Information on Rapegate: http://38.201.154.103/insidecover.shtml

NBC Anchor on Rapegate: I've Recused Myself

-- Rick (concerned@america.com), February 10, 1999

Answers

Quite a stretch to make this on-topic.

E.

-- E. Coli (nunayo@beeswax.com), February 10, 1999.

E. Coli, Your wrong this time. Not oftin...but yes this time.

-- (6bvasfb@kjvs.gmu), February 10, 1999.

E, I agree. Rick, please spell out the connection between this article and Y2K--in 20 words or less.

-- Confused Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 10, 1999.

In fairness to Rick, this is eminently on topic, Klinton is ultimately the Commander In Chief - he can control how y2k is played out regardinf the alphabet agencies.

The more we know about this man the better IMHO - and what I've discovered so far is sickening.

"Although the White House has successfully intimidated NBC News into deep sixing an explosive interview with an Arkansas woman who says Bill Clinton raped her 20 years ago, Capitol Hill Blue has confirmed that the charge is but one of many allegations of sexual assault by the President.

A five month investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''

Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas woman who worked on Bill Clinton's campaign when he was attorney general, told NBC's Lisa Meyers two weeks ago she was raped by Clinton. NBC, under intense pressure by the White House, shelved the interview. The White House also threatened Fox News Tuesday after it reported the story.

But Broaddrick's story is only one account of many sexual assaults by Clinton. Among the other incidents:

A 1969 charge by a 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford University campus where the future President was a student. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed this week that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;

In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, who w as a law student at the college. No charges were filed;

In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law professor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him and she left the school shortly after the incident.

Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's attorney general campaign, said he raped her in 1978;

From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor reported seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually.

Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen, told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. She later recanted that interview and said had been threatened by Clinton supporters into claiming the sex was consensual.

Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with a cash payment.

A former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. The woman has since married and left Washington.

Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

In an interview with Capitol Hill Blue this week, the retired State Department employee said he believed the story of the young English woman who said Clinton raped her in 1969.

''There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma,'' he said. ''But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of it.''

Capitol Hill Blue also spoke with the former Washington fundraiser who confirmed the incident, but said she would not go public because anyone who does so is destroyed by the Clinton White House.

''My husband and children deserve better than that,'' she said.

The other encounters were confirmed with more than 30 interviews with retired Arkansas state employees, former state troopers and former Yale and University of Arkansas students. Like others, they refused to go public because of fears of retaliation from the Clinton White House.

Likewise, the mainstream media has shied away from the Broaddrick story. Only The Drudge Report and other Internet news sites have actively pursued it.

The White House did not return calls for comment Tuesday night."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Feb1999/020399/clintonrape020399.htm

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 10, 1999.

Andy,....what can you say? I'm kind of at a loss for words here. They're not going to convict him, he is psychotic, and he will be in charge through the rollover. I think I'm going to be sick now.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), February 10, 1999.

Let's examine this horse just a little more. After all, the 100 million plus dollars spent thus far, the use of the FBI, private investigators and the powers of the legislative and judicial branches of our government just aren't quite enough. So, let's use the power of the media. Yes, the media. That wholesome, upstanding and wholy non-partisan group of people who ALWAYS print the truth.

Do you not think that if any of this was true it would have played out before us in this impeachment process? Do you not believe that every single aspect of that man's life has been investigated over the last few years?

Give me a break.

The reason why this country is toast already is because of the partisan bull that is seen in this thread.

The reason I don't like Bill Clinton is plain and simple. I don't need conspiracy theories or strange sexual behavior to make up my mind.

I want a leader who takes both the good and the bad and doesn't complain. I want a leader that takes charge and takes a stand and accepts the consequences based upon the conviction of their action.

I don't see that in Clinton. It's been a long time since I saw that in a leader, honestly.

At the time when Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address he felt his address was a failure. He felt the weight of history upon his shoulders and faced the fear that his actions would destroy this nation. Regardless, he kept to his conviction. History holds Mr. Lincolns words and actions in high praise.

When was the last time you listened to or read the words of Kennedy or Churchill or Martin Luther King?

That is what I long for.

Holding onto this kind of partisan rumor and inuendo made by anonymous sources is not productive and it has absolutely nothing to do with Y2k other than to show us that the only thing we have to fear is not fear itself but the inability or our government, as a whole, to deal with this problem.

I actually hope that this experience makes Clinton a better man. His legacy is now tarnished with scandal. Perhaps he will try harder than most lame duck presidents to ensure that his legacy will mean more than cigars and a lusty, busty intern.

Regardless, any President of any party would take the extreme action of martial law in a crisis situation where the welfare and lives of the citizens of the U.S. were in question. That is the prudent and responsible thing to do under the circumstances. Just as with Abraham Lincoln, the best motivation for such action is the preservation of the nation, intact.

Mike =======================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 11, 1999.

Hey Mike,

please don't say this is partisan, I'm English, I don't even vote yet, the question is did Clinton commit these rapes? Come on, the guy is constantly in court in sexual charges, it's no secret about his proclivities, political or otherwise.

http://www.sightings.com/political/clintonbodycount.htm

http://www.sightings.com/political/clintonstupid.htm

http://www.sightings.com/politics2/compsellout.htm

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), February 11, 1999.

I'm not fond of Clinton or his friends, either, having worked in a top branch of Arkansas state government in the 70s--and been fired and blacklisted in Little Rock. Try supporting yourself and a young child on THAT sort of record. Want to hear how I lost my house because I couldn't get a job for three months, despite 52 interviews? The 53rd was conducted by a transplanted Scot--and he hired me, thank God. I'm happy to report that the head of the office was indicted not long ago. Anyway, let's stipulate that Clinton and his administration are whitewashing more than Whitewater and they can't be trusted on ANYthing. Those on Clinton's case seem to be taking care of the problem all right. For my part, I don't have enough energy to go after Clinton as well; I need all I've got to prepare for Y2k. I think there are enough direct connections to show Clinton and the administration are screwing up royally over Y2K, tangents about sexual proclivities don't help me. I'm much more interested in who's got Aladdin lamps available, who's got the best bargains on canned veggies this week, and just what can be read between the lines of government and business reports so I can better plan.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), February 11, 1999.

Where's a John Wilkes Booth when you need one?

-- Leo (lchampion@ozemail.com.au), February 11, 1999.

To know a man's character is to know his future.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 11, 1999.

Regardless of which way one feels about the President, pro or con, I believe ANY news about him is very relevant to y2k. Only a fool thinks the President is now scot-free. I really feel the situation in Washington will continue to be potentially very explosive, and could adversely affect little old me. I am therefore keeping one eye on my y2k preparations, and the other eye on the news, ALL of it.

Thanks, Rick for heads -up. It IS relevant. I'm also keeping my ear to the ground, so to speak, and advise others to do the same. Forewarned is forearmed.

-- b (b@b.b), February 11, 1999.

NBC will air the rapegate interview after the impeachment trial is over. Likewise, the Canadian bloodgate victims are holding a press conference in the U.S. Friday Feb 12, TOMORROW. How many other groups out there are sitting on adverse news until the trial ends? I expect to see a rash of bad news reports as soon as the senate trial is over. It might be a good idea to put on your seatbelts, it could be a heck of a ride.

-- b (b@b.b), February 11, 1999.

"Where's a John Wilkes Booth when you need one?"

shocking...

Leo, how much do you know about the assassination of Lincoln? Did you know it was a conspiracy aimed at taking down multiple leaders of different levels and responsibility in the American government? Booth was only one player in the tragedy and three others were hung for their participation in the conspiracy. Their desire was to cripple the government during a period of great turmoil. If you understand history then you understand that it constantly repeats itself. Perhaps you may well get your wish very soon and you should ask yourself if you really want what you wish for.

As an American I would never wish such action be taken upon a leader in your country.

Andy, Leo, I respect you both deeply. Perhaps my use of the word partisan is incorrect and my frustration regarding the situation in D.C. has overwhelmed my good sense. However, the current situation in D.C. is not productive and it is not healthy. Furthermore, neither of you have addressed the issue as to how such an intense investigation into the past of this one man has not brought these issues to light.

When I was a republican I heard stories of George Bush and his "friend" Jennifer Fitzgerald who he "kept" employed at the White House. I also heard stories about Dan Quayle and his use of drugs while in Congress including taking delivery on Capitol Hill. In fact, Amnesty International actually had a prisoner on their list who had claimed to be a dealer to Dan Quayle. He made claims as being such while in custody and he actually was scheduled to do an interview/press briefing. The reason A.I. got involved was because on the day when this was to occur the man was put into solitary confinement without reason. In essence and in the eyes of A.I. he became a political prisoner. He stayed in solitary without reason and I believe eventually beyond his scheduled release date. If you don't believe me you can check out the story with A.I. I'm sure they have records.

I guess my point is that issues, whether true or false, on the periphery of D.C. political life used to remain there.

I still wonder why it is that after so much money and investigative resources have been spent that none of these issues which are listed above have been seen as reliable enough to bring to the impeachment process. Surely, if credible, they would have been brought up numerous times in all of the campaigns and political days in the life of Bill Clinton. Surely, they would have been thought relevant and investigated by the OIC along with the powers of the FBI and brought into the House before the Judiciary Committee.

When I look at Washington I see a feeding frenzy of sharks on both sides of the political spectrum hell bent upon getting the power or keeping the power and the old rules under which the political games were played in the past have been thrown out and rewritten.

There is a deep fear and distrust by many in this forum regarding our government. That is very clear. In fact, I sometimes wonder if one of the reasons many quickly become GI's is because of a predisposition to such feelings. I hold myself within that group.

However, I made this statement earlier;

"Regardless, any President of any party would take the extreme action of martial law in a crisis situation where the welfare and lives of the citizens of the U.S. were in question. That is the prudent and responsible thing to do under the circumstances. Just as with Abraham Lincoln, the best motivation for such action is the preservation of the nation, intact. "

I'd love to have someone respond to that statement.

Forget about this one man and think about the larger issues which may come into play within the next year or two. If we can't move beyond this soon we may well be doomed by the same kind of shortsightedness that put us here in the first place.

After all, the way to remedy this situation is at the ballot box and not with the trigger finger.

Mike ==================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 11, 1999.

Mike: I think what has people concerned is the prospect of Bill Clinton presiding when martial law is declared. Andy Griffith of Mayberry he's not. He has proven himself to be a pathological liar, someone who is willing to misuse the FBI for political purposes, intimidate potential witnesses in legal proceedings, who fired all Federal Prosecutors in the Justice Department when he took over, who sacked William Webster as FBI head, an unprecedented action, and who has extremely close ties to Dan Lasater, the cocaine kingpin of Arkansas. I find it hard to imagine that he will suddenly be imbued with morality and goodness when a condition of martial law prevails. That is why people are circumspect. A military dictatorship with Bill Clinton in charge has all the makings of a nightmare! And the military is obviously preparing its troops for operations stateside: the landing last week in Calif., the operation this Monday in Texas, the exercise planned in Louisiana with 5,000 troops. They are getting ready, and Clinton is Commander-in-Chief. There is the old Machiavellian adage: if you strike at a prince, make sure you kill him. This is born out in today's New York Times article about 'Clinton declaring war on the Republicans.'

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), February 11, 1999.

Leo,

while I must disagree with portions of Mike's response to you - personally I'm more concerned with the maintenance of liberty in the relatively free states than in maintaining union with the socialist portions of the country (i.e. MA, NYC, MD, DC, etc) - I have to say that the *last* thing we want is for someone to off billy jeff - algore has demonstrated far less concern for the civil rights of individual citizens than even the prez, and his response would almost certainly be some variant of what Spidey describes.

casualties would be very high and there are a lot of folks who are still preparing. If the current legislature lacks the moral strength to throw him out, then it's better to have a weak billy jeff - as a living example to conservatives everywhere that this is no longer a government, or a country, which represents our values, or holds to our standards.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 11, 1999.

Arlin,

This really is not a flame, but a serious question.

You said "algore has demonstrated far less concern for the civil rights of individual citizens than even the prez."

When has the prez shown *any* concern for the civil rights of individual citizens in any meaningful way?

I'm thinking back to an old discussion when I was in Seminary 30 yrs ago (didn't finish for economic reasons). The discussion dealt with the philosophy (and it's faluts) of trying to work for the "good of mankind" while ignoring the individual man in front of you. Or worse, sacrificing the good of the individual for the etherial "good of mankind".

The only think I've seen coming out of DC is a lot closer to the addage that those who rob Peter to pay Paul can *always* depend on the support of Pual.

-- Greybear

- Got foucus?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 11, 1999.

A military dictatorship with Bill Clinton in charge has all the makings of a nightmare.

Puleeze. You forget that Clinton is a dope smoking draft dodger. Eight years in the white house could not begin to train him in the art of military leadership; only the military can do that kind of training. He knows nothing about organizing troops. I would even go so far as to say he probably doesnt know the mission of the military branches to any level of detail. He wouldn't know how to use what or which for any of his objectives. Clinton may be an intelligent man who is also vindictive but he would spend most of his time chasing the female officer and enlisted tail.

I know that a lot of you believe in this dictatorship coming. Our government makeup wouldnt allow it, too much discontinuity, checks and balances. Too many things need to fall into place and Clinton is running out of time. When's he's out of office, he will have lost the momentum (if it were there to start). People will forget about this little piss-ant and he won't have Hillary to push him. She'll divorce him in a heartbeat.

-- Little Rock (more@tocome.com), February 11, 1999.

"Regardless, any President of any party would take the extreme action of martial law in a crisis situation where the welfare and lives of the citizens of the U.S. were in question. That is the prudent and responsible thing to do under the circumstances. Just as with Abraham Lincoln, the best motivation for such action is the preservation of the nation, intact. "

Again... would Dole, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford or ANY other president throughout history act differently when faced with a crisis so severe it would cripple and perhaps destroy the nation? If the contention is that there is an effort behind the scenes to maintain the union while in turmoil then my belief is yes, any president would do this.

Can anyone present a clear, concise and coherent argument that this would not be the case?

Clinton is the President. He was elected twice. He is the most investigated president in our history. It's obvious he isn't going anywhere and calling him "billy jeff" isn't changing that.

When I read stuff like,

"personally I'm more concerned with the maintenance of liberty in the relatively free states than in maintaining union with the socialist portions of the country (i.e. MA, NYC, MD, DC, etc)"

I have to wonder if this nation isn't gone already.

Maybe the divide is so great that it can't be brought back together. I have to ask myself if one man can do this. If this one man, elected twice, can create this kind of divide. We change leadership every four years. What is the problem? Is the hatred so great that waiting for the freedom of an election to change this leadership is just not good enough?

"socialist portions of the country (i.e. MA, NYC, MD, DC, etc)" and "billy jeff".

So much for union. So much for democracy. So much for liberty. So much for the ideals set forth in the Bill of Rights.

Maybe in some minds we never really did get past the Civil War.

Mike ==================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 11, 1999.

Just to add to my perspective of Martial Law under ANY president.

I fear it.

I don't care who that person is or what their party affiliation is.

I fear it.

Regarding the President as Commander in Chief of the Military. These are powers granted to the President by the Constitution. The framers of that document specifically made the Commander in Chief a non-military position. That is known as seperation of powers. That is precisely why it is impossible for the fear of a military dictatorship to exist in this country. It is not part of the American experience. It would not be tolerated. The examples given in this thread, no matter how much I may disagree with them, are the reasons why this cannot happen here.

People would revolt.

People would rebel.

It's in our nature.

It's what we are taught.

I would be one of them.

Mike ===============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 11, 1999.

Michael,

>People would revolt. < I hope you are right, but I don't think so.

>People would rebel. < ditto

>It's in our nature. < Maybe so other era. Not this one.

>It's what we are taught. < Where? I mean today. Where is this taught today.

I'm just not able to see our society in the same light you do. I'm glad to hear that you'd be one of them. I just don't think there are enough of 'em for it to work.

I don't think those in power are foolish. They will not anger the masses withtout scaring them with something worse. The effects of Y2K just might be the something worse for which the masses will BEG relief in any form - martial law included.

Question: have you ever had a loaded gun pointed at you in anger?

This is a serious question, not a put down.

-- Greybear

- Got rights?

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 11, 1999.

I agree Mike that "The framers ...made the Commander in Chief a non- military position". But all those framers had military experience and probably didn't contemplate the possibilty that a future president would possess absolutely no military experience. The first time I saw him salute I wanted to puke. What an insult!

-- Little Rock (more@tocome.com), February 11, 1999.

Greybear - my point precisely - I haven't seen anything from the prez which would indicate that he considers the rights of the individual, any individual, to be more important than the desires of the bureaucrats...and I've seen even less evidence from algore.

Mike - I'm sorry my friend, but this country has been becoming ever more deeply divided for at least the last quarter of a century. I see no sense of union, or even commonality of belief systems in this country any more. Certainly the current federal administration, as characterized by the executive branch of government holds virtually nothing in common most conservatives and libertarians of all stripes and hues.

Quite frankly right now those of us who believe in liberty are by and large stalling for time in order to get our ducks in order as much as we can. Personally, my hope is that y2k will simply nullify the majority of the fedgov's power, reducing it to pre-1930 levels and moving the real authority back to the states...then the socialists can live as they wish, and the rest of us can live as we wish...the only other long term solution really doesn't look like it would be any fun at all...least of all for the losers.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), February 12, 1999.

Arlin,

It hasn't been all that much fun for the loosers from the last time. Now the infection has spread nation wide.

-- Greybear

- The only thing worse than a rattlesnake without the rattle is a dam yankee with a match.

-- Greybear (greybear@home.com), February 12, 1999.

Arlin - thanks. Your words actually show me that we aren't far apart in our beliefs and that only gives me hope that the union will remain intact.

Greybear -

"Question: have you ever had a loaded gun pointed at you in anger?"

Great question.

The answer is no. I haven't had a gun pointed at me in anger. I have, however, had a large hunting knife held at my throat by an angry someone else and I was beaten badly as a 10 year old boy by a gang of about 12 thugs.

Actually, I was raised around guns and taught never to point a gun at anyone in "anger". I was raised to never point a gun at anyone period UNLESS you meant to kill them. My father taught me that. He spent the majority of his life in the military. He was a first generation American having been born overseas in the Philipines who faught against the occupation of that country from within as a rebel in the resistance. He came from a well known, very wealthy Spanish family and there is a military camp named after his family that still remains there. At 12 to 14, my father worked against the Japanese as a spy for the resistance gathering information as a house boy. My (adopted) grandfather had served during WWI and decided to remain when he met my grandmother. He spent hellish years in a prison camp during WWII and he never fully recovered. Until his death he slept in a cot with a footlocker at the foot of his bed. My father, my grandmother and my very young aunt and uncle managed to escape the island by floating down a raft on a garage door raft having lost almost everything they owned. During the trip my aunt took a sniper round to her thigh which she carries there to this day. She was only about two at the time.

What's my point here?

I made the personal decision that based upon my years of experience with firearms I would not ever hesitate when and if I ever needed to point my weapon at anyone to protect my family. It's a choice you have to make before you are ever faced with the situation. Based upon the stories my father told of seeing family members and friends taken from their homes and beheaded in front of him I can honestly say I would never hesitate to fight and protect my country as well.

Even so, I can see by my writing that I look at this possibility through the vision my father instilled in me. He died 23 years ago when I was 13 and he was 48. I can see now that my view regarding these issues is skewed because of my the teachings of my father.

So, Greybear, I see your point. I suppose I'll just have to hold on to hope and faith and be ready to lead when and if that necessity comes to be.

Mike ===================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 12, 1999.