"You have a right to be believed"-The Clinton Women

[HuskerNation1]

While not much has been made thus far of the many women Bill has had over the years, whether it was consensual or forced, I do see these women becoming more vocal in the last 75 days of the election. It's one thing for Bill to have the fling with Monica in which they both wanted it. But for those women that did not want to accept Bill's advances, including Juanita Broaddrick, it's alarming that the press has spent little time on this topic.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430081/she-threatened-me-juanita-broaddrick-hillarys-role-covering-bill-clinton

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-rape-accuser-criticizes-hillary/article/2579769

 

 

Now before all you Hillary sympathizers claiming this is a right-wing conspiracy and has nothing to do with the 2016 race, the reason it's going to be an issue is that Hillary played a role in trying to silence these women. Both Clintons claim to represent empowering women, but their actions do not align with those words. Just today Hillary had the words that women "have a right to be heard" off her website after Broaddrick brought attention to it.

 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/291434-clinton-made-edits-to-campus-sexual-assault-page-after

 

Many of these women have conveyed that Hillary played a role in trying to silence them through blackmail or find other ways to discredit them.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-haunted-by-efforts-to-destroy-bill/

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/01/flashback-hillary-clinton-threatened-bills-accusers-in-1998/

 

And here is a direct threat/intimidation tactic straight from Hillary in 1998 regarding some of Bill's accusers.

 

“I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.”

[Danny Bateman]

The media hasn't spent a ton of time on this not because they're protecting Hillary or Bill, but because this played out many years ago in a very public way. There's only so much you can beat that dead horse, and I don't think it would be very good for ratings, particularly when Trump just gushes other things to cover that ARE good for ratings.

 

Trump can TRY to force the issue, like many of his supporters have called on him to do during the course of the campaign. But then again, Donald Trump would just be devolving into ad hominem attacks instead of talking about issues. And I think Clinton would likely take the high road, point that out, and ignore him thereafter.

 

Some of the stories about the approach she took to these women and their situations are pretty cringe-worthy and perhaps despicable. But I don't know many people who would turn the other cheek in that situation.

[QMany]

I don't know if Donald will throw stones within his brittle glass house.

 

Who am I kidding? Yes he will.

[HuskerNation1]

The media hasn't spent a ton of time on this not because they're protecting Hillary or Bill, but because this played out many years ago in a very public way. There's only so much you can beat that dead horse, and I don't think it would be very good for ratings, particularly when Trump just gushes other things to cover that ARE good for ratings.

 

Trump can TRY to force the issue, like many of his supporters have called on him to do during the course of the campaign. But then again, Donald Trump would just be devolving into ad hominem attacks instead of talking about issues. And I think Clinton would likely take the high road, point that out, and ignore him thereafter.

 

Some of the stories about the approach she took to these women and their situations are pretty cringe-worthy and perhaps despicable. But I don't know many people who would turn the other cheek in that situation.

 

I would agree that the Monica issue and Paula Jones got more coverage, but not Willey, Broaddrick and others. Also, Hillary's role in silencing the women was not covered as well. It's easy to dismiss it as old news, but when you have been victimized it never leaves you as Broaddrick noted. Also, I think in this day and age there is more awareness around abuse victims, whether its Bill Cosby's women or NFL stars beating their women. Maybe this will continue to be swept under the rug and not receive coverage, but I have a feeling these women that were victimized by the Clintons will not go down quietly.

[Landlord]

A) Anything coming from Fox News has about a 50/50 chance of literally being a right wing conspiracy theory. That's their entire business model

 

 

B) You can truthfully believe in a general statement, ie, "women have the right to be heard", while having a different posture towards specific instances. Hypothetically, if the Clinton's weren't trying to cover this up but were trying to protect themselves from wrongful defamation, there is no hypocrisy to fight against the bogus claims of some individual women while still being a champion for women in general. Same as I can be a Husker fan but not support Lawrence Phillips.

 

 

C) I don't have much knowledge about these past alleged incidents so I have no opinion on their validity or not.

[huskerfan2000]

The media hasn't spent a ton of time on this not because they're protecting Hillary or Bill, but because this played out many years ago in a very public way. There's only so much you can beat that dead horse, and I don't think it would be very good for ratings, particularly when Trump just gushes other things to cover that ARE good for ratings.

 

Trump can TRY to force the issue, like many of his supporters have called on him to do during the course of the campaign. But then again, Donald Trump would just be devolving into ad hominem attacks instead of talking about issues. And I think Clinton would likely take the high road, point that out, and ignore him thereafter.

 

Some of the stories about the approach she took to these women and their situations are pretty cringe-worthy and perhaps despicable. But I don't know many people who would turn the other cheek in that situation.

 

 

It did? I don't seem to remember hearing about them.

[NM11046]

 

The media hasn't spent a ton of time on this not because they're protecting Hillary or Bill, but because this played out many years ago in a very public way. There's only so much you can beat that dead horse, and I don't think it would be very good for ratings, particularly when Trump just gushes other things to cover that ARE good for ratings.

 

Trump can TRY to force the issue, like many of his supporters have called on him to do during the course of the campaign. But then again, Donald Trump would just be devolving into ad hominem attacks instead of talking about issues. And I think Clinton would likely take the high road, point that out, and ignore him thereafter.

 

Some of the stories about the approach she took to these women and their situations are pretty cringe-worthy and perhaps despicable. But I don't know many people who would turn the other cheek in that situation.

 

 

It did? I don't seem to remember hearing about them.

 

Then that's a matter of you not being dialed in, not that it wasn't out there. The actual incident supposedly happened in 1978, and she did an interview in 98' I think that was when it got a lot of press.

[huskerfan2000]

nm

[Count 'Bility]

Id prefer if both knuckleheads focus on sh#t that actually matters. k?thnx.by.

[Danny Bateman]

 

The media hasn't spent a ton of time on this not because they're protecting Hillary or Bill, but because this played out many years ago in a very public way. There's only so much you can beat that dead horse, and I don't think it would be very good for ratings, particularly when Trump just gushes other things to cover that ARE good for ratings.

 

Trump can TRY to force the issue, like many of his supporters have called on him to do during the course of the campaign. But then again, Donald Trump would just be devolving into ad hominem attacks instead of talking about issues. And I think Clinton would likely take the high road, point that out, and ignore him thereafter.

 

Some of the stories about the approach she took to these women and their situations are pretty cringe-worthy and perhaps despicable. But I don't know many people who would turn the other cheek in that situation.

 

I would agree that the Monica issue and Paula Jones got more coverage, but not Willey, Broaddrick and others. Also, Hillary's role in silencing the women was not covered as well. It's easy to dismiss it as old news, but when you have been victimized it never leaves you as Broaddrick noted. Also, I think in this day and age there is more awareness around abuse victims, whether its Bill Cosby's women or NFL stars beating their women. Maybe this will continue to be swept under the rug and not receive coverage, but I have a feeling these women that were victimized by the Clintons will not go down quietly.

 

 

I mean, if Trump wants to go down that road, there's nothing anyone can do about it. I guess I've shifted a bit and I think the media would run with this if Trump forced the issue. They cover every minute detail about the election, especially the more obnoxious, "I can't believe they said/did that" type things. Sensationalism sells.

 

But again, we'd be bogged down in another situation where he's driving the presidential discourse straight into a ditch. Ad hominem stuff from past personal infidelity does nothing to improve our country. And he himself lives in a glass house on the matter!

 

But we're getting to a point of no return for him. He's trailing so badly that he might as well pull out all the stops and go for broke. Trying to hatchet Clinton, Obama, the electoral process in general, the media... etc, is all he has left. I could see him giving this a shot. I don't think it will help, but we'll see if he goes for it.

[HuskerNation1]

The media hasn't spent a ton of time on this not because they're protecting Hillary or Bill, but because this played out many years ago in a very public way. There's only so much you can beat that dead horse, and I don't think it would be very good for ratings, particularly when Trump just gushes other things to cover that ARE good for ratings.

 

Trump can TRY to force the issue, like many of his supporters have called on him to do during the course of the campaign. But then again, Donald Trump would just be devolving into ad hominem attacks instead of talking about issues. And I think Clinton would likely take the high road, point that out, and ignore him thereafter.

 

Some of the stories about the approach she took to these women and their situations are pretty cringe-worthy and perhaps despicable. But I don't know many people who would turn the other cheek in that situation.

 

 

Just checking in for the first time today, and several points of clarification.

 

1. What prompted the recent press on this topic this past week was not a result of Trump bringing this up, but rather one of the women that Bill raped. She tweeted out Hillary's words "all victims deserved to be believed" and shortly thereafter, Hillary's website removed that language. If that's not an admission of guilt I don't know what is.

 

2. Regarding your 2nd paragraph, both sides are not talking about the issues, and anytime Trump starts to focus on substance Hillary's team is trying to engineer a new media narrative. I don't think you can act like only one side is talking about the issues as Hillary has spent a lot of time (and advertsing money) focused on trashing Trump rather than discussing the issues and how she will handle them. Meanwhile, to date, Trump has spent $0 on advertising (which I think is dumb).

 

3. As I said earlier, the first time these topics were introduced in the 1990s, the focus was on Bill Clinton's role, not Hillary's. Now that she is running for POTUS, these will be viewed through the lens of how she responded, and statements like "sexual assault victims deserve to be believed" rings hollow when she was openly trashing the women Bill exploited.

Just checking in for the first time today, and several points of clarification.

[HuskerNation1]

A) Anything coming from Fox News has about a 50/50 chance of literally being a right wing conspiracy theory. That's their entire business model

 

 

B) You can truthfully believe in a general statement, ie, "women have the right to be heard", while having a different posture towards specific instances. Hypothetically, if the Clinton's weren't trying to cover this up but were trying to protect themselves from wrongful defamation, there is no hypocrisy to fight against the bogus claims of some individual women while still being a champion for women in general. Same as I can be a Husker fan but not support Lawrence Phillips.

 

 

C) I don't have much knowledge about these past alleged incidents so I have no opinion on their validity or not.

 

1. Nice dodge on the first point. Nothing I cited came from Fox News, but that's the typical leftist response anytime there is no real response.

 

2. Regarding your 2nd point, do you really believe that Bill did not do these things? C'mon...if you believe that, you must also believe OJ didn't kill Nicole, and Bill Cosby didn't exploit all his women. Bill and HIllary have both proven they are incapable of telling the truth when their political careers are on the line.

 

Sometimes things are wrong and we just have to accept them without trying to blame "right wing media" or come up with other excuses. I have openly criticized Trump many times for his Muslim ban and other things he has said.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

2. Regarding your 2nd paragraph, both sides are not talking about the issues, and anytime Trump starts to focus on substance

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[BigRedBuster]

I don't think Trump wants to bring up the infidelity crap from their marriage too much because he himself is a slime ball on that issue. If I remember it correctly, he brought it up very briefly right at the end of the primaries and hasn't mentioned it since.

[HuskerNation1]

I don't think Trump wants to bring up the infidelity crap from their marriage too much because he himself is a slime ball on that issue. If I remember it correctly, he brought it up very briefly right at the end of the primaries and hasn't mentioned it since.

 

I actually think it was more strategic as when he did that he was getting off the issues and his poll numbers dropped. If he's smart, he would let the super-pacs bring this topic up (like the swift boats in 2004) and he can just hammer home on the economic and foreign policy failures.