Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

WikiLeaks: Team Hillary Discussed Ways to Refute Juanita Broaddrick’s Rape Claim

WikiLeaks: Team Hillary Discussed Ways to Refute Juanita Broaddrick’s Rape Claim

Some women, it seems, don’t deserve to be believed

WikiLeaks’ release of the Podesta emails includes exchanges among Team Hillary on two matters related to her and Bill Clinton’s shady past when it comes to women.  In December, 2015 they shared the reaction to Hillary’s bizarre statement that victims of rape and sexual assault “deserve to be believed,” and in January, 2016, they discussed how to deflect or discredit Juanita Broaddrick’s claim that even after nearly 40 years she is still haunted by her alleged rape by Bill Clinton.

In an email chain entitled “FYI,” Team Hillary alerts its members to the fall-out from Hillary’s ridiculously idiotic (given her and husband’s history) statement about women being believed, a credo she and Bill have never lived by.

This all seems to have started with a tweet from Jennifer Epstein, a “reporter” who covers Hillary Clinton for Bloomberg. The tweet itself appears to have been deleted; however, the internet being the internet, it is cached.

jennifer-epstein-tweet-about-hillary-believing-rape-victims

This claim was followed up by Jake Tapper tweeting about a woman at a Hillary rally who asked about Bill Clinton’s alleged rape victims.

From the emails:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10461https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10461

A month later, in January of this year, Juanita Broaddrick tweeted:

Team Hillary then discussed what to do in order to minimize the damage of Broaddrick’s tweet, especially as it came so soon on the heels of Hillary’s statement about women who claim to have been raped or sexually abused being believed.

CNN reports:

After Juanita Broaddrick tweeted in January that former President Bill Clinton raped her, Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, held a call to talk about the case and evidence that could be used to refute the allegations, according to hacked emails released by WikiLeaks.

The hacked email, entitled “History of Juanita Broaddrick Allegations,” contained several attachments.

The hacked email sent to Podesta from Kendall included a 1998 affidavit signed by Broaddrick. The document states: “During the 1992 presidential campaign, there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies” and goes on to say: “I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family’s privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.”

This affidavit was part of the lawsuit filed by Paula Jones against Bill Clinton for sexual harassment. She was subpoenaed in that case.

Kendall noted to Podesta in January of this year that Broaddrick also testified in a deposition in January 1998 reaffirming the contents of the affidavit

In April 1998, however, she told investigators from Independent Counsel Ken Starr’s office that the affidavit was false, said Kendall, who sent part of Starr’s report to Podesta.

“Starr was seeking more evidence against the president, any way he could, and he immunized Broaddrick to protect her from any prosecution for perjury if she now changed her story. Voila! She did, disavowing her sworn affidavit and sworn deposition testimony,” wrote Kendall in the email.

Also attached to the email was a NBC News story from 1999 recounting a statement Kendall made saying “any allegation that the president assaulted Mrs. Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is false.”

Kendall ended the email, saying, “Please let me know if there’s anything else I can provide about this slimefest.”

CNN’s report leaves out some interesting details, like the fact that Juanita Broaddrick was referred to in legal documents as “Jane Doe #5.”

From the emails:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10275

Meanwhile, the New York Times is worried that poor Hillary can’t join in the fun of the furor over allegations of Trump’s sexual impropriety because of her own—and her husband’s—sordid past.

The NYT opines:

In the past week, as a swirl of sexual assault accusations against Donald J. Trump has prompted a loud national discussion about male power and women’s rights, the first woman to be a major party’s presidential nominee was barely heard from.

Though Hillary Clinton has stood at the center of feminist debates for more than two decades, she has at times been an imperfect messenger for the cause. That has never been more apparent than now, as her old missteps and her husband’s history have effectively paralyzed her during a moment of widespread outrage.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Yep.

Just like team-Der Donald has gone after anyone making a sexual misconduct allegation against Da Pig.

It’s what they do. It’s vile, corrupt and often based in lies, but it’s what they do.

I see what you did there Rags. When it comes to HRC and all the scandals ans dirt thats been swirling around the Clinton’s for decades it’s the old “they are all the same” meme.

No actual condemnation of HRC because she and Trump, in your opinion are the same. HRC harasses rape victims and to you that’s OK because Trump doesn’t do the decent Republican thing and instead of rolling over like a good puppy dog pushes back against the claims that are just oh so conveniently coming out 3 weeks before the election.

    Ragspierre in reply to mailman. | October 16, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    You’re a lying liar who lies.

    “It’s vile, corrupt and often based in lies, but it’s what they do.”

    Plus, you’re illiterate.

      snopercod in reply to Ragspierre. | October 16, 2016 at 5:49 pm

      Gee, the sun is barely over the yardarm and you’re making personal attacks already. Usually you wait until you’re good and drunk before you get foul-mouthed and abusive. Are you upset about something?

        Ragspierre in reply to snopercod. | October 16, 2016 at 5:54 pm

        Self parody much?

        It isn’t “foul mouthed” OR a “personal attack” to note that someone is lying.

        It certainly IS a personal attack to assert someone is drunk.

    The problem here, mailman, is that people who support Hillary make the same argument that she and Bill are just pushing back against lies. defending themselves against accusations fostered by a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” etc. In case you don’t recognize it, that’s the same claim Trump is making in saying that there are “global forces” against him, that the election is rigged, that the media is against him, SNL is part of a sinister plot to “steal the election,” and etc. He’s pointing to a vast conspiracy, and it’s just as laughable when he says it as it is when Hillary says it.

    I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but the tactic in response to allegations of sexual misconduct is the same: for the Hillary camp it’s always been “make the women into ‘nuts or sluts'” while blaming the leaks on Russia (look! Squirrel), and for Trump it’s “they’re too ugly to sexually assault, plus! I’d never commit sexual assault on someone who had a suit filed against me.” Or whatever. Oh! And let’s have Hillary pee in cup before the next debate (that’s his “Look! Squirrel!,” by the way, should you not recognize it as what it is). In both cases, though, they are trying to discredit the alleged victims and to distract attention to keep themselves “clean.”

    And in both cases, it fails . . . except with their die-hard, believe anything core supporters.

      Big difference when its the democrat propaganda machine (the mfm) doing the pushing back for you. Trump could only DREAM of such support. Imagine if the mfm had applied just 1% of the “journalistic integrity” they show for Clinton when ever he is accused of rape and she is accused of harassing her husbands victims…why we most likely WOULDNT even have a story today…then again, given the stories of Trump were actively worked on between the Clinton campaign AND the mfm…well…enough said.

        I definitely don’t disagree, mailman, that the media is all-in for Hillary. They don’t even try to hide it anymore.

        It’s just interesting to browse through comments from when the media was all-in for Trump during the primaries. That didn’t seem so bad, I guess. But then, now it’s clear to everyone what we have said all along: the LSM were all-in for Trump ONLY to help Hillary. He was the only candidate she could actually beat, so the media coddled and pushed him, and I don’t recall anyone being the slightest bit upset about the favoritism the media showed Trump over the other 16 GOP presidential candidates.

Sums up HRC nicely. Well done Rags 🙂

Megyn Kelley completely rewrote the Broaddrick history in order to clear Clinton. Completely ignoring the grant of immunity that finally revealed the truth. It would all be confusing, except to the millions who were alive at the time and learned the truth on NBC of all places.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend