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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (59817)	5/3/2006 11:36:08 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Your blog source is responding to an article written by someone named David Neiwert who criticizes the Broaddrick complaint. Your source points out some flaws in David’s criticism. "The charges didn’t “gradually evaporate” - they simply had nowhere to go. From her first interview, it was clear that Broaddrick’s story could not be proven or disproven, and it was years too late for a trial. That’s where Broaddrick’s story stood in 1999, and that’s where it stands now. Nevertheless, Broaddrick’s claim is stronger than David’s account admits. NBC interviewed several people who saw Broaddrick’s facial bruises in 1977, and who remember Broaddrick telling them that Clinton (who was at the time the Attorney General of Arkansas) had raped her. And NBC’s investigation was able to verify several other aspects of Broaddrick’s story. It is true that Broaddrick had filed an affidavit denying any sexual contact with Clinton; what David doesn’t mention is that she filed the affidavit to avoid being used as a weapon against Clinton by Paula Jones’ lawyers. Under the circumstances, I think it’s perfectly understandable that Broaddrick chose not to cooperate with Jones’ lawyers, and that hardly proves that she’s “not a reliable witness” in general. (And if having told a lie once - even in understandable circumstances - does make one permanently unreliable as a witness, then why is David so willing to take Bill Clinton’s word?) As for Broaddrick’s “profit motive,” I have no idea what David’s referring to - and since David doesn’t provide any links or evidence to support his claim, I can’t take it seriously.