liar, his comments seemed clearly designed to leave that impression.
During the interview on Tuesday Hannity asked, "Do you think Kathleen Willey, who said, 'He groped me, he fondled me, he grabbed me,' do you think she's a liar? Do you think Juanita Broaddrick was a liar?
"Here's what I think about that," Blumenthal began carefully. "I think that these are uncorroborated charges that had no bearing on the articles of impeachment; that, in the case of Broaddrick, the Republican Party hired a private investigator to look into it."
"I'll tell you his name," Blumenthal continued. "His name was Marty Rile. And he concluded that the story that [Broaddrick] had been telling was not true."
Blumenthal's information appears to have come from Clinton critic-turned-defender David Brock, who publicly apologized to the ex-president last year for reporting on his womanizing after penning his own book, "Blinded by the Right."
But according to David J. Sanders, a freelance journalist who writes for the Stephens Media Group in Little Rock, Arkansas, Blumenthal's source got the story wrong.
"First, [Brock] got his subject's name wrong," Sanders reported in April 2002. "Marty Ryall, not Rile, is now the executive director of the Arkansas Republican Party and the subject of Brock's account."
Another part of the story that Sanders says Brock flubbed was the claim that Ryall had obtained actual audiotapes from 1992 of Broaddrick discussing her encounter with Clinton. Brock quoted the GOP official saying of the Arkansas businesswoman's rape accusation, "It's not what she says it is."
In fact, Ryall told Sanders that years ago he merely listened to a tape of Broaddrick discussing the attack. And while he took notes, he had no other evidence to corroborate his account.
"Brock was only 10 percent correct," Ryall told Sanders. "I am fat. He got that part of the story right."
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
The pdf file won't open so I've linked to the html version.
It is a tough call because there is merit in exposing his BS. However, with Blumenthal's tome of lies and the Dallek trash JFK to help Beezelbubba campaign obviously laying the groundwork for Her Heinous's upcoming I Am Victim, Hear Me Whimper, the best thing to do would be to leave Sid in the sewer where he resides between appearances.
Not Credible and not guilty are two different things. This is more legacy manufacturing by clinton.
I thought... I wonder when Blumethal will ever come to the realization that his whole life is a fraud?
His defense of Clinton just seems so bizzare, and that his reality world is somewhere else.
I understand now how Hitler could have such devoted accomplices. These people choose their own truths!
I remember reading about how Hitler could "hypnotise" an entire audience and have them "under his spell" to whip them into a let's-hate-the-jews frenzy. I thought this was just about the dumbest thing I'd ever heard of - until Clinton came along.
Bill Clinton was the worst president ever elected if indeed he were truly elected knowing now how the democratic election fraud has been perpetrated on the voters. And the notion that Hillary would make a good president is about as far fetched as electing Stalin for president of the US.
The new spin is that Mrs. Clinton is a Centrist. I believe her husband used that ploy in both his elections. Hillary is a radical, a socialist who is pushing her Third Way, a Marxist program. Bill is still dallying and Hillary is still raising taxes – both live the high life on taxpayers money – neither can call themselves Americans other than by accident of birth.
No matter how you look at political parties, you have to look at Clinton, and how the democrats continued to lower the bar to defend this creep.
I really do think had he'd been a republican, the Party would have cut him loose a long time ago.
It just is stunning to see how brazen this jerk really has become.
You notice that the Clinton crowd will not call Anita Bodderick a liar because that will give her a "cause of action" for a libel (slander - whatever) suit. Clinton could be compelled to testify in such a suit - especially if he himself calls her a liar - and then a jury of more or less NORMAL PEOPLE (not the editorial board of the NYT) will get to decide whom they chose to believe.
So Clinton finds surrogates like Insidious Sid to make vague inferences that skirt the issue of libel without bringing the issue before a jury.
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.