Quote:
Originally Posted by SEC_Chick
Well, Juanita Broaddrick was the allegation of rape, which Sidd seems to think gives Hillary the right to say and do whatever in defending her husband. I brought up the additional incidents to demonstrate that with respect to less serious allegations, Hillary pulled out all the stops in discrediting those accusers, even the ones who were later proved to have made truthful allegations that were admitted by Bill under oath.
To me, if my husband had already been a proved liar and serial philanderer, and settled a sexual harassment charge for a large sum of money, I don't think I would be as certain as Sidd seems to be that all of the allegations made, including that of sexual assault or rape, are categorically false. Bill should have the right and procedural protections to defend himself, but the accuser deserves her day in court as well. Discrediting honest women as sluts and floozies and stalkers certainly can cause one to question the veracity of all of the other denials.
|
Yeah, I don't think that either of the Clintons are what normal people would describe as "good." The fact that all of this stuff surfaced as a result of a billionaire spending a couple of million dollars (a/k/a "the Arkansas Project") doesn't change anything, I suppose, other than to note that a few of his accusers seemed perfectly happy with him until Mr. Scaife's cash started swirling around.
The tactics used by the Clintonistas used are unfortunately the standard playbook for discrediting of the female accusers of a powerful man. Anita Hill was "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty" per Clarence Thomas' team. Elliot Spitzer tried to do the same initially. General Petreaus managed to do that to Paula Broadwell and did such a good job that he's back giving advice to Obama (and no one on the right talks much about his very real email issues). I even seem to recall Anthony Weiner trying that approach initially.
