What Fresh Hell Is This?

November 16, 2007

On OffQ This Evening

I caught my friend Johnny Mac on OffQ this evening and was struck by something fellow panelist Heather Heidelbaugh said.

The conversation was bouncing back and forth about, I think, Senator Clinton when McIntire asserted to Heidelbaugh that she hated Bill Clinton because of the Lewinsky scandal.

Heidelbaugh immediately corrected McIntire and stated outright that she hated Bill Clinton because he raped Juanita Broaddrick.

Good lord, do we have to rehash THIS?

Look, it's simple (and as an attorney, Heather Heidelbaugh should understand the legality of all this) but Juanita Broaddrick signed an affidavit on January 2, 1998 that stated:
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.

The Starr Report states that about 3 months later on April 8th 1998, she told OIC investigators that that affidavit was false. So which is it? Did she lie when she signed the affidavit or did she lie when she told the OIC investigators (and weren't these guys FBI? Just checking) that she lied?

For those who don't know, an affidavit is a sworn statement of fact. It's done under oath. So if Attorney Heidelbaugh believes that Juanita Broaddrick was raped by Bill Clinton, she also has to believe that Juanita Broaddrick has committed perjury.

But is the story of the rape true? Here's Salon.com in February, 1999 after the story made it on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page:

"This is a story that's been knocked down and discredited so many times, I was shocked to see it in the Journal today," says Jack Nelson, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times. "Well, not shocked, since it ran on the editorial page. Everyone's taken a slice of it, and after looking at it, everyone's knocked it down. The woman has changed her story about whether it happened. It just wasn't credible. I don't know if NBC will run it, but if they do, they'll do it knowing there are real problems with it."

Significantly, the Wall Street Journal's own news department has declined to run the Broaddrick story in its pages. When asked if Journal reporters had pursued it, the paper's Washington bureau chief, Alan Murray, replied, "I'm not going to comment on how we devote our resources. But you're right to observe this has not appeared in our news pages, except in brief references." The Journal was the first to report that House managers were showing Starr's sealed "Jane Doe" material, Murray says. Later, in its Washington Wire column, the paper revealed that House Judiciary Committee counsel David Schippers had decided not to include the Broaddrick materials in the impeachment trial, since she had given different versions of the story and there was no evidence of obstruction of justice by the Clinton administration in the changed tales.

So the rape allegations weren't a part of the materials in the impeachment trial? And so much of that case was so sturdy, wasn't it? No charges on Whitewater, no charges on Travelgate. Just charges related to the blowjobs in the White House.

Given all the investigatory power of the OIC run by Kenneth Starr and they decided NOT to include the Broaddrick materials in the impeachment trial.

What should that tell you about the rape allegations?

By the same token, did you know that Ronald Reagan was a rapist?


Heir to the Throne said...

By the same token, did you know that Ronald Reagan was a rapist?
So in your world a signed affidavit is equal to a Kitty Kelley rumor.
Using that standard, I take any of many of the Jim Quinn's stories about Clinton (such as Mena airport/Chinagate) and treat them as true.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Yah we do have to rehash this. Only because if a Republican had done it we would be rehashing it. Hillary wants to be treated as and equal and when that happens she cries. Time for left wing feminists to live up to their hype. Except that ain't going to happen. They support a rapist and his wife as long as they vote liberal. Can we say hypocrites. I can. LMAO once again.

Laurie Mann said...

Oh yeah, and Clinton offed Vince Foster too...


Bram Reichbaum said...

Hell of a post. The sad thing is, everyone would believe it, if Bill did not look us in the eye and say, "I did not have..."

Lefty said...

Personally, I dont want to hear anymore about Bill's sexual exploits..... I can find enough problems with his character than to rehash the same info time after time.

Anonymous said...

How about Heather Heidelbaugh has proven that her need to be a lying hate spewing republican spin machine?
Shouldn't the focus be on a 'lawyer' putting a proven lie as the gospel truth and then going on a diatribe about Hillary being 'cold' in person. We need to shine the light on Rethug witches like her.
She a thinner more degreed version of Ruth Ann.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: I am amazed at how Vince Foster was able to put two bullets in the back of his head and then drag himself to the park. Anyway, like I said you lefties can't take the heat. Call Hillary a bitch and you whine and cry. But never let that stop you from using similar words. Like I said, can we say hypocrite. LOL LOL LOL Its too easy mocking you kooks.

Anonymous said...

My friend "John K" again shows his stripes with his comment about Vince Foster.

2 Bullets?

Who ever said anything about 2 bullets?

Starr Report
concluded it was a suicide.

So unless you're going to maket he charge that Kenneth Starr was in on the cover-up of Voster's death, you're outa luck, my friend.

Schmuck Shitrock said...

He doesn't care, my anonymous friend. His objective is to disrupt the blog and upset you, as trolls do. Fortunately, he is so bad at it, he amuses us. Unfortunately, he gets us to respond.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Hey shitrock, did you ever buy those carbon credits to offset the energy used on light up night? I have some for sale, cheap. LOL LOL Like I said hypocrites.

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Let me understand liberal logic. I have to "prove" Vince Foster did not commit suicide, but you lefties believe, unconditionally, that Reagan was a rapist? LOL LOL LOL LMAO Oh man this is way too funny. Some wacked out gossip reporter sitting in a bathroom stall prints something without 2nd sourcing it and you lefties accept it without a challenge. No wonder the Clinton's could get rid of Vince Foster and have you left wing kooks believe he committed suicide.

Whigsboy said...

Um, Koward, some reading comprehension would be nice. The point is that "lefties" never talk about this Reagan thing, that there is no left-wing machine to keep such crap alive. The link was to an 8-yr-old article. Meanwhile, Broderick and Foster references still find their way into popular wingnuttia literature, despite having been thoroughly debunked.

Nobody on the left unconditionally believes Reagan was a rapist. In fact, most people on the left today probably don't really think about Reagan at all (unless their talking about massive deficits, that is), unlike wingnuts such as you, who cream their Flintstones underoos in their sleep while dreaming about his wrinkly, tanned face.

Anonymous said...

I enjoyed your post. I have been wondering about this topic,so thanks for posting. I’ll likely be coming back to your blog. Keep up great writing.
blog directory,blog directory,Dir Site,Dir id Site,add blog,blog link,submit url,blog indo,blog directory,add blog,add dir,add site,Blog exchange,submit url,link exchange blog,
link blog,tukeran link
,link swap,linkpartner,link blog,
submit blog,blog danz