GOP Rep. Blake Farenthold Used Taxpayer Money to Settle $84,000 Sexual Harassment Claim

What has that op-ed got to do with the fact that a Republican Prosecutor Ken Starr didn't find Broaderick, Wiley, Jones etc not credible as accusers? Why should Democrats trust their accusations when a prosecutor and a judge found them not credible?

Starr was not investigating any of the cases involving these women and made no judgement of their credibility. He was solely focused on investigating the actions of Clinton while he was president. The only place where where Paula Jones came up was Bill Clinton's perjurious testimony in that suit where Bill denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. We all know, of course, this led directly to Bill Clinton's impeachment after the blue dress showed up.

"In his deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. On the basis of the evidence provided by Monica Lewinsky, a blue dress with Clinton's semen, Ken Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious.

During the deposition in the Jones case, Clinton was asked, "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" The definition included contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of a person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of that person, any contact of the genitals or anus of another person, or contact of one's genitals or anus and any part of another person's body either directly or through clothing.[24][25][26] The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Clinton flatly denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky.[27] Later, at the Starr grand jury, Clinton stated that he believed the definition of "sexual relations" agreed upon for the Jones deposition excluded his receiving oral sex."
 
Starr was not investigating any of the cases involving these women and made no judgement of their credibility. He was solely focused on investigating the actions of Clinton while he was president. The only place where where Paula Jones came up was Bill Clinton's perjurious testimony in that suit where Bill denied having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. We all know, of course, this led directly to Bill Clinton's impeachment after the blue dress showed up.

Nonsense, then why did Starr gave Broderick immunity? Why did Broaderick lie about an injury that she claimed Clinton gave her and in courts said that her ex husband did? She is a proven liar.
 
Nonsense, then why did Starr gave Broderick immunity? Why did Broaderick lie about an injury that she claimed Clinton gave her and in courts said that her ex husband did? She is a proven liar.

Everyone testifying about Bill Clinton got immunity from Starr when he was gathering information -- from the lowest janitor, to policemen, to women, to other politicians. It was common practice to get immunity before testifying against a sitting President. Wouldn't you demand the same thing?

Here is the NPR summary - https://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/4972...drick-the-woman-accusing-bill-clinton-of-rape

"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."

"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."
 

Yes, liberals don't believe someone who has been caught in multiple lies, who spreads conspiracy theories, who blames Hillary for intimidating her because she shook her hand once and most importantly - someone who supports Trump - an accused rapist and self admitted assaulter has zero legitimacy making accusations.
 
Yes, liberals don't believe someone who has been caught in multiple lies, who spreads conspiracy theories, who blames Hillary for intimidating her because she shook her hand once and most importantly - someone who supports Trump - an accused rapist and self admitted assaulter has zero legitimacy making accusations.

The Blatant Democratic Hypocrisy on Sexual Misconduct
If you don’t apply your principles consistently, you don’t have principles at all…
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/the-blatant-democratic-hypocrisy-on-sexual-misconduct.315533/
 
What has that op-ed got to do with the fact that a Republican Prosecutor Ken Starr didn't find Broaderick, Wiley, Jones etc not credible as accusers? Why should Democrats trust their accusations when a prosecutor and a judge found them not credible?


So far the only person who actually paid up and essentially admitted to being guilty is bill clinton, who paid out almost a million dollars to one of his accusers to avoid jail time. You dont do that while you are the president, and while you have a free legal defense fund, unless you are guilty. Bill Clinton is the only confirmed rapist so far, if the donald ever settles, or gets convicted, let me know.
 
So far the only person who actually paid up and essentially admitted to being guilty is bill clinton, who paid out almost a million dollars to one of his accusers to avoid jail time. You dont do that while you are the president, and while you have a free legal defense fund, unless you are guilty. Bill Clinton is the only confirmed rapist so far, if the donald ever settles, or gets convicted, let me know.

"Clinton was faced with the prospect of having to go under oath again and testify more about his sexual history. Instead, Clinton agreed to an out-of-court settlement, paying Jones and her lawyers $850,000 to drop the suit; the vast majority of this money was used to pay Jones's legal fees.[10] Clinton's lawyer said that the president made the settlement only so he could end the lawsuit for good and move on with his life.[11]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations#Paula_Jones
 
Back
Top