CBS Exposes Hillary's Lies...No, wait, she misspoke!

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by lBugsy

My daughter lives in Minnesota and says that Jesse was the best thing that ever happened to them. He took the state from running in the defecit to breaking even. He had the highest approval rating of any governer that state has ever had.
She would vote for him "in a heartbeat"!
I dunno...seems it would be odd to have a "rasler" as our president.
I guess stranger things have happened....look at our city commission.

We have had an actor as a president (RR) We have had a womanizer, liar and a rapist as president (Clinton) and Arnold as the Govahnator....so why not Jesse the Body.

[jeezeweeze]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

We have had an actor as a president (RR) We have had a womanizer, liar and a rapist as president (Clinton) and Arnold as the Govahnator....so why not Jesse the Body.

Rapist ??? Did I miss a news report ?

I also say " WHY NOT JESSE"

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by jeezeweeze

Rapist ??? Did I miss a news report ? "

Probably at least one...



ABC Memo Details Clinton Rape Charges

Special to Insider Cover/ Christopher Ruddy

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.

Call me if any of this isn't clear. I've put down some links to a couple helpful documents: Broaddrick's affidavit

Yoakum's Letter

End of Isham Memo

Additional details of the Broaddrick material may be read in NewsMax.com's Carl Limbacher reports:

Congresswoman: Rape Allegation to Surface at Clinton Senate Trial December 22, 1998.

The Clinton Rape-Charge Cover-Up October 2, 1998.

Clinton and Women: Up to Seven May Have Been Assaulted October 26, 1998.

[jeezeweeze]

Oh kay

It was when he was Arkansas Attorney General... evidently his salary in Ark wasn't enough to pay for call girls..........LOL

I hate it when that happens...

[Highwayman]

She was with Broaddrick before and after the incident and said that she was in "quite bad shape after."

“You better put some ice on that.”

[Bubba]

But, until he is charged and convicted he is NOT a rapist. He may be an alleged rapist. This is still America and you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

[88-31-10]

Originally Posted by Bubba

But, until he is charged and convicted he is NOT a rapist. He may be an alleged rapist. This is still America and you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

EXACTLY! Good post!

The article is full of "may haves", etc.
Wouldn't put much srock in it. Not unless I was out
to bad mouth someone, etc.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by Bubba

But, until he is charged and convicted he is NOT a rapist. He may be an alleged rapist. This is still America and you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

And so many people still believe OJ is guilty.

[88-31-10]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

And so many people still believe OJ is guilty.

That would make him an alledged murderer. Right?

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by 88-31-10

That would make him an alledged murderer. Right?

Well, no. OJ was tried and acquitted so he can’t be alleged anymore. He’s off the hook.

Bill on the other hand hasn’t been vindicated.