Clinton/rapist (for Bill's fans)
- Thread starter WriterDom
- Start date
Ask For More
Mystery Man
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2000
- Posts
- 15,877
For me not really.
Because even if he's dodgier than a Buffalo's eyesight he's still a political genius. And that's the only view that i look at.
Because even if he's dodgier than a Buffalo's eyesight he's still a political genius. And that's the only view that i look at.
goddess_euphoria
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2000
- Posts
- 687
I don't like him anyway, but I suppose if he did something like that, I'd have more of a reason for not liking him. (And in a way that would be kinda cool, because then our taxes wouldn't go to pay for him sitting around on his ass for the rest of his life - know what I mean?)
Ticklish Girl
Bloody but unbowed
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2000
- Posts
- 1,161
I wouldn't like him even if he was a virgin.
Chuckus
'Master' of all things good and pleasurable
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2000
- Posts
- 6,187
You know, it doesn't matter to me what his political outcome is and how "great" he is or that he was President, if he did it, throw him under the jail. A rapist is a rapist no matter what his status in the public eye or whatever......
Interesting question. A politician here in Australia was charged, convicted and jailed for carnal knowledge. I in no way support his behaviour. This man had actually been to classes and assisted me with several assignments I gave my senior students. He was only helpful and professional in this particular instance. I was living in a rather remote town and he actually gained a lot of benefits for our community that other politicians had failed to fight for.
What made me really sad was that any buildings, plaques, etc. which bore his name were renamed/removed/whatever. Within a year it was like he hadn't existed in this particular electorate. The man was duly punished by the law for his serious crime. I have no problem with that. Does this negate the very real benefits he achieved in areas like transport, communication, education and health in our town? All people have worthy and unworthy aspects to their nature. In some people the unworthy aspects are more pronounced. Does this mean that any worth they do have is never to be acknowledged?
If it were proven that Bill committed rape (and how there could be any sort of unemotional trial in this political climate I don't know) I would detest the man's actions. He would certainly lose all my respect. However, I would still appreciate that he has a sharp political mind and tried to make genuine efforts towards resolving global problems.
[Edited by CRaZy on 01-22-2001 at 06:42 PM]
What made me really sad was that any buildings, plaques, etc. which bore his name were renamed/removed/whatever. Within a year it was like he hadn't existed in this particular electorate. The man was duly punished by the law for his serious crime. I have no problem with that. Does this negate the very real benefits he achieved in areas like transport, communication, education and health in our town? All people have worthy and unworthy aspects to their nature. In some people the unworthy aspects are more pronounced. Does this mean that any worth they do have is never to be acknowledged?
If it were proven that Bill committed rape (and how there could be any sort of unemotional trial in this political climate I don't know) I would detest the man's actions. He would certainly lose all my respect. However, I would still appreciate that he has a sharp political mind and tried to make genuine efforts towards resolving global problems.
[Edited by CRaZy on 01-22-2001 at 06:42 PM]
SeXy ReDHeD
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 4, 2000
- Posts
- 645
Of course that would change my opinion. Any person who rapes, whether he's Joe Blow or the President of the United States, loses all respect in my eyes... and deserves to die. But that's just my opinion.
G
Guest
Guest
more rightwing propaganda
G
Guest
Guest
Monica was more rightwing propaganda till DNA was found.
Ambrosious
Weaver of Written Worlds
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2000
- Posts
- 6,346
He hung it on himself, over and over. It is cute to watch his supporters going, "Oh yeah? Oh yeah?" again and again.
CelestialBody
Starlet of India
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2000
- Posts
- 7,904
G
Guest
Guest
norton said:
Tell me again what the Right Wing "Less Government" people were doing investigating every nook and cranny of Bill's personal life? Tell me again what the "Government Out Of Our Life" crowd was doing playing moral police instead of keeping the government out of people's lives. Oh, and while we're at it, tell me if you'd like them to do the same to every single person in the country - including you. If so, carry on Republican drone - carry on indeed.
G
Guest
Guest
The right wing didn't break the story, Monica and Linda did. The right wing didn't lie about it UNDER OATH, Clinton did. This thread isn't about that, so go away.
Leave Laurel alone she has a right to her opinoion(s) no matter what name she wants to post under this is her board after all......
Oh, and for the answer to you question... Naw, I wouldn't hate him or even dislike him ....... maybe he likes a little rough sex now and then jeesh what are you trying to ruin his life or sumthin'???????
And again this is BIG TIME......
[Edited by Bs on 01-23-2001 at 10:55 AM]
Oh, and for the answer to you question... Naw, I wouldn't hate him or even dislike him ....... maybe he likes a little rough sex now and then jeesh what are you trying to ruin his life or sumthin'???????
And again this is BIG TIME......
[Edited by Bs on 01-23-2001 at 10:55 AM]
What a thread?!
Did he rape anyone? I am just a dumb Chinese-Australian. Didn't he just get head jobs from another consenting adult?
Catherine the Great, arguably Russia's greatest leader, slept with horses!
As you might have guessed, i am wondering what the fuss is about.
Did he rape anyone? I am just a dumb Chinese-Australian. Didn't he just get head jobs from another consenting adult?
Catherine the Great, arguably Russia's greatest leader, slept with horses!
As you might have guessed, i am wondering what the fuss is about.
G
Guest
Guest
A civil war is brewing in the news room of ABC's World News Tonight over allegations that in 1979 Bill Clinton may have raped Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas woman, when he served as the state's Attorney General.
NewsMax.com has obtained an internal ABC News memo that was emailed to the top news producers earlier today about the controversy.
Chris Isham, a top ABC News producer, distributed the memo which lays out out the scintillating facts surrounding the alleged incident, and the interest sparked in the subject by Republican Congressmen who last week were permitted to review the Starr documentation of the case.
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr had turned over additional documents and FBI statements with new details about the President's sexual activities. The ABC memo reports that about two dozen Republicans reviewed the new material the Thursday and Friday before the historic impeachment vote. Some may have been swayed to have voted for impeachment based on the material.
The memo states that Arizona Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth told ABC News -- off-the-record -- that the material makes Clinton out to be "a sexual predator."
The Broaddrick incident may be cited in a Senate trial of the President, Isham suggests.
NewsMax.com has learned that Isham's memo comes as a result of a feud between World News Tonight Executive Producer Paul Freidman and network anchor Peter Jennings. Jennings -- reputed to have a eye for the ladies much like the President's -- has vehemently objected to ABC news reporting on the subject.
The memo, in an apparent shot at Jennings, states, "...the potential that a rape charge could be leveled at the President makes the story one that can't be totally ignored."
Verbatim ABC News memo follows:
From: Isham, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 1998 12:45 PM
To: Friedman, Paul E.; Dunlavey, Dennis; Murphy, Bob
Subject: Broaddrick
Forwarding a memo by Josh Fine which is a good summary of the Juanita Broddrick (Jane Doe #5.) Her case MAY have tipped some moderate Republicans to vote yes on impeachment and MAY be introduced in the Senate proceedings.
Juanita Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Paula Jones case. She filed an affidavit that said "These allegations (that Clinton had made unwelcome advances towards her) are untrue." The allegations are that she met Clinton in 1979 when he was attorney general and that he raped or assaulted her. She owned nursing homes in Northwest Arkansas and was in Little Rock for a convention. Clinton met her in the afternoon and they made plans to meet later that night. He said the best place to meet was in her room (at the Camelot Hotel) since that way no one would see them (he was, after all, married).
They then went up to her hotel room in Little Rock and evidently had sex. It is unclear if he raped or assaulted her but that is the allegation made by Phillip Yoakum. Yoakum is a Fayetteville man who says Broaddrick told him in 1992 that she was raped by Clinton in the late 70's. I interviewed Yoakum in March and found him entirely uncredible. He had facts wrong, was a total Clinton-hater, and his claims to being friends with Broaddrick are untrue. The other person who supposedly knows about what took place is Norma Rogers-Kelsay, a friend of Broaddrick's who went to the convention with her in Little Rock and drove back with her to Van Buren where they live). Tamara Lipper spoke with Rogers on the phone in March. Rogers said that Yoakum was telling the truth. She was with Broaddrick before and after the incident and said that she was in "quite bad shape after."
In 1991 Broaddrick was at a nursing home convention in Little Rock and a man pulled her out of a meeting (this is all according to Rogers-Kelsay). The man took her to Bill Clinton and he apologized for hurting her and asked if there was anything he could do. She didn't understand at the time why he had taken that step but soon realized the real reason after he announced his candidacy for President a few months later.
In the 1992 campaign these rumors began to circulate and Sheffield Nelson, a longtime Arkansas Clinton-hater, tried to get her to come forward. She did not. Yoakum evidently was at a meeting with Rogers and Broaddrick where they discussed the incident and whether or not Broaddrick should talk publicly about it. Evidently Broaddrick was worried no one would believe her (similar to what happened with Gennifer Flowers).
That was the last anyone heard of her until she was subpoenaed in the Jones case. Apparently Lisa Myers went to Van Buren and spoke with Broaddrick about her giving an interview. I also spoke with Broaddrick. She made it abundantly clear that she had no interest in her name getting out and didn't want to talk about it. She also made it clear that she was not denying that something had happened.
Last month the Schippers group sent two investigators to talk to her. One of them was Diana Woznicki, a Chicago police sergeant who is on loan to the investigation. We're not sure who the second person was. The conversation took place at the office of Broaddrick's attorney, Bill Walters, in Greenwood, AR. Walters says that the ground rules for the interview was that there would be no discussion of the underlying incident. The only topic that could be discussed was the possibility of obstruction. According to Walters, there is no obstruction despite the claims in the Yoakum letter. The Yoakum letter claims that Broaddrick's husband Dave said he was going to get a few favors from Clinton for keeping his wife silent.
Late last week Republicans began to stream over to the Ford building to look at the materials. According to a source of mine there were about two dozen members who went to look at the material on Thursday and Friday. Many Republicans were talking up the new material as evidence that could come up at trial because it would show a pattern and practice of behavior (paying off or influencing women to keep quiet). According to Rep. Inglis under federal rule of evidence 441(B) something showing a pattern or practice can be admissible in a trial. But it is unclear if Rehnquist would rule this admissible since it isn't a typical trial.
There is some question whether there is actually new evidence from the Woznicki interview or members are just seeing the Yoakum/Rogers evidence for the first time and consider it new. The big question is what does Broaddrick say. If she won't talk about the incident then there is only Yoakum and Rogers to show that she was raped/assaulted. If she won't say she was obstructed it would be hard to prove that. Still, the potential that a rape charge could be leveled at the President makes the story one that can't be totally ignored.
I'm told by two senior Republican members of Congress that Stephen Buyer (IN), Jim Ramstad (MN), and Steve Chabot (OH) were encouraging their colleagues to look at the materials. I'm also told George Radanovich (CA) took a special interest in the Broaddrick interview. Rep. Hayworth told me on background that the materials make Clinton out to be a "sexual predator."
There were rumblings from some Democrats (none of whom have seen the materials) that there was pressure put on undecided Republicans to vote for an article of impeachment based on the new materials. But two of the members rumored to be swayed, John Porter of Illinois and Jay Dickey of Arkansas told Ariane and I that they never went to view the materials.
NewsMax.com has obtained an internal ABC News memo that was emailed to the top news producers earlier today about the controversy.
Chris Isham, a top ABC News producer, distributed the memo which lays out out the scintillating facts surrounding the alleged incident, and the interest sparked in the subject by Republican Congressmen who last week were permitted to review the Starr documentation of the case.
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr had turned over additional documents and FBI statements with new details about the President's sexual activities. The ABC memo reports that about two dozen Republicans reviewed the new material the Thursday and Friday before the historic impeachment vote. Some may have been swayed to have voted for impeachment based on the material.
The memo states that Arizona Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth told ABC News -- off-the-record -- that the material makes Clinton out to be "a sexual predator."
The Broaddrick incident may be cited in a Senate trial of the President, Isham suggests.
NewsMax.com has learned that Isham's memo comes as a result of a feud between World News Tonight Executive Producer Paul Freidman and network anchor Peter Jennings. Jennings -- reputed to have a eye for the ladies much like the President's -- has vehemently objected to ABC news reporting on the subject.
The memo, in an apparent shot at Jennings, states, "...the potential that a rape charge could be leveled at the President makes the story one that can't be totally ignored."
Verbatim ABC News memo follows:
From: Isham, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 1998 12:45 PM
To: Friedman, Paul E.; Dunlavey, Dennis; Murphy, Bob
Subject: Broaddrick
Forwarding a memo by Josh Fine which is a good summary of the Juanita Broddrick (Jane Doe #5.) Her case MAY have tipped some moderate Republicans to vote yes on impeachment and MAY be introduced in the Senate proceedings.
Juanita Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Paula Jones case. She filed an affidavit that said "These allegations (that Clinton had made unwelcome advances towards her) are untrue." The allegations are that she met Clinton in 1979 when he was attorney general and that he raped or assaulted her. She owned nursing homes in Northwest Arkansas and was in Little Rock for a convention. Clinton met her in the afternoon and they made plans to meet later that night. He said the best place to meet was in her room (at the Camelot Hotel) since that way no one would see them (he was, after all, married).
They then went up to her hotel room in Little Rock and evidently had sex. It is unclear if he raped or assaulted her but that is the allegation made by Phillip Yoakum. Yoakum is a Fayetteville man who says Broaddrick told him in 1992 that she was raped by Clinton in the late 70's. I interviewed Yoakum in March and found him entirely uncredible. He had facts wrong, was a total Clinton-hater, and his claims to being friends with Broaddrick are untrue. The other person who supposedly knows about what took place is Norma Rogers-Kelsay, a friend of Broaddrick's who went to the convention with her in Little Rock and drove back with her to Van Buren where they live). Tamara Lipper spoke with Rogers on the phone in March. Rogers said that Yoakum was telling the truth. She was with Broaddrick before and after the incident and said that she was in "quite bad shape after."
In 1991 Broaddrick was at a nursing home convention in Little Rock and a man pulled her out of a meeting (this is all according to Rogers-Kelsay). The man took her to Bill Clinton and he apologized for hurting her and asked if there was anything he could do. She didn't understand at the time why he had taken that step but soon realized the real reason after he announced his candidacy for President a few months later.
In the 1992 campaign these rumors began to circulate and Sheffield Nelson, a longtime Arkansas Clinton-hater, tried to get her to come forward. She did not. Yoakum evidently was at a meeting with Rogers and Broaddrick where they discussed the incident and whether or not Broaddrick should talk publicly about it. Evidently Broaddrick was worried no one would believe her (similar to what happened with Gennifer Flowers).
That was the last anyone heard of her until she was subpoenaed in the Jones case. Apparently Lisa Myers went to Van Buren and spoke with Broaddrick about her giving an interview. I also spoke with Broaddrick. She made it abundantly clear that she had no interest in her name getting out and didn't want to talk about it. She also made it clear that she was not denying that something had happened.
Last month the Schippers group sent two investigators to talk to her. One of them was Diana Woznicki, a Chicago police sergeant who is on loan to the investigation. We're not sure who the second person was. The conversation took place at the office of Broaddrick's attorney, Bill Walters, in Greenwood, AR. Walters says that the ground rules for the interview was that there would be no discussion of the underlying incident. The only topic that could be discussed was the possibility of obstruction. According to Walters, there is no obstruction despite the claims in the Yoakum letter. The Yoakum letter claims that Broaddrick's husband Dave said he was going to get a few favors from Clinton for keeping his wife silent.
Late last week Republicans began to stream over to the Ford building to look at the materials. According to a source of mine there were about two dozen members who went to look at the material on Thursday and Friday. Many Republicans were talking up the new material as evidence that could come up at trial because it would show a pattern and practice of behavior (paying off or influencing women to keep quiet). According to Rep. Inglis under federal rule of evidence 441(B) something showing a pattern or practice can be admissible in a trial. But it is unclear if Rehnquist would rule this admissible since it isn't a typical trial.
There is some question whether there is actually new evidence from the Woznicki interview or members are just seeing the Yoakum/Rogers evidence for the first time and consider it new. The big question is what does Broaddrick say. If she won't talk about the incident then there is only Yoakum and Rogers to show that she was raped/assaulted. If she won't say she was obstructed it would be hard to prove that. Still, the potential that a rape charge could be leveled at the President makes the story one that can't be totally ignored.
I'm told by two senior Republican members of Congress that Stephen Buyer (IN), Jim Ramstad (MN), and Steve Chabot (OH) were encouraging their colleagues to look at the materials. I'm also told George Radanovich (CA) took a special interest in the Broaddrick interview. Rep. Hayworth told me on background that the materials make Clinton out to be a "sexual predator."
There were rumblings from some Democrats (none of whom have seen the materials) that there was pressure put on undecided Republicans to vote for an article of impeachment based on the new materials. But two of the members rumored to be swayed, John Porter of Illinois and Jay Dickey of Arkansas told Ariane and I that they never went to view the materials.
G
Guest
Guest
Go Laurel!!! How many more people have you trolled and chased off this board huh?
CelestialBody
Starlet of India
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2000
- Posts
- 7,904
G
Guest
Guest
Yea but I don't run the site and then bitch about the trolls tho.
And who the hell registered this name? Fucker. Like that's gonna keep me quiet.
And who the hell registered this name? Fucker. Like that's gonna keep me quiet.
G
Guest
Guest
Shuddup said:
You go, little troll. If there's one person we all know Laurel hasn't been able chased off this board, it's you. We've all begged her to, we've all tried to ourselves, but you just keep coming back. Keep it up, the regulars are amused and the newbies are finding out what you're all about.
In the immortal words of (Smokey And) The Bandit, "Keep On Trolling!"
