• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Andrea Mitchell lies to attack Trump, and protect the Clintons

Her story wasn't backed up by every person who knew her back then. Her former husband was completely unaware of the alleged rape, she only told the man she was cheating on him with. She is now married to him. I can gue$$ why $he and her current hu$band might want to come up with this $tory after being encouraged by republican political hitmen.

Her claims were neither substantiated nor proven. She didn't come forward immediately because she feared the powerful governor of Arkansas. But then she came forward when he was President of the United States.

Yeah, becau$e $he couldn't have gotten that at any previou$ time...
 
Grim, the ONLY time it seems when I hear conservatives advocating about rape victim rights is when the accuser is a liberal or democrat.

As a conservative myself, I personally do not care about rape victims. They need to put themselves in situations to not get raped.

One major difference though between me and some of the liberal tahwards on this forum is that I will never support the rights of the criminals perpetrating these crimes. They belong in jail for a very long time. I am not a psychologist or psychoanalysis. We do not not need to know why they are committing crimes or try to justify them. They belong in jail.

If you are so against rapists, then why are you defending Bill Clinton and vehemently attacking Broaddrick?

There has never been anything that's come to light to suggest that she is lying about that incident. She's never written a book, nor turned the story into a way to make money. She didn't go public until after Clinton's political career was over, so there was no political motive involved. Finally, by going public with the story in 99', she was admitting that she lied in her court deposition in the Paula Jones case, and since we know her story wasn't told for financial profit or politics, why on earth would she have jeopardized herself like that if the incident never happened?

It simply doesn't makes sense that she made the whole thing up, and when you consider that nothing has surfaced in the 17 years since that NBC interview to discredit any part of what she said, I would like to know what your basis for calling her a liar is, if it isn't a case of uncontrollable hatred? .

.
 
Lying? "Discredited" is a vague enough term to the point where I'm sure she believed what she said.

Really... Something being "discredited" means it's been shown to be untrue. It is not in the least what you would call a "vague" term and Andrea Mitchell meant exactly that, that it was proven to be untrue, when she made that proclamation the other day. A journalist of her years in the media wouldn't make such a proclamation without evidence to back it up with... unless of course she was letting her political bias dictate how she reports a story.

Now would you care to show me anything that has "discredited" Broaddrick's allegation that she was sexually assaulted By Bill Clinton?

The truth is, we both know that you can no more find anything to discredit Broaddrick's story than Andrea mitchell can.



.
 
Really... Something being "discredited" means it's been shown to be untrue. It is not in the least what you would call a "vague" term and Andrea Mitchell meant exactly that, that it was proven to be untrue, when she made that proclamation the other day. A journalist of her years in the media wouldn't make such a proclamation without evidence to back it up with... unless of course she was letting her political bias dictate how she reports a story.

Now would you care to show me anything that has "discredited" Broaddrick's allegation that she was sexually assaulted By Bill Clinton?

The truth is, we both know that you can no more find anything to discredit Broaddrick's story than Andrea mitchell can.

The truth is Bill Clinton didn't sexual harass, assault, or rape anyone. All the women Bill Clinton had sexual relations with wanted it and enjoyed it.
 
The truth is Bill Clinton didn't sexual harass, assault, or rape anyone. All the women Bill Clinton had sexual relations with wanted it and enjoyed it.

Ok.

Now you're just ****ing with us.
 
With so much blind hatred and political rage, all I can do is pity you and those in your family that have to deal with you on a daily basis.
.

I am hardly a Bill Clinton groupie but lets show the former President a little respect and not substantiate these malicious type of false rumors.

Again, not a Hillary fan at all but one quote by her pretty much sums this up:

the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

I request that this thread be moved to where it belongs: The conspiracy theory section.
 
I am hardly a Bill Clinton groupie but lets show the former President a little respect and not substantiate these malicious type of false rumors.

False rumors?

* Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;
* In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Clinton, a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by Capitol Hill Blue confirmed the incident. The woman, tracked down by Capitol Hill Blue last week, confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give permission to use her name;
* In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students;
* Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape;
* From 1978-1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening;
* Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
* Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown. Last year, Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual. Close friends of Ward, however, say she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.
* Paula Corbin, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones recently with an $850,000 cash payment.

continued
 
* Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser says Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She says she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room. When she reported the incident to her boss, he advised her to keep her mouth shut if she wanted to keep working. Miss James has since married and left Washington. Reached at her home last week, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.
* Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
* Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.

Rumors huh... LMAO


Again, not a Hillary fan at all but one quote by her pretty much sums this up:

the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

I request that this thread be moved to where it belongs: The conspiracy theory section.

If you actually buy into the "vast right-wing conspiracy" nonsense, then YOU belong in the conspiracy theory section of the forum.

Take notice that every single one of those women from the time Clinton got into politics, were all democrats who supported Clinton in his political career. Maybe it's a vast left wing conspiracy.

lol



.
 
Last edited:
Lacking a conviction in a court of law, the accusation can not stand and is discredited. If a claim is made, ie. there is a unicorn on the roof, the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate it is so. If not the null hypothesis holds valid, there is no unicorn on the roof. There was no rape proven, so we can dismiss the accusation.
 
Lacking a conviction in a court of law, the accusation can not stand and is discredited. If a claim is made, ie. there is a unicorn on the roof, the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate it is so. If not the null hypothesis holds valid, there is no unicorn on the roof. There was no rape proven, so we can dismiss the accusation.

Andrea Mitchell said that Broaddrick's story had been "discredited" and that my friend is false.

Not one thing she said in that 1999 NBC interview with Lisa Myers has ever been discredited. If you don't believe me, then listen to what Lisa Myers herself sais a few years ago:

NBC News Lisa Myers Nothingundercuts Juanita | User Clip | C-SPAN.org

.
 
Andrea Mitchell said that Broaddrick's story had been "discredited" and that my friend is false.

Not one thing she said in that 1999 NBC interview with Lisa Myers has ever been discredited. If you don't believe me, then listen to what Lisa Myers herself sais a few years ago:

NBC News Lisa Myers Nothingundercuts Juanita | User Clip | C-SPAN.org

.

An accusation has been made. That's all there is. Nothing more. Without corroborating evidence there is nothing. No one is forced by logic to prove a negative. By logic alone the accusation is discredited. Look up "Null Hypothesis".
 
An accusation has been made. That's all there is. Nothing more. Without corroborating evidence there is nothing. No one is forced by logic to prove a negative. By logic alone the accusation is discredited. Look up "Null Hypothesis".

Why don't you tell me how her story has been "discredited"?

What has been uncovered that casts doubt on the story she told?

Understand, I'm not saying her story has ever been proven true, but there is a difference between a story being "unproven" (not able to substantiate as factual) and a story being "discredited" (shown not to have been factual).


.
 
Why don't you tell me how her story has been "discredited"?

What has been uncovered that casts doubt on the story she told?

Understand, I'm not saying her story has ever been proven true, but there is a difference between a story being "unproven" (not able to substantiate as factual) and a story being "discredited" (shown not to have been factual).


.

Nothing has been uncovered that casts doubt on her story, but again I don't have to prove there is no unicorn on my roof. If someone claims there is it is up to them to demonstrate it. We can not logically accept a claim without reason. We require evidence. Anyone can claim they were raped, maybe they were or were not, but if they can't demonstrate that they were we must not treat their accusation as true. The accused is presumed not guilty. An accusation lacking evidence must be disregarded. The claim is discredited for lack of evidence.

I am an atheist for the same reason. I can not belief in god for the simple reason that I have been shown no logical reason to do so. The concept of god is discredited for lack of evidence.
 
Yesterday, Andrea Mitchell filed a report on NBC's Today Show, about the Sean Hannity interview with Donald Trump. Trump inserted the word "rape" while discussing the allegations woman have made against Bill Clinton in the past, and Andrea Mitchell flat out lied to defend the former president.

Mitchell proclaimed during the segment that:

“Donald Trump using that word unprompted during an interview last night with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, bringing up a discredited and long denied accusation against former President Bill Clinton dating back to 1978 when he was Arkansas Attorney General.”


That accusation was made by Juanita Broaddrick and guess what folks... That accusation, although denied by Clinton, has never been discredited by her, or anyone else.

In fact, the NBC reporter Lisa Myers, who did the original interview with Broaddrick back in 1999, said the following in a 2014 interview on C-Span:


“I can say that nothing has come up since that story was reported that in any way undercuts what Juanita Broaddrick said.”


Her story was backed up by every single person who knew her back then, including the woman that went with her to Little Rock on that trip. To refresh everyone's memories on that interview by Lisa Myers, here it is... Take note of liberal bias that's dripping off of Stone Phillips:






Although it's tough to put the genie back in the bottle, NBC News needs to make an apology for the smear on Broaddrick and Andrea Mitchell needs to make an on-air retraction along with an apologie for that blatant, inexcusable lie.



.


This is what Killary Rotten Clinton supporters do , LIE !!! :shock:
 
An accusation has been made. That's all there is. Nothing more. Without corroborating evidence there is nothing. No one is forced by logic to prove a negative. By logic alone the accusation is discredited. Look up "Null Hypothesis".

Nothing has been uncovered that casts doubt on her story, but again I don't have to prove there is no unicorn on my roof. If someone claims there is it is up to them to demonstrate it. We can not logically accept a claim without reason. We require evidence. Anyone can claim they were raped, maybe they were or were not, but if they can't demonstrate that they were we must not treat their accusation as true. The accused is presumed not guilty. An accusation lacking evidence must be disregarded. The claim is discredited for lack of evidence.
...

:clap:
 
Her story wasn't backed up by every person who knew her back then. Her former husband was completely unaware of the alleged rape, she only told the man she was cheating on him with. She is now married to him. I can gue$$ why $he and her current hu$band might want to come up with this $tory after being encouraged by republican political hitmen.

Her claims were neither substantiated nor proven. She didn't come forward immediately because she feared the powerful governor of Arkansas. But then she came forward when he was President of the United States.

The vast right wing conspiricy at work again.
 
Juanita Broaderrick is a disgrace. A ugly disgusting liar that would sell her integrity for a sandwich.

Bill Clinton didn't rape anyone. Please separate fact from fiction. PLEASE.

Yeah, except he did, and he has a well-known history of using his position to satisfy his lusts. The only fiction here is from those clinging to the Clinton popularity.
 
Prove it. You have to be a real zealot to believe a President raped civilians.

Do you still have to be a zealot to believe a Governor raped civilians?

Do you not know Clinton's history?
 
Nothing has been uncovered that casts doubt on her story, but again I don't have to prove there is no unicorn on my roof. If someone claims there is it is up to them to demonstrate it. We can not logically accept a claim without reason. We require evidence. Anyone can claim they were raped, maybe they were or were not, but if they can't demonstrate that they were we must not treat their accusation as true. The accused is presumed not guilty. An accusation lacking evidence must be disregarded. The claim is discredited for lack of evidence.

I am an atheist for the same reason. I can not belief in god for the simple reason that I have been shown no logical reason to do so. The concept of god is discredited for lack of evidence.

Obviously you are a liberal that wants to go back to the bad old days, where women who were sexually assaulted were treated like criminals who "asked for it", therefore knew better than file a complaint.

Or are you just like NOW, and only protect women who bow to the liberal agenda?

.
 
Yesterday, Andrea Mitchell filed a report on NBC's Today Show, about the Sean Hannity interview with Donald Trump. Trump inserted the word "rape" while discussing the allegations woman have made against Bill Clinton in the past, and Andrea Mitchell flat out lied to defend the former president.

Mitchell proclaimed during the segment that:

“Donald Trump using that word unprompted during an interview last night with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, bringing up a discredited and long denied accusation against former President Bill Clinton dating back to 1978 when he was Arkansas Attorney General.”


That accusation was made by Juanita Broaddrick and guess what folks... That accusation, although denied by Clinton, has never been discredited by her, or anyone else.

In fact, the NBC reporter Lisa Myers, who did the original interview with Broaddrick back in 1999, said the following in a 2014 interview on C-Span:


“I can say that nothing has come up since that story was reported that in any way undercuts what Juanita Broaddrick said.”


Her story was backed up by every single person who knew her back then, including the woman that went with her to Little Rock on that trip. To refresh everyone's memories on that interview by Lisa Myers, here it is... Take note of liberal bias that's dripping off of Stone Phillips:






Although it's tough to put the genie back in the bottle, NBC News needs to make an apology for the smear on Broaddrick and Andrea Mitchell needs to make an on-air retraction along with an apologie for that blatant, inexcusable lie.



.


The usual casual approach to the truth.
 
Really... Something being "discredited" means it's been shown to be untrue. It is not in the least what you would call a "vague" term and Andrea Mitchell meant exactly that, that it was proven to be untrue, when she made that proclamation the other day. A journalist of her years in the media wouldn't make such a proclamation without evidence to back it up with... unless of course she was letting her political bias dictate how she reports a story.

Now would you care to show me anything that has "discredited" Broaddrick's allegation that she was sexually assaulted By Bill Clinton?

The truth is, we both know that you can no more find anything to discredit Broaddrick's story than Andrea mitchell can.



.

I didn't say I thought she was correct. I said she believed what she claimed.
 
The truth is Bill Clinton didn't sexual harass, assault, or rape anyone. All the women Bill Clinton had sexual relations with wanted it and enjoyed it.

The truth is you don't know and neither does anyone else.. except Bill and the women and maybe Hillary.

He did pay $850,000 to Paul Jones on her sexual misconduct lawsuit against Bill. He did so without admitting guilt of course but they all do that.
We know Bill lies, that's pretty well documented. So we don't know what the truth really is. I myself don't think he raped any of the women. unwanted conduct though.. probably. but that's my opinion.
 
Obviously you are a liberal that wants to go back to the bad old days, where women who were sexually assaulted were treated like criminals who "asked for it", therefore knew better than file a complaint.

Or are you just like NOW, and only protect women who bow to the liberal agenda?

.

Unfortunately for women who don't come forth with evidence in a timely manner, they have given up their opportunity to receive justice. Be subject to a rape kit. Be examined. Make a case. If a woman chooses for whatever reason to forgo evidence gathering, then they have no case. In this country people are charged and convicted based on evidence. Simply stating that one was raped is not good enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom