I've recently been reading the biography of Bill Clinton by Christopher Hitchens, No One Left To Lie To. Part of this polemic deals with the repeated allegations of sexual exploitation of women who came into contact with him. I had always assumed that the more lurid accusations against Bill Clinton were probably not true although my views on that had shifted a little even before reading this.
Reading of the accusations of rape and sexual assault made by women like Juanita Broadrick* and Kathleen Willey- women who were political allies of Clinton and mostly had not profited from their allegations. Does anyone who has looked into the accusations in detail know of any reasons to think that Bill Clinton is not a rapist?
Doleham: The least used station in East Sussex
2 hours ago
5 comments:
I don't recall the details. The obvious question is why wasn't he prosecuted?
I don't think there can ever be evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" to convict someone two decades after the event especially given that some of the over the top attacks on him for other things had convinced many people that all of the accusations were political posturing.
Do you mean now is 20 years on or when NOLTLT was written?
But what I meant did the accusers go to the police and why weren't they taken seriously?
I mean NOLTLT was written about 20 years after when Broadrick claimed she was attacked.
I don't think any of them went to the police, Broadrick spoke to 5 friends, all of whom advised her not to because in 1970s Arkansas, an accusation against the Attourney General would not be taken seriously.
That seems to me a reason to think he isn't a rapist.
Post a Comment