Must We 'Believe' Juanita Broaddrick? No.

[DonViejo]

Froma Harrop

November 21, 2017 3:39 am

Whenever charges of sexual misconduct shoot through the air, an arrow or three hit Bill Clinton. That’s inevitable, given his history of philandering capped by the notorious Oval Office tryst with Monica Lewinsky.

What was not inevitable, but surprising, is the crush of liberals swallowing whole a fishy story that Clinton raped a woman.

In a New York Times column titled “I Believe Juanita,” Michelle Goldberg writes, “We should look clearly at the credible evidence that Juanita Broaddrick told the truth when she accused Clinton of raping her.”

She goes on to cite no credible evidence. Nor does she point to a source that does.

more
http://www.nationalmemo.com/must-believe-juanita-broaddrick-no/

[DURHAM D]

1. Michelle Goldberg just wants attention.

Not sure now she ended up on stage given that she is not respected in her "profession".

[oasis]

2. Hell no! nt

[Cicada]

3. Under oath Broderick said it never happened

Under oath: no
Not under oath: yes

[Tommy_Carcetti]

4. Juannita Broaddrick's Twitter cover page photo is her sitting next to Donald Trump. Let that sink in

(BTW, Her profile picture is her with Sean Hannity. The entire Twitter feed reveals Broaddrick to be a pro-Trump partisian hack for reasons that have no reason to do with sexual assault or the Clintons.)

The picture was taken just after the Access Hollywood tapes became public.

Juannita Broaddrick heard Donald Trump brag on tape about how he liked to kiss women against their consent and how he wanted to "grab them by the pussy" and days later she gladly sat next to him in a blatant photo op to serve Trump's own interests.

(We know that one of the other women in the press conference had been paid to appear, and fellow accuser Kathleen Willey's home mortgage had been paid off thanks to none other than Roger Stone.)

If someone was legitimately the victim of sexual assault, why in the hell would they ever dream of debasing themselves by gladly associating with someone whose verbal statements implicate himself in that type of action.

It makes no sense whatsoever and stinks to ever-living high heavens.

That, coupled with the glaring discrepancies in Broaddrick's account (including the contradictory statements under oath)....I have no reason to believe Juannita Broaddrick at this point in time.

I'm not sorry about that, either.

[Maraya1969]

5. Why would a brutal rapist go on to mere gropping

It doesn't happen. If it did her testimony would be similar to the others. And it is completely different
She was number 1. She didn't have the opportunity to hear what they would say

[GoCubsGo]

6. Wasn't this already litigated back in the 1990's?

Apparently, Ms. Goldberg was asleep during those years, when it was investigated to death, and Broaddrick's claims were found to be not credible?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

7. But we're told now we have to believe them....because.....Roy Moore?

Which of course is a fallacy.

Ken Starr didn't find Broaddrick to be credible. Ken Starr. Enough said.