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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (35833)	2/25/1999 8:30:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Fear of Clinton doesn't wash? Tell it to Billy Dale, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Liz Gracen, Dolly Kyle Browning, etc., etc. But for the blue dress I'd be adding Monica Lewinski to the list. JLA

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (35833)	2/25/1999 9:40:00 PM
From: JBL	Respond to of 67261

<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.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (35833)	2/25/1999 9:49:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 67261

>1) Keep silent< She could not do it. The thing was becoming a bigger monster than it already was, and were she to have left it alone Clinton would have spun it against her and her husband, using the false affidavit to bolster whatever story he wanted to float. If this would not happen then the rumor mill would have put its own story in history. Neither option was acceptable. >2) come out and obtain the backing of the PJ brigade,< And be associated with “trailer trash” Jones? Broaddrick has early on claimed she did not want this. She did not want to get involved with the Jones case and the politicking involved thereabout. She would have instantly been dismissed as a rightwing pawn. I would imagine that ideologically this was distasteful to her, but also she likely rejected it as a matter of common sense. It simply would have been counterproductive, to say the least, to be involved in the media circus she desperately wanted to avoid. >3) sign the affidavit and align herself with Clinton. She chose #3 - why?< Because at the time it promised to protect her from the spin machine of Bill Clinton as well as extricate her from the threat of becoming a witness in the Jones/Lewinsky matter. It promised to give her everything she wanted—peace. Of course, as is everything that comes from Bill Clinton, it was a false promise. To get into Broaddrick's mind we must become her, a rape victim in Arkansas, a victim of a man who became the most power figure in the world. We must learn what she valued, what she stood to gain by each action and what she stood to lose by each potential event. We must try to ascertain her fears and motives. Given her circumstances, number 3 is the most logical option, particularly in that it came no doubt with implicit threats from Sid Vicious.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (35833)	2/26/1999 2:35:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

It was A1 in the Washington Post. My impression is that only the WSJ had it in a column... Whether or not they are true, the rumors about Clinton having unsavory connections that "get" people for him have floated around Arkansas for quite awhile. What if she believed them?...She lived in Arkansas (Paula had moved to California) and had substantial business interests. I don't find it mysterious that she chose #3... I give you credit for admitting that she is credible though...