Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 14:40:47 GMT -5
Heh. She said in that interview I cited above that she had no plans to write a book or to cash in on the story. Guess she changed her mind. Her prerogative, of course. Appears she's no Democrat anymore -- her Twitter feed is pure MAGA and Trump defense. I guess she isn't perturbed about the women who've accused Trump of assault. Her prerogative, of course. But apparently she doesn't grant the same credence to those women as she expects to have accorded to herself. (As y'all know, I'm not a fan of the pink hats, either. But I also don't deride what those hats stand for, as Juanita does.) To note, there could be another explanation beside her being a very "private person" for her to be reluctant to come forward, to go back and forth recanting under oath, etc.: that she was lying and rightly worried about doing so under oath, and then ultimately feeling trapped and pressured into it. And now that she's in and there's no turning back, she might as well self-publish a book about it. Sorry, I know this sounds harsh. But truly, I believe she's a liar. ETA: If that book comes to my local library, I'm going to read it (since I think she's a liar, I won't support her with my cash). If I do, I'll be giving y'all a full report. ETA: Huh. Though she previously said she'd never reported the alleged rape and retained no evidence of it, apparently now she says there's a "rape evidence file" that is "sealed." ETA: Oh, the Deep State is repressing her self-pubbed book in favor of that stinking anti-Trump book! Conspiracy! There's no other explanation! Yep, just a nice, steady, quiet, peaceful grandmother who is a very private person and just wants to move on with her life and has no motivation at all to fib. Seriously, her twitter feed is pure whackadoodle.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 17, 2018 18:47:10 GMT -5
I guess she isn't perturbed about the women who've accused Trump of assault. Her prerogative, of course. But apparently she doesn't grant the same credence to those women as she expects to have accorded to herself. (As y'all know, I'm not a fan of the pink hats, either. But I also don't deride what those hats stand for, as Juanita does.) To note, there could be another explanation beside her being a very "private person" for her to be reluctant to come forward, to go back and forth recanting under oath, etc.: that she was lying and rightly worried about doing so under oath, and then ultimately feeling trapped and pressured into it. And now that she's in and there's no turning back, she might as well self-publish a book about it. 'Tis possible, I agree. But her stance on pink hats or on Trump doesn't really make for a strong case, IMO. OK, what do you think the motivation is, then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 18:48:12 GMT -5
Juanita's website links to her proof of attendance for that nursing home seminar she claims she skipped because she was too distraught to attend! juanitabroaddrick.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/JuanitaNursingHomeCredits.pdfIt was indeed part of her continuing education in order to retain her nursing home license. Despite not attending it, she got 7 hours of credit for it. ETA: The getting the credit for that seminar she says she skipped was something I'd noted way back when. But I never, before checking out her website today, saw the actual certificate from the state's records. I'm rather pleased with myself about being right that the seminar was part of her required continuing education for keeping her nursing home license. ETA: As I noted in a previous post, lawyers have to attend continuing education courses and they are quite strict about attendance. You sign in when you get there, sign in and out at breaks, sign out when you leave. If you missed part of the seminar, you don't get credit for it. I've never seen one where you'd get away with getting credit simply by registering for the course and never showing up. Any of the rest of you have mandated continuing education requirements for your profession? As I noted, Arkansas has such requirements for nursing home administrators and I am guessing they are similarly strict to the ones we have in New York, especially if they are hanging on to the records for decades as part of the licensing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 18:58:05 GMT -5
I think her motivation likely shifted over time, and likely goes thusly: 1) I think there's a pretty excellent chance she had a consensual fling with Clinton. (Others, including a lie detector expert who analyzed video of her detailing the attack , concur with that view, by the way. I'm still looking for a direct link on that -- according to some indirect links, the expert, John Harwood, used a device that measures stress levels in voices. He opined that she was telling the truth about meeting and having sex with Clinton, but lying about him forcing her. Mind you, I don't think that proves anything. But it's interesting.). She may have fibbed about it initially to a couple of friends at the time in order to cover that up -- after all, she had both a husband AND a boyfriend at the time who probably would have been pretty pissed off. Maybe she fibbed to cover something else up. Maybe she just wanted attention. Liars lie for a lot of reasons. 2) Having told that fib to her boyfriend and a couple of friends, I think she hadn't intended to push it any farther. But alas, things got out of her control. So she ended up denying the rape under oath and she tried to walk away from her fib. 3) But shit, with Ken Starr on the case, getting pressure from some who believed her earlier fib (including her son), it got pretty damn hard to walk away. She finally decided to go forward and go on record with the fib. 4) And then, having fibbed, she became a heroine for the anti-Clinton right. Hey, that wasn't so bad. Not everyone believes her, but some do -- the anti-Clintonites do. 5) Then Trump comes into the picture, uses her as a showpiece, and ye gods and little fishes, now she's not a sad little fibster, but a freaking SUPERSTAR HEROINE to the alt-right Trump Trainers--she's gonna help bring down that demon Killary! Now she adds all the silly stuff about how Hillary thanked her for staying silent and threatened her if she didn't. 6) Then MeToo comes into it! Oh boy! We can't believe Roy Moore's and Cosby's accusers unless we believe Juanita! Fuck the details -- believe the woman no matter what! You're a misogynist if you for one minute suggest she isn't credible. 7) She's feeling bold now. Trump is president. MeToo has taken up her cause. She's a hero now to MeToo feminists AND Trump Train folks! The Clintons can't hurt her. So now she's writing books. Now she has political motivations and ego motivations and financial motivations. She would be neither the first nor the last person who has a fib get away from them, gets locked into it -- and then rides it for all its worth. The people who lie about having a degree. The teenager who lies about being attacked because she broke curfew to be with her boyfriend. It's happened before, it will happen again, and I think it happened with Juanita. And so did a lot of people before the Trump brigade and MeToo brigade made her their darling. ETA: As I said, it is not any one thing that leads me to think she is lying and leads me to this conclusion. It is a bunch of things put together. And in fact, it's really not the pink pussy hat thing at all, though I do think her shifting political views may be a factor here. And I do think it's interesting that she not only supports Trump but also blows off the women who accuse Trump of assault. (She also had nothing to say in support of Roy Moore's accusers -- nothing good, that is. She used that event to attack the Clintons and Al Franken.) But why are you focusing on my pink pussy hat link when I wasted a big pile of words on something specific and factual a couple of posts ago (and again in my post before this one) that I think is a lot more damning? What say you to the nursing home seminar that she claims very firmly she did not attend because she was too distraught by the rape (instead driving two hours home with her witness Norma), and yet state records show she in fact DID attend and received 7 state-licensing-required credit hours for?
I walked through why I found that problematic, and why IMO whatever direction you turn with that, whether she attended or didn't attend that seminar, you run up against a WTF you have to 'splain and assume that someone, somewhere, fucked up bigly. So step away from the pink pussy hat and tell me why I'm wrong and it isn't problematic. And again, it's not just THAT one fact. It's that in order to believe her bare word, you have to keep excusing and s'plaining a whole big PILE of facts and discrepancies. (And yeah, it IS her bare word. Even assuming the sincerity of her witnesses, they are relying on her account. They themselves saw nothing -- except, allegedly, a couple of them saw a fat lip (one her husband never noticed), and that she could easily have acquired some other way.) No one saw her with Clinton. No one saw Clinton near the hotel. Even if you take them at their word (and I think for a couple of them, there's some good reason to doubt their veracity), at best, you have them repeating her unsupported bare word.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 20:18:07 GMT -5
To note -- people lie about stuff all the time, even big lies, just for attention, or for no particular motivation at all. Liars lie.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 17, 2018 21:04:56 GMT -5
Yes, they do. Bill Clinton--like Trump--is also a liar, however. So his various denials of the various "indiscretions" linked to him hold about as much water as Trump's, imo. Why should he get the benefit of the doubt on any of them? Oh, that's right, because he was still a popular guy and an effective leader (a point I already noted).
But again, Trump is President now. Bill's horn dog ways (which certainly included the over-the-line boinking of underlings, very likely included prostitutes, and may have included criminal actions) no longer matter. Even if one wants to believe Broadrrick and claim Bill is waaaay worse than Trump, it shouldn't matter, when it comes to passing judgement of Trump.
I believe Trump was screwing around on Melania, without a doubt. And that this screwing around included Daniels and, sure, some prostitutes. It's hardly shocking, imo. Trump's a slimy narcissist, who I'm sure imagines that ever woman he meets wants to be with him.
The fact that some of this is coming out now makes Trump look bad and I would guess at some point there will actually be some attrition from his supporters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 21:20:37 GMT -5
I don't disagree with any of that.
Everything with Trump matters more right now because he is president and Bill is not.
And yes -- Bill certainly isn't Mr. Truth and Veracity. If this were pure "he said/she said" with nothing else, I'd be either agnostic or lean towards believing Juanita.
But I do not base my doubts on his veracity. It is aspects of her own story that make me disbelieve her.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 17, 2018 21:20:40 GMT -5
Let me just give some comments on the first three bullet points, because I think those are the most crucial. 1. Yes, I think the prospect of a consensual fling is plausible as well. A couple of counter reasons, for me, would be: A. The best coverup for a fling would have been not saying anything about it, one way or the other, and B. Her witness who corroborated the black lip after the incident (I see you addressed that, but I guess we don't see it the same way. See below). 2. Yes, I think regardless of whether the allegation was true or not, it does seem to be the case that she initially didn't want to push the case any farther. I really thought her refusals to cooperate seemed reasonable, though. When Paula Jones's investigators secretly recorded her, she mentioned she was afraid coming forward would hurt her more than it would hurt Clinton (and who could blame her for thinking that?). And that was consistent with what she told Lisa Myers in their NBC interview. When Brian Lamb interviewed Myers later on about this, Myers seemed completely convinced that Broaddrick's reluctance was genuine and not rooted in trying to avoid defending an untrue story. As noted in that clip, she had just seen the reactions to the Kathleen Willey interview when Myers had tried to talk to her. Again, who could blame her for being reluctant? So yes, it's possible of course the affidavit to Jones's lawyers was the truth of the matter, but I can just as easily accept that she wasn't ready to re-live the story in the public eye, including up to the point when Jones's lawyers got involved. 3. The role of her son actually makes me think it more likely that her statement to Starr was the truthful one and the statement to Jones's lawyers was false. It seemed to me that she probably didn't understand the gravity of lying under oath when she submitted the Jones affadavit, so later on after Starr got involved, when she talked to her son about it --who was a lawyer--he supposedly explained that she couldn't lie to the Starr investigators. The prospect that her discussion with her son made her more emboldened to lie to Starr's investigators is still possible, but seems less plausible than the alternative, IMO. Well, I think it's fair to comment on whatever gets posted in the thread, so if there's something you don't think merits a comment on, it's probably best not to bring it up (IMO). But I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong because I don't really disagree with you on that point. I agree that it's problematic for Broaddrick's credibility. As I noted before, I don't think the husband's word is more credible than the others. (Maybe you disagree, and that's fine.) And yeah, she could easily have acquired the black lip some other way. Maybe she fell. Maybe it was self-inflicted. Et cetera, et cetera. But I don't see why we need to speculate down that road. It just strikes me as reaching. With regard to the witnesses, maybe this is just a difference in how we approach this kind of thing. To me, the witnesses do lend some degree of credibility to the story. It's quite common for rape victims not to confide in anyone right after the incident, so the fact that she did so does at least give us something to work with. I wouldn't expect someone to have witnessed the rape itself, obviously. And yes, I agree, no one saw her with Clinton. Although, perhaps that shouldn't be such a problem, if one believes it's plausible that there was a consensual fling. Is that fair?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 21:29:10 GMT -5
I'm not so much objecting to your commenting on the pink pussy hat as I am noting that you commented on that relatively unimportant thing without addressing the very lengthy post I did citing to something specific I found troubling about Juanita's story and explaining why I thought it was a problem.
In fact, you still haven't done so.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 17, 2018 21:32:17 GMT -5
I'm not so much objecting to your commenting on the pink pussy hat as I am noting that you commented on that relatively unimportant thing without addressing the very lengthy post I did citing to something specific I found troubling about Juanita's story and explaining why I thought it was a problem. In fact, you still haven't done so. I thought I did, actually. As I said, I thought your finding that problematic was reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 17, 2018 21:51:47 GMT -5
The fact that some of this is coming out now makes Trump look bad and I would guess at some point there will actually be some attrition from his supporters. You really think so? Man, I dunno. Maybe here and there a little bit, but people have a hard time admitting they were wrong about character judgements.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 21:55:40 GMT -5
Okay, I missed it in there. Thank you for the nod.
As noted, I found a number of other things similarly problematic. I may or may not take the time to hunt them all down again with support -- from my discussion of that one, you will gather that it is no small task. And I'm by no means convinced it's worth my while to do again because, well, I don't actually so much care about convincing people to disbelieve Juanita. There are more important, more immediate, more current things to discuss.
For now, I will simply assert that, like that the nursing home seminar issue, many of my issues with Juanita's story were not addressed in articles discussing the subject. I bothered looking into it, not because I wanted to vindicate Clinton or trash her, but because I found it important that our former president might be a rapist, and I wanted to come to my own conclusions, if such a thing was possible. I'm weird that way. (I do this kind of thing sometimes. I also read all of the available evidence in, e.g., the Michael Brown case. I'm a lawyer. I'm weird. I like to understand things and catch things people might have missed, especially on contentious issues.)
Anyway. Putting all the stuff I found together, I simply didn't find her credible. IMO, there was too much 'splaining one had to do, and it couldn't all be attributed to irrational victim behavior or the lapse of time.
You might come to a different conclusion. But I do think I put a lot of thought and work into my conclusion -- it wasn't a glib decision to believe him over her.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Feb 17, 2018 22:02:14 GMT -5
For sure, I never thought you were being glib. Anyway, next time we should do pizza-gate. * *I'm joking, I'm joking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 10:11:36 GMT -5
I really don't think I'm going to bother unearthing and supporting all my Juanita points, but I can't resist doing this one, since it relates to the nursing home seminar and I don't have to do any more digging to make it. ,,,
2)
As you can see from the state record, Juanita got 7 credit hours for the seminar that day. That means it was an all day seminar. I've been to many seven credit hour seminars -- they have all been either from 8 to 4 or from 9 to 5 with one hour out for lunch (for which hour you don't get credit). They do not, say, start at one in the afternoon and go to nine in the evening, because who the hell wants to go to a work seminar that goes until nine in the evening? And anyway, why, when it's at a hotel and you have the whole day? Juanita came the night before and spent the night at the hotel, which it would be logical to do if the seminar started in the morning.
Okay. Here (from that same transcript) are quotes about Juanita's doings the night before and morning of the all-day seminar:
Norma calls "around lunchtime." (In another interview, Norma echoes this timing, by the way. I'll dig it up if I find time.) But this is enough to make my point. That point being:
Juanita has an all-day seminar. why is she calling around that morning trying to make plans to meet Clinton that same morning, when she should be in the seminar? (Note that by her own account, this is apparently the first time she's calling -- though she got in the night before, she doesn't try calling until the next morning.)
By her own account, she's still hanging around the hotel room at 9 am (which is apparently some time later, not just a couple of minutes), when he calls and changes the meeting place. Then he has to get there, then he is in the room another 30 minutes. That was all planned by Juanita, though of course the alleged rape wouldn't have been.
So when exactly had she planned to go to the all-day nursing home seminar she traveled two hours each way and rented a hotel room to attend?
And Norma -- she apparently doesn't even call until "lunchtime," so I guess she's not in the seminar, either. (It's also possible Norma went to the morning part of the seminar and then called at the lunch break.) They both then decide to skip the seminar... except that it must have started hours before.
Except that Juanita got seven credit hours for attending the seminar.
3)
Another lesser point on Juanita's arrangements to meet Clinton:
Juanita allegedly hardly knows him and by her account he was not expecting her call or planning to meet her. Isn't she being awfully presumptuous about how early he gets into work? And that office must open early. Clinton doesn't even call her back until 9 am, so she called...when? 8 am? 7 am? This important guy she supposedly hardly knows? For an unplanned cup of coffee? Oh, and his office gave her his home number to call him at home that early? Which she does?
Keep in mind that they have no appointment and she's only met him once before:
Come on. This is all taking her own account and one of the few pieces of hard evidence we have, and it makes no sense at all unless you assume:
-- a very weird state licensing seminar that started after lunch and goes until 9 pm but that Juanita nonetheless came up for the night before;
-- a state licensing seminar that moreover was very careless and marked her present when she did not attend (which is not, in my experience, at all the way they work);
-- her feeling perfectly comfortable calling the state attorney general (whom she's met once) at his home at an ungodly hour in the morning -- and his office giving her his home number to do so (and his office being open in the first place at that hour). Neither she nor the office nor Clinton sees anything odd about her ringing the state attorney general she's met once up by 7 or 8 in the morning and importuning him (at home) to grab a quick spontaneous cup of coffee. What's the urgency about this spontaneous, last minute coffee meeting that she's chasing him down at home at the crack of dawn -- but that isn't urgent enough to bother calling ahead to arrange? What made her even think the state attorney general who has met her once would be available and interested in ducking out at the very last minute and heading across town to meet for what would have to be a very quick cup of coffee on a weekday morning to discuss "nursing home issues"?
(Me, I would have called the office once and left a message. Or hey, called ahead to arrange a meeting.)
Let's assume the seminar started at 10 am rather than 9 am? (could it really have started any later, realistically, if it was one that was for 7 credit hours. I honestly think it's a bit of a stretch to imagine it started past 9 am, but that's me and my experience with all-day seminars.) According to her, she didn't take any steps to arrange the meeting before morning, and they are still arranging the meeting at 9 am. How much discussion of "nursing home issues" did she expect to accomplish in that last minute spontaneous coffee meeting, anyway, before she ran off to her seminar?
Call me skeptical, but I don't think that shit hangs together. At all. By her own account and one of the few pieces of hard evidence.
I mean, sure, it's possible to construct a scenario where this all could happen -- where she behaves rather unusually (e.g., calling a relative stranger who happens to be attorney general at the last minute at the crack of dawn for coffee on a morning where she's about to go into an all-day seminar), and the seminar isn't all that typical (e.g., starting later than you'd expect for an all-day meeting) and the seminar organizers act atypically (giving her 7 hours of credit when she never showed up) and the people in Clinton's office act atypically (giving a stranger Clinton's home number so she can call before 9 am), etc. But, well, that's a lot of 'splaining and a lot of weird stuff and hell -- all this stuff still doesn't cover all the weird, contradictory aspects of her story.
Just curious -- am I moving the skeptical needle for anyone here? Come on, you skeptical TCGers -- throw me a bone or pick a fight! Is this weird or what? Doesn't this account run into some serious WTF whatever you assume and however much you grant towards rape victims acting irrationally?
ETA:
(edited to fix typos and straighten out my Normas and Juanitas.)
ETA:
To note: Assuming she's not lying altogether about even meeting Clinton that day, her account of the allegedly spontaneous early morning repeated calls, including at home, and expecting he'd agree to meet up with her at the last minute, to me would indicate that she was not arranging a quick business-y cup of coffee with the state attorney general she's met once to "discuss nursing home issues", but rather a tryst.
I mean, I've met plenty of important people once or twice and had friendly encounters with them. I can imagine contacting them to meet again to network or whatever. But I can't imagine calling at the very last minute, tracking them down at home early in the morning, and expecting that they'd be either willing or able to drop everything on a weekday and dash across town to meet up for a cup of coffee.
You'd call them ahead to arrange the meeting if you felt it was important, to make sure they were available. If you didn't think it was important, you'd leave a message at the office. You wouldn't call the state attorney general you've met once repeatedly before 9 am and chase him down at home. And even if you say, "okay, Juanita doesn't act like everyone else, she doesn't plan ahead but she really really really was eager to meet for a quick cup of coffee to discuss nursing home issues", you run into -- what about that seminar? Why is she trying to arrange this while she's supposed to be in the seminar? And, getting past that, why do state records show that in fact she was in that seminar (which she says she skipped)?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 11:15:37 GMT -5
By the way? While the journalists doing interviews with Juanita didn't run through this exercise (they were happy just to find a nursing home seminar and pin down a date), I would bet money that Ken Starr did. This is the kind of exercise you go through when you are preparing to cross-examine a witness, or are preparing your own witness for cross examination. Does the witness's own story hang together or implode on itself? The journalists missed the contradictions, but I doubt Ken did.
And I would bet that's why he said "er...inconclusive" and walked away.
|
|