I Don't Believe Juanita Broaddrick. Here's Why.

I understand the nature of rape leads many victims to not report their attacks. I also understand that there's no standard behavior exhibited by victims of sexual assault. I fully appreciate and acknowledge these two things.

With that said, I know I'm playing with fire here but to hell with it — I don't believe Juanita Broaddrick.

There's absolutely no evidence beyond her own words that she was raped by Bill Clinton and so it comes down to who you believe. There might be a "bil" in credibility but their ain't no "Bill" so it's understandable that even outside of the context of partisan politics and this election, people are not inclined to give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt.

However, there are several things that bother me about Juanita Broaddrick and her story. Some of them might be petty/off base, others I believe are harder to ignore.

- The 1998 avadit filed with the Paula Jones's lawyers (as "Jane Doe #5"). Full text here

2. In November of 1997, two private investigators retained by Paula Corbin Jones approached me at my residence. I declined to speak with them, but provided the name of my family attorney. I subsequently was served with a subpoena seeking the production of documents and purporting to require my testimony at a deposition in the civil action between Paula Corbin Jones and President William Jefferson Clinton (Civil Action No. LR-C-94-290). I have never met Ms. Jones, nor do I have any information regarding the allegations that she has advanced against President Clinton. In this regard, I have no knowledge or information regarding the events she has alleged occurred on May 8, 1991 at the Excelsior Hotel or, for that matter, any knowledge or information regarding any interaction between herself and Mr. Clinton.

4. During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.

- Three weeks after the alleged rape, Broaddrick attended a small private Clinton fundraiser at the home of a local dentist. When asked why she would do this she said she was still in a state of shock and denial and felt that she might have in some way led Bill Clinton on ( statements by Broaddrick). It was at this event that she's claiming Hillary Clinton said to her:

"‘I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate the things you do for him" "Do you understand? Everything you do"

Which she now says she took to mean that HRC was covering up for Bill and that she was expected to do the same. My opinion? It doesn't ring true. Unlike with a workplace, school, home, church, etc — this wasn't the sort of setting she couldn't avoid or even an event she would have been expected to be at. She says she was in a state of denial but she also says that right after the alleged rape, she told Norma Kelsey (now Rogers), the friend she was sharing the hotel room immediately after it happened (source) — as in that same day, within minutes of it happening. In fact, the claim is that she told 5 people in the immediate aftermath. Another being David Broaddrick who claims she told him what happened after he questioned her about her swollen lip. This just doesn't add up to me. She's telling her best friend, she's telling her lover, she's telling other people and yet she's in such a state of denial that she goes out of her way to attend a private fundraiser for her alleged rapist a few weeks later?

- A new wrinkle in the story is that she is claiming Bill Clinton called her at the nursing home for six months following the alleged rape. AFAIK, this is a detail that has only emerged as of January of this year. Where's the proof that this ever happened? Why is this detail just emerging this year?

- She changed her story from nothing happened to she was raped after Ken Starr approached her and granted her immunity from prosecution for allegedly lying under oath in her sworn affidavit and deposition. Ken Starr found her claim inconclusive and didn't include it in his report though he allowed Republican politicians to hear her statements.

- Her corroborating witnesses have... problems. The first person she allegedly told about the incident — immediately after it happened — was Norma Kelsey/Rogers as I said above. Another of the witnesses is Norma's sister Jean Darden. The father of these two women was killed by a man whose life sentence was commuted by the Governor Clinton. (source)

The third witness was David Broaddrick, her now husband, who she was cheating on her then husband with. It bears mention that her then husband, Gary Hickey, has no recollection of her injuries and has stated that she said nothing to him at the time. However, interestingly, a year later in their divorce proceedings, she claimed that Hickey had struck her in the mouth. (source). I admittedly don't know much about the other two witnesses who say she told them about it at the time, Susan Lewis and Louis Ma.

- The following year, in 1979, Juanita Broaddrick accepted an appointment by Clinton to the state's Nursing Home Advisory Board. In the Lisa Myers, she was asked, "Did you have reservations about accepting any appointment by Governor Clinton?" Her response? "Yes, but I had more or less said to the association that I would do this before I knew it was a governor appointing job. When I agreed to do it I had no idea it was an appointment."

- In 1984, Broaddrick received a letter from Bill Clinton when her nursing home was named one of the best in the state. At the bottom of the letter was a handwritten note from Clinton which read "I admire you very much" which she now claims she construed as a "thank you" for covering up for him.

- In 1991, she claims to have run into Clinton at a Nursing home industry meeting in Little Rock. Broaddrick claims Bill Clinton came up to her and immediately started apologizing profusely. She claims she told him to go to hell and walked off. She couldn't remember when this meeting took place and neither could her corraborating witness, Norma Rogers. (source)

- Speaking of dates. She seems to have a flawless memory when it comes to everything but dates. Neither her nor her witness could remember even the month of the alleged rape but they all remember everything else in striking detail.

These next two points are just my biased observations and I'm not saying anyone else should be swayed either way.

- She doesn't appear to be crying to me in any of these interviews she's giving. There is a lot of hands covering her face and dabbing of the eyes but I never see any visible signs that she's really crying. A little flushing of the cheeks but not a single drop of moisture. Not in the new Breitbart interview. Not in the original Lisa Myers interview. My opinion is that she's likely pantomiming. Again, this is purely my opinion. I could of course be wrong.

- Her twitter feed is very strange to me. She's doing these interviews about a very serious allegation, she's making very serious claims about a deadly serious topic. A lot of people are expressing support and tell her how strong and wonderful she is, etc and then interspersed throughout are these:




Huh? Crazy Kaine? Digs on Hillary's health? Not only excusing Trump's claims that he can do the sort of thing that she is alleging Clinton has done to her but she's openly campaigning for him? Something about that doesn't sit well with me. Certainly not substantial evidence of anything but it doesn't sit right with me.

Last point:

- The lack of evidence. One point that is constantly made that is supposed to substantiate Juanita Broaddrick's claim and one that is central to what her witnesses claim as physical evidence is that Clinton bit her lip. There has been much talk by people selling books and doing paid interviews that this is a "disabling move" of some sort. The first time that Broaddrick was on record ever saying this was after she'd started cooperating with Ken Starr in 1998, specifically in the 1999 Dateline interview. The idea here is that there is a pattern of behavior. That the biting of the lip is somehow a hallmark of Bill Clinton. Except that she could have easily picked this up from Judy Stokes who allegedly told Paula Jones's investigators that she knew he'd bit the lip of her friend Ward Gracen, who Judy Stokes alleged had told her that Bill Clinton had raped her.

Ward Gracen has denied that she was raped. Let that sink in. The lip biting "evidence" has been repeated countless times but only one person is actually claiming on record that it happened to her and that's Juanita Broaddrick.

Why is there NO evidence? Not one shred? She told all these people but nobody wrote anything down at the time? She had physical injuries but nobody photographed them at the time? Bill Clinton called her repeatedly at the nursing home she administrated but there's no witness that this happened? No physical record? Nothing?

There's just too many holes in this for me. I know some of you will be impressed by the interview but I'm not at all convinced that she's telling the truth.

I have nothing to add to the above, except a little green star. I have popcorn beside me in anticipation of this thread's promise being fulfilled.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I'll make light of almost anything.

Except rape.

SMH

a reply to: theantediluvian
I think it would be scumbags that say no witness it didn't happen.

You likely don't believe her because she's not claiming Trump raped her.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'll make light of almost anything.

Except rape.

SMH

How am I making light of rape? Please don't go for the disingenuous cheap shot with me.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm not the one who's made the cheap shot.

I'm out of this thread, have a nice day.

a reply to: Robbo2006

So then you automatically believe that Donald Trump raped a 13 year-old girl three times in 1994 at Jeffrey Epstein sex parties? She's even got her own two witnesses.

originally posted by: ketsuko
You likely don't believe her because she's not claiming Trump raped her.

And you likely believe her because she's claiming Trump raped her. Wonderfully informative comment. Would you like to address any points or are you satisfied with one-line drive by personal attacks?

a reply to: theantediluvian

That's OK, I don't believe a word you type either and I am quite sure you don't believe a word I type. We are all unbelievers, well except for the paid people lol. They just believe in a paycheck.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: theantediluvian
— I don't believe Juanita Broaddrick.

Shocking..

Looking forward to your naa naa na naaa na threads after Hillary becomes President..

a reply to: theantediluvian

The evidence that she isn't lying about Bill "rapes 'em real good" Clinton is the fact that he has admitted multiple extramarital affairs and been accused many times, and having denied them then later admitted, so he has a clear history of a sexual addiction problem, so raping a few women isn't a stretch for his issues. But go ahead and don't believe anyone because then that might mean admitting the real reason is you still support the Clinton's no matter what they both do.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

You don't have to believe a word I type. I made points that are debatable. If you disagree with one or more of them, please feel to argue.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Being a philanderer doesn't make you a rapist.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I do believe her, this is why:

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Robbo2006

So then you automatically believe that Donald Trump raped a 13 year-old girl three times in 1994 at Jeffrey Epstein sex parties? She's even got her own two witnesses.

Did that case go to court.
In this case you are trying to be the judge trying to raise a jury. I suppose I will wait until your jury determine guilty or not guilty of the possible victim.

It might help the anti-Clintonites here (a neutral label, not meant rudely) to recognise that the fact that Juanita Broaddrick is a demonstrable fantasist who has lied about absolutely every scrap of evidence connected to her allegation (and has stood trial for obstruction of justice as a result) is not necessarily disproof of Bill Clinton being a rapist.

It just means that Broaddrick isn't evidence that Clinton is a rapist.

You can go on believing he is a rapist just as much as you did before (and you did), no-one can stop you. But when you're asked to provide evidence to back up that belief, you will be telling a conscious lie if you mention Juanita Broaddrick. On your own consciences be it.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I see nothing wrong with questioning a story of an alleged rape. We have to be respectful to the possible victim, but we also have not only the right but the duty to investigate these claims for truth.

So I have no problem with you doing just that, nor do I think you are making light of a rape.

In fact, I am sure you would be outraged and denounce Bill if it turns out that undeniable proof came out that Bill raped this woman, or anyone else. I would do the same with Trump.

My issue is that it seems that Hillary attacked these women that accused Bill. I am not so worried about what she said, because I feel that words mean little, (especially when said when angry or in jest) compared to actions.

The fact that Hillary supposedly hired private investigators to harrass and intimidate these women is very troubling to me, even if Bill had never raped them.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Being a philanderer doesn't make you a rapist.

No, but being a known rapist like Bill Clinton does make you a rapist.