Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (142723)	2/18/2002 12:39:40 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575798

The story: uspolitics.about.com. Well, that's enough for now. You may want to pay particular attention to discussions surrounding the credibility of the story -- because NO ONE who saw this interview could and paid attention could have concluded that Clinton was anything other than a rapist. Thank you for the links. This is first time I have heard of J. Brodderick and it certainly is an interesting revelation but I am not sure what to make of it. The story itself sounds fairly real until you place it against the backdrop of how it has unfolded over the past 25 years. I mean first off are we to believe at 35 and while having an extramarital affair, she was naive to the implications of having a man in her room to drink coffee. Secondly, she had a bruise on her mouth which indicates that Clinton has a weird or very passionate kissing technique, but it doesn't suggest that she was forced. She explained why she did not scream [because it happened so fast] but why were there no restraining bruises? Finally, I don't understand why in 1998 she did not reveal her story but instead lied under oath. Then a year later in 1999, she decides to come forward and to tell the true story. What changed in that year? Finally, I am perplexed by the fact that Starr acknowledged the incident but did not take it any further and the FBI's labeling it inconclusive. It sounds from both actions [Starr's and the FBI's] that some details didn't add up to both Starr and the FBI. I can understand that this story is upsetting to you, it is to me certainly but frankly, I could not call Clinton a rapist based on what I have read........a major womaniser but not a rapist. And before you come screaming back to me that I am a no good liberal, I take the accusation of rape and/or sexual harassment in general very seriously. I will not make the accusation unless the facts are conclusive. Ms. Bradderick's history and story do not fit the bill for me.