Schwarzenneger molested women, apologizes

[Saint Marcus]

we're still waiting for your proof, Ned.

[Ned]

My top 10 reasons why I believe Juanita Broderick's alleged rape by William Jefferson Clinton:

10) Her lack of motivation. She was a registered Democrat working on Bill Clinton's campaign. She isn't writing a book. She isn't selling the story. She has no reason other than to finally tell the truth. Anyone who argues her motives hasn't reviewed the truth about this story.

9) Her risk she is taking by coming forward now. Her name is about to be defamed. Her reputation is about to be tarnished. The left wing will destroy her name. She is willing for these things to be said about her to put forth her details.

8) Her silence at the time of the event. Who would believe her? William Jefferson Clinton was the Attorney General for the State of Arkansas. If people don't believe her now, who in the hell would believe her then. People doubt her now, even with the pattern of female problems that William Jefferson Clinton has been proven to LIE about! He lied about Genifer Flowers. He lied about Elizabeth Ward Gracen. He lied about Monica Lewinsky. He lied to his staff. He lied to his lawyers. He lied to a federal judge. He lied before a grand jury. He lied to the American People. If people don't believe her under this set of circumstances, who would believe her then?

7) Her personal apology to Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. This woman cried in the NBC interview when apologizing to Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones. This exhibits the true reaction a rape victim would have when they have experienced such events.

6) William Jefferson Clinton's jail restoration story to Juanita Broderick. This information is proof that he was indeed in the hotel room with her. The jail was visible from the hotel. William Jefferson Clinton had plans to restore that jail. How else could she have knows about his intentions to restore the jail, other than William Jefferson Clinton looking out the window and talking about the jail?

5) Mr. Broderick's threat to William Jefferson Clinton. A husband of a rape victim does indeed react in this manner. Furthermore, if the Governor was threatened with violence, why didn't he have Mr. Broderick charged with threats to the Governor?

4) Date of alleged rape established by NBC, and NOT by Juanita Broderick. Ms. Broderick, acting just as a rape victim does, wanted to forget the event, but his haunted by the memory. A rape victim remembers the horror, but not the details, as they try, unsucessfully, to forget the event. Ms. Broderick was able to provide NBC with enough information for them to PROVE the date of the convention, as well as her presence at the convention. Someone trying to frame an innocent person would have the dates already established.

3) A pattern has been established with William Jefferson Clinton and Hotel Rooms. William Jefferson Clinton invited Kathleen Willey to a hotel room. He wanted chicken soup brought to him. She felt that something was wrong with the invitation, so she declined. Paula Jones alleges that she was sexually harrassed in a hotel room. This makes three seperate women, who on national television, has offered stories of William Jefferson Clinton and hotel rooms. Who are you going to believe, the three women, or William Jefferson Clinton?

2) William Jefferson Clinton's lack of cooperation to this case, his history of lies, his history of perjury (therefore, a known felon), and his personal corrupton and obstruction of justice in sexual cases. William Jefferson Clinton has NOT cooperated with NBC to provide documents as to his whereabouts on April 25, 1978. An innocent man would be willing to provide such information. William Jefferson Clinton had his lawyer offer his denial. The lawyer was not present in the room, and is PAID to make such statements. I believe his denial to be a TRUE denial... yes, I believe that Bill Clinton offered a statement that is TRUE. Remember that this is a president that argued over the definition of "alone" and "is". Let's evaluate the denial... The President did not assault Ms. Broderick over 20 years ago. If you evaluate this, the President 20 years ago, was Jimmy Carter, whom I know did NOT assault this woman. In addition, 20 years ago, her name was Mrs.Hickey and NOT Mrs. Broderick. And last, notice that he said "assault" rather than "sexual assault", as there is a legal difference. So, his denial is "factually correct", as Bill Clinton would say. Also, Bill Clinton has no legal reason to have his lawyer make his statements on his behalf. He cannot be charged with ANY crime, as the statute of limitations has expired. Since he cannot be charged with ANY crime, why does he need a lawyer to make statements on his behalf?

1) Others collaberating events at the time, especially Norma Roger's collaberation of the bitten lip. A bite mark is a typical trademark of a rapist. Bite marks are used to hurt, intimidate, control, and humiliate the woman. This bite mark on her lip has been corraberated by 3 other individuals. It is the most conclusive and damaging piece to this story. It corraborates that the encounter was NOT consenting. Nobody wants a lip bitten so hard that the lip is swollen at least twice its normal size, and takes ice to aid in swelling and pain. On her trip home, a couple of stops were made for ice to be placed on the lip. Obviously, this was not a simple bite mark.

Therefore, I have concluded, William Jefferson Clinton is a RAPIST!!!

Now, I have some further comments:

First, I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice Administration from Central Missouri State University. I was in the Military Police in the United States Army Reserves.

A date rape comes down to "he says", "she says". Who are you most likely to believe, and who has the most credibility. In date rape cases, supporting evidence is very rare. In this case, who has more credibility with more corraboration.

For anyone (man or woman) who has ever been assaulted, I feel sorry for the words that you are about to hear from the far left (including many so-called feminist of this country). A woman NEVER invites assault. It is NEVER a woman's fault, despite what she wears, or whom she invites into her hotel room. It is NEVER a woman's desire to have non-consentual sex. You have my deepest sympathy. I am sorry for what is being said about these situations.

Curtis Jacobs

Back to my home page: http://www.cjnetworks.com/~jacobs

http://members.cox.net/cjacobs5/politics/rape.htm

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Ned? Much as I hate to interrupt hysterics, I must point out that if you "most damning evidence" is proof of rape then I'm a rapist.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


so he's just Fezzing?

He's Nedding

[Ned]

Laz, of course.

This is just the worst of the allegations. He was accused by a number of women besides Broderick. His pattern was always to deny, deny, deny to everyone, including the courts, where he had a legal duty to speak the truth. This is why he was impeached. This is why he was charged with a crime and had to settle with the Special Prosecutor. This is why he was disbarred by the Supreme Court. This is why he was suspended by Arkansas.

The man is shameless.

This is also why the president of NOW said she still condemned Clinton, but was willing to vote for Schwarzenegger.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Ned? Just go back and look at some of those "proofs" objectively, would you? Some of them are so flimsy that they're barely on the page at all. Surely you must see that?

[Saint Marcus]

Ned: is that all? hardly convincing evidence, is it? It most certainly wouldn't stand up in court.

[Ned]

I tend to believe Broderick more because of Clinton's pattern of conduct and his pattern of lies.

Have you guys ever been on a jury? I have. In close cases, such evidence is often decisive.

[spartak]

No wonder so many innocent americans go to the electric chair then.

[Ned]

spartak, I personally am against the death penalty. One of the reasons is that there can be mistakes. Another is that justice in the US depends, critically, on wealth. The OJ case convinced me of that.

However, the jury system remains, IMHO, the best system for determining the truth regardless of the OJ case.

[Jack_www]

This is so funny. The double standard by the Democratics is amazing. The people who told us that Clinton's sex life is personal and have nothing to do with being President now attack Arnold.

FOr those of you calling for a criminal investigation, because of the statue of limitations you cant sue Arnold or charge him with any crime.

If these things are true it is pretty bad. But why did these women wait so long? Why come out 4 days before the election, so that there is no time to short out what really happened? Most voters see these stories as smear tatics, and I believe will back fire.

[Saint Marcus]

Have you guys ever been on a jury?

take a wild guess.

no of course. no juries here. thank heavens.

The Jury systems remains, IMHO, the worst system for determining the truth. "Regular folk" are too easily influenced by emotions, by how the victim and the accused appear, etc. Regular folk aren't trained to judge on a man's guilt or innocence, and will too often rely on their emotions rather than their ratio. Especcially since just about anyone can become a jury member, even if you're a white trash single mom with an IQ of 87, making $5.75 an hour at Walmart. And you place someone's life (yes, life, since capital punishment is still common) in their hands? Horrible. A travesty of justice.

And if your proof was presented to a non-jury court, it would be dismissed in a heartbeat. and rightly so.

[Jac de Molay]

This is so funny. The double standard by the Democratics is amazing. The people who told us that Clinton's sex life is personal and have nothing to do with being President now attack Arnold.

That may be true, but Arnold is probably a worse liar than Clinton ever was. The six women who came forward are but a tip of the iceberg concerning his conduct on movie sets dating to up to 2000.

He emphatically says he never recalled saying the Nazi comments even though they're on film and transcripted.

He's a lying liar, and California deserves what they get.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Jack_www
If these things are true it is pretty bad. But why did these women wait so long? Why come out 4 days before the election, so that there is no time to short out what really happened?

Well, according to Ned (see above) this is convincing proof that the offence actually occurred. Why don't you decide that issue between yourselves, then I'll happily discuss it with the winner.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Here's a tip to absolutely everyone, whatever your political standing. Mudslinging is part of politics and always has been. It certainly isn't getting worse than it used to be.

Therefore feel free to join in, but be very careful about claiming the moral high ground because I'll guarantee that mud will be slung back at you. Deal with it.