Paula Jones beskuldig Bill Clinton van seksuele teistering

Paula Jones beskuldig Bill Clinton van seksuele teistering


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Paula Jones, 'n voormalige staatsamptenaar in Arkansas, lê op Januarie 1994 'n saak teen president Bill Clinton aan by die federale hof in Little Rock, Arkansas, waarin sy $ 700 000 skadevergoeding vra.

Jones het beweer dat Clinton, terwyl hy die goewerneur van Arkansas was, haar seksueel geteister het en haar dan belaster het nadat sy haar beskuldigings openbaar gemaak het. Die daaropvolgende Augustus het Clinton se prokureurs 'n mosie ingedien om die klagte van Jones van die hand te wys, met verwysing na immuniteit van die president. Die federale distriksregter het beslis dat Clinton nie eers verhoor kan word voordat hy sy amp verlaat nie, maar dat die ondersoek na Jones se bewerings kan voortgaan. Jones het geappelleer en in 1996 die reg gekry om na die hooggeregshof te gaan; Clinton het daarna 'n versoek ingedien om die verhoor uit te stel totdat hy die amp verlaat. Die tydsberekening van die besluit, wat saamgeval het met die presidentsverkiesing in November 1996, het Clinton 'n uitstel gekoop.

Die Paula Jones -saak was een van vier groot skandale wat saamgesmelt het om die tweede termyn van Clinton te bedreig. Terwyl hy aan die Paula Jones -ondersoek gewerk het, het die onafhanklike aanklaer Kenneth Starr Clinton se beweerde verhouding met die Withuis -intern, Monica Lewinsky, ontbloot. Starr is ook besig met voortgesette ondersoeke na beweerde onwettige eiendomstransaksies wat deur die Clintons (bekend as die Whitewater-skandaal) gemaak is en 'n geskil oor bewerings van cronyisme tydens die afdanking van werkers by die Withuis-reisagentskap. Toe die president ondervra is oor die Lewinksy -aangeleentheid, was die president beslis minder as eerskomend, wat tot aanklagte van meineed en dwarsboming van die gereg gelei het. Alhoewel Demokratiese leiers verkies het om die president af te dank, het die Kongres in 1998 begin met die beskuldigingsproses teen Clinton; 'n verdeelde Huis van Verteenwoordigers het hom op 19 Desember aangekla. Die kwessie is dan aan die Senaat oorgedra, waar hy na 'n verhoor van 5 weke vrygespreek is.

LEES MEER: Waarom Clinton die beskuldiging oorleef het terwyl Nixon ná Watergate bedank het


Paula Jones beskuldig Bill Clinton van seksuele teistering - GESKIEDENIS

9 Mei 1991
Bill Clinton, destydse goewerneur van Arkansas, vra na bewering 'n staatstroeper om Paula Jones, 'n staatswerknemer op 'n lae vlak, na sy kamer in die Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock te ontbied. Volgens mev Jones se beëdigde verklaring het hy sy broek laat val en met verwysing na sy geslagsdele haar gevra om dit te 'soen'.

Paula Jones lê 'n formele klag in teen president Clinton oor seksuele teistering en laster van karakter.

10 Junie 1994
Die staatstroeper Danny Ferguson sê dat hy Paula Jones na die hotelkamer van Clinton gebring het, maar betwis ander belangrike bewerings teen die president. Hy sê dat mev. Clinton sexy genoem het, haar telefoonnommer vrywillig aangebied het en aangebied het om sy vriendin te wees.

1 Oktober 1994
President Clinton bied aan om die regsgeding af te handel. Hy gee toe dat hy mev. Jones in 'n hotelkamer ontmoet het en dat hy spyt was oor 'onwaar bewerings' wat oor haar gemaak is.

11 Januarie 1997
Clinton se advokate voer voor die Amerikaanse hooggeregshof aan dat die instelling van die presidentskap ondermyn sou word om die saak te laat voortgaan terwyl hy in die amp is.

27 Mei 1997
Die Amerikaanse hooggeregshof stem eenparig dat Paula Jones toegelaat moet word om met haar seksuele teistering te gaan. Die media beskou die besluit as 'n bewys dat die president nie bo die wet verhewe is nie.

1 Junie 1997
Clinton se prokureur, Robert Bennett, bied $ 700,000 ( 430,000) aan om die saak buite die hof te skik. Hy dring daarop aan dat die president nie in 1991 om verskoning vra of erken dat hy haar voorstel nie.

3 Julie 1997
In sy eerste formele reaksie op die regsgeding, ontken mnr Clinton Paula Jones se bewerings "ten sterkste".

Paula Jones se prokureurs verlaat die saak. Bronne na aan die span sê dat hulle bedank het nadat mevrou Jones die skikking van $ 700,000 van die hand gewys het omdat dit nie 'n verskoning ingesluit het nie.

14-15 September 1997
Die Amerikaanse belastingowerheid, die Internal Revenue Service, besluit om Paula Jones se inkomstebelastingopgawes na te gaan. Die Withuis ontken dat die oudit polities gemotiveerd is, en noem die bewering "sekerlik mal".

7 Oktober 1997
President Clinton se prokureur ontken dat die president enige 'onderskeidende kenmerke' aan sy penis het wat Paula Jones vroeër beskryf het. 'N Ander prokureur in die saak sê dat hy bereid is om die tafel om te draai deur ondersoek in te stel na mev Jones se vorige sekslewe.

24 November 1997
Paula Jones wysig haar regsgeding deur karakterbeskadiging as 'n eis te laat vaar. Dit stel haar vorige sekslewe buite perke.

11 Januarie 1998
Mevrou Jones se prokureurs lê 'n skikkingsvoorstel ter waarde van $ 2 miljoen voor.

17 Januarie 1998
Mnr Clinton gee 'n videoband in die teenwoordigheid van mevrou Jones en albei spanne prokureurs. Die band kan as bewys in die hof gebruik word.

18 Februarie 1998
President Clinton vra regter Susan Webber Wright om die pak van Paula Jones weg te gooi en voer aan dat dit nie deur bewyse ondersteun word nie en 'n skadelike presedent vir toekomstige presidente kan skep.

14 Maart 1998
Paula Jones beskuldig Clinton en sy personeel daarvan dat hulle betrokke was by 'n groot onderneming om bewyse in die saak te onderdruk. Haar prokureurs voer aan dat die saak in Mei, soos geskeduleer, moet verhoor word.

President Clinton se regspan kondig aan dat hy 'n 'seksdossier' sal publiseer, gevul met inligting van 'seksuele aard' oor Paula Jones. Later die dag keer advokate hul besluit om.

1 April 1998
Regter Susan Webber Wright verwerp Paula Jones se saak teen Clinton. In haar besluit skryf sy dat "die bewerings van die eisers baie min is as die streng standaarde om 'n eis van verontwaardiging volgens die Arkansas -wet te stel."

Mnr Clinton sê hy is "tevrede." Paula Jones se prokureurs oorweeg 'n appèl.

Bill Clinton stem in om Paula Jones $ 850,000 te betaal om haar saak te laat vaar.

Bill Clinton het beveel om Paula Jones se advokate byna $ 90 000 te betaal om te vergoed vir valse getuienis oor sy verhouding met Monica Lewinsky.

Regsoptrede begin in die Verenigde State om president Clinton daarvan weerhou om ooit weer as advokaat te werk in sy tuisstaat Arkansas.


Paula Jones beskuldig Bill Clinton van seksuele teistering - GESKIEDENIS

President Clinton het gister 'n skikking buite die hof met Paula Jones bereik en ingestem om haar $ 850 000 te betaal om die regsgeding oor seksuele teistering wat tot die ergste politieke krisis van sy loopbaan gelei het, te laat vaar en slegs die derde ondersoek na presidentskaping in die Amerikaanse geskiedenis.

Na meer as 4 1/2 jaar van wettige oorlogvoering op die verskroeide aarde, het Clinton en Jones skielik 'n einde gemaak aan die saak met 'n ooreenkoms van vier bladsye waarin hy geen onreg erken nie en geen verskoning aangebied het nie. Die ooreenkoms, wat by die federale appèlhof ingedien sal word en oorweeg of die regsgeding moet voortgaan, vereis dat die president binne 60 dae moet betaal.

Robert S. Bennett, die hoofprokureur van Clinton in die saak, het gesê die president hou steeds vol dat Jones se bewerings van 'n growwe voorstel in 'n Little Rock -hotelpakket sewe jaar gelede 'ongegrond' is, maar het ingestem om die betaling te doen ten einde die saak uiteindelik te plaas agter hom.

'Die president het besluit dat hy nie bereid is om nog 'n uur daaraan te spandeer nie,' het Bennett gesê. "Dit is duidelik dat die Amerikaanse volk wil hê dat hul president en kongres moet fokus op die probleme wat hulle verkies het om op te los. Dit is 'n stap in die rigting."

Die skikking het die moontlikheid uitgesluit dat Clinton se persoonlike lewe heropen sou word vir openbare inspeksie tydens 'n opspraakwekkende verhoor as die regsgeding wat in April van die hand gewys is, heringestel word, soos baie betrokke advokate meen dit sou wees. Dit kan ook help om die president se bondgenote hom te verdedig teen die bewerings van die onafhanklike advokaat Kenneth W. Starr dat hy gelieg en geregtigheid belemmer het tydens die saak, terwyl dit 'n nuwe geleentheid gebied het vir die Withuis om 'n aparte ooreenkoms met die kongres te sluit om die vervolging te laat vaar.

Slegs ure voordat die skikking gister aangekondig is, het Starr nuwe getuienis aan die Huisregterskomitee gestuur wat spruit uit 'n getuie in die Jones -saak, Kathleen E. Willey, wat Clinton ook van 'n onwelkome seksuele voorskot beskuldig het.

Jones het geen openbare kommentaar gelewer nie, maar haar man, Steve, het aan verslaggewers buite hul woonstel in Kalifornië gesê dat die betaling op sy eie 'n verskoning is.

"Laat die verhore van beskuldiging begin. Ons wil daaruit kom," het hy gesê. "Om 'n aansienlike bedrag geld te betaal, maak op sigself 'n verklaring. Dit is die reputasie van Paula waarvoor ons geveg het. Dit het niks te doen met 'n byl om met Bill Clinton te kners nie."

John W. Whitehead, president van die Rutherford Institute, wat haar regsgeding gefinansier het, noem die ooreenkoms 'geregtigheid vir Paula' en sê dat dit die aandag vestig op 'die belangrikheid van die beskerming van magtelose vroue teen teistering op die werkplek en die rol van die oppergesag van die reg in die ons hoogste ampte. "

Die buitengewone saak het tot 'n buitengewone slot gekom, met die verweerder wat ingestem het om $ 850,000 te betaal, alhoewel die eiser oorspronklik eers $ 700,000 gevra het toe sy 'n saak aanhangig gemaak het - en alhoewel die saak sonder 'n verhoor van die hand gewys is.

In die dokument wat gistermiddag onderteken is, word geen melding gemaak van hoe Clinton vir die skikking sou betaal nie, maar bronne het gesê dat dit waarskynlik uit sowel sy regsverdedigingsfonds as uit 'n aparte ooreenkoms met een van sy versekeringsmaatskappye kom. Bronne het gesê dat die president se prokureurs 'n voorlopige ooreenkoms met Chubb Group Insurance bereik het om die polis vir persoonlike aanspreeklikheid wat 'n paar van sy regskoste gedek het, vir byna die helfte van die skikking te koop. 'As alles goed gesê is, sal daar nie 'n sent uit sy sak kom nie,' het 'n persoon naby die situasie gesê.

Die Jones -kamp, ​​wat die afgelope weke met bittere interne verdeeldheid gesukkel het, moet nog bepaal hoe dit die geld sal verdeel tussen die talle prokureurs wat 'n eis daaroor ingedien het. Hoewel die betrokke advokate glo dat Jones 'n behoorlike deel van die skikking sal kry, moet nog bepaal word hoeveel.

Selfs soos beide kante gister gevier het, was hulle bewus van die enorme tol wat die regsgeding op alle betrokkenes geneem het. Vir Clinton, alhoewel die saak deur 'n federale regter van die hand gewys is, sal die Jones -saak sy hoofstuk in die geskiedenisboeke vir altyd in die wiele ry, wat 'n beeld bevestig as 'n leier wie se roekelose persoonlike lewe 'n andersins merkwaardige politieke loopbaan in gevaar gestel het.

Die saak open 'n Pandora -boks met aantygings oor sy vorige sekslewe en maak hom die eerste president wat ooit onder eed ondervra is as 'n beskuldigde in 'n siviele regsgeding of voor 'n groot jurie as 'n moontlike kriminele teiken. Jones v. Clinton het ook 'n historiese beslissing van die Hooggeregshof gelewer, wat verlede jaar 9 tot 0 beslis het dat selfs die uitvoerende hoof gedagvaar kan word. En dit was die gevolglike soektog na bewyse wat Jones se prokureurs na Monica S. Lewinsky gelei het en die ketting van gebeure wat Starr se verslag aan die kongres gelei het, waarin beweer word dat Clinton 11 strafbare oortredings gepleeg het.

Jones het haar saak in Mei 1994 aanhangig gemaak en Clinton daarvan beskuldig dat sy haar na 'n suite in die Excelsior Hotel gelok het tydens 'n konferensie van 8 Mei 1991 toe hy goewerneur van Arkansas was en sy 'n staatsamptenaar was. Tydens die kort ontmoeting het sy gesê dat hy aan haar geraak het, probeer het om haar te soen, sy broek neergelaat het en om orale seks gevra het. Clinton het dit onwrikbaar ontken en volgehou dat hy nie eens onthou dat hy haar ontmoet het nie.

Die Amerikaanse distriksregter, Susan Webber Wright, het die saak verlede jaar van die hand gewys en beslis dat selfs al was Jones se bewerings waar, sou hierdie “dom en aanstootlike” gedrag nie ernstig genoeg wees om seksuele teistering onder die wet te veroorsaak nie.

Jones het toe die 8ste Amerikaanse rondgaande hof van appèl gevra om die besluit om te keer en, nadat Starr se verslag uitgekom het, aangevoer dat Clinton se beweerde wangedrag tydens die saak 'n ommekeer regverdig. Twee lede van die paneel met drie regters het verlede maand simpatiek voorgekom tydens mondelinge argumente en Dinsdag het die hof gevra vir die volledige afskrif van Clinton se afsondering van 17 Januarie in die saak, wat sommige advokate naby die Jones-kamp vertolk het as 'n teken dat hulle bekommerd oor moontlike meineed deur die president.

Om die appèl te kortwiek, het die twee partye gister bymekaar gekom na twee maande se gepaste onderhandelinge wat dikwels op die rand van ineenstorting verskyn het en amper ontrafel is weens die ongevraagde indringing van 'n New York-magnaat wat $ 1 miljoen van sy eie geld aangebied het om te oorreed Jones om die saak in nasionale belang te laat vaar.

Terwyl vorige pogings om te skik herhaaldelik misluk het, het Jones se prokureurs Bennett in September genader met 'n voorstel van $ 1 miljoen wat haar jarelange eis om verskoning van die president laat vaar het, 'n toestand wat 'n ooreenkoms vir Clinton was. Bennett het 'n aanbod van $ 500 000 tegemoetgegaan en dit dan verhoog tot $ 700 000, maar Jones het die volle $ 1 miljoen uitgehou en aangedring om die ander $ 1 miljoen ook van die sakeman Abe Hirschfeld te neem.

Hirschfeld se betrokkenheid het die Withuis laat skrik, as daar geen ander rede as die kwik -eiendomsmagnaat teen staatsbelastingontduiking in New York is nie. Gefrustreerd oor die onwankelbare houding van hul kliënt en oortuig daarvan dat Hirschfeld te wisselvallig was om mee om te gaan, het Jones se prokureurs haar meegedeel dat hulle van plan was om op te hou, wat haar skynbaar laat instem om die bande met haar toekomstige weldoener te verbreek.

William N. McMillan III, 'n prokureur in Kalifornië en eggenoot van Jones se vriend, Susan Carpenter-McMillan, het vandeesweek die onderhandelinge oorgeneem en Bennett verseker dat Hirschfeld uit die prentjie is, volgens bronne wat naby die saak was.

Bennett dring aan op 'n skriftelike verbintenis en McMillan faks 'n brief wat lui: 'Ek verwoord u verder dat die geld van mnr. Abraham Hirschfeld nie meer op die tafel is nie en dat daar geen betaling van mnr. Hirschfeld as deel van die skikking betaal sal word nie. met u kliënt. "

Bennett het Donderdag drie keer met die president gepraat, selfs al het hy met raadgewers beraadslaag oor die vraag of hy Irak sou aanval en uiteindelik het Clinton sy regspan gemagtig om af te handel, het 'n bron gesê. Gistermiddag is die ooreenkoms onderteken deur Bennett, McMillan, Jones-prokureur Donovan Campbell Jr. en Bill W. Bristow, die prokureur van medeverweerder Danny Ferguson, die staatstroeper wat Jones begelei het om met Clinton te vergader.

'Niks in hierdie ooreenkoms mag deur 'n party as 'n erkenning van aanspreeklikheid of oortreding beskou word nie,' lui die dokument.

In die Withuis was medewerkers verlig om die saak uiteindelik agter die rug te hê. "Die gevoel hier was eenparig en universeel - dit is verby!" sê een amptenaar wat gevra het om nie genoem te word nie. "Die twee woorde het soveel krag, want niks is ooit hier nie. Dit is verby."

Met die afhandeling van die saak, het die president die kans om die afleidings van die skandaal vir die laaste twee jaar van sy presidentskap te beëindig, het hierdie amptenaar bygevoeg. 'Wat dit beteken, is dat Paula Jones nie 'n enkele van die 750 dae [oor] sal neem nie,' het hy gesê. 'N Ander adviseur van die Withuis het gesê:' Dit is nog 'n stuk van die raaisel wat hy ingesit het sodat hy die volgende twee jaar op sy eie agenda kan voortgaan. '

Tog is daar moeilike besonderhede wat opgelos moet word. Clinton se prokureurs moet 'n plan om die skikking te betaal, afhandel. Richard M. Lucas, advokaat van die Clinton Legal Expense Trust, het gesê dat daar nie met hom gekontak is oor die finansiering van 'n transaksie nie en dat hy regsvrae moet konfronteer voordat hy kan besluit of hy kan deelneem.

Volgens die regsdokument wat die trust stig, kan hy 'regskoste en uitgawes' betaal, maar 'dit is stil oor skikkings', sê Lucas. 'Dit is iets waarmee die trustees nog nooit as 'n direksie te doen gehad het nie.'

Die trustees sal moontlik ook te doen kry met Larry Klayman, 'n prokureur en 'n jarelange Clinton -vyand, wat herhaaldelik probeer het om die dekking van Clinton se uitgawes in die Jones -saak te blokkeer en gedreig het om die gebruik van verdedigingsfondse vir enige skikking uit te daag.

Ook Jones moet geldsake uitvind. Haar prokureurs in Dallas het 'n gebeurlikheidsooreenkoms vir ten minste 'n derde van die opbrengs uit die saak. Die Rutherford -instituut is wettig geregtig op vergoeding van die uitgawes van $ 400,000. En haar voormalige prokureurs het 'n retensiereg van $ 800 000 op die saak geplaas, en hoewel hulle gesê het dat hulle 'n paar sou afneem, was hulle tot dusver moeilike onderhandelaars.

'Vir alles wat sy deurgemaak het, sou sy geld moes kry,' het een van die prokureurs, Joseph Cammarata, gesê. Maar hy het geen skatting aangebied nie en het bygevoeg: 'In Clinton-toespraak hang dit af van u definisie van' sommige '. "


Kombinasie wys van L: Paula Jones -wat beskuldiging het

Met u Easy-Access (EZA) -rekening kan diegene in u organisasie inhoud aflaai vir die volgende gebruike:

  • Toetse
  • Monsters
  • Samestellings
  • Uitlegte
  • Ruwe snitte
  • Voorlopige wysigings

Dit oorskry die standaard aanlyn saamgestelde lisensie vir stilstaande beelde en video op die Getty Images -webwerf. Die EZA -rekening is nie 'n lisensie nie. Om u projek te voltooi met die materiaal wat u van u EZA -rekening afgelaai het, moet u 'n lisensie kry. Sonder 'n lisensie kan geen verdere gebruik gemaak word nie, soos:

  • fokusgroep aanbiedings
  • eksterne aanbiedings
  • finale materiaal in u organisasie versprei
  • materiaal wat buite u organisasie versprei word
  • materiaal wat aan die publiek versprei word (soos advertensies, bemarking)

Omdat versamelings voortdurend bygewerk word, kan Getty Images nie waarborg dat 'n spesifieke item beskikbaar sal wees tot die tyd van die lisensie nie. Hersien alle beperkings wat by die gelisensieerde materiaal op die Getty Images -webwerf gaan, noukeurig en kontak u Getty Images -verteenwoordiger as u 'n vraag daaroor het. U EZA -rekening bly 'n jaar lank van krag. U Getty Images -verteenwoordiger sal 'n hernuwing met u bespreek.

Deur op die aflaai -knoppie te klik, aanvaar u die verantwoordelikheid vir die gebruik van inhoud wat nie vrygestel is nie (insluitend die verkryging van die nodige toestemming vir u gebruik) en stem u in om enige beperkings na te kom.


Hier is die verhaal oor die bewering van die verkragting van Bill Clinton

Die Republikeinse genomineerde Donald Trump het aan die wêreld gesê dat hy die voormalige president Bill Clinton se seksuele geskiedenis in die presidensiële veldtog in 2016 sou maak. Sondag het hy dit gedoen.

Minder as twee uur voor sy debat met Hillary Clinton, die Demokratiese genomineerde, het Trump 'n perskonferensie gehou met verskeie vroue wat die voormalige president Bill Clinton van verskillende vorme van seksuele wangedrag beskuldig het.

Die bekendste van hierdie vroue is Paula Jones, wie se regsgeding oor seksuele teistering uiteindelik gelei het tot die beskuldiging van Clinton in 1998. Maar die ernstigste bewering teen Clinton kom van 'n ander vrou wat Sondag aan Trump se kant was.

Die vrou is Juanita Broaddrick, 'n afgetrede operateur in die verpleeginrigting in Arkansas, wat sê Clinton het haar byna 40 jaar gelede verkrag - 'n aanklag wat die voormalige president gesê het, is onwaar. Sondagaand sit Broaddrick en die ander beskuldigdes in die debatsaal in St. Louis, terwyl die kameras herhaaldelik na hulle toe draai.

'As u na Bill Clinton kyk - nog erger - myne is woorde en sy optrede,' het Trump op 'n stadium tydens die debat gesê. 'Dit was wat hy aan vroue gedoen het. Daar was nog nooit iemand in die geskiedenis van die politiek in hierdie land wat so gewelddadig was vir vroue nie. ”

Trump beweer dat hierdie vroueverhale nou veral relevant is omdat Hillary Clinton dit al verskeie kere probeer boelie of stilmaak. Dit is 'n wankelrige bewering wat baie lyk na 'n poging om die aandag af te lei van Trump se eie rekord van wangedrag, wat nie net onwelvoeglike gedrag insluit nie, maar gevalle waar Trump spesifiek, geloofwaardig beskuldig is van seksuele aanranding. Trump het die beskuldigings ontken, maar dit stem ooreen met sy baie openbare geskiedenis van vrouehaat.

Dit beteken natuurlik nie noodwendig dat Broaddrick se aanklag van verkragting onwaar is nie. Soos soveel bewerings van seksuele aanranding, is die verhaal van Broaddrick onbewys en aanneemlik. Maar die relevansie daarvan vir die 2016 -verkiesing is 'n aparte vraag.

Die verhaal van Broaddrick-wat NBC se "Dateline" vir die eerste keer in 1999 bekend gemaak het en BuzzFeed in Augustus vanjaar weer ondersoek het-begin in 1978 in Little Rock, Arkansas, toe Bill Clinton die staat se prokureur-generaal was en as goewerneur verkies word. Soos Broaddrick dit vertel, was sy vrywillig vir Clinton se veldtog en moes hom in 'n koffiewinkel ontmoet. Op die laaste minuut, sê sy, het Clinton haar gebel en voorgestel dat hulle boontoe in 'n hotelkamer ontmoet, omdat verslaggewers in die voorportaal was. Sy het ingestem. Toe Clinton by die kamer kom, sê sy, het hy haar verkrag - op 'n stadium byt sy haar lip en veroorsaak dat dit bloei.

Twee vroue het sedertdien gesê dat hulle Broaddrick in die hotelkamer gesien het, net na die beweerde voorval - deurmekaar en ja, met 'n blou, geswelde lip. Die vroue het gesê Broaddrick het vir hulle gesê dat sy deur Clinton verkrag is, maar dat sy bang was om iets daaroor te sê. Sy sal stilbly tot aan die einde van die negentigerjare, toe federale aanklaers Clinton se persoonlike geskiedenis ondersoek het as deel van die ondersoek wat sy nou berugte verhouding met Monica Lewinsky, 'n voormalige intern van die Withuis, aan die lig gebring het.

Dit was nie die eerste keer dat prokureurs Broaddrick oor die voorval uitgevra het nie. Toe advokate in die Paula Jones -regsgeding voorheen direk na Broaddrick genader het, het sy 'n beëdigde verklaring onderteken waarin sy beskryf het dat sy deur verslaggewers opgejaag word oor gerugte oor die verkragting.

'Ek het die bewerings herhaaldelik ontken en versoek dat my gesin se privaatheid gerespekteer word,' het sy in die beëdigde verklaring gesê. 'Hierdie bewerings is onwaar en ek het gehoop dat dit nie meer by my sou spook of my gesin verder sou ontwrig nie. Maar in reaksie op die federale ondersoek het Broaddrick gesê Clinton het haar verkrag.

Clinton, wat toe president was, het die bewering ondubbelsinnig en sterk deur sy prokureur ontken. Ken Starr, die hoof federale aanklaer, het Broaddrick se verhaal uiteindelik as 'onoortuigend' geag. Toe die verhaal in die media verskyn en Broaddrick die onderhoud van 1999 aan "Dateline" gee, het die twis verdwaal in die nadraai van Clinton se beskuldiging en amper uit die amp verwyder. En op daardie stadium het die verhaal vervaag - tot ongeveer 'n jaar gelede, toe Broaddrick daaroor begin praat het.

Broaddrick het later aan BuzzFeed se Katie Baker gesê dat sy beweeg het om haar uit te spreek nadat sy 'n reeks opmerkings gehoor het wat Hillary Clinton gemaak het oor seksuele aanranding - spesifiek oor die belangrikheid van gelowige slagoffers. Broaddrick beweer al lank dat Hillary haar probeer intimideer het, en noem dit 'n kort gesprek wat die twee vroue tydens 'n ontmoeting in Arkansas gehad het kort ná die beweerde verkragting. Dit is hoe Broaddrick die gesprek onthou, soos die BuzzFeed -artikel dit beskryf het:

Kort daarna, sê Broaddrick, het sy Hillary Clinton raakgeloop tydens 'n politieke saamtrek wat Broaddrick vriende belowe het dat sy sou bywoon. Hillary skud haar hand en bedank haar vir alles wat sy vir Bill gedoen het. Vir Broaddrick was die gebaar 'n bedreiging om stil te bly. As prokureur -generaal en later goewerneur was Bill Clinton 'die belangrikste persoon wat my besigheid en my inkomste gereguleer het', het Broaddrick gesê. 'Nadat sy gesê het wat sy aan my gedoen het, het ek net gedink: ek sal stilbly.'

Broaddrick sê dat sy 'ballisties' geraak het toe sy Hillary se uitsprake oor seksuele aanranding hoor, en uiteindelik die volgende boodskap op Twitter uitstuur: "Ek was 35 jaar oud toe Bill Clinton, Ark. Prokureur -generaal my verkrag het en Hillary my probeer stilmaak het. Ek is nou 73. dit gaan nooit weg nie. ”

Die tweet het baie aandag van konserwatiewes op sosiale media gekry. Nou kry dit aandag van Trump, wie se presidensiële kandidatuur skielik in die weegskaal hang danksy die publikasie van 'n opname uit 2005 waarin hy daarop roem dat hy daarvan hou om "die poes [vroue] te gryp" en dit, omdat hy 'n kragtige beroemdheid is , "Hulle laat jou dit doen." Die opname het nuwe aandag gevestig op Trump se eie geskiedenis van vrouehaat en op die aantygings van aanranding wat hy ontken het. Die opname het ook byna elke ander leier in die Republikeinse Party sterk veroordelings uitgelok - en verskeie steunonttrekkings.

Byna onmiddellik nadat die opname openbaar geword het, het Trump aangedui dat hy van plan was om oor Bill Clinton se seksuele geskiedenis te praat. In 'n videoboodskap wat Vrydagaand vrygestel is, vra Trump om verskoning vir sy kommentaar op die opname van 2005 voordat hy bygevoeg het dat "Bill Clinton vroue eintlik mishandel het en Hillary sy slagoffers geboelie, aangeval, beskaamd en geïntimideer het." Die voormalige burgemeester van New York, Rudy Giuliani, het soortgelyke verklarings gemaak toe hy op die politieke programme op Sondagoggend verskyn het.

Trump en sy ondersteuners dring daarop aan dat hulle nie bloot die aandag van Trump se probleme probeer aflei nie, of Hillary wil verneder deur almal aan Bill se geskiedenis van ontrouheid te herinner. Die kwessie, sê hulle, is hoe die voormalige presidentsvrou hom gedra het.

'Waaroor ek praat, is die dinge wat sy gesê het en wat in verskeie boeke en tydskrifte en ander plekke berig is oor die vroue wat Bill Clinton verkrag, seksueel misbruik en aangeval het - nie die rol van Bill Clinton nie, maar haar rol as die aanvaller, ”het Giuliani Sondag op NBC se“ Meet the Press ”gesê.

Die waarheid van wat daardie dag in Little Rock gebeur het, is moontlik onmoontlik om te weet - veral nou, vier dekades na die betrokke dag. Skeptici van Broaddrick se verhaal kan daarop dui dat Broaddrick se oorspronklike beëdigde verklaring gesê het dat sy geen inligting het oor Bill se beweerde wangedrag nie. Hulle kan ook redeneer dat die twee vroue wat sê dat hulle haar in die hotelkamer gesien het, moontlik hul eie politieke motiewe het. (U kan meer lees oor hierdie en ander plooie in die opsomming in die opsomming wat Dylan Matthews van Vox saamgestel het.)

Gelowiges kan twee ander vroue noem wat gesê het Broaddrick het hulle kort daarna van die verkragting vertel. En dit is natuurlik nie ongewoon dat slagoffers van verkragting inligting vir 'n lang tyd weerhou nie - omdat hulle dink dat hulle skuldig is, omdat hulle oortuig is dat niemand dit sal glo nie, of omdat hulle bang is vir vergelding. Soos Michelle Goldberg verlede jaar by Slate geskryf het: 'Feministe het herhaaldelik en oortuigend die saak gemaak dat wanneer vroue sê dat hulle seksueel aangerand is, ons moet aanvaar dat hulle die waarheid praat. Veral wat Broaddrick betref, is dit nie maklik om die argumente teen haar te glo met die dominante progressiewe konsensus oor die vertroue van slagoffers nie.

Of dit alles relevant is vir Hillary se veldtog, is 'n ander vraag. Broaddrick se bewering dat Hillary Clinton haar wou intimideer, is gebaseer op 'n gesprek wat die twee vroue gehad het - en hoe Broaddrick dit sien. 'Ek moet kyk na wat ek toe gevoel het en die voorkoms wat sy my gegee het,' het sy in 'n onlangse onderhoud aan Breitbart News gesê. 'Ek het gevoel dat sy dit weet, en sy het gesê ek moet stilbly.'

Om te dink dat Hillary Broaddrick probeer boelie om stil te bly oor 'n verkragting, moet jy glo dat Hillary geweet het dat Bill die verkragting gepleeg het. Maar dit sou vermoedelik beteken dat Bill vir haar gesê het - iets wat hy onwaarskynlik sou gedoen het. Bedrieërs en verkragters is nie geneig om hul vrouens intyds van hul dade te vertel nie. (En soms oortuig verkragters hulself dat hulle ontmoetings instemmend was.)

Om intussen te dink dat hierdie deel van Broaddrick se verhaal verkeerd is, hoef u nie te glo dat sy iemand probeer mislei nie, of dat sy verkeerd is oor die ander aanklag wat sy maak. U moet eenvoudig glo dat sy visuele en tonale leidrade verkeerd geïnterpreteer het tydens 'n vinnige gesprek met 'n relatiewe vreemdeling - dit is iets wat die hele tyd in alle omstandighede gebeur. Dit sou selfs makliker wees om te verstaan ​​onder die omstandighede waarin Broaddrick verkeer het.

Wat die relevansie vir die verkiesing in 2016 betref, is die belangrikste aspek dat Trump - polities in 'n hoek gesukkel het om sy kandidatuur lewendig te hou - gekies het om sy gedrag te vergelyk met die man van sy teenstander. Maar hy loop nie teen hom nie. Hy hardloop teen haar.


Paula Jones beskuldig Bill Clinton van seksuele teistering - GESKIEDENIS

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, 13 November) - Na vier jaar lank die stryd teen Paula Jones se seksuele teistering, het president Bill Clinton Vrydag ingestem om Jones $ 850,000 te betaal om die saak te laat vaar. Maar die ooreenkoms bevat geen verskoning van die president nie.

Die ooreenkoms is gesluit na weke van af en toe onderhandelinge, het 'n advokaat wat intiem by die situasie betrokke was, aan CNN gesê.

Dit lyk asof die skikking buite die hof die verskil tussen die nuutste aanbiedings van beide kante verdeel het. Die president bied onlangs $ 700,000 aan terwyl die Jones-span $ 950,000 aandring.

Clinton se persoonlike prokureur, Bob Bennett, sê in 'n verklaring wat Vrydag uitgereik is dat die president "steeds seker is dat die eiser se eise ongegrond is." Tog het die president besluit dat hy nie bereid is om nog 'n uur daaraan te spandeer nie, 'het Bennett gesê.

"Niks in hierdie ooreenkoms word deur 'n party erken as aanspreeklikheid of oortreding nie," het Bennett gesê.

Jones se regspan sal na verwagting Maandag die bepalings van die ooreenkoms bekend maak.

Alhoewel die ooreenkoms vir Clinton iets van 'n oorwinning is, omdat hy nie skuldig hoef te erken nie, het die Jones -sage die president duur te staan ​​gekom, aangesien dit Jones se ondersoek was wat Monica Lewinsky onder die publiek se aandag gebring het.

Skikking het 'n nuwe dringendheid vir die Clinton -regspan gekry omdat bewerings dat die president tydens sy beëdigde getuienis in die Jones -saak onder eed gelieg het oor sy verhouding met die voormalige intern van die Withuis, nou 'n belangrike element van die debat oor die beskuldiging van die kongres is.

Daar was onlangs ook 'n mate van druk op Jones om te skik, aangesien haar prokureurs gedreig het om hulle uit die saak te onttrek sodra die appèlhof oor haar saak beslis het. Die Rutherford -instituut, wat Jones se regsgeding teen die president gefinansier het, het aan Jones gesê dat hy aan die einde van die appèl beplan om op te hou om haar regsrekeninge te betaal.

Die lot van die New Yorkse eiendomsmagnaat, Abe Hirschfeld, se aanbod van $ 1 miljoen vir Jones, bo alles wat sy van die president insamel, is onduidelik.

As deel van die ooreenkoms het Jones -prokureurs 'n verklaring aan advokate in die Withuis gegee waarin gesê word dat Jones van die aanbod afstand doen en dat Hirschfeld se geld nie deel is van die skikking nie.

In 'n perskonferensie Vrydagaand het Bennett gesê dat een van die president se voorwaardes 'een daarvan was om ons skriftelik te verseker dat Hirschfeld se geld van die tafel af was en geen deel van 'n skikking was nie,' het Bennett gesê. 'En daaraan is 'n paar ander voorwaardes voldoen, en gevolglik kon ons 'n skikking bereik.'

Dit is onduidelik of die brief Jones wettiglik verbied om die geld uiteindelik te aanvaar. Volgens die prokureur van die eiendomsmagnaat Abe Hirschfeld, is die $ 1 miljoen wat aangebied word om 'hierdie regsgeding agter die rug te kry' nog op die tafel.

Jones staar rekeninge uit verskeie bronne in die gesig. Joseph Cammarata en Gilbert Davis, Jones se eerste advokate, het 'n eis van $ 800,000 ingedien as vergoeding vir hul werk, wat 'n reis na die hooggeregshof insluit.

Ander belangstellendes sluit in Jones se huidige advokate in Dallas, onder leiding van Donovan Campbell en Jones se de facto woordvoerder en adviseur, Susan Carpenter-McMillan en haar man Bill.

Bennett het gesê dat hy nie weet hoeveel van die skikkingsgeld sal gaan om Jones se huidige en huidige prokureurs te betaal nie. 'Ek verstaan ​​dat mev. Jones se regskoste drie of vier miljoen dollar beloop, maar dit is nie my probleem nie,' het Bennett gesê. 'Dit is 'n probleem wat hulle sal moet uitwerk.'

Jones, 'n voormalige staatsamptenaar in Arkansas, beweer dat sy aan 'n 'vyandige werksomgewing' gely het en dat haar burgerregte in 1991 geskend is toe sy 'n seksuele voorskot van destydse regering verwerp het. Clinton.

Die Amerikaanse distriksregter Susan Webber Wright in Little Rock, Arkansas, het die saak Jones op 1 April van die hand gewys, maar prokureurs van Jones het 'n federale appèlhof in die herfs gevra om haar saak weer in te stel.

Jones beweer dat die goewerneur haar op 9 Mei 1991 by die lessenaar in die voorportaal van die Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock opgemerk het, waar sy naamplaatjies vir 'n konferensie uitgedeel het.

'N Staatstroeper het haar daarna na 'n privaat kamer in die hotel gebring, volgens Jones, waar Clinton 'n growwe versoek vir orale seks gerig het, terwyl hy homself aan haar blootgestel het.

Die president het herhaaldelik ontken dat hy skuldig is.

Jones het meer as twee jaar lank stilgebly oor wat volgens haar in 1991 gebeur het.

Jones told her story for the first time in public at a February 11, 1994, press conference in Washington where she shared a stage with Clinton bashers -- helping to convince many that Jones was a tool, witting or unwitting, of Clinton haters.

What broke Jones' silence was an article in the January 1994 issue of American Spectator magazine that implied that someone called "Paula" had been a willing sexual conquest of Clinton's.

She filed suit May 6, 1994, almost exactly three years after the alleged encounter, and at the last possible moment under the relevant statutes of limitations.

Over the years the two sides have come close to a settlement but the main sticking point was always over how much Clinton would have to admit and apologize.

The case also established some important precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision that sitting president's could face a civil suit while in office. In a stunning 9-0 verdict, they ruled the Jones case could proceed.

/> />


JONES V. CLINTON

Lawsuit documents unsealed October 19 and October 26

Larry King Live Highlight: Paula Jones talks about what happened during her meeting with Clinton in the hotel (2-22-99) Windows Media: 28K | 80K

Wolf Blitzer reports: President looking to clear more legal hurdles (2-17-99) Windows Media: 28K | 80K


Kathleen Willey

Kathleen Willey said Clinton kissed her, fondled her breasts, and forced her to touch his crotch during a meeting in the Oval Office in 1993, while Willey was a volunteer in the White House correspondence office.

Willey made her allegations public in 1998, and Clinton "emphatically" denied that the interaction was sexual, arguing that he hugged Willey and may have kissed her on the forehead.

Willey says she was "friends" with Clinton and confided in him during the meeting that she and her husband were having financial troubles. She asked him for a promotion from her volunteer position to a paying job and says that Clinton was sympathetic and asked to talk with her in a small room off of the Oval Office. Willey says Clinton cornered and assaulted her in that room.

"My mind was racing and I thought: 'Should I slap him? Or should I kick him? Or knee him?'" Willey recalled thinking during an October 2016 interview with the Fox News host Sean Hannity. "What do I do? Scream? Is the Secret Service gonna come in and descend upon me with guns?"


Aanbevole leesstof

All the Angry Ladies

In the Valley of the Open Secret

Fast. Furious. Funny?

Believing women about assault—even if they lack the means to prove their accounts—as well as understanding that female employees don’t constitute part of a male boss’s benefits package, were the galvanizing consequences of Anita Hill’s historic allegations against Clarence Thomas, in 1991. When she came forward during Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing and reported that he had sexually humiliated and pressured her throughout his tenure as her boss at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it was an event of convulsive national anxiety. Here was a black man, a Republican, about to be appointed to the Supreme Court, and here was a black woman, presumably a liberal, trying to block him with reports of repeated, squalid, and vividly recounted episodes of sexual harassment. She had little evidence to support her accusations. Many believed that since she’d been a lawyer at the EEOC, she had been uniquely qualified to have handled such harassment.

But then something that no one could have predicted happened. It was a pre-Twitter, pre-internet, highly analog version of #MeToo. To the surprise of millions of men, the nation turned out to be full of women—of all political stripes and socioeconomic backgrounds—who’d had to put up with Hell at work. Mothers, sisters, aunts, girlfriends, wives—millions of women shared the experience of having to wait tables, draw blood, argue cases, make sales, all while fending off the groping, the joking, the sexual pressuring, and the threatening of male bosses. They were liberal and conservative white collar and pink collar black and white and Hispanic and Asian. Their common experience was not political, economic, or racial. Their common experience was female.

For that reason, the response to those dramatic hearings constituted one of the great truly feminist events of the modern era. Even though Thomas successfully, and perhaps rightly, survived Hill’s accusations, something in the country had changed about women and work and the range of things men could do to them there.

But then Bubba came along and blew up the tracks.

How vitiated Bill Clinton seemed at the 2016 Democratic convention. Some of his appetites, at least, had waned his wandering, “Norwegian Wood” speech about his wife struck the nostalgic notes of a husband’s 50th-anniversary toast, and the crowd—for the most part—indulged it in that spirit. Clearly, he was no longer thinking about tomorrow. With a pencil neck and a sagging jacket he clambered gamely onto the stage after Hillary’s acceptance speech and played happily with the red balloons that fell from the ceiling.

When the couple repeatedly reminded the crowd of their new status as grandparents it was to suggest very different associations in voters’ minds. Hillary’s grandmotherhood was evoked to suggest the next phase in her lifelong work on behalf of women and children—in this case forging a bond with the millions of American grandmothers who are doing the hard work of raising the next generation, while their own adult children muddle through life. But Bill’s being a grandfather was intended to send a different message: Don’t worry about him anymore he’s old now. He won’t get into those messes again.

Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said that she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones said, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.

It was a pattern of behavior it included an alleged violent assault the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation, and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.

The notorious 1998 New York Times op-ed by Gloria Steinem must surely stand as one of the most regretted public actions of her life. It slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed it urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women accused. Moreover (never write an op-ed in a hurry you’ll accidentally say what you really believe), it characterized contemporary feminism as a weaponized auxiliary of the Democratic Party.

Die New York Times published Gloria Steinem’s essay defending Clinton in March 1998 (Screenshot from Times Machine)

Called “Feminists and the Clinton Question,” it was written in March of 1998, when Paula Jones’s harassment claim was working its way through court. It was printed seven days after Kathleen Willey’s blockbuster 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley. If all the various allegations were true, wrote Steinem, Bill Clinton was “a candidate for sex addiction therapy.” To her mind, the most “credible” accusations were those of Willey, who she noted was “old enough to be Monica Lewinsky’s mother.” And then she wrote the fatal sentences that invalidated the new understanding of workplace sexual harassment as a moral and legal wrong: “Even if the allegations are true, the President is not guilty of sexual harassment. He is accused of having made a gross, dumb, and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life. She pushed him away, she said, and it never happened again. In other words, President Clinton took ‘no’ for an answer.”

Steinem said the same was true of Paula Jones. These were not crimes they were “passes.” Steinem revealed herself as a combination John and Bobby Kennedy of the feminist movement: the fair-haired girl and the bare-knuckle fixer. The widespread liberal response to the sex-crime accusations against Bill Clinton found their natural consequence 20 years later in the behavior of Harvey Weinstein: Stay loudly and publicly and extravagantly on the side of signal leftist causes and you can do what you want in the privacy of your offices and hotel rooms. But the mood of the country has changed. We are in a time when old monuments are coming down and men are losing their careers over things they did to women a long time ago.

When more than a dozen women stepped forward and accused Leon Wieseltier of a serial and decades-long pattern of workplace sexual harassment, he said, “I will not waste this reckoning.” It was textbook Wieseltier: the insincere promise and the perfectly chosen word. The Democratic Party needs to make its own reckoning of the way it protected Bill Clinton. The party needs to come to terms with the fact that it was so enraptured by their brilliant, Big Dog president and his stunning string of progressive accomplishments that it abandoned some of its central principles. The party was on the wrong side of history, and there are consequences for that. Yet expedience is not the only reason to make this public accounting. If it is possible for politics and moral behavior to coexist, then this grave wrong needs to be acknowledged. If Weinstein and Mark Halperin and Louis C. K. and all the rest can be held accountable, so can our former president and so can his party, which so many Americans so desperately need to rise again.


Paula Jones, Reconsidered

“The Clinton Affair,” A&E’s six-part mini-series on the scandals of Bill Clinton’s presidency, lacks a point of view. It is straightforward in style and evenhanded in tone. Strangely, this recommends it.

The events it covers have been so sensationalized and so politicized for so long that seeing them presented neutrally and in roughly chronological order is revelatory, particularly regarding the stories of three women: Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. These are the women who, in the 1990s, publicly accused the president of the United States of sexual harassment and assault.

It’s been a year for reconsidering Bill Clinton’s presidency and its players December is the 20th anniversary of his impeachment. Ken Starr returned to defend his investigation in a memoir, “Contempt.” Linda Tripp reappeared on Capitol Hill, where she styled herself as a brave truth teller who faced a “high-tech lynching” for blowing the whistle. And Bill and Hillary are setting off on an arena tour billed as “An Evening With the Clintons.”

Much of the buzz around the A&E series has focused on the participation of Monica Lewinsky. Though the filmmakers — the director Blair Foster and the producer Alex Gibney — interviewed more than 50 subjects, including James Carville and David Brock, the one boldfaced name in the network’s news release is hers. This prime-time appearance caps her comeback. After spending a decade and a half out of the public eye, she has returned with a perch at Vanity Fair, a TED Talk and an anti-bullying cause. She has called herself “patient zero” of online shaming. She has emerged from years of media torture as an unexpected darling of the press.

The same cannot be said for Jones, Willey and Broaddrick. In the ’90s, they were dismissed as “bimbos” deployed in service of what Hillary Clinton called the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” and with few exceptions, their stories have remained relegated to the margins of respectable conversation. They have been featured not in glossy fashion magazines but in self-published memoirs and political smear campaigns. They have been used as right-wing pawns and left-wing punching bags.

In 2016, when they sat together in an on-camera interview during Hillary Clinton’s run for president, it was for the nationalist outlet Breitbart. And when they convened in public to tell their stories, it was in service of a Donald J. Trump campaign stunt at the second presidential debate Steve Bannon could be spied stalking the perimeter. Their stories have been twisted in so many ways for so many years that it seems unworkable to unravel them now.

Beeld

“The Clinton Affair” does the work. It quite literally shows these women in a new light. They are filmed in places that look like well-appointed hotel rooms. The lighting is soft and generous. The filmmakers place their stories on the same level as those of Lewinsky and Carville, of career F.B.I. agents and prestigious lawyers. As a result, a space opens there for them to speak about Bill Clinton but also about themselves. The series lifts their accusations from the tabloid gutter and repositions them in the context of their lives as women.

Paula Jones, in particular, rises. In 1994, she said that Bill Clinton had summoned her to a hotel room and exposed himself when he was the governor of Arkansas and she was a state employee. (Clinton has always denied the charges from Jones, Willey and Broaddrick). Later she filed suit against him for sexual harassment. Her story was politicized from the start: It was seized by a Republican operative, who urged her to go public at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the right’s annual activist spectacle.

In turn, Clinton’s advisers trashed her on television. Carville said this: “If you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” George Stephanopoulos compared Jones to Tonya Harding: just another woman seeking cash for telling a tabloid tale. (Even Harding — not the victim in that story — has since had her legacy revised.) The assessment lingered: In 2016, Vox published an “explainer” dismissing her charges as “probably bunk,” relaying, in part, that her description of Bill Clinton’s penis did not align with those of some anonymous sources.

“The Clinton Affair” gifts her a blank slate. The aspersions cast against her can be resolved here. Yes, she was poor: She sought out an Arkansas state government job in an attempt to transcend her only other options, “the Walmart and the Pizza Hut.” And yes, she leaned on conservatives in a contemporaneous interview with Sam Donaldson, she explained, “Those are the only people that are coming to my defense.” In her new interview, she retells her story of harassment while fighting back tears. She appears guileless and helpful. In a word: credible.

Jones’s account is further clarified by Slate’s eight-part investigative history podcast “Slow Burn,” in which the journalist Leon Neyfakh pursues the uncovered stories of Clinton’s impeachment. If “The Clinton Affair” seeks an even retelling, “Slow Burn” snakes in and out of the narrative, teasing out themes and sorting out confusions. One of its achievements is in its meticulous documentation of how the harassment and assault claims against Clinton came to be politicized.

Jones’s representatives made efforts to place her story in mainstream newspapers, only to be frustrated by foot-dragging journalists. As Michael Isikoff, a Washington Post reporter at the time, puts it in an interview with Neyfakh, his editors “viewed it as tawdry.” (Isikoff was later ready to report the Lewinsky story for Newsweek, but higher-ups held it, according to “Slow Burn” and “The Clinton Affair” Matt Drudge broke the news instead.) Later, NBC sat on the tape of an emotional interview with Broaddrick in which she accused Bill Clinton of raping her, finally airing the segment only after Clinton had weathered his impeachment and trial.

“Slow Burn” concludes with an episode about that NBC appearance. Through new interviews with Broaddrick and Lisa Myers, the NBC reporter who championed her story, it paints a convincing picture of a network news division that seemed incapable of handling assault claims against powerful men, no matter how credible or well-sourced. In the ’90s, these women’s stories cut directly to the biases of the mainstream media: that sexual harassment and assault were tabloid tales and that publishing anything that seemed to sway a political process was ill advised.

For the past several years, we have been recalibrating Clinton’s legacy through micro historical trends. When Lewinsky re-emerged in 2014, she aligned herself in the causes of the moment, speaking out against bullying and shaming. When Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2016, the accusers’ stories were again co-opted for political attack, by both the Trump campaign and Clinton supporters. An Emily’s List rep told BuzzFeed of Broaddrick: “Women know that this is an unfair attack on Hillary, and that’s why it continues to exist in this small corner of the right-wing media world.”

Today these stories are being re-evaluated in the context of the #MeToo movement. In an essay for Vanity Fair earlier this year, Lewinsky wrote that #MeToo had given her a “new lens” for seeing her own story: “Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern.”

Lewinsky has always been cast as the central female character of Bill Clinton’s scandals, and while that has been hell for her, it has been rather convenient for him. Over two decades, it was easy to forget that the reporting on Clinton’s consensual affair with an intern arose out of an even more damning context: Jones’s harassment suit. (It was Lewinsky and Clinton denying their affair under oath in the Jones case that gave Starr the material to pounce.) Paula Jones spoke out against the most powerful man in the world, and when his lawyers argued that a sitting president couldn’t be subject to a civil suit, she took them all the way to the Supreme Court and won. In another world, she would be hailed as a feminist icon. But not in this world — not yet.


VERWANTE ARTIKELS

'He knew what happened in the room. Bill Clinton knew what happened and he was never going to admit to it.

'The state trooper. He knew just a little bit of what happened. That was outside the door, you know.'

The incident took place in 1991 when Clinton was governor of Arkansas and Jones a 24-year-old clerk with the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission.

She claimed he propositioned her in a hotel room at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, dropping his trousers and asking her for oral sex.

She had asked to meet him because it would be 'exciting' to meet the governor, and she hoped it might lead to promotion. Instead, she said in court, she found herself telling him she was 'not that kind of girl'.

Taking aim at a Clinton campaign message in which she told victims of sex abuse 'you have the right to be believed, Jones said: 'I wasn’t. I didn’t have a right to be heard, obviously'

Jones also took issue with Hillary's attacks on Trump as having a 'penchant for sexism', accusing her of being two-faced and saying it will be 'sad' if she becomes President

It was a brief encounter and she alleged that Mr Clinton took her hand, pulled her towards him, then said: 'I love your curves.'

She tried to walk away, she said in a deposition, but 'Mr. Clinton then walked over to the sofa, lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told me to "kiss it."'

Jones told her sisters and mother about the incident but took no further action.

Jones added: 'It’s really a sad, sad day if Hillary becomes president, because she has allowed her husband to get by with this type of stuff.

'Why does he have a right to be back in the White House, the people’s house?

'Why is he allowed to be back there with the track record that he has and his wife and the lying that she does and how she tried to discredit all of these women that her husband abused and sexually harassed?'

Jones also took issue with Hillary's attacks on current Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, who she accused of having a 'penchant for sexism'.

In a previous interview with Dailymail.com, said said: 'She [Hillary] should not be running with the terrible history they have.

Jones's accusations against then-President Bill Clinton almost brought down his administration after it exposed his lies about Monica Lewinsky

'Who would want Bill Clinton back a second time, doing the same stuff he was doing before, philandering with women? They have both lied.

'He does not have a right to be in the White House to serve the people the way he treated women, sexually harassing women.

'There were many women that came out and spoke out about what he did to them. He does not have a place in the White House to serve the American people.'

Jones almost helped bring about the downfall of Bill Clinton in 1993 when a former bodyguard spoke in a magazine interview about escorting a woman called 'Paula' to Clinton's room back in 1991.

Jones was advised to go public, hired a lawyer and in 1994 sued Clinton and asked for $700,000 in damages, claiming she suffered emotional trauma.

Clinton denied the claims, or even that he had met Jones. He dismissed her as an opportunist out for money and to damage him politically.

He asked that the civil suit be put off until he left the White House but in January 1997 an appeals court ruled the trial should go ahead.

A year later Judge Susan Webber Wright tossed out Jones's case saying she had not suffered any damages. She ruled that even if Clinton's behavior had been 'boorish and offensive' it did not amount to sexual harassment under the law.

Jones appealed and the Supreme Court reinstated her case leading to the unprecedented step of President Clinton being forced to make a deposition.

While working on the Paula Jones investigation, independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr uncovered Clinton's alleged affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton was asked if he had sex with Lewinsky – and denied it.

He would make the now infamous statement: 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky,' but would later go on TV to admit to an inappropriate relationship with the 21-year-old.

Jones said Hillary does not deserve to be back in the White House with the 'lying that she does and how she tried to discredit all of these women that her husband abused and sexually harassed'

Hillary stood by him, although former White House staff have recently said she used a book kept on her bedside to bash her husband around the head so hard it caused him bleed.

Staffers told Kate Andersen Brower for her book The Residence: Inside the Private World of The White House how they heard loud arguments coming from the private quarters of the White House around the time of the Lewinsky affair.

During the Clinton sex scandal Jones became a sideshow as Linda Tripp produced a semen-stained blue dress and audiotapes of her secretly recorded her conversations with Lewinsky.

It was the president's original statement to lawyers for Jones that almost led to hid downfall, as he had denied any improper relationship with Lewinsky, which was found to be untrue.

Having been accused of perjury, charges were drawn up and impeachment proceedings begun.

Although Democratic leaders preferred to censure the president, Congress began the impeachment process against Clinton in December 1998.

A divided House of Representatives impeached him on December 19 and the issue then passed to the Senate, where after a five week trial, he was acquitted.

Clinton survived the political fallout what became known as the 'Lewinsky affair'. His marriage to Hillary also survived.

By the time Lewinsky was headline news Jones had already reached an out of court settlement with the President.


A Brief History Of Juanita Broaddrick, The Woman Accusing Bill Clinton Of Rape

Juanita Broaddrick (right) says she met Bill Clinton (center left), then-attorney general of Arkansas, in 1978 at the nursing home where she worked in Van Buren, Ark.

This post was updated at 7:30 p.m. ET

In the middle of a maelstrom of criticism over remarks where he boasted about sexual assault, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is trying to turn the tables on his opponent.

On Sunday evening, just over an hour before debating Hillary Clinton in St. Louis, Trump broadcast a press conference-style event live on Facebook with Juanita Broaddrick, a now 73-year-old retired nurse, who alleges former President Bill Clinton raped her nearly 40 years ago and that Hillary Clinton helped him cover it up. Other women, including Paula Jones, joined as well.

In the video, Broaddrick said that while Trump was caught saying some inappropriate things about women in the leaked audio, "Bill Clinton raped me, and Hillary Clinton threatened me. I don't think there's any comparison."

On Twitter Saturday, Trump also repeatedly referenced and retweeted Broaddrick.

"Hillary calls Trump's remarks 'horrific' while she lives with and protects a 'Rapist,' " Broaddrick tweeted Saturday. "Her actions are horrific."

Broaddrick's story is not new. Her allegations first surfaced as Bill Clinton was running for president in 1992. But it wasn't until 1999, and after recanting sworn testimony to the contrary, that Broaddrick went public. Now that she's back in the news, here's a brief rundown of Broaddrick's story:

How they met

In interviews, Broaddrick said she first met Bill Clinton around 1978. She was 35 and Clinton, who was the Arkansas attorney general at the time, made a campaign stop at the nursing home where Broaddrick worked.

In interviews with the Washington Post, Broaddrick said Clinton encouraged her to call his campaign office when she was in Little Rock. She did that and set up a coffee meeting with Clinton at her hotel. According to Broaddrick, Clinton told her there were too many reporters in the lobby of the hotel so they should have coffee in her room.

She said she ordered coffee and let him in her room. This is what she told the Post back in 1999:

"As she tells the story, they spent only a few minutes chatting by the window — Clinton pointed to an old jail he wanted to renovate if he became governor — before he began kissing her. She resisted his advances, she said, but soon he pulled her back onto the bed and forcibly had sex with her. She said she did not scream because everything happened so quickly. Her upper lip was bruised and swollen after the encounter because, she said, he had grabbed onto it with his mouth.

" 'The last thing he said to me was, "You better get some ice for that." And he put on his sunglasses and walked out the door,' she recalled."

Telling her story

Broaddrick was reluctant to tell her story. She declined opportunities to be interviewed for years and when investigators for Paula Jones, who also accused Clinton of sexual harassment, approached, she rebuffed them.

"During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies," she said. "Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family."

When Kenneth Starr was investigating Bill Clinton, in the late '90s, he approached Broaddrick and offered her immunity. She told BuzzFeed in an August interview that's when she decided it "was time to tell the full truth."

Her story became fully public with this 1999 Dateline NBC interview:

In it, she explained that she had not come forward with the story because she worried that no one would believe her.

Broaddrick had no witnesses but a friend of hers told reporters Broaddrick told her about the assault at the time.

Bill Clinton's lawyers' response

At the time, Bill Clinton's lawyers denied the allegations. And according to the Washington Post's account, Starr decided he would not need Broaddrick's testimony because she told him that Clinton did not try to influence her.

As this election season came into full swing, Broaddrick's story came back into the spotlight. And Broaddrick alleged that Hillary Clinton tried to intimidate her.

Allegedly meeting Hillary Clinton

In an interview given to the right-wing website Breitbart, Broaddrick said that weeks after the alleged rape, she met Hillary Clinton at a fundraiser for Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton allegedly thanked her for "everything you are doing in Bill's campaign." As Broaddrick tells it, she tried to leave the event but Hillary Clinton grabbed her arm and told her, "Do you understand everything you do?"

Broaddrick took that as a threat that implied she should keep quiet.

What Clinton and her campaign have said

The Clinton campaign has not specifically addressed Broaddrick's story, but it has tried to discredit attempts to tie Hillary Clinton to Bill Clinton's scandals.

Back in January, Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon told the New York Times that those were attempts to "draw Hillary Clinton into decades-old allegations through recent fabrications that are unsubstantiated." He added that Clinton "has spent her whole life standing up for women, and charges to the contrary are grossly unfair and untrue."

A New Hampshire Republican state representative, Katherine Prudhomme O'Brien, told CNN she tried to get Clinton to address the Broaddrick allegations during a town hall in January. Clinton refused to take her question because, she said, Prudhomme O'Brien was "very rude."

CNN reported that during a campaign stop in New Hampshire in Dec. 2015, a woman asked Clinton what she would say to Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones. Clinton responded, "Well, I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence."



Kommentaar:

  1. Samurg

    Ek is jammer, maar na my mening is jy verkeerd. Ek is seker. Skryf vir my in PM, bespreek dit.

  2. Griswold

    Weet jy hoekom?

  3. Kwami

    En so gebeur dit ook :)

  4. Mazushicage

    Vertrou jou skuif aan professionele persone toe, en ons sal jou help om jou vakansieskuif van die begin af te beplan! Per slot van rekening sal 'n vinnige en netjiese dacha-skuif jou eie tyd en senuwees bespaar.

  5. Starbuck

    Ek beveel aan dat u Google.com soek vir die antwoord op u vraag



Skryf 'n boodskap