Maybe if that party’s White House pays its average female staffer significantly less than the average male staffer.
Democrats love irony.
AndyNsays
It depends on which would cause more of a distraction – offending victims’ rights groups by letting the accused speak or having the opposition party accuse your party of trying to trick the public into not noticing that you’re supported by rapists.
This is purely a PR event. If there was lasting harm that might be done to the accused by setting aside the presumption of innocence, I’d say let him speak as long as he hasn’t been convicted. Since it’s unlikely that there’ll be any lasting harm to him from losing his speaking slot, his presumption of innocence for the purposes of this question is secondary to the actual reason he was asked to speak at the convention.
“Juanita Broaddrick filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones’ lawyers, denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: “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… These allegations are UNTRUE ….”
Debrasays
Cinesnatch – you must have missed the part in Wiki where she recants that affidavit and where she was scared of people watching her, had her home broken into and animals released. It’s possible she filed that affidavit because she was scared, no?
Fsays
Only if he is also an impeached, disbarred lawyer who took advantage of an intern in his publicly provided office.
ILoveCapitalismsays
From Wikipedia:
In 1997, Broaddrick had filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones’ lawyers, denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: “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… These allegations are untrue ….”[1] In November 1998, Broaddrick contradicted her sworn statement in an interview with Dateline NBC.[2][3]
In an interview by Dorothy Rabinowitz for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Broaddrick claimed that Clinton had told her not to worry about pregnancy, because childhood mumps had rendered him sterile.[4] The alleged incident occurred two years before Clinton’s daughter with his wife Hillary Rodham was born.
Broaddrick recanted her earlier sworn statement when interviewed by the FBI about the Jones case; the FBI found her account inconclusive, and the affidavit denying the allegations remains her only sworn testimony. Broaddrick later said of the affidavit, “I didn’t want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life. I didn’t want to go through it again.”[2] David Schippers, the Chief Investigative Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee which was holding an inquiry on whether Clinton had committed impeachable offenses, stated that he believed Broaddrick filed the affidavit because of intimidation from Clinton, saying, “She was so terrified. And the reason she was terrified was because she saw what had happened to Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers and all the rest of them.”[5] Although Broaddrick claimed that no one had pressured her to file a false affidavit, she complained that she was being watched from parked cars, her home had been broken into, her pets released and her answering machine tape stolen while she and her husband were away briefly, during the House impeachment probe.[5]
In 1984, Broaddrick’s nursing facility was adjudged the best in the state, which brought a congratulatory official letter from the governor. On the bottom was a handwritten note from Clinton, saying, “I admire you very much.” She reputedly interpreted it as a “thank you” for her silence.[2] Broaddrick said that Clinton tried to apologize to her in 1991, and claimed he had changed. In response to his apologies, as she told the Washington Post, “I told him to go to hell, and I walked off”.[6]
Five people have stated that Broaddrick told them about a rape shortly after it allegedly occurred.
So, to be clear: Broaddrick didn’t make an allegation against Clinton, then recant it later because according to her, she had lied in making the allegation. Rather, Broaddrick made a *denial* of an allegation against Clinton, then later recanted it because according to her, she had lied in making that denial.
Some people need to live in their own form of denial, though, even if it means taking the side of the rapist against the victim.
ILoveCapitalismsays
(continued) Meanwhile, the same people may make much of a media-constructed allegation – an allegation unsupported by the alleged victim’s surviving family, to the point where they even deride it – that teenage Romney had cut a schoolmate’s hair by force. I guess that one boy doing forced damage to another’s hair is much worse than a man forcibly raping a woman – when you’re a supporter of the Democrats, and need the distraction.
ILoveCapitalismsays
One last thought – It’s true that Broaddick has left her denial as the official state of the *legal* record. Which means that Clinton has not been prosecuted, and should not be prosecuted. If the accuser won’t come forward, there should be no prosecution.
BUT, Broaddrick has provided a reasonable explanation for her actions: that she was/is fighting her own extreme fear of retaliation from one of the world’s most powerful individuals. And Broaddrick apparently told a consistent story of the rape, back at the time it would have occurred, in the late 1970s.
So, the only way to disbelieve the rape, is to believe instead that a respected nurse (whom Clinton himself praised) harbored an insane pattern of lying and/or persecution fantasies focused on Bill Clinton, as far back as the late 1970s.
That Broaddrick should have such a decades-long pattern of malevolence and/or insanity, is possible in a theoretical sense. So, I do not claim to know the definitive ‘answer’ here. “…But I doubt it.”
The premise strikes me as unworthy. What did this person do? Or are we convicting the unpopular solely on the basis of accusation?
Eric Hines
ILoveCapitalismsays
EH, I think the point of the post may be the double standard. Would the GOP feature a man accused of rape, at their convention? Maybe so; and then what would the media/DNC complex make of it?
The analogue already exists, if indirectly, in the form of Republican Senate candidate Akin from MO. And the Progressives and NLMSM have already tried, and failed, to make a big deal of it.
You may be right about the point; I’m spring-loaded to object to conviction by accusation. I’ve sat on too many juries and prospective juries where the prosecutor or the plaintiff had no case backing up the complaint.
Um, Todd Akin is an outcast from the GOP. Clinton is loved and revered by Democrats. That’s the difference.
Robertosays
Why not? It won´t be the the only one. Another rapist will also speak on Thursday. He has raped the country of its prosperity, its will to grow, and he gives hush money in the form of food stamps. The rapist is Barak Obama.
Another_Jeremysays
Good points everyone. And since she didn’t get pregnant, I guess we are free to be outraged since that means the rape was legitimate.
TGCsays
Don’t forget Herman Cain. Facts don’t matter a damn. It’s the seriousness of the charge.
Let’s put it this way: Progressive leftists have made icons out of a mass murdering racist (Che Guevara), a cop-killer (Mumia al-Jamal) and a genocidal dictator (Mao Tse-Tung). Compared to their usual heroes, a rapist is a slight improvement.
Since you and your Barack Obama endorse and support rape, Another_Jeremy, why should we care? You and your Obama believe women should be raped as punishment for disobeying liberal males. If your Obama really supported women, he would repudiate rape and those who threaten Sarah Palin with rape, but he doesn’t. Instead, he supports and endorses rapists.
ILoveCapitalismsays
… and has accused rapists vouch for Him, at national political conventions.
Maybe if that party’s White House pays its average female staffer significantly less than the average male staffer.
Democrats love irony.
It depends on which would cause more of a distraction – offending victims’ rights groups by letting the accused speak or having the opposition party accuse your party of trying to trick the public into not noticing that you’re supported by rapists.
This is purely a PR event. If there was lasting harm that might be done to the accused by setting aside the presumption of innocence, I’d say let him speak as long as he hasn’t been convicted. Since it’s unlikely that there’ll be any lasting harm to him from losing his speaking slot, his presumption of innocence for the purposes of this question is secondary to the actual reason he was asked to speak at the convention.
Why not? They elected one in 1992…
RE: 3
“Juanita Broaddrick filed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jones’ lawyers, denying that Clinton had ever assaulted her: “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… These allegations are UNTRUE ….”
Cinesnatch – you must have missed the part in Wiki where she recants that affidavit and where she was scared of people watching her, had her home broken into and animals released. It’s possible she filed that affidavit because she was scared, no?
Only if he is also an impeached, disbarred lawyer who took advantage of an intern in his publicly provided office.
From Wikipedia:
So, to be clear: Broaddrick didn’t make an allegation against Clinton, then recant it later because according to her, she had lied in making the allegation. Rather, Broaddrick made a *denial* of an allegation against Clinton, then later recanted it because according to her, she had lied in making that denial.
Some people need to live in their own form of denial, though, even if it means taking the side of the rapist against the victim.
(continued) Meanwhile, the same people may make much of a media-constructed allegation – an allegation unsupported by the alleged victim’s surviving family, to the point where they even deride it – that teenage Romney had cut a schoolmate’s hair by force. I guess that one boy doing forced damage to another’s hair is much worse than a man forcibly raping a woman – when you’re a supporter of the Democrats, and need the distraction.
One last thought – It’s true that Broaddick has left her denial as the official state of the *legal* record. Which means that Clinton has not been prosecuted, and should not be prosecuted. If the accuser won’t come forward, there should be no prosecution.
BUT, Broaddrick has provided a reasonable explanation for her actions: that she was/is fighting her own extreme fear of retaliation from one of the world’s most powerful individuals. And Broaddrick apparently told a consistent story of the rape, back at the time it would have occurred, in the late 1970s.
So, the only way to disbelieve the rape, is to believe instead that a respected nurse (whom Clinton himself praised) harbored an insane pattern of lying and/or persecution fantasies focused on Bill Clinton, as far back as the late 1970s.
That Broaddrick should have such a decades-long pattern of malevolence and/or insanity, is possible in a theoretical sense. So, I do not claim to know the definitive ‘answer’ here. “…But I doubt it.”
As long as the rapist is a Democrat. The Party must always come first.
The premise strikes me as unworthy. What did this person do? Or are we convicting the unpopular solely on the basis of accusation?
Eric Hines
EH, I think the point of the post may be the double standard. Would the GOP feature a man accused of rape, at their convention? Maybe so; and then what would the media/DNC complex make of it?
The analogue already exists, if indirectly, in the form of Republican Senate candidate Akin from MO. And the Progressives and NLMSM have already tried, and failed, to make a big deal of it.
You may be right about the point; I’m spring-loaded to object to conviction by accusation. I’ve sat on too many juries and prospective juries where the prosecutor or the plaintiff had no case backing up the complaint.
Eric Hines
Um, Todd Akin is an outcast from the GOP. Clinton is loved and revered by Democrats. That’s the difference.
Why not? It won´t be the the only one. Another rapist will also speak on Thursday. He has raped the country of its prosperity, its will to grow, and he gives hush money in the form of food stamps. The rapist is Barak Obama.
Good points everyone. And since she didn’t get pregnant, I guess we are free to be outraged since that means the rape was legitimate.
Don’t forget Herman Cain. Facts don’t matter a damn. It’s the seriousness of the charge.
EH – Fair enough!
Let’s put it this way: Progressive leftists have made icons out of a mass murdering racist (Che Guevara), a cop-killer (Mumia al-Jamal) and a genocidal dictator (Mao Tse-Tung). Compared to their usual heroes, a rapist is a slight improvement.
Didn’t Ted “Swimmer” Kennedy speak at DNCs past?
Or so says the party of those calling for black men to rape Sarah Palin.
Since you and your Barack Obama endorse and support rape, Another_Jeremy, why should we care? You and your Obama believe women should be raped as punishment for disobeying liberal males. If your Obama really supported women, he would repudiate rape and those who threaten Sarah Palin with rape, but he doesn’t. Instead, he supports and endorses rapists.
… and has accused rapists vouch for Him, at national political conventions.