<1) this story is always on the
editorial page, vs. the news page on every publication including the WSJ >
So long as the facts of a story are true, and correctly reported, I do not see the presentation of that story in a newspaper as relevant to how those facts should be analyzed. If irrefutable, the facts are what they are, and will remain the same. Now, all newspapers know very well that how a story is reported has tremendous impact on how it is perceived. And you can ask yourself why some newspaper report stories the way they do.
< 2)
personally I would never sign an untruthful affidavit regarding a felony. The "fear of
Clinton" defense doesn't really wash here, because Paula Jones equally funded
backers are ready and willing to defend any Clinton basher. So her choices were 1)
Keep silent, 2) come out and obtain the backing of the PJ brigade, 3) sign the
affidavit and align herself with Clinton. She chose #3 - why?>
After hearing and reading about this woman, her personal situation, the circumstance of the story, and knowing what you know about how she thinks, imagine that you are Juanita Broaddrick, not you any more. And ask yourself, what you would have done. If she sounds credible to you, that's because your mind has already gone through this process, and you've decided that she indeed is likely to have reacted this way.
Among the some of the reasons I can think of that may have gone through her mind when she decided to sign this affidavit : 1. not to be dragged in the trial and to protect her life from further intrusion from the press, 2. not to relive the rape, 3. knowing her credibility would be questioned and that she would be attacked by people who did not believe her. |
