Watching people attacking Juanita Broaddrick makes me deeply uncomfortable.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

This far I think it's totally reasonable to go: that there is no evidence to back up her accusation, and therefore the accused should get the benefit of the doubt.

But unless you're really, really sure that she's not telling the truth - and there isn't really any evidence that way either - then outright attacking her and calling her a liar is an utterly shitty thing to do.

Testifying that you've been raped is unpleasant and traumatic. That her story has changed is additional grounds to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, but it *doesn't* prove that she's lying.

I hope she is lying, and I think it's totally plausible that she is, but I also think it's totally plausible that she isn't, and we will almost certainly never know. I would strongly urge you not to post anything about her that you wouldn't be comfortable having said if, in the afterlife, an angel were to inform you that she were telling the truth.

[metroins]

1. Has no reason to be in the discussion

It was about Bill, not Hillary.

Anybody discussing this is off their rocker because we've been here before and it's a distraction for no reason.

[Agschmid]

11. Not much.

[metroins]

12. None

It's ludicrous.

Been discussed 500 times, has nothing to do with her.

If your n spouse cheats on you, you either leave or defend. She defended and it has nothing to do with Hillary.

Pathetic.

[grossproffit]

20. Uh huh.

[oberliner]

4. The claim is that Hillary threatened the victim and protected the perpetrator

That is the way Juanita tells it (and Trump just retweeted those precise sentiments).

[metroins]

15. And what did Trumps spouses do?

He's hitting on married women, likely cheated on exs.

Who cares what the spouse did?

Donald and Hillary are running for president, Donald is fucking pathetic candidate.

[bettyellen]

40. By saying "thank you for everything you've done"? Seriously?

[sarae]

101. Right?!!! One of the most insane things I've ever heard.

[prayin4rain]

43. She shook her hand and said she appreciated what she's done for the campaign.

That's not a threat. Period.

[Demsrule86]

68. No one like the other woman... a big who cares...but I am sure it is deeply concerning to you.nt

[oberliner]

73. Yes, it is

I wish this woman wasn't out there tweeting these things and being interviewed by Trump's campaign manager.

I also wish I had your confidence that no one will care. Hopefully you are right!

[Demsrule86]

84. Why would they? It has been known for years

...Hillary is doing fine but you act like she is losing. Always the negativity.

[oberliner]

87. Well, he is definitely going there

He just had Broaddrick and three others do a pre-debate press conference, and they will be in the audience.

He is going negative, and it makes me sick.

I also watched a whole "focus group" on Meet the Press where ever single person said the Access Hollywood video did not make a difference to them in who they are voting for.

This makes me sad.

[Demsrule86]

103. Well something made a difference...the trajectory changed.

I don't get sad because racists and that is who is voting for him now won't change their minds...they are deplorable that can not be redeemed by anyone.

[oberliner]

110. That's a lot of deplorable, irredeemable racists

Tens of millions of people across the country will still be voting for Trump (many quite passionately so) in spite of what he has said and done.

Embarrassing that America has so many such people in this day and age.

[Demsrule86]

112. There will always be haters...less now than say in Wallace's time.

[Squinch]

2. I agree. But I think there is a way to be respectful to her while at the same time maintaining

the focus on Hillary as a candidate. And I think Hillary will find that way.

[riversedge]

6. I trust Hillary to find that way tonight. I fear she will be asked at the town Hall.

[Hortensis]

14. Broderick should not be respected because she is not respect-able.

Her claim of being raped allows her to reign as queen over a little Hillary-deranged court. Check out her sites. Every filthy and ridiculous lie and conspiracy theory is chortled over and new ones grabbed onto eagerly.

You could also drive a truck through the holes in her personal claims about Bill and Hillary. Although we can never be sure of the truth about she-says/he-says accusations, her story would seriously lack credibility even if it came from someone who was otherwise a demonstrably honest and moral person.

[Squinch]

22. I am sure you are right. But too often when a woman alleges rape, she is discounted. So it is

important that all accusations are taken seriously.

So whether we believe her or not (I haven't followed this accusation so I have no opinion) she has to be treated with respect, if only for all those other women who were truthful and discounted.

I am sure Hillary understands this.

[Hortensis]

24. She's made many statements. At some point WE have a

responsibility to inform ourselves before putting the weight of our opinion on either side of these things. This particular issue isn't about anyone but this woman and the man and his wife she accused.

Imo, if we don't inform ourselves of what is known (i.e., mostly what she herself said and what her own behaviors suggest to us about her), we shouldn't weigh in on one side or another. I understand what you mean, but doing it for some unnamed people who have nothing to do with Broderick, Bill and Hillary seems like an absolutely dreadful reason.

[Squinch]

46. Ok, fine. It is my fault because I haven't read up on Broderick. Go with that.

The fact is, though, that it doesn't matter whether it is believable or not. Hillary HAS to treat it with respect.

[bettyellen]

108. Sure- but it be hooves us to know that her claim of Hillarys threat consists solely of her thanking

Her for helping the campaign- at an event for campaign workers. What the fuck? And it wasn't till it was financially helpful to her, and surrounded by RWers egging her on that she can out with the threats crap. At best I have to guess the woman felt guilty herself and was paranoid that Hillary knew. At the time she was also lying and cheating on her husband so it's not like it's beyond the pale for her to bullshit about sexual encounters. And the other women's stories were deemed fabricated.

[mythology]

26. But there comes a point where an accusation shouldn't be taken seriously

She passed that point years ago. Treating her like a joke at this point doesn't mean somebody can't take accusations of rape from other women in other circumstances. She doesn't represent all women or all rape accusations. Her accusations against Bill Clinton represent exactly and only that and they aren't credible.

[LaydeeBug]

41. ^^^ This ^^^ nt

[Squinch]

47. How will it look to the rest of the country if Hillary doesn't take the issue seriously and address

it forcefully but with respect?

What kind of unmitigated shit will Hillary take from everyone if she shows even a whiff of disrespect toward the accuser in any of her answers about this incident?

The answer is: the worst kind of unmitigated shit.

[anamandujano]

48. Exactly right.

[emulatorloo]

52. Damn it, Stop buying into Trump's memes. HRC is not going to trash Juanita B

and you know as well as I do that the real HRC is not the same as Trump's bullhit cartoon version of her.

Please get real and stop promoting these ridiculous talking points.

You've admitted you know nothing about Juanita Broaddrick, and I will tell you that if you think she was not taken seriously, that's because you know nothing.

[Squinch]

59. Reread my posts. You are saying the same thing I am saying.

As I have said up-thread, Hillary needs to find a way to address it while maintaining a respectful demeanor to the accuser, and I have perfect faith that she will do exactly that.

[catbyte]

78. What makes you think she wouldn't?

[Squinch]

97. As I clearly stated, I had every confidence that she would.

[Demsrule86]

105. Like she has a brain...I would certainly refuse to discuss it period.

[sinkingfeeling]

42. My problem is that it's taken her 38 years to decide she was raped.

I have little doubt that there was a sexual encounter in 1978, but things were a lot different back in the age of 'free love'.
I think back to some of the encounters I had as a single woman working in a male dominated industry in the '70s and by today's standards, I could probably claim to have been raped several times. I did have sex with some aggressive men to whom I did not give consent. At the time, I did not even think of it as rape, just disgusting behavior on both sides.

[BlueStateLib]

80. Its important that all evidence should be taken seriously

[qazplm]

86. yes

until it shouldn't.

And in this case, we have PLENTY of evidence that it shouldn't be. The changed stories, the sworn statement that says he DIDNT assault her, and that Ken Starr, KEN STARR, found her unreliable.

I'm ALL for taking EVERY SINGLE CLAIM OF SEX ASSAULT at face value. It should be SERIOUSLY investigated, every...single...time...even if the initial belief is it didn't happen.

But once you determine, no, didn't happen, couldn't have happened, or there is no evidence that it happened, then that's it. It's done.

[Demsrule86]

85. Woman like her playing politics with a very serious issue are the reason that many women who

say they are raped are not believed. I despise this woman...she is nothing but a rightwing player and gives women a bad name.

[Squinch]

98. I totally agree.

[Agschmid]

16. Yup.

[Demsrule86]

69. I would not speak or even look at Juanita Broderick who is and always was a liar...a GOP tool. nt

[Squinch]

70. But tonight, Hillary might have to speak ABOUT her, and she will, as we know, do it with grace.

[catbyte]

79. Then why keep harping on it?

[Demsrule86]

104. First of all she is being paid to help elect Donnie...I have

no respect let me repeat that no respect for a woman like her. She lied about what happened. We know that because she told conflicting stories ...one of which had to be a lie... she is a nutter in my opinion and always was. The fact she would agree to be paid by Donnie to do this means she deserves no respect...not even a little bit. Hillary should ignore her like as she deserves.

[Demsrule86]

5. She has said in a deposition that it was consensual assuming anything happened.

Sorry, she brings it on herself by lying. This supposedly happened before Bill Clinton became president.

[riversedge]

7. I need to ask---what exactly

is she lying about (from your post).

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. Either when she said Clinton raped her, or when she said he didn't.

I very much hope it was the former, and if so, that's utterly unforgivable. But I can't be sure it wasn't the latter, and given how traumatic testifying about rape is (and even more so how much it was then) I can think of few lies more forgivable than claiming not to have been raped to get out of it.

[riversedge]

17. Oh, I was so

confused by your post. I thought the 'she' you were referring to was Hillary. My bad.

I do not know if he lady is lying or not. If she said it was consensual, it is not rape. She was of age.

[Demsrule86]

67. I do not find Juanita Broderick credible...never did.

She changed her story a million times...and I do not believe Bill Clinton raped her either. She was threatened with a perjury charge by Starr I believe at the time.

[factfinder_77]

8. Broaddrick signed an affidavit - denying twice under oath that Clinton raped her

* In 1997, Broaddrick signed an affidavit and gave a deposition in the Jones case, denying twice under oath that Clinton raped her.

* Broaddrick says she can remember every detail of the rape, except the month and day it occurred. If it scarred her for life, wouldn't she remember the date? Or at least the month?

* Broaddrick says she told her husband, David, what happened. But, at the time, David was not her husband. He was her boyfriend, with whom she was cheating on her first husband. Question: What if Clinton and Broaddrick had consensual sex? If you're cheating on your husband, and then cheat on your boyfriend, do you tell your boyfriend the truth?

* Within one year of the alleged rape, Broaddrick attended a fund-raiser for Clinton and accepted appointment by him to a state advisory board. Why did she still want to support a man who raped her?

* Broaddrick claims Clinton kissed her so hard he left her lip visibly black and blue, and she covered up by telling people she'd had an accident. But her first husband, Gary Hickey, says he remembers no such injury when she returned from Little Rock, nor such a story.

* One year later, Broaddrick filed divorce papers against Hickey, claiming he struck her on the mouth. Was that the only time?

* Broaddrick also told two girlfriends, who are sisters, what happened, which both confirm. But both admit they hate Clinton because he commuted the death sentence of the man who murdered their father. Can they be trusted?

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/feb/26/local/me-11829

[uponit7771]

10. After White Water I stopped paying the right any attention, so I don't know any of the crap

... they made up but if people are swearing under oath that a rape didn't happen what is one supposed to believe later?

I don't believe for a second Bill is a tRump level dick enough to grab women by the whatever ...

[Hortensis]

21. There are other holes and contradictions, like where

Hillary comes in. Supposedly Broderick on impulse accompanied a friend to a Democratic event where Hillary was glad-handing people. Hillary shook Broderick's hand and thanked her for her services to her husband. Broderick understood that to be a threat and was so terrified by it that she didn't make it public for another 30 years.

I guess Bill liked to share his rapes with Hillary and instructed her on how to recognize the victims so she could threaten them if she happened to run into them? Or something? It makes sense to the viciously Hillary-deranged.

[Nevernose]

75. She said "thank you" to a campaign volunteer?

At an event for thanking campaign volunteers?

Clearly an insidious plot to murder rape victims!

[emulatorloo]

53. Thanks for the link. Have no idea why OP is promoting Trump/RW talking points that HRC will

attack JB. It's total bullshit

[Fast Walker 52]

13. who is attacking her?

Is questioning her story "attacking her"?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. Depends how it is done.

Often, "questioning" is a euphemism for "saying or implying is not true", rather than for "saying or implying may or may not be true".

Post #5 in this thread, for example, is something I would be very, very uncomfortable to have said about someone who turned out to be a genuine rape victim.

[Fast Walker 52]

27. thanks, although it seems fair to bring up that she signed an affidavit saying no rape before

so at some point she was lying-- either now, or under oath.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. Indeed, and I've done so in post #9

But while lying and saying that someone has raped you when they haven't is utterly unforgivable, given what rape victims who testify have to go through, I can think of few lies more forgivable than saying that someone hasn't raped you when they have.

[regnaD kciN]

58. The problem is that, nowadays, it's "conventional wisdom"…

…to see such denials as being because the woman didn't want to be publicly identified as having been raped, or wanting to go through the court system. I've been told -- by progressive feminists -- that such a "denial followed by accusation" pattern is "typical for rape victims," and only makes the accuser MORE credible.

[Fast Walker 52]

60. fair enough... thanks

[Major Nikon]

107. This wasn't a case of her making a police report and being compelled to testify at a criminal trial

She volunteered a sworn statement in a civil trial. If it were a case of not wanting to get involved, she didn't have to be involved.

[emulatorloo]

54. As far as I can tell, yr just promoting "Evil Hillary" Trump memes

by insinuating HRC is going to 'attack' Ms. Broaddrick.

That is not who HRC is.

Yes I am being repetitive but I am damn tired of DU'ers smearing HRC's character with false RW memes.

[grossproffit]

18. I'm trying to keep a Nazi from becoming president. My sympathize lie elsewhere.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Two obvious responses:

1) No you're not. Nazis killed my great uncle in the camps; Trump is an unpleasant far-right nationalist populist, not a Nazi.

2) Abusing Broaddrick online will not materially alter the chance of Trump becoming president.

[grossproffit]

33. Many people didn't take Hitler seriously either. I wonder if they too said he was "unpleasant."

Many of his base are Nazi's.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. Hitler also had two legs. So Trump is just like him.

[grossproffit]

45. David Duke, a Trump supporter would agree with you.

[Hekate]

56. Donald, my husband is the son of Holocaust survivors. One of his brothers...

....the conservative one, is fully prepared to leave this country if Trump is elected. He's no fool, and neither are the rest of us. We see what we see, and we know what we know. Trump, his enablers, his followers, and his budding media empire (Ailes et al.) are a danger to the nation no matter what label you put on them.

As for Broadrick: this is yet another red herring from the bottomless barrel of red herrings. Hillary is fully prepared to deal with Trump's attacks on Bill's past peccadillos. Fully. This is nothing new. She was prepared last week, last month, last year, and last decade.

Attacking a wife for staying with her husband and holding her family together is horseshit, and everybody knows it to be horseshit. Making up stories about Hillary because she didn't invite all these women in for tea and cookies and soothe their feefees for them is more horseshit. The stories are straight from the Clinton Derangement Vault.

Thank you for your consideration.

[kcr]

25. Sorry you're uncomfortable, but there is plenty of evidence she's a liar.

She's a GOP backed Clinton smear machine. The fact she's choosing to smear Hillary and even their child, both of whom had nothing to do with this, just reinforces it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

30. You are letting partisanship cloud your judgement in a rather unpleasant way. N.T.

[kcr]

31. Oh, really?

Noting that she's attacking the wife and child of her "attacker" is unpleasant? That's interesting.

[grossproffit]

35. Very interesting, indeed.

[Foggyhill]

32. The only response to that is go to court or stfu

That would mean she lied under oat twice, thdg should go well
With the judge

[Cakes488]

36. But she is doing the same thing!!! Throwing out accusations with no proof!!!

She is putting herself out there...!! On behalf of Trashpot Trump!!! Maybe she is on the payroll !!!!

[riderinthestorm]

37. Thank you. Agreed 1000% nt

[LaydeeBug]

39. As a rape survivor, I find her story to be incredulous and feel she brought it on herself.

And yes there *IS* evidence that this never happened...namely a twenty fucking year gap before she reported it

TWENTY.

**YEARS**

Nope.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

44. She should not be attacked about her claims...but she does deserve being taken to task for

Trying to make it about Hillary. Blaming a wife for bad behavior of her husband is messed up.

[Demsrule86]

106. As she lied under oath and was threatened with perjury...she should

be taken to task for her false claims ...as I said before women like her are the reason women who are really raped are not believed.

[beaglelover]

49. She signed a legal document stating that she was not raped. She's a liar.

[Major Nikon]

111. That doesn't automatically mean she's a liar

A lie is willful deceit. It's entirely possible, and I think likely, that she is just easily manipulated and can be made to believe things which aren't true. She has been manipulated by pretty much everyone at every juncture. She was manipulated by her boss, who was a rabid Clinton hater, to go public with the story. She was manipulated by the lawyers in the Paula Jones case. She was manipulated by the WSJ reporter. She was probably manipulated by the FBI and Ken Starr, and now she's being manipulated by Trump.

It really doesn't matter if she lied or not. There's nothing believable about the story, and everyone who has conducted a thorough investigation of her claims has reached that conclusion, including those who have a heavy bias against the Clintons.

[Siwsan]

51. She could be someone with some emotional issues, and Trump is exploiting them

Just a thought but I've known people who re-write their own history for sympathy, or just to make it easier to live with.

Trump would have no qualms about using someone with those issues, in that way.

[Dem2]

55. There's no reason to address this anyway

Bill Clinton is not running for president

[pnwmom]

57. I can't know what happened between Broaddrick and Bill, though it is a fact

that in her deposition in the Paula Jones investigation, Broaddrick denied any sexual assault.

What I object to now are her CURRENT attacks on Hillary, saying Hillary "threatened" her. What was the "threat"? She says Hillary thanked her for her work for Bill.

Hillary thanked her.

And Broaddrick somehow just knows the thank you was a veiled threat.

And I just know there is something off about Juanita Broaddrick.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

61. The fact that Ken Starr didn't find her story convincing enough speaks volumes to me

Given that Starr was on an obsessive vendetta against Bill in the 90s and engaged in some pretty disgusting methods in trying to bring him down. (See his treatment of Susan McDougal for example)

Listen, the desire not to attack someone alleging sexual assault is perfectly understandable. But facts still have to be weighed and Broderick's story never measured up even for those hellbent on destroying Bill Clinton.

[OnDoutside]

64. That's the most salient point in this thread.

[matt819]

63. She gave a deposition

In 1998 where she said bill Clinton did not rape her. So, was she lying then of ic she lying now. Yes, of ducks that it has come to this, but she didn't have to trot herself out here now.

[Gabi Hayes]

65. If, as has been shown here, Ken Starr couldn't use this POS garbage,

do you really think there's anything at all to it?

waste of ether, is this thread

[bettyellen]

66. What most erodes her credibility with me is the contention that HRC saying "thank you"

Was "interpreted" and then retold as some sort of ominous threat.

I do believe other people shaped that narrative for her, because I have sincere doubts that 1) Bill would have confessed cheating for no reason and then 2) put Hillary out there to threaten his woman. And most importantly- smiling or not/ saying "thank you for everything you do" is just is not a threat. Not even close- so I feel that is at its core dishonest.

I think it's just as likely is was consensual and not what she hoped for and she was regretful and felt weird not talking to Bill and seeing his wife with him. She herself had been lying about other adultry at the time, so yeah. I'm not going to say she's a better human being than Hillary.

I'm certain quite a few people wanted her story to be public and as juicy as possible. And the threat part, as well as the ice and sunglasses combo seems to be for effect.

[PaddyIrishman]

96. sometimes the simplest conclusion is the right one

Hillary is at an event thanking campaign contributors and volunteers.

She shakes hands and thanks everyone in sight, whether she knows them or not, and thanks them for their help, whether she knows what they did or not.

End of.

[Dawson Leery]

71. We must go after her. She is a liar.

In her deposition, she said she was NOT raped.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

72. I agree.

I was one of the very first signatories of the original MoveOn petition submitted around Clinton's impeachment. I was a hardcore Clinton partisan and viewed all the female Clinton accusers as opportunists, complicit, or exaggerators. I look back now with disgust at how I let my politics overcome my objectivity.

After many years and much education , I admit that I have no idea what the "truth" is where it involves Clinton's sexual encounters, and am willing to admit that there is the possibility some of them may not have been consensual. After the Cosby episode, I will never say "never" when it comes to the possibility of someone being a sexual predator, regardless of who the man is.

As for Ms. Broaddrick's allegations, I will not call her a liar.

[radius777]

74. Disagree. What's sad is some on the left have bought into rw memes

Last edited Mon Oct 10, 2016, 03:39 AM - Edit history (1)

and debunked conspiracy theories.

Such falsehoods have not been attacked enough, that is the problem.

The idea that these assault charges were 'never taken seriously' is a myth; we spent the entire 90's - millions of dollars, countless hours/experts/testimony - investigating these (and similar) allegations. Nothing has ever been proven other than consensual affairs, of the type that many politicians have, yet much more was made out of it in an attempt to bring down a popular president that his enemies couldn't beat at the ballot box.

If you ever notice something about these 'scandals', when it was obvious to the Clinton haters that simply infidelity (Flowers, etc) couldn't work to bring him down (he won the Dem nom and then the presidency despite the Flowers bombshell) - they all then went into overdrive and tried to claim that these were 'non consensual' interactions.

[MFM008]

76. WHY

did she deny under deposition this never happened?
WHY?
Sorry. She had her chance.

[LenaBaby61]

77. WHY did tRump have to go there?

I think you're outrage is in the wrong place. NOT to excuse Bill Clinton's behavior. I never have. However it's tRump who has this MESS going on.

Broderick and those other women are being used, and they seem quite HAPPY to be used by someone as slimy and filthy as tRump.

[Greywing]

88. Seeking their 10 more minutes of fame ...

Trump is the most disgusting vile THING ... just lower than low.

[Shrike47]

81. I would love to see Hillary bring Ken Starr to the townhall and refer to his investigation.

She says Starr, pointing out his bona fides, investigated these claims 20 years ago and found them not credible. Donald needs to focus on America's current issues.

Then start talking facts and policy.

[hamsterjill]

82. Doesn't bother me a bit at this point.

Last edited Mon Oct 10, 2016, 12:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Now that she has joined Trump's farce. She is obviously as slimy as he is (as are the other women participating) to be taking part in this sleaze fest.

[qazplm]

83. you mean the part where she swore

he didn't assault her but then later says he did?

I think if you are a victim of a sex assault, you probably don't give a sworn statement saying you weren't.

You might be quiet. You might deny if under pressure. But give a sworn statement?

[BobbyDrake]

89. Except, Juanita Broaddrick (sp?) is nothing but an anti-Clintin useful idiot.

If you look at her allegation that HRC "threatened her," you'll find that it's a deranged woman taking a banal and common statement and trying to turn it I to something sinister. And clearly it wasn't seen that way by a court of law, which dismissed her lawsuit.

There is a cottage industry of various vultures from the Clinton orbit popping up every few years to pad their bank accounts with paid appearances. That's all we're seeing again here.

[GaYellowDawg]

91. When Broaddrick called it consensual in the 90's under oath...

It was very clear that some very powerful people wanted her to call it rape, and would protect her if she did. She still couldn't make her mind up. She is simply not reliable. There's no shame in saying that, and saying it does not make one an enabler of either rape or abusive treatment of women.

[LAS14]

92. If Ken Starr, of all people, found them "not credible" then that...

... should be good enough. I personally don't need KS, but he's there to cite. See also response #61.

[LenaBaby61]

93. Star was NO fan of the Clinton's clearly...

BUT he found them WHOLLY "not credible." You're correct LAS14, exactly what he said.

Those women sold their soul to the devil tonight. He actually was laughing about grabbing women in their crotches and Jones, Broderick were up there WITH him. Wrap your head around that for a minute. NO WAY as a women would I be sitting with a PIG like tRamp. NOT to excuse Bill Clinton's behavior at all. He gets no pass from me. But tRamp was laughing and joking about sexually assaulting women and those whom who claimed they were raped, then said under oath that they WEREN'T raped, were sitting with a sexual assault guy in tRump.

THOSE women sold their souls tonight.

[stevenleser]

94. Define attacking. Nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

95. Look through this thread.

You'll see plenty of examples, sadly. If I remember, I may post a longer answer when I get home from work.

[baldguy]

100. TL;DR

They lied about being assaulted, took money from the GOP to allow it to take political advantage from those lies, and now, at this late date, they stand with Trump, who has bragged about assaulting women. Seems to me they deserve to be attacked.

[Demsrule86]

102. And now it seems they were paid by Trump...there is a word for that. nt

[arthritisR_US]

99. As a woman all I can say is....ok..whatever..