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 (36048)	2/26/1999 3:40:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Your fear is unfounded. If you don't agree, perhaps you should find someone strong to protect you.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (36048)	2/26/1999 4:41:00 PM
From: Kilgore Trout	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Clinton supporters -- please respond. I'm fairly new to this board, so I don't know if the following has been discussed. I think the statement issued by the White House in response to the Broaddrick allegation is very insightful. The WH stated that "any allegation that Clinton assaulted Broaddrick is absolutely false." What really stands out is that they only deny the assault, but not the encounter. Clinton has been absolutely shameless in claiming that unless he explicitly denies such an allegation, he has not actually denied it. Without explicitly denying an encounter, the WH has basically admitted to it. (Of course, with his record of lying, even an explicit denial carries little weight). This makes the already credible Broaddrick even more credible. The remaining question is, did he rape her. We have a corroborated account of an injured face and ripped panty hose. This story existed before Clinton earned a reputation for proclivity. I think this story is too credible to dismiss. I can not understand how anyone can defend this man. Do you dismiss this story, or do you think it is ok that he is most likely a rapist?