Certainly Clinton thought so, but I’m not so sure. I think the Democrats, and especially Bill himself, would have come out looking better if he had owned up to what he did and asked for forgiveness right away. The Republicans would have saved even more face, since Clinton’s cover-up gave them the opportunity to descend even farther into absurdity in their hatred.

The core facts of the incident, beyond Broaddrick’s Rashomon-like telling, are this: In order to get bumper stickers, she phoned Clinton at his apartment and set up a one-on-one meeting at HER hotel. Her roommate was out of the room to “go shopping.” The venue of the meeting “changed” to HER ROOM. Moreover, other clinical data, as well as witness accounts, strongly suggested that whatever sex they had was consensual.

And finally, just which version were we supposed to believe? Her 1992 deposition, or the version she told once the Clinton-haters had made a national campaign out of smearing him?

People who dug into Bill Clinton’s past, particularly his dealings with women, know this: He was (and still is) a very attractive man with a great deal of power and charisma. Unsurprisingly, a lot of women threw themselves at him, many of them of obviously questionable character. Clinton, to his ill credit, was not prone to refusing them.

But to leap from that to an accusation of rape is, frankly, beyond the pale.

You still haven’t said what evidence exists that Broaddrick had a “profit motive.” Now you’ve introduced all these new claims - the bumper stickers, that meeting in Broaddrick’s hotel room was her idea, clinical data (what clinical data exists after 30 years?) and witness accounts (which witnesses? Where can I read about them?) - and you haven’t provided a clue or a link as to where ANY of this alleged information comes from.

I’m not as close-minded as you may imagine; I’d be happy to read and consider evidence showing that Clinton is probably innocent. But I do require reading the evidence for myself, not just taking your word that it exists.

As for the affidat (in 1998 - not 1992, as you mistakenly wrote), I note again that you don’t apply to Clinton the standard that you’re applying to Broaddrick (the “if you’ve ever lied, everything else you ever claim we should assume is a lie” standard). Maybe you find it totally bewildering that a rape victim might sign a false affidat to avoid being dragged into a civil suit in which she would be dragged over the coals and publicly humiliated, but that same person might be frightened of lying to a federal grand jury. But I trust most Alas readers don’t find the idea that bizarre. Rape victims sometimes have very good reason to fear being “re-victimized” in court, and lying to avoid being attacked on the stand in the Paula Jones case is totally understandable.

I’m hardly an expert on this case, but I’ve read a fair amount about it, and this is the first time I’ve heard of the “love letters.”

Also (posted mainly so I can find the link easily later, not because it’s relevant to John’s post), here’s a collection of newspaper articles on the case. This was compiled by a rabid Clinton-hater, so naturally some of the articles are total crap; but he also included a couple that are worth reading, such as the Washington Post’s account.

Actually, it’s the very fact that so many rapists are charming, affable, kindly people… in public that makes it possible for them to get away with private outrages. They even fool their close friends, their families, their co-workers. Considering that all these people have been considerably closer to Clinton than John has, I fail to see how “what he has seen” of Clinton’s character has all that much to do with whether or not the man raped Broaddrick.

Again, I haven’t any documentation of this, though I believe it probably exists somewhere. You should at least check out, first, what Lyons and Conason had to say about Broaddrick in The Hunting of the President (pp. 60-64). Add to that what Sidney Blumenthal has to say about her tale in The Clinton Wars.

But let me put it to you this way: There are many ways of pursuing and digging up details in pursuit of the truth of a story well beyond the first interviews. They are not reliant in the least on court proceedings. Ask any investigative reporter. Broaddrick’s inability to pursue the matter in court is ultimately irrelevant, given the fact that many news organizations in 1999 were fully devoted to digging up any quotient of dirt on Clinton. If there had been any substance to the story, I can assure you it would have been pursued to the ends of the earth.

Incidentally, I completely agree with you WRT the affidavit Broaddrick signed (she did also deny the charges in a civil deposition, BTW, which I thought had occurred earlier, when the accusation first arose, but I could be wrong about that). Of course, I’ve dealt over the years with multiple criminal cases in which the victim at first lied to investigators, out of a broad panoply of reasons. These include rape and hate-crimes victims.

And I agree with you that Broaddrick appeared credible for the most part. Indeed, I too went into looking at the matter as having a high likelihood of being true — though I must note that on multiple viewings of Broaddrick’s interview (I had to edit and splice it for the Web site) I picked up on several signs she had been coached.

The more everyone looked into it, the problems with her story increasingly made it appear she was at best wholly unreliable (it’s perhaps worth remembering that if she indeed lied in that civil deposition, she had committed the same ‘crime’ for which Clinton was impeached) and at worst out to cash in on the Clinton-bashing phenomenon. Most of all, there was substantial evidence that Broaddrick and Clinton’s contact was entirely consensual. The two weighed out roughly even, if not slightly in Clinton’s favor, at least IMHO.

As for a profit motive: I need hardly remind you that Clinton-bashing had evolved into a highly profitable cottage industry by 1999. (One need only recollect the money thrown Paula Jones’ way, at least until they were done with her.) Mrs. Broaddrick was financially well off (though it turned out that she indeed had financial problems in 1998), but that never precludes one from wanting to become even wealthier.

In any event, I learned long ago that you don’t call someone a murderer simply because you suspect they might have killed someone. And you don’t characterize someone as a rapist unless they’ve actually been convicted of it. It’s a basic law of truthfulness and fairness. And Republicans violated it by regularly claiming that the president was a rapist.

On the other hand, I also think it’s highly irresponsible of you to imply on your blog that Broaddrick made up her story for profit - a charge that you’re obviously unable to provide even a shred of support for. You should be as willing to grant Broaddrick a presumption of innocence as you are Clinton.

Too many journalists are willing to make character attacks on alleged rape victims without any evidence - which is one reason rape victims in this country are so hesitant to come forward with their stories. It’s possible to be skeptical about Broaddrick’s story without making unfounded, unsupported attacks on her character. I’m disappointed you didn’t take that road.

If I had tried to claim that she clearly had a profit motive, that would be one thing. I didn’t. I simply pointed it out as a possibility, and even then only in the context of explaining why there was skepticism.

The charges gradually evaporated as it became clear that Broaddrick (who had previously filed an affidavit denying any sexual contact with Clinton) was not a reliable witness, and may have had a profit motive for changing her story.

To me - and maybe I’m misreading this, English isn’t always the clearest langauge - this makes it sound as if “it became clear… that Broaddrick may have had a profit motive.” That’s stronger than just saying that it’s theoretically possible she had a profit motive; it’s implying that there’s some particular reason, that became clear over time, for suspecting Broaddrick of having a profit motive.

But on second reading, I have to admit that it’s possible that you meant the “it became clear” to apply only to the first half of your sentence, and not to the second.

In any case, I still think your post doesn’t make much sense. It was clear from the moment the story broke that Broaddrick was contradicting her earlier affidat; it was clear from the moment the story broke that someone could, in theory, have a unproven profit motive. (In fact, Broaddrick never cashed in with a book deal or by selling her story to tabloids, which suggests that whatever motivated her, it wasn’t profit).

* * *

In the end, the situation is, as you said, “Rashomen-like.” I acknowlege that reasonable people, like yourself, can disbelieve the Broaddrick charge, saying in effect “there’s no way to know for sure, but I don’t find her story credible, and don’t believe Clinton is a rapist.”

But the opposite is also true: Given her supporting witnesses and the strength of her story, reasonable people can also say “there’s no way to know for sure, but Broaddrick’s story seems credible to me, and contemporary witnesses support her account; I think it’s likely that Clinton did rape Broaddrick.”

I think that’s what really bothered me about your post: including Broaddrick’s story on a list of “afactual rhetorical turds” implies that taking a woman’s accusation of rape seriously is as ridiculous as believing in utter nonsense like the “Clinton body count.” The two things are not at all equivilent, and I think you were mistaken to put them on the same list.

I tend to think that Clinton at least THOUGHT his encounter with Broaddrick was consensual, just as he apparently mis-read Paula Jones’s coyness in that hotel room. She made clear in her deposition that he had been trying to nuzzle her neck — among other things — and she didn’t make any overt objection until he actually opened his fly.

I believe that the evidence clearly shows that both Jones and Broaddrick were looking for a special relationship of one sort or another with a powerful man (just as Katherine Willey was), but they didn’t particularly like the no-nonsense sexual response they got to their “invitations.” They wanted romance and power and got sex and swift dismissal instead.

I think Clinton’s routine sexual response to these kinds of random opportunities was straightforward and even a little rough because he had discovered that a lot of women seemed to like it that way (wanting to believe they were “swept off their feet,” so to speak) AND because he found out that just “going for it” directly was a very efficient way of getting to the sex with a woman who appeared to be willing. He didn’t have a lot of time to waste when he was on a political schedule!

It was only after these women thought about their encounters later (as Linda Tripp’s testimony made clear in the case of Katherine Willey) that their disappointed ambitions caused them to decide that Clinton’s no-frills, swashbuckling sexual style had been “inappropriate” in some way.

This theory takes into account both the apparent “credibility” of these women — they convinced themselves that Clinton’s subsequent cavalier attitude toward them proved the truth of what they now believed about what had happened — and Clinton’s apparent belief that he had not done anything these women didn’t signal by their behavior (like Broaddrick’s invitation to “continue the conversation” upstairs in her room) that they were offering.

None of this reflects well on any of the players, least of all Clinton, who obviously made indiscriminate use of his sexual opportunities from various hopeful or downright calculating women. But it does explain how Clinton is not a “rapist” even if all these women are telling what they believe is “the truth.”

For instance, you refer to “Broaddrick’s invitation to ‘continue the conversation’ upstairs in her room.” But according to Broaddrick’s account in her NBC interview, it was Clinton’s suggestion to meet in her room, not hers. (According to Broaddrick, Clinton made a request to change the meeting to her room so he could avoid talking to the press in the coffee shop). Your account of what happened is totally at odds with Broaddrick’s.

“I believe that the evidence clearly shows that both Jones and Broaddrick were looking for a special relationship of one sort or another with a powerful man (just as Katherine Willey was), but they didn’t particularly like the no-nonsense sexual response they got to their ‘invitations.’ They wanted romance and power and got sex and swift dismissal instead.”

Say what? Do you have any evidence at all to support these contentions about Broaddrick?

Look, suppose a successful male businessman accepted Bill Clinton’s invitation to chat. Would anyone find it strange or suspicious that successful businessfolks would like to talk to their state’s attorney general? Of course not - businesspeople look to lobby politicians all the time, and the more “buddy-buddy” the relationship can be the better. (Look at Ken Lay’s notes to Dubya).

But because a successful female businesswoman agreed to meet with a powerful politician - something male businessmen do all the time - you leap to the assumption that she must have been seeking romance and sending sexual messages. That’s just sexist bullshit.

It was only after these women thought about their encounters later (as Linda Tripp’s testimony made clear in the case of Katherine Willey) that their disappointed ambitions caused them to decide that Clinton’s no-frills, swashbuckling sexual style had been “inappropriate” in some way.

Again, this is nonsense as applied to Broaddrick’s story. According to her story, she immediately identified what happened to her as rape; and she told friends she had been raped at that time. Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your theory that Broaddrick’s accusation of rape is an example of an after-the-fact rethinking?

Look, unless you know of some evidence I haven’t read, there’s simply no evidence to support your version of events.

Ampersand, you said, “And if having told a lie once - even in understandable circumstances - does make one permanently unreliable as a witness, then why is David so willing to take Bill Clinton’s word?” But the situations aren’t exactly parallel. Bill Clinton’s specific lie in question was involving Monica Lewinsky, whereas Broaddrick made a claim on an affidavit, then later negated that very claim. This doesn’t mean that Broaddrick was lying when she negated her claim, nor does it mean that her initial affidavit was not justifiable given the circumstances, but it would provide a problem if one was to attempt to prosecute Clinton in court. In that sense, it would greatly diminish Broaddrick’s credibility as a witness.

Which is not to assume anything. I prefer to neither assume Clinton raped Broaddrick, nor Clinton didn’t rape Broaddrick, since at this point, there’s nothing we can do about it either way.

I should add that I’m not extremely familiar with the case, in fact the first I really read of it was your post, so if I made any incorrect assumptions above, please correct.

As to whether rape was Clinton’s style, I have to say that the women over here who dated him or knew him when he was at Oxford (and his former housemate, Mandy Merck) paint a picture of a man who would never force himself on someone. They still speak well of him - including the ones who have turned out to be Tories. Mandy says Clinton was the first person she trusted enough to come out to. I know some of these people personally and they instantly dismissed the idea of him raping anyone because that was just plain not like him. It’s all very well to claim that “most rapists are charming” (I’m not sure if this is really true, though), but the fact of the matter is there don’t seem to be a lot of women running around this island complaining about how Bill got pushy with them &etc. - nor even complaints that he got what he wanted and then dropped them. They tend to portray him as a gentleman.

Broaddrick claims that when she called Clinton that day he invited himself up to her room “because there were too many reporters in the lobby/coffee shop.” Why would there be a lot of reporters in a venue that was hosting a nursing convention? Why would he need to avoid reporters at all, under the supposedly innocent circumstances of their meeting? Is Broaddrick claiming that the nursing convention was crawling with reporters who were following the Attorney General around and yet did not notice his departure for the private rooms of the hotel and his absence for, according to her own statements, over 1/2 hour?

She “could not remember” the exact date or even the time of day when this horrible assault occurred, when it is reasonable to believe that something so stunningly awful would be perfectly emblazoned on her memory in all its particulars.

What was the business Juanita needed to discuss with the Attorney general/soon-to-be Governor? Was it related to some health violations that had recently been discovered at her nursing home? Did she hope to get some kind of favor from him? If so, things may not have gone exactly as she hoped in more ways than one.

The nurse/roommate (gal named Rodgers) who was “out shopping” but came back in time to witness the supposed results of the attack — and thus was said to have “partially corroborated” Broaddrick’s account of the incident — herself had reason to deeply, deeply hate Bill Clinton: he commuted the sentence of a man who murdered her father. Many people believe that she is the source of the whisper campaign as the 1992 presidential campaign got underway, the whispering that got one Philip Yoakum, protege of Sheffield Nelson, one of Clinton’s most virulent enemies, involved in the matter.

Yoakum wrote a letter to Broaddrick which outlined the accusations and got her husband all in a lather, in which he claimed that he “understood” why Braoddrick hadn’t come forward, and pledged to keep her name out of the press. But of course he or someone else leaked her name. At which point Broaddrick either had go with the “rape” story or admit to her second husband that she had had sex with Clinton voluntarily.

This is, I think, the crux of the matter for both Jones and Broaddrick: they’d both had private hotel room encounters with Clinton which they had to explain to their husbands. Jones could get away with saying that Clinton made a crude offer, which she refused. But Broaddrick had already told Rodgers the “he forced me” story which was now making the media rounds, so she had to stick to it.

Broaddrick’s sexual encounter with Clinton WAS probably an unhappy one from her point of view, and she might have told Rodgers about it in a teary and accusatory tone because she felt used and summarily discarded, not because he raped her.

Here’s another possibility: if it was clear to a returning roomie that something illicit had happened, a woman who was currently married (and also having an affair with the man who would become her second husband) might very well tell said roomie that the sex she smelled in the air and saw in her disheveled friend had been forced upon her.

Broaddrick’s first husband, to whom she supposedly went home that very day in a rush, leaving the conference before it was over (although records seem to show that she stayed for all of it) said that he never noticed any mysteriously fat, bruised upper lip on his wife. Which might mean only that the “bruising” was considerably less than Broaddrick and Rodgers imply, or that Broaddrick’s first husband is willing to discredit her. Not unheard-of in cuckolded husbands, I understand.

I take the concern about sticking to the story for a husband’s sake partly from this part of the (unsigned) letter Yoakum wrote to Broaddrick after he and Nelson had approached her in 1992 about the whispers they had heard (and secretly taped the conversation!):

We both simply asked you if you were interested in coming forward, if for nothing else, just to release you from the guilt you said you had been carrying for fourteen years. And you mentioned that, if you did come forward, that it would truly convince [husband's name] of your innocence in the matter and also it would help to set his mind at rest.

Later that evening I had a telephone call from [husband's name] and he asked me if Sheffield had made a recording of our conversation and I said no [LIAR]. … [Husband's name], in no uncertain terms, threatened that I would be held personally responsible for the release of this information. …

As I have stated above, I am not going to release the tapes and other back-up materials, and you can live your life without the fear of me ever doing so. However, for my own protection I have made copies of the tapes and everything else and given them to both my attorney and Sheffield. These tapes and materials will be held forever, for posterity, and they will never be released unless I am forced by you to have to release them in court or to the press or also, in light of [husband's name]’s threats, in the event harm should ever come to me or my family. I gave Sheffield his copies of everything without any restrictions, so that he could use them any way he might choose.

So, let’s look at this scenario: Yoakum approaches Broaddrick privately and asks about the rape story Rodgers told him and Broaddrick confirms it because she knows Yoakum is in contact with her husband. Yoakum records that conversation, so he’s got something he can bring out against her later “if something happens.”

Broaddrick says she was NOT raped in her affadavit for the Jones case, but when it comes to facing down Ken Starr, she knows that tape is out there with the rightwing goon squad, and she fears they will use it and prosecute her for perjury if she continues to say nothing happened — not to mention that her husband’s doubts about the whole thing must have been reaching critical mass right about then. What woman WOULDN’T go back to the rape story under the circumstances?