tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post2796269161948429537..comments2024-03-19T06:13:08.345-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Cable channel turns into The Kellyanne Show!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-45586005750612495192016-10-10T18:30:55.072-04:002016-10-10T18:30:55.072-04:00FWIW; http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/09/sworn...FWIW; http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/09/sworn-affidavit-juanita-broaddrick-denies-allegations.htmlgravymeisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16075831177588700301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-84946483117631295092016-10-10T15:34:17.754-04:002016-10-10T15:34:17.754-04:00Such distinctions are beyond this troll's comp...Such distinctions are beyond this troll's comprehension.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-23142620309597738232016-10-10T15:26:06.375-04:002016-10-10T15:26:06.375-04:00Lincoln's public and private opinions on race ...Lincoln's public and private opinions on race also differed. That isn't Spielberg's opinion but a conflict between his public statements and his private letters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-3040276514076028322016-10-10T15:23:26.488-04:002016-10-10T15:23:26.488-04:00If someone refuses to repeat their allegations und...If someone refuses to repeat their allegations under oath (no matter whose investigation), and flatly says the allegations are false and she will deny them, that makes her unreliable.<br /><br />It doesn't make her more believable to call Clinton names like vicious as an excuse for not being willing to testify. It makes it appear she doesn't want to create a record that she can later be sued or prosecuted for. A person accused has the right to get those accusations on the record and to defend himself. Her implication that she wouldn't testify because he was "vicious" and she feared reprisals doesn't explain why she wouldn't testify when offered immunity, nor is there any evidence he or anyone else was going after such women in any way that would inhibit their testimony.<br /><br />Being unwilling to testify in the Jones case isn't different than the Starr investigation. But how does it hurt Clinton that Starr considered her testimony irrelevant?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26211513116511925342016-10-10T14:28:05.892-04:002016-10-10T14:28:05.892-04:00I tend to think that the Clintons have been subjec...I tend to think that the Clintons have been subjected to a lot of BS, but I read the Wikipedia entry as not particularly helpful to Bill Clinton regarding Juanita Broaddrick. It's really much different than Broaddrick refusing to repeat her allegations under oath to the Starr investigators.Jonny Scrum-halfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700652770637696602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-75611094452051734682016-10-10T13:48:36.810-04:002016-10-10T13:48:36.810-04:00That would be the Spielberg who willfully falsifie...That would be the Spielberg who willfully falsified history on Connecticut's 13th Amdt vote. Some "historian."Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-31360405512940193802016-10-10T13:48:04.389-04:002016-10-10T13:48:04.389-04:00Looks like it was the Paula Jones investigation, n...Looks like it was the Paula Jones investigation, not Starr. Later it says Starr looked at the case but decided it was not relevant to his investigation so didn't pursue it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-81122941858155827822016-10-10T13:43:20.274-04:002016-10-10T13:43:20.274-04:00From Wikipedia:
"In the fall of 1997, Paula ...From Wikipedia:<br /><br />"In the fall of 1997, Paula Jones’s private investigators tried to talk to Broaddrick at her home, also secretly taping the conversation.[11] Broaddrick refused to discuss the incident, saying “it was just a horrible horrible thing,” and that she “wouldn’t relive it for anything.”[12] The investigators told her she would likely be subpoenaed if she would not talk to them. Broaddrick said she would deny everything, saying “you can’t get to him, and I’m not going to ruin my good name to do it… there’s just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he’s just too vicious.”[12] Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Jones suit soon after and submitted an affidavit denying that Clinton had made “any sexual advances”.[1][2] The recording of Broaddrick’s conversation with the investigators was leaked to the press, but Broaddrick continued to refuse to speak to reporters.[11]"<br /><br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick<br /><br />Read down to where it talks about Public Disclosure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-5957681725276942872016-10-10T13:19:13.155-04:002016-10-10T13:19:13.155-04:00I don't see the support for your statement tha...I don't see the support for your statement that Broaddrick refused to repeat her allegations under oath in the Starr investigation. That's an important point, if true. Where do you get that statement?Jonny Scrum-halfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10700652770637696602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-85592090053712777522016-10-10T12:19:31.947-04:002016-10-10T12:19:31.947-04:00Today on both CNN and Sirius POTUS show, they were...Today on both CNN and Sirius POTUS show, they were talking about how credible Juanita Broaddrick's story is. Joseph Cannon says this:<br /><br />"Younger folks won't know that her story is not new and that the public rejected Broaddrick's credibility when her claims were first aired. Yes, there is video of her weeping as she describes the horrors allegedly inflicted upon her. Tawana Brawley emitted enough moisture out of her eyes to end the California drought. If you know where to look, you can find video of women weeping as they recount being abducted by the UFO people. <br /><br /> We're all going to have to get over the collective delusion that women never lie and that tears are truth. <br /><br /> For background, you should first turn to the all-important Conason/Lyons book The Hunting of a President; the relevant excerpt should be available to you here." link: https://books.google.com/books?id=tIEqNExC7_4C&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=hunting+of+a+president+conason+lyons+Juanita+Broaddrick&source=bl&ots=yBLvAVM2HQ&sig=bbaFxYk1bSk-OogaAPyWHcUToJo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEgMyNg87PAhWC8z4KHRDJCAAQ6AEIaTAL#v=onepage&q=hunting%20of%20a%20president%20conason%20lyons%20Juanita%20Broaddrick&f=false<br /><br />No one has mentioned that she refused to repeat her accusations under oath, when questioned by Starr's investigation. In fact, no one ever mentions any of the problems with the various accusers. Just their accusations get reported.<br /><br />It is nice that people are loathe to hold Hillary responsible for her husband's actions, but it would be better if reporters told the public that many (if not most and possibly all) of those accusations are untrue.<br /><br />It aides Trump every time a reporter or pundit is mealy mouthed about this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com