Split Thread Clinton Scandals

[Upchurch]

And you must know I can show he distorted the facts because for starters the two FBI agents who interviewed Broaddrick for Schippers said they found her story highly credible. Shall I prove it?

Oh, please do.

 

[BeAChooser]

Oh, please do.

Come on, Upchurch. You are just demonstrating dishonesty. We've had this exact same discussion before and when I responded with clear proof you were wrong, you simply ignored it ... in fact you disappeared from the thread. Here folks ... check out Upchurch's post #57 on this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...hp?p=4011085&highlight=broaddrick#post4011085

Here it is:

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Surely you are aware that the FBI investigators said the allegations by Broaddrick that Clinton raped her were credible.

Source?

This says otherwise:

Quote:
She recanted her earlier sworn statement when interviewed by the FBI about the Jones case; the FBI found her account inconclusive, and the affidavit denying the allegations remains her only sworn testimony.

Then check out my reply in post #64 on that thread. My post includes the following statement taken from the exact same source that Upchurch cited:

David P. Schippers, chief investigator for the House Judiciary Committee Republicans during impeachment proceedings, said that his staffers (BAC - FBI agents) interviewed Broaddrick more than once and "have assured me that she is the most credible witness that either one of them have ever talked to."

In fact, Schippers in his book, "Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment", stated that:

"That business of Broaddrick being deemed inconclusive is not true. What actually happened is, I think Starr decided not to follow up because once Lewinsky cooperated, they figured they had their impeachable offense and decided to concentrate on that."

In his book, Schippers said that when he learned that Broaddrick's charges were corroborated by several witnesses interviewed by the OIC, he sent two of his investigators (BAC - both were FBI) to Arkansas for a meeting with Broaddrick and her lawyer. At the meeting she was reluctant to acknowledge the assault but in a telephone conversation to the investigators later that day, she spilled her heart out. For an hour and a half, she described the ordeal. The investigator, who had worked with rape victims during her days on the Chicago police force, told Schippers, "Juanita fits the pattern of the classic rape victim."

And as I pointed out in my earlier response to Upchurch, even Ken Starr admitted to reporters that FBI investigators found Broaddrick's allegation "credible". Don't you remember my doing that, Upchurch?

My source was Newsmax.com which reported on Dec 5, 1999 the following:

Former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr says that FBI agents who interviewed Juanita Broaddrick believed she was telling the truth when she claimed President Clinton raped her 21 years ago. ''The investigators found her entirely credible," Starr told a gathering of reporters on Friday. Only Cox News Service's Julia Malone reported the former independent counsel's comments on the rape charge, breaking ranks with her Washington press corps colleagues who ignored the development.

Now I'm guessing that next Upchurch would respond that Newsmax is not a trustworthy source (his side in these debates always does that without actually demonstrating why). That begs the question why we should trust anything pro-Clinton sources ... the Washington Post, LA Times, NY Times, CBS, ABC, NBC and PBS ... report given the number of examples one can give where they misrepresented or did not report important facts, but anyway ... here is exactly what Julie Malone wrote in an article titled "Why does the press continue to ignore the Juanita Broaddrick story?" that was published in Capitol Hill Blue on January 3, 2000:

On Dec. 3 former independent counsel Starr is asked at a Christian
Science Monitor breakfast whether he believes the Broaddrick charges and
responds that they are "sobering to the point of devastating." He adds that
the investigators who interviewed Broaddrick "found her entirely credible."

Now I suppose Upchurch will whine that Capital Hill Blue is not a trustworthy source (because that's what Clinton defenders always do). Well here ... direct for the Christian Science Monitor website ... is verification that there was a breakfast held by the Monitor where Starr met reporters in early December of 1999.

http://www.csmonitor.com/1999/1206/p1s4.html

from the December 06, 1999 edition

Starr puts his gloss on history

This report is from a breakfast held by the Monitor with Mr. Starr and a group of Washington reporters and columnists.

Here's another article on that breakfast from the CSM website:

http://www.csmonitor.com/1999/1214/p11s2.html

The nearly 40 journalists who sat with Starr over bacon and eggs (he was kept too busy answering questions to eat a single bite)

Does Upchurch want to claim that no reporter asked about Broaddrick or that Julie Malone misrepresented what Starr said in her article?

And by the way, folks, in my earlier response to Upchurch, I destroyed the other claims he made in his post above. Go take a look. And keep in mind that Broaddrick was by no means the only women alleging rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment in Bill Clinton's history. I believe I went over that history on threads where Upchurch was in attendance too. Maybe he forgot ... like Clinton's defenders always seem to do.