Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 14:00:22 GMT -5
Here, I'll construct a narrative for Juanita that makes some sense out of some of that, and doesn't make her a total liar about the actual rape. Mind you, it is not her account anymore, and it assumes she did some fibbing about a bunch of other stuff. And it still doesn't 'splain everything. But, hey, here goes.
Juanita in fact was arranging a consensual tryst with Clinton for that morning before the seminar. She's planning a very early quickie, after which she'll go to the nursing home seminar. That previous encounter she'd had with him wasn't the only one, or it had been way flirtier than she claims. So she already had his home number, and knew he'd be around and available and willing to meet her, and that Hillary wouldn't be home (or in fact she had contacted Clinton ahead of time, not that morning, and the tryst was already arranged). Since she had a husband and a boyfriend at the time, naturally she does not want to admit that she was arranging such a tryst. So she fibs so that it looks like she didn't have his number and only contacted him at the last minute.
(Why must we assume it is a tryst? I don't see another way to make her timing of the alleged meeting with Clinton that morning make sense. I don't think there's any way that she really, barely knowing him and just wanting to grab coffee, called his office at the crack of dawn at the last minute, managed to scored his home number out of his early-bird office staff, and then had the temerity to call him there at that hour -- let alone think he'd be able to dash out to meet her on such short notice. And if we assume the coffee meeting was intended to be pure business, why would she need to fib about arranging it at the last minute? )
Clinton arrives for the tryst. But then he gets rough and she doesn't like it. She says no. He rapes her anyway. She's distraught. Norma arrives to find her battered and a mess, they drive back home, skipping the seminar.
Of course, we still haven't 'splained why the seminar awarded her 7 credit hours, but we'll chalk that up to Arkansas being careless or super nice about awarding credit hours to people who merely registered but didn't attend.
(And I think if we assume she was raped, we must also assume she did not attend the seminar. Why? Because otherwise surely the other participants would have noticed her (according to Juanita and Norma) very obvious injuries. And then we'd have other people attesting to them, people who weren't her best buddies and with a grudge against the Clintons.)
Can anyone do better for her here, given her account and given the state record awarding her those seven credit hours? Give it a go. That's my best shot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2018 14:24:01 GMT -5
And because I am not a nice person, here's my guess about what actually happened: Juanita had a planned tryst with Clinton. She had a husband and a boyfriend already, and she had a reputation to uphold and so did he, so this was all very much on the downlow. Only something goes awry and she's caught having to 'splain something, either to her boyfriend, to Norma or both. Perhaps the encounter got a bit overenthusiastic and she had an injury (though my guess is it was not that, because I think others would have noticed). Perhaps her pantyhose were torn in their enthusiasm (pantyhose are fragile things) and Norma noticed. (e,g, Norma says "gee, Juanita, you said you were just meeting Bill to discuss nursing home issues, but here your pantyhose are ripped and you have a hicky on your neck and why is the bed all rumpled and what's that stain on your blouse and why is there a condom in the waste paper basket..." And Norma can't just say she had consensual sex with Clinton, given her personal situation.) Perhaps Juanita was late to the seminar. (I think she did in fact attend the seminar, and that's why she has those seven credit hours.) Perhaps the tryst actually was not that morning, but rather the night before or afterwards, and she got caught in a fib about it. Whatever -- Juanita had to 'splain, so she told Norma and/or her boyfriend she was raped. (Norma knew she was meeting Bill Clinton, so it pretty much had to be him that raped her.) As things sometimes happen, a couple of others found out about the alleged rape. She swears them all to secrecy, because hell, she only told the lie to get out of trouble with the boyfriend. She hadn't intended to go after Clinton. That wasn't why she lied. But then, fuck, it gets out. Of course it does. She accused the attorney general (later Governor) of rape. Of course at least one of her confidants lets it out. She panics and (truthfully) denies the rape under oath. She 'splains this away to her confidants by saying she's scared, a very private person, etc. She hopes that's the end of it. But it isn't. Her lie is out of control now. Ken Starr is on the case. She has really no good options, so she figures, hey, after all these years, how are they going to prove I'm lying? It's he said-she said. Especially if she can't remember the date -- then they won't be able to pin down his whereabouts and prove she's lying. Ken interviews her, finds her story inconclusive. Some journalists catch on to the story and write about it, some believing her, some not. Then the Trump train gets hold of her. Then the MeToo movement. Now she's wedded to the lie. She can't possibly recant -- and hell, she doesn't want to. She's a goddamn heroine. She might even believe it by now. But I don't. ETA: By the way, the husband had given her a bloody lip on at least one other occasion. There is a shot the bloody lip her witnesses remember, assuming they are being truthful about remembering it, was administered by him. They may or may not be accurate in their memory of the timing of it. That's the only thing any of them can attest to, remember, other than Juanita's account, and only one of them (Norma) can lay any claim to the timing of it. The boyfriend was not in Little Rock. And let us not forget that Norma loathes Bill Clinton because he commuted the sentence of her father's killer. I am trying to assume in this scenario that she is in good faith, but she may not be -- certainly she has personal motivation to hurt him. And she may well, as people do, have elaborated on her account over time. Happens. All. The. Time.) ETA: And yes, of course I know that this entire post is entirely supposition on my part. I do not deny it for a minute. But at least, unlike her story, it all hangs together. And it provides motivation for her actions that (IMO) don't require any great stretch. Like I said, I'm wide open to people coming up for possible explanations for the stuff that bothers me. And again, if you think the stuff that bothers me is a mere "pfft", by all means have at me. I've gone way out on this limb. Saw me off. ETA: FYI, Michael, when I said I thought I'd looked into it and thought about it more than you had or most people had, I actually did not mean to be condescending. Honestly, I didn't. I didn't mean to imply you or anyone was lazy or unthinking or whatever -- not at all. What I meant was that I'd spent far more time and effort than any sane, normal person would looking into decades-old allegations and thinking about them (as is probably evident by now) -- and I assumed you were sane and normal. Me, not so much.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 18, 2018 21:45:40 GMT -5
Fascinating and believable analysis, @cassandraw. Your deerstalker and clay pipe are on the way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 13:27:18 GMT -5
Fascinating and believable analysis, @cassandraw . Your deerstalker and clay pipe are on the way. LOL, thank you for the tribute, Don! In all seriousness, as I think of it, this isn't a completely irrelevant discussion. It actually does matter whether Juanita deserves the kind of credibility she is getting. Here's why: (1) Some on the left, as well as Trump Trainers, have elevated Juanita to the status of a heroine. She has a book coming out. She is profiting off this, right now, in a way she did not prior to now. I am firmly convinced she does not deserve the credibility she is getting. At best, she deserves agnosticism. The foam-at-the-mouth anti-Clinton brigade is vested in believing her. But the rest of us, not so much. (2) This is by far the most serious allegation against Bill Clinton--a violent rape is just WAY beyond a consensual blowjob or even a grope--and really, it is the only one that is being given serious credence these days (Jones and Wiley have been widely discredited for various good reasons). And it's no longer just fringe alt-righters who believe it. The left is ever happy to throw their own politicians overboard (see e.g., Al Franken) while the right...yeah, not so much these days. (Don't get me wrong -- we SHOULD condemn the people on "our side" when they do wrong. But to note, there is a distinct imbalance here. Come on, if we had videotape of Trump raping someone, 1/3 of the country would adamantly defend him, while many of our GOP representatives would murmur about being "disturbed.") If there is reason to doubt Clinton being a violent rapist -- and I think there very much is -- I think that should be considered. Someone here is a victim, but it is not necessarily Juanita. And that's not to mention that Clinton has a wife and daughter who are also affected by this extremely serious allegation. (3) You've all seen me go on at great length about how IMO sexual assault and harassment are far, far more common than false accusations. You've also all seen me note that "due process" applies in court, and the standards that apply when convicting someone do not necessarily apply when considering whether we believe a victim, or, oh, whether someone should be holding high office. I stand by all of that 150%. BUT -- neither do I think we should give kneejerk credence to alleged victims when there is excellent reason to doubt their story, as I believe there is. At the very least, we should consider those reasons. And as Vince524 has pointed out, Clinton is not the only potentially innocent person who has gotten kneejerk condemnation as a rapist when in fact there is serious reason to doubt the accuser's credibility. So I think it matters. Clinton absolutely deserves to be criticized for fibbing under oath and chronic philandering. Amen. Go to it. But that's quite different from whether he is a violent, dangerous felon. If he is a rapist, then fuck him. But if he's not... Although this alleged attack happened decades ago, it in fact is only now being given real credence. Therefore, in a way, it has never been MORE relevant. As an aside, here is a sober fact. I've been sitting here wondering, in light of all I've said above, whether I should go into this on Twitter (where I use my real name) in a comment on an "I believe Juanita" article. And, well, I'm kinda hesitant to do so. Of course the Trump train people would harass me. But it's not just them. At this point, the feminist left would shred me because how dare I question the veracity of a victim -- they too are vested in Juanita. And since I have a very unusual name, and a picture and city, on Twitter, the harassment could well spill out of Twitter into my real life. As far as I can tell, I am the only person to be pointing to the stuff I'm pointing to, so the harassment would be that much worse. Call me a coward, but that has made me hesitate. If Clinton were in danger of being indicted for it, it would be worth the risk. As it is...well, I'm not sure it is. ETA: Honest to god, I think if I even did something as simple as cite to the nursing home certificate and her account and said, e.g., "she says she didn't go to the seminar, but state records show she got 7 credit hours for it," I'd end up getting harassing phone calls or worse -- and not just from alt-right whackadoodles. It could well impact me professionally. Call me cowardly. I'm not sure it's worth it under these circumstances. And I doubt anyone except a very measured few (or perhaps some diehard Clinton defenders) would stop and consider my points, so it likely would be useless. ETA: An idea I am playing with -- writing to one of the [sane-sounding] people who've put out "I believe Juanita" articles recently, pointing out these discrepancies -- one of the ones who clearly is well-meaning, wanting to give fair play to all victims whoever they are accusing. That's a laudable goal on their part -- as Bill Cosby showed us, we can't take it for granted that anyone is incapable of rape. But I wonder if my points might make them at least pause and consider whether they want to stay on the "I believe Juanita and Bill Clinton is a violent rapist" bandwagon. ETA: I'll also hasten to say -- I think the reason I'm the only one discussing the nursing home certificate thing as far as I can see (I've done an internet search. I've seriously never seen anyone else point this out) is because (1) the right doesn't WANT to look for reasons to disbelieve Juanita, (2) the left is horrified at the mere idea of questioning the veracity of an alleged rape victim, and (3) most of the rest aren't interested enough to really stop and ponder this stuff. I don't think it's because of my peerless brain. If so many weren't vested in believing Juanita -- if this were an accusation of theft or murder or non-sexual assault -- I am betting MANY would have written articles pointing out this discrepancy.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 19, 2018 16:31:24 GMT -5
Fascinating and believable analysis, @cassandraw . Your deerstalker and clay pipe are on the way. (3) You've all seen me go on at great length about how IMO sexual assault and harassment are far, far more common than false accusations. You've also all seen me note that "due process" applies in court, and the standards that apply when convicting someone do not necessarily apply when considering whether we believe a victim, or, oh, whether someone should be holding high office. I stand by all of that 150%. BUT -- neither do I think we should give kneejerk credence to alleged victims when there is excellent reason to doubt their story, as I believe there is. At the very least, we should consider those reasons. And as Vince524 has pointed out, Clinton is not the only potentially innocent person who has gotten kneejerk condemnation as a rapist when in fact there is serious reason to doubt the accuser's credibility. Due process applies to anything where an action is being taken to punish an alleged perpetrator. Whether it be a criminal case, college, job, or civil action. You need to have a process. Compare this to say Roy Moore. He wasn't, and shouldn't have been, disqualified from running for the senate for an unproven allegation, but people can judge for themselves the veracity of it in terms of if they want to vote for him. Had he been elected, then due process would apply to get him out. The allegations against him had a lot more merit then this particular one. The left, in the past, gave Clinton a pass because he was there's the same way Trump belongs to the right. The hypocrisy is worth pointing out for those who feel all accusations must be believed or as Hillary said, should be believed until their proven false. Neither is true. Not 'believing the victim' isn't the same as assuming she or he is lying until they prove their telling the truth. Whoever is investigating the charge has to be impartial. It's different if a friend comes to you, or if you're a counselor or work for a crisis center.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 17:02:38 GMT -5
"Due process" is actually a legal term with a specific meaning. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/due%20processIt's not the same as "being fair" or "listening to both sides" or even "giving someone the benefit of the doubt." Really, I think it dilutes it and is inaccurate to use it outside the legal sense. Neither Bill nor Juanita is on trial. Due process isn't applicable. What IS applicable, I think, is not simply believing Juanita's story no matter how contradictory and weird it is -- especially because it means believing something pretty horrible about him that may not be true. Taking that aside... Gaaa! Can't. Help. Myself. 4) Okay, one more thing that hinges on the nursing home seminar, simply because it doesn't require me to do anymore digging. Juanita claims: Sigh. She's got an all-day nursing home seminar scheduled that day that required her to drive two hours each way to attend, plus renting a hotel room. Oh, also, it likely cost her bundle to attend. (Sure, tax deductible, but still -- some of these all day seminars I've been to cost hundreds of dollars, and sometimes more. That's not counting your hotel or the cost to get there.) Never mind whether he's "gonna be at headquarters that day" -- when the hell is she proposing on heading over to headquarters that day to see him? Did she ever intend to go to this damn nursing home seminar? Note that none of my points so far rely on Bill Clinton's credibility or on any oddities about her (alleged) post-rape behavior. I'm just relying on her own account, a state record, and logic. I haven't even touched her claimed 1991 encounter with Bill and her silly-ass claims about Hillary. (I'm going to try really, really, really hard not to do that, by the way -- I'll find that temptation easier to resist because they require me to dig up some other stuff. I chose this area of her story, not only because it goes straight to her allegations about the day of the rape, has a solid piece of evidence as an anchor, and can't easily be explained simply by "But rape victims!", but also because I roughly recalled what it was I'd relied on and how to find it again.)
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 19, 2018 18:42:50 GMT -5
The left, in the past, gave Clinton a pass because he was there's the same way Trump belongs to the right. *reports post*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 18:50:50 GMT -5
MOD NOTE:
*theirs
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 19, 2018 19:03:56 GMT -5
Okay, one more thing that hinges on the nursing home seminar, simply because it doesn't require me to do anymore digging. Juanita claims: Sigh. She's got an all-day nursing home seminar scheduled that day that required her to drive two hours each way to attend, plus renting a hotel room. Oh, also, it likely cost her bundle to attend. (Sure, tax deductible, but still -- some of these all day seminars I've been to cost hundreds of dollars, and sometimes more. That's not counting your hotel or the cost to get there.) Never mind whether he's "gonna be at headquarters that day" -- when the hell is she proposing on heading over to headquarters that day to see him? Did she ever intend to go to this damn nursing home seminar? Note that none of my points so far rely on Bill Clinton's credibility or on any oddities about her (alleged) post-rape behavior. I'm just relying on her own account, a state record, and logic. I haven't even touched her claimed 1991 encounter with Bill and her silly-ass claims about Hillary. (I'm going to try really, really, really hard not to do that, by the way -- I'll find that temptation easier to resist because they require me to dig up some other stuff. I chose this area of her story, not only because it goes straight to her allegations about the day of the rape, has a solid piece of evidence as an anchor, and can't easily be explained simply by "But rape victims!", but also because I roughly recalled what it was I'd relied on and how to find it again.) You are reminding me of myself on this point about the education credit. When I am auditing the financial statements of a client, I come across discrepancies, and my knee-jerk reaction is to consider fraud. (That's a good thing, for both a lawyer and an auditor). But over the years, I have discerned within myself a tendency to narrow in on the discrepancy and the potential fraud, to the exclusion of other evidence. I'm better now about looking at "the whole picture," but one of my associates, whenever I mention something odd, teases me by saying "I BET THEY STOLE IT!!!" Needless to say, I get your point about the education credit/certificate/timeline etc. Having said that, I don't think it's "the whole picture." I think it's reasonable to question, but I don't think it proves anything. There are other plausible explanations. Like, AK wasn't as vigilant about signing in back in the 1970s--maybe having paid for the course was enough to get you the credits; maybe she signed in, and then left, like she said (and there were no additional checks); maybe she lied about leaving, and did go to the seminar--but that doesn't mean she lied about being raped. For me, the most clothes-rending aspect of Juanita's behavior was in her signing up with the Trump campaign and showing up at the debate. This was mere days after the Hollywood Access tape was leaked. She made a deal with the Devil, and for what? To attack... Hillary, I guess? Because what Bill allegedly did was her fault? But... *heavy sigh* ... that doesn't mean she lied about being raped. The long and short of it is that we won't ever know either way for sure, short of Juanita recanting or Bill confessing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 19:22:59 GMT -5
It's true, one is unlikely to prove anything definitively at this late date. And true, as I've noted a couple of times, every point I raise could individually conceivably be explained... ...but the thing is, there are so damn many problems with her story. These points I've given are just a handful. I'm serious that I have more (and y'all probably believe me by this point. ) To the extent there IS a piece of reliable relevant evidence, her account conflicts with it bigly. Add to that, she twice denied the attack under oath (in a deposition and in an affidavit). Add her husband not recalling her injury. Add that her witnesses have motives to lie. And if you really need me to do it, I can go into a bunch of other stuff I found hinky about her story. Add that Ken Starr said "yeah...no...inconclusive" and didn't even try to use it. Put her story all together, and it falls apart like wet toilet paper. That's without giving Bill any credit at all for truthfulness. The question that was raised here is not "can we prove absolutely that Clinton is innocent." We can't. The question is "is Juanita credible?" Based on the totality of what we have here, I don't think she is. Seriously, what is there in this story that is actually credible? *** DERAIL TO THE DERAIL/ What this reminded me of, by the way, was how I got my client out of jail. (The one who was unjustly incarcerated). The D.A. tried to argue away every individual bit of evidence I laid before them -- he could have gotten someone to take the plane in his stead and use fake ID, the flight attendant who remembered him on the flight could have been mistaken, yada yada. What finally made them agree to reopen the case? (Ultimately leading to them joining me in asking the judge to release my client and get his conviction vacated? I argued this: "Look, you're right. You could possibly explain each little piece of this evidence away if you tried hard enough. But then, what you have to believe in total is that, to establish an alibi for a home invasion robbery that netted about $300, my client bought a plane ticket, paid someone to use it so he could obtain a used boarding pass, either bribed a flight attendant or got incredibly lucky that the flight attendant remembered his double (or thought he did), convinced his girlfriend and all her friends down in Georgia to lie for him, got a bunch of receipts from Georgia to seal the deal.... It would have cost him more to establish the alibi than he got in the robbery. Sure, that could have happened, but do you really believe it's likely? The alternative is that the traumatized witnesses who barely got a look at the robber before their faces were slammed to the floor (and whose stories have some problems) made a mistaken identification." The D.A.'s office folks went silent. Then they agreed to reopen the case, reinterview witnesses, give my client and his now long-ago ex polygraphs, etc. /END DERAIL TO THE DERAIL *** Explaining each piece individually -- easy. Explaining why her whole account is full of holes and serious weirdness? Yeah, not really so easy. Indeed, in order to believe her, we must believe that the one piece of concrete evidence that exists is wrong, and that she twice lied under oath.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 19:37:10 GMT -5
And then too -- let's say that AK was all lax and gave her credit when she didn't go. Fine. Done. Doesn't fit in with my experience of such seminars, but we'll assume it.
That still doesn't explain all the weirdness of her calling the attorney general she'd met exactly once to get together for a last minute cup of coffee on a day she is supposed to be spending in an all-day seminar, somehow getting his home number out of his staff (who are there in the office) before 9 am, her having the gall to call Clinton at home before 9 am (the attorney general? whom she's met once?), her waiting around the hotel for him when she should be in the seminar...
Read my points 2, 3 and 4 again. Even assuming AK is lax and goofed, her story is hinky.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 19, 2018 19:44:50 GMT -5
Maybe its just me, but I don't see what the point is to dragging Bill Clinton and where he dipped his dick into a contemporary debate. This has all been discussed, debated, litigated, and exposed in graphic details in Ken Starr's report. How does this make Trump look any better by bringing up the guy who caught fucking around three presidencies ago?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 19:51:42 GMT -5
Juanita just put out a book about the attack. People who aren't rabid anti-Clinton fanatics are believing her story and condemning a former president as a violent rapist. Perhaps you don't care. Actually (as I am finding as I rehash this), I do. People are using the Clinton stuff to defend Trump on the one hand, and on the other, condemning Clinton because they feel they have to in order to condemn Trump. I'm not the only one connecting Clinton and Trump.
Also, we're not so fussed about derails here as they are at some sites. We can't really be, since Rob and I are both fond of them. I'm bothered by them only when people are actively trying to continue the original topic and the derail is distracting from it. I don't think that's true here. When new Stormy etc. news arises, as it surely will, I'm confident the thread will turn back to Trump -- indeed, I can guarantee that I'll be turning it there if no one else does.
ETA:
To be totally fair, though, I have to admit part of the reason the derail has continued is pure pride on my part. Tell me I've got nothing when I think I've got something, and I just can't help myself. I gotta show I've got something. That said, having re-entered the weird world of Juanita and checked out her Twitter feed and website, I also got interested all over again.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 19, 2018 19:59:19 GMT -5
And then too -- let's say that AK was all lax and gave her credit when she didn't go. Fine. Done. Doesn't fit in with my experience of such seminars, but we'll assume it. It doesn't fit in with my experience either, but I wasn't attending seminars in the 1970's. Well again, this is the 1970s. I don't know how it was back then. And--I almost said this in the last post--the idea that, to her, it was more important to attend the seminar than to meet with Clinton is not a matter of course. She may well have been willing to wait, miss the seminar, and meet with him whenever he was available. Maybe she considered that connection more important than the seminar. And hell, maybe she had a crush on him. None of her personal motives for contacting him, waiting for him, etc., negate the possibility that he raped her. The "somehow getting his home number" bit is odd, I agree, but I wonder if it's not, again, a 1970's thing. Or maybe he'd given it to her, and she didn't want to admit that, because it would just be more evidence that she was "asking for it." Or, conversely, she was flat-out lying, as you suggest. I also want to add, from my reading/listening to Juanita's rendition of the events that transpired in the hotel room, my own pure and utter speculation: it's entirely possible, imo, that Clinton didn't think he raped Juanita. I got a sense of a braggadocio about the encounter; he "knew" she wanted him (maybe she'd even flirted with him, googly-eyed him, whatever) and he "took" her thinking that was what she wanted (and because he was a fecking idiot). Re: Ken Starr's conclusion of "inconclusive": welcome to 99% of sexual assault cases? There are usually only two witnesses. I'm not arguing that you're wrong; you may well be right. But I think there are other explanations for your points, and this isn't some sort of science where rape victims never lie, never like the perpetrator, never hide, never feel guilty, never change their story. We know how *we* would respond (ahem, to be being raped by a gubernatorial/presidential candidate, and to being hounded decades later by the media) but that doesn't mean everyone will respond how we would.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 20:23:27 GMT -5
I know it's not a science. We've been all through the "rape victims act weird" thing. That's one reason I focused on stuff that didn't directly relate to the rape itself or her reaction to it.
But again. The question is whether her story is credible. The question isn't whether you can 'splain any one point alone; the question is whether you really can 'splain all eleventy million of them and still say her story is "credible." The question is whether you take someone who admittedly lied under oath, twice, AND has a story full of holes and contradictions and weird stuff AND that contradicts a state record and say "yeah, she seems truthful."
And there's so much more. Do I need, for example, to go into her ridiculous allegations about Hillary thanking her for not reporting the rape, and threatening her if she did report it?
IMO, the woman is profiting off the MeToo movement -- and at the Clinton's expense.
It's significant to me that she accords no credence to Trump's accusers or Roy Moore's accusers (though she does Al Franken's...). She's not about "believe the victims". She's about Juanita.
|
|