There is a lot of information in this thread; also see graphics.
.
Posted on 12/30/2015 5:04:47 PM PST by Hojczyk
She appears to have went to DC with the intention of engaging in sexual relations. So yeah, she too was a predator - albeit a juvenile one.
That doesn’t mean that Clinton didn’t also smash security to give himself opportunity to collect or take advantage of the presence of such women, nor does it mean that he didn’t use inducements via his power, office, and government funds to reward and punish women based upon their acceptance or rejection of his sexual advances.
The point about Lewinsky wasn’t that she was sexually harassed, but rather that he used his office and job offers to reward/pay those who engaged in such activities, and to punish those who did not. It was also what he did to the security of the offices and the pResident in order to afford himself the sexual opportunities.
And yeah, though by no means innocent, Lewinsky was functionally a child.
Womanizing?
So, according to either Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post or his headline writer, sexual assault is simply "womanizing"?
Womanizing: engaging in numerous casual sexual affairs with women
Right - allegations of forcible rape are no different from having casual sexual affairs?
At least the article separates "consensual" from "unwanted" sexual encounters, but lumping both under the heading of "womanizing" certainly seems to trivialize the alleged assaults.
There they go again. The Clintonistas/Obamanistas down at the retarded WaPo defending the commie ‘RATS again. That crap would get “old” pretty quick to a normal person.
So why is it that B. Cosby gets arrested while B. Clinton struts around?
Hmmmmm ..... I wonder if there a hashtag or an Internet meme for it ...
And he took advantage of that...
Thong snapping or no thong snapping...
Can you imagine the reaction of Ronald Reagen, Dwight Eisenhower, Abraham Lincoln, or George Washington if a 19-year-old intern had snapped her thong at any of them. I strongly suspect the thong snapper would be summarily sent home in disgrace. Which is the appropriate and ONLY reaction that a President should have! Any other action by the President of the United States is a disgrace! Clinton is utterly culpable, utterly contemptible, and was deserving of removal of office for involving himself no matter how tempting, no matter how questionable the morals of the young person. It is not a question who started it, it is not question of the character of the intern, it is a question how the President should conduct himself and of his character!
Sex life? No ordinary citizen would want to know what Bill Clinton did in the White House. Gerald Ford had a glare at the Reagan funeral. Hillary can demagogue women’s issues all she wants to—what Billy did was not a fine thing.
1. They say she emerged after the impeachment trial with the allegations. I was thinking she was already on the record by that time.
2. They also say that Clinton flatly denied the claim. I don't think he ever actually denied it, did he?
3. They say there were inconsistencies in her story. Like what?
They should be called out on this and Juanita should have a chance to respond.
She didn't "emerge" until after the impeachment trial. That is to say she didn't go public until after the impeachmennt trial.
However, she was on record well before that. Her story was part of the evidence that was accumulated by the investigators and, because of its delicate nature, was kept under lock and key in a capitol office. All the Representatives and Senators were invited to review this evidence, but few actually did. I don't think a single Democrat requested access to the room.
Those who did review the evidence expressed the appalling nature of numerous testimonies concerning Bill Clinton's predatory behavior.
So, yes, you are correct in your recollection. The Washington Post is clearly trying to marginalize Juanita Broaddrick's testimony.
If Trump wasn’t in the race, would this subject have ever been mentioned by any of the candidates?
NBC interviewed Broaddrick on January 20, 1999, but decided to broadcast it until February 24, 1999, right after Clinton impeachment trial.
https://factreal.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/bill-clintons-victim-juanita-broaddrick-said-clinton-raped-her-videos/
Bill Clinton is living proof that, in America, you can have a slobbering fan club and be a sexual predator/rapist.
You could make a movie about all of his women—Call it Bills Women—another rape victim—Hillary.
There is a lot of information in this thread; also see graphics.
.
Don't forget. Bill Clinton is from the South which means (by leftist memes) he's a "Racist Rapist". /alliteration run amok>
Does anyone have the section (I *thought* it was in the Starr report but cannot find it at the moment) where it is testified that Clinton performed anilingus? (”...he was going to reciprocate, but Mother Nature got in the way, so...”) or words to that effect.
Got a link? Tweet it to Trump
Yes, she was on record. Dave Schippers sent an experienced female police officer to Arkansas to interview her regarding the rumors that were out there. The officer came back frightened. She believed that Clinton indeed was a rapist.
Clinton never spoke about it. His attorney said that Clinton never raped Ms. Broaddrick. At the time she was still married to her first husband, and her name was not Broaddrick.
Juanita did not want to relive the nightmare in public. When her name first surfaced, the Clinton slime team presented her an affidavit to sign telling her that if she just denied it, she would not have to ever be in court. They used that first false affidavit against her. She was told by the government that she would be under oath and she would have to tell the truth. So she did and recanted the first affidavit essentially taken under duress.
Lisa Myers, whom I spoke to about it, had tried for a year to get the interview of her life. She got it and NBC protected Clinton until after the Senate trial. Lisa realized she was too credible.
It wouldn’t have mattered. None of the scumbag Dems would have ever voted to convict in the Senate. Never. One of their pubic claims was that the impeachment effort was a coup. Of course, it was not. Gore would become president. The irony is that the RATS could have likely stayed in power with Gore running as an incumbent.
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.