Juanita Broaddrick is right about Kavanaugh allegations

Juanita Broaddrick is right with her latest Twitter:

If you want the FBI to go back that far @HillaryClinton @MSNBC to investigate Ford’s allegations.... let’s investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too. Seems only fair.

twitter.com...

If I'm not mistaken, the rape allegations Ms. Broaddrick made against President Clinton happened less than 35 years ago

originally posted by: JBurns
Juanita Broaddrick is right with her latest Twitter:

If you want the FBI to go back that far @HillaryClinton @MSNBC to investigate Ford’s allegations.... let’s investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too. Seems only fair.

twitter.com...

If I'm not mistaken, the rape allegations Ms. Broaddrick made against President Clinton happened less than 35 years ago

pffft
no way the dems would ever be interested in investigating something like that

a reply to: JBurns

Last time I checked 1978 was 40 years ago. That said, if Clinton runs for office/is up for an appointment/etc then I agree that these claims need to be thoroughly investigated.

Liberals holding themselves to the same standards they hold everyone else hostage with?

Hahahahaha!!!!
That will be day.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

so you're saying you're not looking for justice against crimes you're just making sure it's all political

a reply to: Xcalibur254

So is this different because of 4 years?

Ms. Ford deserves her "justice" but Ms. Broaddrick don't?

And I thought you guys were worried about all women.

Ya know... #MeToo and stuffz.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: JBurns

Last time I checked 1978 was 40 years ago. That said, if Clinton runs for office/is up for an appointment/etc then I agree that these claims need to be thoroughly investigated.

Hillary just ran for president.

She was accused of personally attacking bills victims

I don’t recall the fbi investigation into that being demanded by Hillary and the Dems

Meanwhile where is the dem calls for Ellison to withdraw until an fbi investigation into the accusations into him are finished?

There's no counter argument on this. Only deflection and whataboutism.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

It is incredible because hypocrite Feinstein wouldn't even read Broaddrick's deposition against Bill Clinton RE: her rape allegations against him. Once again, Feinstein attacks the victims. Only this time, she leaked her private information (given in confidence) to the press

What a POS

a reply to: Xcalibur254

You are right Xcalibur, my adding mistake

The problem is when Clinton was in office, Feinstein and that same crowd refused to even give Broaddrick the time of day. They refused to even look at her deposition

and the Senate is giving her a chance to tell her story, since they are charged with investigating/confirming the nominee

a reply to: JBurns

Damn straight, I say bring it, and she actually remembers, who, when and where.

a reply to: thedigirati

I'm saying there's not really anything that can be done at this point. Even when she came forward in 1999 the statute of limitations had run out five years before.

Even if an investigation was done and it was found that Clinton did what he was accused of nothing would happen.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: JBurns

Last time I checked 1978 was 40 years ago. That said, if Clinton runs for office/is up for an appointment/etc then I agree that these claims need to be thoroughly investigated.

So it only matters if the accused is running for office, up for an appointment etc?

Wow!

a reply to: ausername

This is a case they literally can't be prosecuted. Last time I checked law enforcement don't waste resources on cases that have passed the statute of limitations.

The reason Kavanaugh is different is because he is technically currently undergoing an FBI investigation due to the background check being performed. So while he can't be prosecuted for the alleged crimes it is certainly information I'm sure the FBI would want to know.

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Xcalibur254

so you're saying you're not looking for justice against crimes you're just making sure it's all political

thats how i read it

In 2016, there was a page on Hillary Clinton's web site about sexual abuse against women. There was a slogan on that page that said, ".You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." The slogan was removed after a few weeks.

Gee, I wonder why ...

Even Snopes (for which I have no respect) confirms this.

Lets get some context from Hillary from that 1975 rape case where she defended the molester and shamed the victim.

In her book, Clinton writes that she visited Taylor in the county jail and he “denied the charges against him and insisted that the girl, a distant relative, had made up her story.” Clinton filed a motion to order the 12-year-old girl to get a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing … [and] that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body,” according to an affidavit filed by Clinton in support of her motion.

Ford being only 2-3 or whoever much older than this victim

Clinton also cited an expert in child psychology who said that “children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to such behavior,” Clinton wrote in her affidavit.

Oh Dr. Ford, what is you doin'?

Is this part of the the Bimbo Squad she talked about in the 90s?

Source is Factcheck on if she volunteered for the defense, which is a point not topical in this thread. The point being Hillary is a hypocrite, as most people are but pretends she is not.

www.factcheck.org...

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Last time I checked law enforcement don't waste resources on cases that have passed the statute of limitations.

You are right. I was assuming it occurred in a state with no statute of limitations on felonies, but I see the distinction between the practical need to investigate (ie: criminal investigations happen to bring about criminal charges not necessarily to uncover/reveal the truth about a particular claim)

Regardless, Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh should testify under oath. Get their official statements laid out for the Senate. A sworn statement is the only thing investigators in the Senate realistically can work with, since hearsay isn't credible (ie: the claims by Feinstein and then leaking of her name to the press). Even if/when he is confirmed, the ethics committee can investigate and if they find evidence to support the allegations against him he can be impeached

Minus Feinstein's good word, outrage on the left and some murky lawyers...we don't even know for certain this woman made any allegations and that they were even against Judge Kavanaugh. She hasn't officially or publicly accused him of anything. Maybe that is just the skeptic in me, but I think a formal allegation of wrong-doing made under oath before the Senate (those charged with his confirmation) is not only appropriate, but it is mandatory if the allegations are going to lead anywhere. As he sits now, I think he's on track for confirmation.

a reply to: Butterfinger

Very much so. Hearing Hillary answer crack-pot Rachel Maddow with "Each case should be looked at differently" is incredible to me. The viewers on Rachel's show were lapping it right up too. problem is, that is EXACTLY what Conservatives are saying....each case is different. You don't automatically believe or disbelieve anybody until you've heard their story, examined the circumstances (with what you have available) and come to a conclusion - however tentative that conclusion may be - and decide for yourself. That is exactly what the left gives us grief over.

Here is the thing in this day and age:

Where is the equality in treatment? There were others who have done this before. The first time, that this was brought up, that most can remember, a man was nominated as a US Supreme Court Justice, and the accuser came forward, the process was halted, the accuser made the testimony and then the process went forward, with 48 votes against the nominee. But that was harassment.

Then there was the case of the actor, who was accused of rape, we all remember Bill Cosby, the events happened about 40 years ago, and they went after him.

What about Al Frankin, who was accused of harassment, and he resigned.

So what is the difference here? Why can there not be an investigation and to interview and talk to those who were at that school at that time frame and allowing for an interview and testimony?

There are other problems that are showing up. The person making the accusation is now in fear for her life and that of her family. Threats of violence and death threats, is making a far more difficult problem worse. This is bad enough as it is, and if it is a lie, she should be held accountable, but if it is not, then this is not the way to handle it. No one should go through that, and it should be investigated.