Monday, October 31, 2016

THE SEXUAL ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TRUMP AND CLINTON: A POLITICAL FIGHTING GROUND

*** Note, Neither Bill Clinton nor Donald Trump have admitted to the accusations being lodged against them and neither have been found guilty in a court of law.  Thus, the accusations are noted as "alleged" and do not reflect the author's belief or disbelief as to the validity of the claims.  If there is information contained within this article that is not-factual, please be sure to point it out.  Or, if there is information, whether it be positive or negative regarding the allegations, please point that out as well.  


In the 1990's, several sexual assault allegations were made against Bill Clinton.  The first allegation was made in 1991, soon after Bill Clinton won the democratic nomination.  But, it was not being made by the alleged victim;  it was being made by a man she knew and called a friend. A man considered to have a strong republican agenda claimed he had a tape of the woman admitting Bill Clinton, democratic nomination for president, raped her.   The allegation was spread in republican circles but was not  released to main stream media until just one month before the general election.  Media outlets reached out to the alleged rape victim, and she denied anything ever happened.  Media outlets reached out to the man,  Phillip Yoakum, for the alleged tape.  When Yoakum refused to play the tape to the media, they dropped the story.

The next allegation against Bill Clinton did not pop up until February, 1997.  A woman claimed that Clinton had made unwelcomed sexual advances towards her.  Her allegation brought forth other allegations of sexual assault and rumors of consensual affairs.  One of the affairs was with Monica Lewinsky, whose sworn denial of the affair along with Clinton's, lead to the Kenneth Starr inquiry.

Public opinion was mixed on the subject.  Some believed everything the women were saying while others did not. One defender of Clinton had some very strong words regarding the subject, and especially about the quality of Clinton's accusers. 



AUGUST 19, 1998 

During  a Fox Interview: "It’s like it's from hell, it's a terrible group of people.I don't agree with his victims, his victims are terrible...... He is really a victim himself. But he put himself in that position....... The whole group, Paula Jones, Lewinsky, it's just a really unattractive group.  I'm not just talking physical.......I think he's terrific. I think the guy's terrific. I just hate the way he tried to get out of this mess........In terms of myself, I love him as a president because business has been great, the economy's been booming. We have to give him credit,”

AUGUST 27, 1998 
In a NBC Interview "Oh, it's so embarrassing and you really have to say where does it stop?............. I don't think he could have done any worse.  I think his lawyers and particular the lawyer... well I won't mention any names.....  representing him with respect to Paula Jones I thought did a terrible job.  He should have never been there, he should have never gotten in there....   I would have done something certainly different than what they did.  I would have done something certainly different than what they did and that all started it.  Paula Jones is a loser, but the fact is she may be responsible for bringing down a president indirectly.  And, that statement was a bad statement to have made, and it's proven to be false.  (Host: Which statement?)  With Paula Jones in the deposition, which really started the whole thing......And, I am not sure that they should not have gone in and taken the fifth amendment and said, 'look, I don't get along with this man Starr, he's after me, he's a republican, he's this, he's that' and just taken the fifth amendment. That's a terrible thing for a president to take the fifth amendment but he should have done it.  I don't think he could have done any worse than what's happened.  It's such an embarrassment to him.  I mean, I see him walking around it's like a terrible embarrassment. (Host: Have you ever thought about running for president?) I don't like it. Could you imagine how controversial I would be?  You think about HIM with the women.  How about ME with the women?"


Perhaps the man defending Clinton did so because he believed that  a man in power, one who had influence, someone who was famous, almost like a star, was entitled to do things to woman like kissing her without permission or grabbing of  her private parts.  

It was obvious Clinton's defender thought highly of him despite the allegations made against him.  He continued to praise Clinton for about the next fifteen years.  He even implied that the impeachment was unjust..


2008:

"They (Clintons) are FANTASTIC people.  You know, the thing, they get a bad knock..."

February 9th, 2011
 "He's a friend of mine,  a LOVELY guy,  A GREAT GUY....  I like him but I think they treated him very very harshly... He's a quality guy.  He's a democrat but he's a quality guy....
2013
"I know her very well, I know her husband very well.  I like them both. They are really terrific people. I like them both very much

2014
"I watched Bill Clinton yesterday give a little speech and people do like Bill Clinton, there is no question about it. And I play golf with him and I like him. I mean what’s not to like?”
What's not to like about a man who had admitted to extra-marital affairs and had been repeatedly been accused of sexual assault?  Most men who are unwilling to do those things would claim those actions are definitely what's not to like about someone. 

 Could it be that this man,  who called the accused abuser the victim, might have identified with the accused abuser's womanizing ways? Or, was he just supporting a friend?   So who is this man that defended and supported Clinton for over a decade?  That man is Donald Trump who now says Bill Clinton is " the worst abuser of women to ever sit in the Oval Office. He was a predator." 

Trump changed his mind.  But why?

Did he changed his mind because he heard Bill Clinton admitted his accusers were telling the truth?

NO. 
 To this day Bill Clinton denies the sexual assault allegations.

Did he changed his mind because new evidence was discovered that proved Bill Clinton guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
NO.

Did Trump change his mind because Hillary Clinton started running against him for president?

That was a big portion of it.....

Did Trump change his mind about Bill Clinton when his own poor behavior towards women came out during the election?

YES.  Yes he did. 

Trump's behavior towards woman was a focus of many of his opponents, both republican and democrat.  Changing his view on Bill Clinton helped to make it look as if he did not approve of bad behavior towards women and would never, with the exception of the prior 15 years, support such a man.  It also distracted from his belittling and often derogatory attitudes towards various women.  Some of which were just doing their jobs.   And, Trump needed to distract from a lot:

  1. Trump attacks Megyn Kelly because he did not like her criticism regarding his treatment towards many women.  In response, he called her a "Bimbo."
  2. referred to Kelly in way that many implied he was insisting she was "moody" because  she was menstruating. "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.""
  3. May 1991 Esquire Magazine, Trump is quoted as saying, "You know, it really doesn’t matter what they write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass. But she’s got to be young and beautiful."
  4. Called a female lawyer disgusting for having to take a break to breast pump.
  5. 2011 - Gail Collins told of a time she wrote Trump was a financially embattled thousandaire and he responded by circling her picture, writing "face of a dog" and sending it back to her.
  6. tweeted that Arianna Huffington“is unattractive both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man—he made a good decision.”
  7. told a guest on celebrity apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.
  8. in one of his books he implied that all women used their sexuality to get ahead, "All of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me—consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected.”
  9. He implied that people shouldn't nominate Carly Fiorna because of her looks.
  10. Attacked  Bill Clinton's supporters calling them "unattractive,and more then just physical"
  11. Implied in 2005 that certain jobs were "woman's work",  like changing diapers. "There’s a lot of women out there that demand that the husband act like the wife and you know there’s a lot of husbands that listen to that. So you know, they go for it.
  12. Implied that if women were sexually harassed,  they should leave the workplace.  "I would like to think she would find another career or find another company if that was the case, (If Ivanka were being sexually harassed)."
  13. Said both Clinton and Elizabeth Warren were playing "The Woman Card" -- "Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote. The only thing she’s got going is the woman’s card."
  14.  Body shamed Kim Kardasian for her weight gain. "she's gotten a little bit large. I would say this, I don't think you should dress like you weigh 120 lbs." (this was after calling her a nice person. 
In December 2015 Trump made a public statement that was very much the opposite from his view on Bill Clinton for the past 15 years.  And, he did so, while he continued to use the term "women's card."

But, it was not until a secret from Trump's past was unleashed that he upped his criticism of Bill. In February 2016,  LawNewz released their discovery, the 1997 Harth sexual harassment lawsuit against Trump.  In May,  The NY Times did an article about Trump's relationship with women.  Trump released a campaign video  with Clinton's accusers speaking;  the same women from the group Trump called "terrible" and claimed were victimizing Clinton.


And in October 2016,  Trumped went full-force with his change of heart about Bill Clinton.  A 2005 tape was released, and the words in it corroborated the 1997 Harth allegations of sexual assault.  The Trump team went into damage mode with a 1:30 minute long apology, in which he dedicated a full 20 seconds to the apology.  Trump turned the remaining into a campaign opportunity and then reserved the rest to deflect from his issue to refocus on the 1990's allegations against Bill Clinton in which he called Bill the victim.  But this time, Trump implied Bill was the abuser.



The women that he once referred to as "terrible" and "loser" were invited by Trump to attend a press conference and the second presidential debate.   These women ignored Trump's past treatment of women, the fact that in the pastTrump implied they were victimizing the president,  his support of Clinton until 2014, and accepted his invitation.  In addition, they joined with each other in an interview claiming that Hillary had intimidated them to keep quiet.  However, their stories were different then what they said years earlier.

Trump didn't only defend Clinton during those 15 years, he implied that the sexual allegations against Clinton were politically motivated.  Sound familiar?

August 27th, 1998 "And, I am not sure that they should not have gone in and taken the fifth amendment and said, 'look, I don't get along with this man Starr, he's after me, he's a republican, he's this, he's that'"

October, 2008 "Look at the trouble Bill Clinton got into which was totally unimportant and they tried to impeach him which was nonsense"

Trump claimed the portrayal of him as someone who did not support women and would treat them in such a way was a political attack on him and nothing more.  He said the words on the 2005 were just words and not actions;  his team labeled it "locker room" talk.  During the second presidential debate, the issue came up.  Trump made a 15 second reply and then tried to change the subject to terrorism.  When he was first asked if he did any of the things he said he did, Trump would not give a yes or no answer. When Anderson asked the second time, he would not give a yes or no answer.  He finally gave a "no" answer the third time Anderson asked..... and then changed the subject again.





Trump's denial brought out responses from many woman who claimed Trump either kissed them or groped them without their consent. Others said he took advantage of his position as owner of the Miss Teen USA pageant to see them naked.   Trump said the women were lying,  just as Bill Clinton had claimed about his accusers.   Trump said the allegations were politically motivated, as he had implied in the case of Bill Clinton.   Trump said Hillary was awful for not believing her husband's accusers, such as how Melania did not believe Trump's accusers.

Many Trump supporters say the women are lying because they waited years to come forward, as was the case with Clinton's accusers.  Many Trump supporters say the women are lying because they chose to come out during Trump's run for the presidency, as did Bill Clinton's accusers.  Many Trump supporters say the women must be lying because they came out just one month before the election, similar to the time when the rape allegation against Clinton hit mainstream media.   Many Trump supporters say Harth has to be lying about the sexual harassment because she supported Trump's campaign later,  similar to how Broaddrick had attended the Clinton campaign fundraiser three weeks after the alleged rape.  Trump supporters say Clinton is guilty because he settled Jones' sexual case, much like how Trump settled a case related to Harth's sexual assault case.


Many Trump supporters say Trump is innocent and Clinton is guilty. Many Clinton supporters say Clinton is innocent and Trump is guilty.  The hypocrisy is raging and requires a closer look at the individual complaints.


TIMELINE:  ALLEGED ASSAULT DATE VS REPORT DATE

One of the most common arguments heard in Trump's defense is that the women accusing him did not come out for years so they must be lying.   According to these loyalist, the women would have spoken up sooner because Trump was a "billionaire and a celebrity."  These statements indicate that the people who are saying them do not understand sexual assault.

Studies have shown that 70% of more sexual assaults go unreported with over 60% of sexual assaults being committed by someone the victim is associated with. Knowing the attacker makes it harder for a victim to come forward. Statistics show that when sexually assaulted by a friend or acquaintance  only about 18-40%  come forward.  When that friend or acquaintance is someone who is well-liked and admired, such as a president or a billionaire playboy with lots of friends, it reduces the chances the victim would come forward.   And, when that same friend or acquaintance has the money, influence, and power,  the chances the victim coming forward is slim to none because of the concerns that flood the mind of the victim:


  • Fear of not being believed 
  • Fear of retaliation
  • Unclear if a crime was committed
  • Unclear of the offender's intention
  • Shame of others knowing
  • Fear of being "labeled"
  • Concern they did something to cause it.
  • Playing down the situation and making it less than what it was
  • Not wanting to get the offender in trouble (in cases of knowing their attacker)
  • a lack of confidence in the police
  • lack of evidence

Many of these reasons are applicable to many of  Donald Trump's alleged victims and to Clinton's as well. One of the most frequently heard defense is the myth that if the woman were really assaulted, they would have come out years earlier.  Both situations involved women who had not come forward for years, as is extremely common in sexual assault cases.

  • Clinton/ Unnamed  Yale woman
    • Alleged incident 1972
      • first reporterd 1999 * = 27 years
      • *See "Capital Hill Blue" section regarding validity concerns
  • Clinton/ Unnamed U of AK woman
    • Alleged incident 1974 *
      • First reported 1999* - 25 years
        • *See "Capital Hill Blue" section regarding validity concerns
  • Clinton/ Wellstone
    • Alleged incident 1969
      • First reported * - 1999 = 30 years 
        • * see "Capital Hill Blue report" regarding validity concerns
  • Clinton/Broaddrick
    • Alleged assault occurred 1978
      • first reported by an associate in 1991 = 13 years
        • Broaddrick denied it happened until 1999  =21 years
  • Clinton/ Moffet
    • Assault allged 1979
      • First reported 1999 * = 20 years
        • * see "Capital Hill Blue report" regarding validity concerns
  • Trump/ Leeds
    • Alleged assault occurred ~1980 
      • First publicly reported 2016 = 36 years
  • Clinton/ Milwee
    • Alleged assault occured - 1980
      • First publicly  reported 2016 = 36 years
  • TRUMP/ VIRGINIA
    • alleged sexual assault - 1998
      • first time publicly reported 2016 = 18 years
  • Trump/ Trump
    • Alleged assault 1989
      • First reported 1991= 2 years
        •  (although it was alleged she did tell a confident immediately after)
  • TRUMP/ ANDERSON
    • alleged sexual assault 1990's
      • first time publicly reported 2016 = 26 years
  • Clinton/ Zercher
    • Alleged assault - 1991
      • First publicly reported - 1998 = 7 years
  • Clinton/ Jones
    • Alleged assault 1991 
      • First reported 1997 = 6 years
  • Clinton/ James
    • Alleged assault 1991
      • First reported 1999 * = 8 years
        • See "Capital Hill Blue"  for validity concerns
  • Trump/ Harth 
    • Alleged assault 1992-1993
      • First reported 1995 = 2 years.
  • Clinton/ Willey 
    • Alleged assault 1993
      • First reported 1998 = 5 years
  • Trump/ Doe
    • Alleged assault 1994
      • First reported 2106  = 22 years. 
  • Trump/ Mariah Billadio et all
    • Alleged walking in on naked teens  1997
      • First reported - 2016 = 19 years
  • TRUMP/  TAGGART
    • alleged sexual assault - 1997
      • first reported 2016 = 19 years
  • Trump/ Sullivan 
    • Alleged sexual misconduct 2000
      • first reported 2016 = 16 years
  • TRUMP/ ZERVOS 
    • Alleged sexual assault 2003
      • first reported - 2016 = 13 years
  • TRUMP/ McGILLIVRAY
    • Alleged sexual assault - 2003
      • first reported - 2016 = 13 years
  • Trump/ Crooks
    • Alleges sexual assault 2005
      • First reported 2016 = 11 years
  • Trump/ Stoynoff
    • Alleged sexual assault -2005
      • first reported - 2016 = 11 years
  • TRUMP/ DRAKE
    • alleged sexual assault + alleged proposition - 2006
      • first time reported 2016 - 10 years
CAPITAL HILL BLUE REPORT


Capital Hill Blue (CHB) is an internet self-proclaimed "news' site whose very slogan implies an anti-governmental policy: "because nobody's life, liberty, or property is safe while congress is in session or the white house is occupied."

Capital Hill Blue  was the one who initiated many of the rumors of sexual assaults by Bill Clinton. And, anti-Clinton people have accepted  these rumors to be true because they want to believe them. The first time these allegations appeared anywhere was on a small internet site of dubious reputation.

Currently,  CHB posts both anti-Trump and anti-Hillary stories which would make them seem neutral.But, in its time, CHB has earned a reputation with some fact checker sites as being questionable in some of  their reporting. It could be related to their past reliance on "unnamed" sources who only CHB known when posted a first-time ever heard story, or the need to remove/recant /apologize once evidence to the contrary of their stories emerge.

In its time,  CHB  has printed some questionable articles that it stood by to be true but later had to remove and apologize for.  One example is from 2005.  Three controversial articles about Ron Paul were printed.  The owner of the site later removed the articles and apologized.  He claimed they were posted without his permission by the acting editor while he was taking a break from the site.
(See http://themoderatevoice.com/capital-hill-blue-retracts-controversial-negative-ron-paul-piece/)

Two years earlier,  CHB had to retract seven articles that had been printed over the span of 10 months between 9/2002 and 7/2003 That time, the owner blamed it on one of the many "unnamed sources" he used, such as the ones he used for the Clinton articles :    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/943727/posts

Another article printed by CHB determined to be not factual was the claim of a "unlawful" congress with 84 members being arrested for drunk driving over the span of one year.   Factcheck.org busted the story and noted that CHB left out a pertinent part of the story that could be used for validation: The names of the alleged wrongdoers.  CHB responded by attacking Factcheck and trying to discredit them.  Snopes also called the claim false.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/congress.asp

https://www.truthorfiction.com/congressionalcriminals/

https://www.factcheck.org/tag/capitol-hill-blue/

It seems even CHB knew they had  problem.  While trying to defend that they were "more correct" than Fact Check, CBH inadvertently admitted it posted stories before vetting them.  OOPS.
"Since going online on Oct. 1, 19944, Capitol Hill Blue has corrected, amended or removed 86 stories based on our own follow-up research or tips from readers. That’s an average of 6 stories a year over the last 14-and-a-half years" 

(for those Trump supporters who decide to defend the site before vetting it,  I suggest you read the current information on it first about their thoughts of Trump:  http://www.capitolhillblue.com/ )

Recently, Snopes has touched on a claim related to the CHB article.    http://www.snopes.com/bill-clinton-expelled-from-oxford/

In the Snopes article, they noted a similar pattern in CHB's allegations:
The original Capitol Hill Blue piece included several instances that all followed the same pattern: A young woman whom no one had ever heard of (in most cases the women weren't even identified by name) had supposedly accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault decades earlier but had declined to pursue any charges against him at the time. Capitol Hill Blue somehow managed to track all these women down, and all of them allegedly "confirmed" their experiences — yet none of them was directly quoted, and all of them declined to go on record or discuss the matter any further. Moreover all of these incidents were coincidentally also "confirmed" by other people (e.g., government officials, retired policemen, former students), none of whom was identified by name or directly quoted either. - SNOPES. 


CHB ALLEGED VICTIM 22 YEAR OLD YALE WOMAN

Per the CHB article:
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
Issues with the credibility of the story:

  1. The woman is unidentified;  can not verify the claim
  2. The only one to have spoken to the woman is CHB and the witness, who only CHB knows. 
  3. the "policemen [sic]"  is unidentified;  can not verify the claim.
  4. The only one to have spoken to the witness is CHB.
  5. If CHB was able to "track down the woman" then why weren't larger media with greater resources able to do the same?  The Clinton sex-scandal and anything related was HOT at the time.
  6. Why hasn't Trump's campaign been able to track down this woman? If CHB could.....  then why not them?
  7. Why would the woman report it to Campus police if she didn't want to file charges?
  8. How did CHB track down the woman?  Yale's PD records were sealed from the public until 2008
  9. Yale PD ran like a regular PD, and a report is make of all alleged crimes.  Why has no report been found now that the Yale PD records are publicly accessible?
  10. Why is it that the only subsequent reports of this story are a rehashing of CHB's claim?  Given the media frenzy,  why would there not have been a more in depth attempt to find the woman
  11. making the story 27 years old made it harder to validate
  12. story makes implications the woman did not want to share the story so it could excuse the fact CBH was the only one reporting it.
  13. The story is very generalized IE 22 year old female student, retired campus policemen, "sexual assault" instead of what happened,  no direct quotes from anyone.


CHB ALLEGED VICTIM 1974 law student

Per CHB:


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;
Issues:
  1. The only one who knows the alleged victim is CHB;  the claim can not be validated.
  2. The only one to have spoken to the multiple alleged witnesses is CHB;  the claim can not be validated.
  3. Where did CHB get the story from if they had to track down the alleged victim?
  4. IF CHB could find her, why couldn't large media with better resources find her?
  5. The only one to ever talk to, interview, or otherwise contact the victim and the witnesses in the story is CHB.
  6. If there are several students who allegedly witnessed Clinton do these things, then why was the story first reported on a small unknown internet site?
  7. The only one who knows who the alleged advisor is CHB; the story can not be validated.
  8. The description of the advisor is so generic it does not even include if it was a man or woman; leaves it up to many possibilities should someone had tried to validate the story. 


CBH ALLEGED VICTIM ELIZABETH WARD GRACEN

Per the CHB article:
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.` 
Issues:

  1. Gracen repeatedly denied being raped.
  2. Only one friend, Judy Stokes,  made the claim, and it was not until the Paula Jones investigators came to her. 
  3. CHB fails to name the current close friends who allegedly were saying that Gracen was currently privately saying he did.  

During Clinton's presidential run in 1992, rumors of an affair, not a rape, between Elizabeth Ward Gracen and Clinton were spread.  According to the rumors,  Clinton had an affair with Elizabeth in 1982 during his term as governor.   If the rape was true, why did Judy Stokes wait until after 1997 to speak up?

Gracen denied the having an affair with Clinton, but later in 1999 she admitted she had a consensual one-night stand with Bill Clinton. She described him as "a very charming, handsome man."  Her description of Clinton would have been very unusual for a woman claiming she had been raped.  The rape allegation was not made public by Gracen, any or her friends, or her family.  The rape allegation started with Paula Jones' attorneys and became part of the Starr investigation because it was alleged Clinton helped her with her career in order for her to stay quiet, a claim Gracen boldly denies.

In an interviews,  Gracen explained the reasons why she came forward:

My family and friends are being harassed and intimidated every day. ... People claiming to be my 'friends' are giving false statements and are trying to sell their lies for profit."
“I was backed into the corner by the press during the Starr investigation. It made it sound like my experience with Clinton was more like rape. I had no choice but to come forward and say it was consensual sex. It might be noted that a day after my interview went public, the judge in the Paula Jones civil suit dropped the charges against Clinton.”
Some information posted about Ward on CHB's site was incorrect.  It suggested that instead of using fact-finding and research to uncover information about her,  CHB used speculation.

CHB: Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage)....

A little research shows Elizabeth Ward Gracen was never married to a man with the last name of either Ward or Gracen. She was born Elizabeth Grace Ward and changed her name when she started her acting career in 1987; there was already an actress named Elizabeth Ward in SAG.   Gracen was married three times: Birmingham, Hughes, then Murphy.

CHB ALLEGED VICTIM CAROLYN MOFFET
Per CHB:

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."

Issues:

  1. CHB is the only one to have ever located, talked to, or interviewed a woman named Carolyn Moffet. 
  2. Media had the name, there was a strong interest at the time - why no media attempt for a live interview?
  3. The story is built off of the Troopergate scandal which the author admitted was true but written with political motivation.  Why would they leave this out?
  4. Why come forward to a small internet site instead of a larger media story when a Trooper from the Troopergate story aired.
  5. The only reports of this story is a re-report of the CHB story.  There is not one single media outlet or report who had first-hand knowledge via an interview with a woman named Carolyn Moffet.
CHB ALLEGED VICTIM: SANDRA ALLEN JAMES

Per CHB report:

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.........
...........Capitol Hill Blue also spoke with the former Miss James, the Washington fundraiser who confirmed the encounter with Clinton at the Four Seasons Hotel in Washington, but first said she would not appear publicly because anyone who does so is destroyed by the Clinton White House.
''My husband and children deserve better than that,'' she said when first contacted two weeks ago. After reading the Broaddrick story Friday, however, she called back and gave permission to use her maiden name, but said she had no intention of pursuing the matter. I wasn't raped, but I was trapped in a hotel room for a brief moment by a boorish man," she said. "I got away. He tried calling me several times after that, but I didn't take his phone calls. Then he stopped. I guess he moved on."
But Miss James also retreated from public view this week after other news organizations contacted her.

ISSUES:
  1. No other source identified, interviewed, talked to, or otherwise had contact with Miss James; only CHB.
  2. How did CHB find her if she "moved" and "changed her name"?
  3. If CHB found Miss James, then why couldn't the larger media with greater resources? 
  4. There are no original reports of the alleged James attack; only rehashing of the CHB article. 
  5. If "other outlets" attempted to contact her, why are there not any original reports based off the CBH story stating the woman was contacted and refused to comment.
  6. The James story is a rehashing of the Troopergate story mixed with the Paula Jones and Broaddrick stories. 



CHB ALLEGED VICTIM EILEEN WELLSTONE
:

Per CHB:

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 an interview with Capitol Hill Blue, the retired State Department employee said he believed the story Miss Wellstone, the young English woman who said Clinton raped her in 1969.
''There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma,'' he said. ''But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of it.''
Miss Wellstone, who is now married and lives near London, confirmed the incident when contacted this week, but refused to discuss the matter further. She said she would not go public with further details of the attack. Afterwards, she changed her phone number and hired a barrister who warned a reporter to stay away from his client.
In his book, Unlimited Access, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich reported that Clinton left Oxford University for a "European Tour" in 1969 and was told by University officials that he was no longer welcome there. Aldrich said Clinton's academic record at Oxford was lackluster. Clinton later accepted a scholarship for Yale Law School and did not complete his studies at Oxford.
The State Department official who investigated the incident said Clinton's interests appeared to be drinking, drugs and sex, not studies.
"I came away from the incident with the clear impression that this was a young man who was there to party, not study," he said.
Oxford officials refused comment. The State Department also refused to comment on the incident. A Freedom of Information request filed by Capitol Hill Blue failed to turn up any records of the incident.

Issues:
  1. ] no one else has ever located, talked to, or interviewed Eileen Wellstone or any of the witnesses involved in the case: retired State department employee, the girl's family, the superiors
  2. Why would the State department investigate an alleged rape in another country by a non-government official, especially during wartime? 
    • According to a statement currently on the website, they help US victims of  overseas crimes but do not investigate the crime: LINK
    • According to a statement currently on the website, they help the accused perpetrator of the crime but do not investigate it to determine if one was committed: LINK
      • At the time of CHB's story, Clinton was only an American citizen and was not a governmental employee
  3. How did CHB find this woman from another country who had moved away to London (population 7,322,400 in 1999), and changed her name?  Especially since their sole witness last heard anything about the alleged incident 30 years earlier?
  4. When Clinton left Oxford in 1969 it was not for "a European Tour".  
    • 13 January 1969 passed his physical ordered by the selective service
    • Having not received orders to enlist, Clinton re-enrolls at Oxford.
    • A letter arrived from the selective service ordering him to report for induction, but it was late and the reporting date had already passed.  
    • Clinton had already enrolled and the regulations allowed him to finish his term.  The new reporting date was changed to July 28 1969.
    • If Clinton could find an alternative to induction to the army, he would not have to join. At this point, Clinton returned to the USA to seek alternatives.
      • Failed the Navy and Air Force physicals
      • National Guard was full
      • Joined the Arkansas ROTC program on July 17, 1969 after an intense interview and approval by the head of the selective service.
  5. Clinton was also not "no longer welcome" at Oxford after he left in 1969.  He returned in the fall of 1969 for the third term of the year and was there until at least January 1970 according to a classmate,  Mandy Merck.
  6. Neither Mandy Merck nor other classmates interviewed by a British newspaper indicated Bill Clinton was expelled from Oxford or that any rumors of a rape where known: Classmates
  7. None of Bill's Oxford classmates ever stated to any other news source in regards to Bill Clinton being forced to leave the school.
  8. The is no record of Bill Clinton being forced to leave Oxford either with Oxford or in information requested by FOIA (as stated ber CHB).  How would they had come across the story in the first place?

How did a small, relatively unknown internet site like Capital Hill Blue find women that multiple large media never did?   How could  CBH  find five new alleged sexual assault cases if they wanted to be left alone when larger media with greater resources did not?  (remember, they were reporting on any verifiable Bill Clinton sex scandal that popped up)  Why reach would those who wanted the story to be believed (like the "unnamed sources)  not reach out to a larger, trusted media site?   Why are all the sources unnamed or those that are, not able to be located?  If the none of the alleged victims planned on pressing charges, why report the rape to some official in the first place?

Just remember the French Model commercial.  Just because you heard it on the internet, does not make it fact.  Research for yourself and try to find one allegation regarding these five cases that was printed before February 1999.  Until individual verification or corroboration of these five stories come out, they must be disregarded as only rumors.   If these are made up, it's a shame and an insult to include them in with women who could have possibly been sexually assaulted by Clinton and serves to exploit their circumstances for personal gain:  Internet traffic.


THE ALLEGED VICTIMS

For the issues cited, until there is further reliable confirmation, many of the CHB victim list can not be included in each man's list of alleged victims.  It is not to say the women do not exist, but due to the suspicious circumstances, they can not be included.  The following women have all come out and stated at sometime they had been sexually assaulted by either Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.

Bill Clinton's Alleged victims:  Juanita Broaddrick,  Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Cristy Zercher, Lesile Millwee,

Donald Trump's Alleged victims: Jill Harth, Karena Virginia, Jessica Drake, Cathy Heller, Summer Zervos, Ivana Trump, Jessica Leeds,  Kristin Anderson, Jane Doe, Temple Taggart  Rachel Crooks, Mindy McGillivray , Natasha Stoynoff, Jennifer Murphy* (see notation in section)



CLINTON/ BROADDRICK (Alleged incident 1978)

In 1992,  after Clinton won the democratic nomination,  Phillip Yoakum, a man known to have a republican agenda, started circulating a letter in republican circles that accused Clinton of raping Juanita Braoddrick in 1978.  According to Yoakum,  Broaddrick confided in him about the rape which he relayed to Sheffield Nelson,  Clinton's losing opponent in the 1990 gubernatorial race.  Yoakum claimed to had recorded the meeting and created the letter.  The letter reached mainstream media just one month before voting in the presidential election.  When the press reached out to Broaddrick, she denied being raped.  When the press reached out to Yoakum, he refused to share and play the alleged tape.  The story was dropped.

Clinton was elected and began his presidency in 1993.   In December 1993,  a story written by David Brock was released that prompted the Paula Jones scandal.  The author later admitted that although true, both he and the witnesses in the story had a political agenda when comprising it.  The story, "His Cheatin Heart",  told of Troopers who worked guarding Clinton during his time as governor.  They claimed they sought out willing participants to have sexual liaisons with Clinton and played interference so Hillary would not find out.   The story launched the Paula Jones scandal which in return resurfaced the Juanita Broaddrick rape allegation.

During their investigation,  the Jones' team heard the story of the alleged rape from another republican activist.  They were pointed to Yoakum, who originally initiated the rape allegation. He corroborated the allegation.  The investigators approached Broaddrick on November 13, 1997, and she refused to talk to them, denying the allegation.  According to the investigators, Beverly and Rick Lambert, Broaddrick acknowledged having an "encounter" with Bill Clinton but refused to talk about it saying it was "too horrible" to relieve.  Rumors later erupted that the Lamberts secretly taped the conversation with Broaddrick, but like the Yoakum tape, the Lambert tape was never produced. Claims had been made that the tape was leaked to the press but they were not allowed to play it.

Because she would not talk, the Jones' investigators informed Broaddrick she would be subpoenaed to provide testimony in the Jones' case.  After the visit, Broaddrick turned to her lawyer, Bill Walters, a Republican state senator, and asked for advice.   Walters reached out to the Clinton lawyers and asked for them to draft an affidavit stating the rumors where not true.  On January 2, 1998,  she swore to  the affidavit.

1. My name is Jane Doe #5. I am 55 years old and have been married since 1981. I have one child, age 28. I currently reside in Arkansas.
 
2. In November of 1997, two private investigators retained by Paula Corbin Jones approached me at my residence. I declined to speak with them, but provided the name of my family attorney. I subsequently was served with a subpoena seeking the production of documents and purporting to require my testimony at a deposition in the civil action between Paula Corbin Jones and President William Jefferson Clinton (Civil Action No. LR-C-94-290). I have never met Ms. Jones, nor do I have any information regarding the allegations that she has advanced against President Clinton. In this regard, I have no knowledge or information regarding the events she has alleged occurred on May 8, 1991 at the Excelsior Hotel or, for that matter, any knowledge or information regarding any interaction between herself and Mr. Clinton. 
3. I met President Clinton more than twenty years ago through family friends. Our introduction was not arranged or facilitated, in any way, by the Arkansas State Police. I have never been an Arkansas state employee or a federal employee. I have never discussed with Mr. Clinton the possibility of state or federal employment nor has he offered me any such position. I have had no further relations with him for the past (15) years. 
4. 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. 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. 
5. I do not possess any information that could possibly be relevant to the allegations advanced by Paula Corbin Jones or which could lead to admissible evidence in her case. Specifically, I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton, any discussion offer or provision of state or federal employment or advancement in exchange for sexual conduct, or any use of state troopers to procure women for sex. Requiring my testimony at a deposition in this matter would cause unwarranted attorney's fees and costs, disruption to my life and constitute an invasion of my right to privacy. For these reasons, I have asked my attorney to advise Ms. Jones's counsel that there is no truth to the rumors they are pursuing and to provide her counsel with this sworn affidavit.
Further affiant sayeth not.
Jane Doe #5
NOTE: Broaddrick's initial denial she was sexually assaulted does not mean she was later lying.  It is a fact that it is common for survivors of sexual assault to initially deny they were abused. It must be noted that Juanita was facing being forced to testify in the Jones' case.  If the rape allegation was true, it meant she would have been forced to relive the experience in front of a room full of strangers. Although the denial plays a factor in her credibility, it can't be ruled out that it was not an act of mental self-preservation. 

In February 1998, Clinton's lawyer requested a dismissal of Jones' case.   Her attorneys' responded on March 13 with a 700 page document that included women that Clinton either allegedly had a consensual affair with or assaulted, including Juanita Broaddrick despite her sworn affidavit.    Then on March 28th, 1998, they introduced a letter obtained from Phillip Yoakum which he claimed was written to Broaddrick in late October, 1992.  LETTER  The letter alleged that Juanita was lying because Clinton bribed her husband with political favors.   Later, Yoakum would claim to have burned the tape he referred to in the letter.  However, if it did exist, that doesn't explain why Nelson would not have released it by now.

The Paula Jones case gained the attention of Kenneth Starr, a man who had been investigating Clinton on other charges.  Starr was alerted that Clinton's mistress, Monica Lewinsky, lied in her deposition.  He believed Clinton put her up to it, which would make Clinton guilty on obstruction of justice.  When Starr started investigating the Jones/ Lewinsky case,  he came across the Yoakum letter and it lead him to Broaddrick.  It was far too late to prosecute any rape allegation but if Clinton had a history of paying off people, it would support Starr's charges of obstruction of justice in the Jones case.

Broaddrick was questioned.  After receiving a promise of immunity, she recanted her sworn denial.    When she was asked about the allegation in the Yoakum letter, that they were paid off by Clinton to stay quiet, she denied it.  According to Broaddrick,  she was not bribed or threatened in any way to stay quiet about the alleged rape.  Broaddrick's story was not beneficial to the Starr investigation so her interview was sealed, not to be released to the public.  However, despite her testimony not being pertinent to the charges at hand, the fact she recanted her rape denial was included in the evidence that Starr turned over to the House of Representatives for grounds for impeachment.

The House decided to only review four of the eleven grounds that Starr presented.  The fourto  charges they reviewed were in relation to the Jones/ Lewinsky scandal:  two charges of perjury, one charge of witness tampering, and one charge of obstruction of justice. Despite the charges not being related to sexual assault,  somehow Broaddrick's interview was made available to at least 40 House members prior to their vote on impeachment.  The only ones who had access to her interview was Starr and his investigative team.  The House voted to impeach Clinton on two grounds but it is not known if the Broaddrick interview influence the vote in any way. 

Clinton was impeached and the Senate trial was to begin soon.  The only impeachment charges against him were born out of the Lewinsky scandal brought forth by the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.  As would be expected, the nature of the charges kept anything of a sexual nature related to Clinton well alive in the media, especially the tabloids.   And, it was a tabloid that Juanita claimed angered her enough to go public with the details of the story she told to Kenneth Starr.

Juanita stated that on December 31st, 1998 she saw an article in a tabloid which appalled her. The article claimed Juanita and her husband were paid by Clinton and it was why she kept quiet for so many years.   The claim was based on the letter written by Juanita's friend, Phillip Yoakum which was released by Jones' attorneys on March 28,1998.

JANUARY - FEBRUARY 1999


Juanita stated that after she saw the New Year's Ever story, she decided she needed to clear her name.  NBC's Lisa Myers had been in contact with Juanita over the past few weeks and built up a rapport so she decided to use NBC to speak out.  The interview occurred on January 20, 1999, one day following Clinton's impeachment.

NBC did not air the interview right away, which upset Broaddrick.  The Clinton Senate trial was still ongoing. Prosecutors in the trial decided to not use the Broaddrick interview or rape allegation because it was not related to the issues involved and served to be prejudicial.  Clinton was not being tried on sexual assault.  Despite the prosecutor's decision and the lack of relevance to the issues at hand, republican Whip Tom Delay publicly encouraged Senators to consider the Broaddrick rape testimony, which was not related to the charges at hand.

On February 11, 1999 Bill Clinton was acquitted of the charges against him and the Wall Street Jounral reached out to Broaddrick for an interview.  Upset that NBC had yet aired her interview,  Broaddrick provided one to the WSJ and it was printed on February 19, 1999. The tone of the article was against Clinton, yet made no reference to Juanita stating that Hillary was involved with trying to quiet her. In fact, the WSJ article did not indicate anyone had tried to silence her in any way which was the same thing she indicated in her statement to Kenneth Starr.

 The author of the article implied the alleged rape did occur and criticized NBC for taking so long to air the story.  The author wrote:

" They  (NBC) had four witnesses giving corroborating testimony--citizens with nothing to gain and possibly much to lose by going public and talking,"

WSJ's statement earned them criticism of their own by multiple other journalistic mediums. The fact was,  it was clear that two of the witnesses did have something to gain by their testimony: vengeance. One of those witnesses was Norma Kelsey, the nurse who said she discovered Juanita Broaddrick after the alleged incident making her the only person who came into contact with her immediately after.  The other witness was Norma's sister.   In 1980 Clinton had commuted the life sentence of Guy Kuehn who during a robbery had killed Ray Trentham, Norma's father.  Because of Clinton's act, the man who murdered the woman's father was eligible for parole and freedom.

The third witness in NBC's story was in reference to David Broaddrick, a man who Broaddrick was having an extra-marital affair at the time of the alleged rape and then later married.  After arriving home from the conference,  Juanita allegedly told David that Clinton had raped her.  However, David was the same man that Yoakum alleged would lie about the rape not happening in order to blackmail Clinton for political favors.  If true, then it can be inferred that David would had been willing to lie about a consensual encounter and call it rape to seek out vengeance when certain political favors were not granted.   Yet, the WSJ left that part out as well.

Their rightful dislike of Clinton for freeing their father's murderer does not mean the women were lying, but it is a factor that must be considered when judging credibility of a witness.  And, the fact that there were allegations that David Broaddrick was willing to lie about the rape does not mean he was lying when he said Juanita told him it occurred.  But, in any case all evidence must be considered when a crime is alleged. 


NBC aired its interview with Juanita Broaddrick on Feburary 24th, 1999, about one week following the WSJ article.  Neither the WSJ article that stated Clinton was guilty nor the NBC interview indicated that anyone, including Hillary Clinton, coerced Juanita to stay quiet via intimidation. In fact,  Juanita was directly asked the question during the NBC interview:


Lisa Myers:Did Bill Clinton or anyone near him ever threaten you, try to intimidate you, do anything to keep you silent?

Juanita Broaddrick: “No,"

Juanita had stated the same during the Starr inquiry:  Clinton had not tried to bribe or threaten her to stay quiet in any way.  If Hillary had at the time, or anyone working through Clinton,  why did she not bring it up? If she did,  Starr would have pursued his obstruction of justice investigation further and questioned the Hillary Clinton in order to get to Bill Clinton.  But, he did not.

AUGUST 19,1999
Then, Juanita changed her story a few months later.  She was interviewed by the Drudge report and implied that Hillary had "threatened" her to stay quiet.  However, her description of the story did not support her allegation of a threat.   Per Broaddrick's interpretation, Hillary walking up to her, taking her hand, and saying "'I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill."  and then repeating, "everything you do for Bill" was a threat to her to stay quiet.

The question of her denial in the NBC interview came up.  According to Broaddrick, she began to explain that Hillary threatened her and two producers ran in, interrupted, and made her change her story.  However, she did not explain why the allegation was not included in the WSJ article that supported her claim Clinton raped her.  Nor did she provide and excuse as to why she denied being coerced when she was asked during the Starr investigation.

At the conclusion of the interview,  Juanita claimed she was not afraid of Hillary Clinton, but added it was just her power.  However,  in recent interviews she has claimed she is afraid of Hillary.


2003
In 2003, around the release date of Hillary Clinton's book,  Juanita Broaddrick was interviewed by Fox's Sean Hannity. A portion of this interview has been shared on Youtube (Links to the interview, Drudge report, WSJ article, and NBC interview listed below.

In the Hannity interview,  despite the earlier denials, Braoddrick claimed Hillary had threatened her. This time her story was a little bit different.  This time, Hillary squeezed her hand hard, and stated in a low, angry voice, "Do you understand everything that you do?"  And, this time she was afraid of the actual woman.

November 2015
Broaddrick reappeared for the first time in over a decade. She was absent when Hillary ran for NY senator. She was absent when Hillary became secretary of state. She was absent when Benghazi was being investigated.  But, according to Broaddrick, it was the Benghazi incident that brought her out. Or, at least that was what she claimed in November.

In an interview with a radio host associated with pro-Trump media Breitbart, Broaddrick stated,
The only thing that made me consider coming forward again at this time at my age is when I saw her on that Benghazi hearing. Which was really hard to look at. I always turn the channel when either one of them are on TV. But when I saw that look on her face. It was the very same look back in 1978. That lying look."
Yet, later Broaddrick implied it was Hillary's statement regarding sexual assault survivors which made her come out.
Buzzfeed:
she went “ballistic” when she heard Clinton’s statements on sexual assault, she recently told me. It had been years since Broaddrick had spoken publicly about the Clintons. Sitting at home, alone and fuming, Broaddrick thought to herself, What can I say to make this believable to people, that this really happened to me? She signed back in to her dormant Twitter and started typing. In January, one tweet went viral: “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73….it never goes away.”

Breitbart then relayed the story Broaddrick told to the radio host about Hillary Clinton's alleged attempt to silence her:
"And so then about that time, I see them coming through the kitchen area. And some people there are pointing to me. He goes one direction and she comes directly to me. Then panic sort of starting to set in with me. And I thought, ‘Oh my God, what do I do now?  Broaddrick told Klein that Hillary approached her “and said ‘It’s so nice to meet you’ and all of the niceties she was trying to say at the time. And said, ‘I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate the things you do for him.’ And I just stood there, Aaron. I was sort of you might say shell-shocked. And she said, ‘Do you understand. Everything you do." She tried to take a hold of my hand and I left. I told the girls I can’t take this. I’m leaving. So I immediately left. Broaddrick said that “what really went through my mind at that time is ‘She knows. She knew. She’s covering it up and she expects me to do the very same thing.’”


The story changed  little bit and the hand squeezing part was dropped. There was no arm grabbing or pulling her in as she would later claim.  Nonetheless, even as Juanita told it in the radio interview the only thing that happened with Hillary Clinton is she pleasantly told Broaddrick she appreciated her work for Bill Clinton's campaign.


JANUARY 2016

Juanita Broaddrick claimed Hillary intimidated her to stay quiet.  Yet,  she never indicated it during the Starr investigation at a time that could have removed Bill Clinton from presidency.   Sharing the information that she was intimidated by the president's wife could have provided her with a  sort of justice in seeing the president removed.   It also would have helped to prevent Hillary from moving any further into politics but Braoddrick insisted she had neither been bribed nor threatened to say the rape did not occur.

She was already given immunity so there was not any reason for her to hold back information that she was threatened.  Legally, she could not get in trouble. And since she let the big secret out,  the one she later claimed she was warned by Hillary to keep quiet, why would she risk federal prosecution by lying to the prosecutor when she said she was not coerced?

At the time of the tweet,  The Hill reached out to Broaddrick.  According to Braoddrick  the reason she sent it out was, "I’ve been quiet for too long, and now with the possibility of [Hillary Clinton] being the Democratic nominee and possibly president, I feel the need to get involved,

She also added that she supported Donald Trump for president because, "He says the things I like to hear," Perhaps she didn't hear the things he said for the previous 15 years where he painted Bill Clinton as a quality guy with nothing to like and referred to all of Bill's accusers as "terrible."  Or, she ignored it based on a political agenda. 

April 2016
Despite her earlier statement she went to the Clinton fundraiser because she was in denial, Juanita stated in an interview  the purpose of going to the fundraiser was to drop of a list.   Her story of the interaction with Hillary changed from the other ones she told.   This time,  Hillary came up to her,  thanked her, and Juanita only nodded.  Then Hillary grabbed her hand, pulled her into her, harshly looked at her, and said, "Do you understand, everything that you do?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02o-Cw_B9Tc



July 10 2016

Juanita stated for the first time that she was raped twice by Bill Clinton. The story did not change until after the Trump campaign uncovered an interview with  republican Chris Shayes who alleged the sealed information in the Broaddrick case indicated she was raped twice on the same day by Bill Clinton.  Shays also stated that Broaddick had indicated that nobody ever tried to obstruct her from disclosing the information about the alleged rape.  The sealed information has never been released to the public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORfppYixrXM


The newfound allegation of being raped twice came up soon after Harth tweeted against Donald Trump implying she lied about her 1997 sexual harassment lawsuit that alleged a sexual assault.

Harth's TWEET: June 23
JB first said she was raped twice:  July 10


October 8 2016

The 2005 Access Hollywood tape is released.





Juanita tweeted in support of Trump.  According to Broaddrick,  Trump's were just "words." However, at the time it was well known to those following the campaign that in 1997 Jill Harth had claimed Trump sexually assaulted her by forcibly kissing and groping her, as he said he did to women in the leaked tape.



October 9th, 2008

Broaddrick joined other Clinton accusers in a press conference and the audience for the October 9th debate.  During the debate, Trump denied doing the things he said he did to women in the 2005 tape.

On the same day, a Breitbart  interview regarding Juanita Broaddrick's account of the alleged rape and Hillary's attempt to cover it up was released.  The story had changed in some parts.
  • BB: I kept telling him no, I don't want this at all. I am sure I said 'you must have had the wrong idea.'
    • NBC I pushed him away and told him, please don't do that. It seemed like he was making statements like did you not know why I was coming up here. 
  • BB: "He would push down on my left clavicle and it hurt so much I thought my clavicle was going to break"
    • NBC: And at that point he would press down on my right shoulder
  • BB: Clinton raped her twice and made a comment in between that she couldn't repeat because it was so awful.  
    • NBC: Clinton raped her once, got up when done, and told her he was sterile so she didn't have to worry about getting pregnant.
  • BB: They (Bill and Hillary) come in early from the kitchen area but just before they do....
    • Fox 03 They came in, but just before they did.....
  • BB:  just before they did a gentlemen who was their driver from the airport came straight over to me, he was a very...he mm mm -- he was supporting Clinton but he didn't know what had happened to me even though he was a friend.  And he said the topic all the way from the airport was about you, and that startled me and I knew I had to get out of there.
    • FOX '03:  just before they came in, the drive who had gone to the airport to pick them up came over to me and said that, --- he was a local pharmacist in this area -- he told me, he said the whole topic of the conversation all the way from the airport was you and are you going to be there and I didn't even know what to think about that.
  • BB:  The minute he moved (the driver),  here comes Hillary straight for me. And she gets to me....
    • Fox 03' - the minute they came in the door, I'm standing in the living room area and I see them come into the kitchen area. And I see her go up to someone and they are pointing at me.
  • BB: ...she gets to me and she starts "I just want to thank you for everything you are doing in Bill's campaign" and it's so nice to meet you and all of these things. "
    • FOX '03 "she made her way just as quick as she could to me... and she came over to me, took a hold of my hand and said 'I've heard so much about you. I've been dying to meet you.. or been wanting to meet you.. I can't.. this is paraphrasing right now. I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate what you do for him."
  • BB: ...  So I just nodded and told my friend let's go.
    • Fox '03: So I said thank you and started to turn and walk away
  • BB: ....And I thought someone from behind had grabbed a hold of my arm... but it was her.  She grabbed a hold of my arm, and my hand, and she pulls me into her and she says with this very angry look on her face and in a low voice says, "Do you understand everything you do?
    • Fox '03:  .... this woman, this little soft-spoken, pardon me for the phrase, dowdy woman that seemed very unassertive took a hold of my hand and squeezed it and said everything that you do......  she was just holding onto my hand because I had started to turn away from her and she had held onto my hand and she said, 'do you understand everything that you do?"
  • BB: and that frightened me.
    • Fox '03:  And cold chills went up my spine. That's the first time I became afraid of that woman.
      • Drudge Report: "I am not frightened of this woman---I am frightened of her power,
The differences in Broaddrick's story when she told it on Breitbart as compared to NBC and others does not necessarily indicate Broaddrick is lying about being raped.  But, it does suggest that there is a political agenda involved and that she had been coached to say things in a way to make it appear that Hillary Clinton did know.  

OCTOBER 9 - 16
After Trump's denial, women started coming out and making allegations against Trump, similar as to what happened in the Paula Jones scandal. Broaddrick was asked about her thoughts on Trump's accusers.  Broaddrick indicated that she had not taken the time to look into the situation even though Jill Harth's allegation had been out for months. 

"Jake, I don't have an educated answer for that because I've not read about these women,"

She did express sympathy for them, "if" it were true.

"If these accounts are true, yeah. If any possibility of these accounts being true, then I express my sympathies to the women that, you know, anything might have happened to. But I just don't know, I have no idea."


Broaddrick was doing the same thing to Trump's accusers that she criticized Hillary for doing to Clinton's accusers:  Not believing someone who said they were sexually assaulted because they said they were.   As an alleged sexual assault survivor, it would seem that Juanita would had tried to educate herself on these women claiming Trump sexually assaulted them and asked herself how it was that the things Jill Harth alleged Trump did to her in 1997 were the same things he said he did in 2005.  But, she didn't. 


Juanita Broaddrick's rape allegation is wrought with signs of being politically connected.  It does not mean Juanita is lying but it sure the hell does show that the alleged situation was exploited by others with a political agenda. And that is sickening. 


These are the following interviews, paper and audio, with Juanita Broaddrick for comparison.

Broaddrick,  The Wall Street Journal article,  February 1999




Broaddrick,  NBC, February 1999


or for the transcript:




 Broaddrick,  The Drudge Report,  August 1999

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/specialReports_pc_carden_detail.htm?reportID={647A4CAA-2DAF-4989-AE48-0AF139FCD3D3}



Broaddrick, Sean Hannity, 2003



Broaddrick, Breitbart, 2016



CLINTON / MILWEE  ALLEGED INCIDENT 1980

In late October, following the outpour of women accusing Trump, Breitbart brought out a "new" Clinton accuser.   The fact Breitbart broke the story should be the first hint that something is rotten in the state of  Kansas, or Arkansas that is.  It only takes reading the Clinton chapter of her 2011 book, "You Can't Make This Stuff Up", to understand why the story she tells today should be approached cautiously.

Lesilee Milwee, who was known as Lesile Derrick at that time, claimed Clinton sexually assaulted her three times in 1980 while she was an Arkansas reporter.  Per Milwee's account:
Clinton began sexually harassing her with unwanted remarks such as following her around, singling her out, and saying things like 'Hey, pretty girl, how are you today?'   Each time Clinton arrived at the studio, he always sought her  out and would even ask, "Where's Lesile?"  People at the studio teased her saying, "I think he likes you" because Clinton always singled her out.   It was obvious to Lesile, and it was obvious to her co-workers;  To know Clinton was coming was to know he would be looking for Lesile. 
He started to became touchy-feely such as touching her shoulder, but that was his way with everyone.  Then one day Clinton followed her into the editing room that was very small.  The room was so small that when Clinton was standing behind her, it caused his genitals to be pushed up against her neck.  When he came in that day,  he started to rub her shoulders and run his hands down towards her breasts.  With his hands on her shoulder she felt like she was being "held in place", or restrained.  Do to the size of the room, and their positioning, there was not any room for Lesile to get up and get out of there until he left. She felt trapped in the room and she felt that there was nothing she could do until he finished.   He also started to "hunch" her.  She was stunned, she froze, and asked him to stop.  And he laughed it off. 

*"hunching" is a slang term used for dry humping someone through clothing. 

The situation was traumatizing to Milwee. After the incident, Milwee stated she approached him, warned him to not do it again, and found it very upsetting and offensive.  Then it happened again.  About a week after the first incident, Clinton came in to the studio, and made a "beeline" right to Lesile.  She excused herself and went to the same editing room, placing her alone in the room where Clinton had allegedly assaulted her before. Now, one might wonder why, if Clinton had just assaulted her a week earlier in a room she felt trapped in why would she return to it as soon as she noticed Clinton come in?  According to Lesile,  although he held her in place and rubber his genitals against her neck, dry humping it, it was because he never "finished the sex act."  This reasoning is not one that a sexual assault victim has been known to use.  Had Lesile stated she was in denial and thought it wouldn't have happened again after her warning, the story as she told it to pro-Trump site Breitbart might be less concerning. And then, there is that 2011 book.
According to Lesile, once anyone came into the room it would not possible for her to get up and move away due to the size of it.   And sure enough, Clinton came in behind her,  and started "hunching" her, but this time to the point he had an orgasm. And he tried to touch her breast.   During the incident she sat very stiffly waiting for him to leave her alone while saying, "Please do not do this, do not touch me, do not hunch me."  The whole incident lasted 3-5 minutes and during the entire thing, she was "just praying that someone would come through the door, knock on the door." She wanted someone to come in and witness what was happening yet she never called out to any coworkers because she didn't want anyone to know what was happening. 
He did it one more time; it was a repeat of the second time. He  came in, "hunched" her,  grabbed her shoulder, had an orgasm, and left.  The third time it happened, she was crying and went into the ladies room very upset. An elderly unnamed witness saw her in the bathroom and Milwee only told her she had a bad experience and asked to be left alone. 
She never told anyone but people at the station would joke that Clinton liked her. She was mortified and upset over the incidents.   She added that she was appalled because "this was the governor of Arkansas and the first thing he told people was, "Hi, I am Bill Clinton and I am going to be president of the US." 
Lesile claimed it was the last time he touched her.  But,  he still made comments that made her fear for her safety.  She had been having her grandmother stay with her for weeks at a time because she was afraid.  Then, one night, Clinton showed up at her door, pounding on it for 5 -10 minutes, knocking and calling her name, saying "Please answer the door, I know you are home."  Both she and her grandmother interpreted it that he was there for sex. That night she discussed the situation with her grandmother who advised her to leave the station.  The next morning she decided to leave the station because of Clinton's visit.  According to Breitbart,  her station manager confirmed she abruptly left without reason.  

According to Milwee,  she did not come forward because of shame and a feeling of guilt that she lead him on. She stated she almost came out during the Monica Lewinsky and Kathleen Willey situation, adding that she was "very prepared to go forward and talk about it then."  "And I watched how the Clintons and Hillary slandered those women, harassed them, did unthinkable things to them. And I just did not want to be part of that. "   -- and there's the political waste cincher.



As with the Paula Jones and Broaddrick allegations,  Milwee's was brought forth with an attached political agenda.  It does not necessarily mean that what Milwee has said is not true, but it does cause an air of scrutiny to her claim that would not be as strongly present had it not been pro-Trump Breitbart presenting it.   Besides the Breitbart link  and the book Milwee wrote in 2011 there are some very concerning issues.  The book was a situation Breibart realized was present and they tried to get ahead of it by sharing the "inconsistencies" that they claimed were in it and the reasons for it.  However, they left a few pertinent details out.

In their story, both Breitbart and Milwee implied the one she told in her 2011 book was a muted "PG" version of events because the publisher was a "Christian-based, family-owned," entity.  And, Milwee stated she left the sexual details out of her book because she wanted it to be read by teens and adults alike: a subject that they could discuss in church.  Had it been that she only left out the sexual details of her story, her explanation would be warranted.  But, that is not what she did. Other details in her story changed and she praised Clinton, despite the history of the Paula Jones scandal, the Lewinsky incident, and the alleged rape.

According to Milwee, she had decided in 2009 to come out and say that Clinton had sexually assaulted her.  But, in her 2011 book, she was praising him.  The story she told and the words she used were very different than the feeling she now claims she had in 2009.

  •  She wrote that Clinton would walk into the room and greet them all.  She did note that he would approach her first and say things like, "hey pretty lady" which made her blush.  According to the context in her book, it was her reaction that made her coworkers tease her about Clinton liking her.  
  • She explained that her embarrassment should not have been taken in a negative way because she was flattered at the attention. In fact, very flattered.  
  • Milwee described Clinton in some very positive terms:  handsome, charming, amazing charisma.  This bears the question, was it necessary to describe him as "charming" to tell her story?  
  • She explained  his demeanor  made her feel like she was the only person in the room and described it as leaving her feel like she was the most important person in the world.  She also stated that this part of him was genuine and serious in intention.  
  • She indicated that she looked forward to speaking with him and continued to  describe him in other positive terms
  • Despite Milwee's allegation she asked her grandmother to stay with her because she didn't want to be alone because she feared Clinton, it's not what she relayed in the book.  According to Milwee, her grandmother had been staying with her to keep her company prior to the incident ever happening.  They were close, she enjoyed her company, and granny came to visit for regular two-week stints. 
Milwee described the incident very differently in her book:
Instead of three incidents, it was just one and Clinton changed his behavior as soon as he realized it made her uncomfortable.  According to her story,  Clinton came into the editing room, put his hands on her shoulders, rubbed them, and then said "How are you doing, pretty lady."  She added she didn't think he meant to make her uncomfortable because when he realized he did, he very quickly tried to smooth things over. He made small talk and left as quick as he came in.  Unlike her current story were she told him "no, don't do that" in the story in her book she never said a word about it.  It was Clinton, who could tell by her body language, who realized his action made her uncomfortable so he stopped.   
According to the way Milwee told it in her book, her shame over the incident was not related to Clinton rubbing her shoulders; it was what her coworkers would think knowing she was alone in the editing room with Clinton.  She claimed what bothered her about the incident  was she was unsure if she acted in a way that had encouraged him to think she was interested in him.  Later that day, she amicably joked around with Clinton but she was still unsure of the intention behind the incident so it made things uncomfortable.

Later that night, Lesile discussed it with her grandmother who told her she behaved appropriately and implied that there was nothing more to the incident than just Clinton being friendly towards her.  Her final thoughts on the incident was that she overreacted.  
Milwee's explanation as to why she changed her story does not fit for the description of the visit to her home.  An eager Clinton who was repeatedly knocking at the door and calling her name could still be considered PG. But, that is not what she described in the book.
Milwee's book description of the Clinton visit to her home:
Her grandmother was there for a routine two-week visit during the summer and not because Milwee was afraid to be alone.  One evening, there was a faint knock at her door, and they didn't answer right away. According to Milwee, paranoia ran in her family.  She thought that she maybe heard a man call out her name once, but was not sure.  Another knock, and the visitor left.  They looked out the door and saw it was Clinton.  His visit made her uncomfortable.  But, she saw him the next day and things went on as normal.  

Additionally, Milwee's description as to why she left the TV studio could had been done in a similar PG manner while maintaining the idea that it was the editing room incident, his attention, and the visit to her home that made her leave.  But, the is not what she described in her book.
Milwee's decision to leave the television station as told in her book:
The next time Milwee saw Clinton was at the Arkansas-Oklahoma State fair where he was speaking.  The fair usually occurred in September, making it about 1-2 months after Clinton's impromptu visit to her home.  According to Milwee,  she could not take her eyes off of him and she described him in very positive terms.  She implied she watched him with admiration, or in her words "with awe."   Again, the question must be asked, how is saying she was in "awe" of a man who she claimed raped her a way to "PG" down the book? 
Milwee had brought her grandmother along during her assignment at the fair, and she used the opportunity to introduce her grandmother to the man she now says sexually assaulted her.  In fact, according to Milwee's book,  it was Milwee who pushed her grandmother to take the opportunity to meet Clinton.  She implied that although the grandmother wanted to meet him, she was a bit reserved.  
Despite Milwee's current statement that Clinton's treatment of her followed by the visit to her house caused her to flee her job, she told a different story in 2011.  According to her book,  that day at the fair was her last day at the television station. She was moving back home to Tulsa for another job!  According to what she wrote in her book,  she did not consider the reporter job as a life-long job because of what was required to get ahead. She wasn't willing to do what she believed it took to get ahead in the field.   
By coming out now,  Milwee did have something to gain: Book sales.  Breitbart made sure to include a link to Milwee's book despite it being littered with inconsistencies.  Breitbart only explained a minor portion of those away.  The interest in the subject meant more book sales, more exposure,  and more income for Milwee.




TRUMP/ TRUMP (Alleged incident 1989)

In a 1990's divorce deposition,  Ivana Trump described an incident in 1989 where she claimed Donald raped her.  The incident was reported in Harry Hurt III's book:  The Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald Trump.

The incident according to the book:
Trump was displeased about his hair surgery to cover a bald spot.  He informed the surgeon he was not going to pay him, threatened to ruin his practice, and threatened to sue him. He then turned his anger towards Ivana who had referred him to the surgeon.  In a surprised attack,  he burst into the bedroom yelling "Your fucking doctor ruined me" and pulled out fistfuls of her hair.  As she was crying on the bed,  Trump ripped off her clothes,  unzipped his pants, and copulated with her for the first time in over  a year. After the incident, Ivana confided in those close to her that "he raped" her.  
On March 3rd, prior to the release of the book,  the publisher had met with Donald Trump and his lawyers regarding the book.  On April 7,  after the book had been printed and was waiting to be shipped, Donald Trump's lawyers shared communication apparently coming from Ivana Trump.  In the shared communication coming from Trump's lawyers, Ivana stated that she really meant she felt violated and not raped as in a literal or criminal sense. 

After the divorce, Ivana was under a gag clause that prevented her from sharing any  personal, professional and financial dealings she knew about Donald Trump.  It meant that even if the incident did happen, she could not confirm it.  

According to the book and others,  the rape allegation was part of Ivana's 1990's deposition.  This was confirmed by the statement sent by Trump's attorney's:
"In a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband raped me"
Ivana changed the wording from rape to feeling violated:
I wish to say that on one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently towards me than he did during our marriage.  I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, was absent.  I referred to this as rape, but do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.
  It's almost certain the details about the incident  as reported in Hurt's book came from Ivana's description in the deposition. And, there was not anywhere in her statement that dismisses the description as not factual, except for the label used to describe it.  The rest of the statement:
"Any contrary conclusion would be incorrect and most unfortunate expression interpretation of my statement which I do not want to be interpreted in a speculative fashion and I do not want the press or media to misconstrue any of the fact set forth above. All I wish is for this matter to be put to rest. This statement can only be released and used in its entirety.  Approved Ivana M. Trump Date April 6, 1993

If not rape,  how do you describe an incident that leaves a woman feeling violated after a man pulls out a her hair, rips off her clothing and proceeds to have sex with her while she is crying?

When the 1990's deposition reappeared during 2015, Trump's lawyer, Micheal Cohen, insisted that spouses could not be raped. When he was informed that in 1984 New York struck down the marital rape exemption,  he threatened legal action against the reporter for asking the question.
 “You cannot rape your spouse. And there’s very clear case law.........I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know....So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me? You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up … for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet … you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it,”
Cohen later apologized for his words, but put the fault of his blow up on the reporter for daring to ask a question regarding Ivana's rape claim in the 1990's deposition.  Following the explosion, Ivana again implied she didn't mean 'rape' when she described the incident that occurred with Trump in 1989.

I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit,”


Denials like Ivana's have been noted in studies of  sexual assault survivors, who often deny or play down the seriousness of the attack.

According to multiple sites, the Trump divorce was granted on, "cruel and inhuman treatment."  One condition of the divorce prohibited Ivana from ""directly or indirectly publishing or causing to be published any account of the marriage or (Trump's) personal, financial or business affairs" without Donald Trump's consent.  In accordance with New York state law, the Trump divorce proceedings were sealed.   In August 2016 a request was sent before a judge asking to unseal the case in public interest. Ivana and Donald both fought it.   In September a judge ruled that the case would remain sealed.


TRUMP/ JILL HARTH  (Alleged incident 1992-1993)
Timeline of the alleged sexual assaults according to Jill Harth and the 1997 lawsuit:.

DECEMBER 1992 Jill Harth met Donald Trump for the first time during a business presentation on December 11th, 1992 with her then boyfriend and partner, George Houraney.  The duo were seeking Trump to sponsor their American Dream Festival, which included a calendar-girl type beauty contest.  Trump, known at the time for frequently having a  beautiful woman on his arm, seemed like the perfect person to approach. 
During the presentation,  the couple could not help but to notice that Donald Trump was "leering" at Jill, even when George was speaking.  According to both parties, Trump asked Houraney in reference to Jill, "Are you sleeping with her? What, just for the weekend?"  (Interesting enough,  in his 2001 cameo in the series"The Job",  Trump asked a similar question to man sitting with Trump's female friend, "Are you banging her?" Whether this was a joke related to the Harth lawsuit a few years earlier or in reference to his reputation, it is unknown) 
Trump agreed to sponsor the American Dream Festival. To celebrate the partnership, Jill attended a dinner with Trump and brought along several of pageant contestants upon Donald's request.   During dinner Trump frequently put his hands on her thighs and she leaned away, hoping he would take the hint. Following the dinner,  Trump introduced her to other business partners as his "new girlfriend." 
On January 9th, 1993 during a business dinner party at Trumps Palm Beach estate.   Trump requested Harth sit next to him and out of concern for the business, she did.  During the dinner,  Trump again fondled her thighs and tried to touch her genitals.

On January 24th, 1993 Trump tried again.  He invited Jill Harth, George Houraney, and several pageant contestants back to his Palm Beach Mar-a-lago estate.  The guests were given a group tour when Trump pulled Harth aside into one of his children's bedrooms.  Once in the bedroom,  Trump forced Jill against a wall, tried to kiss her, and tried to put his hand up her skirt, trying to grab her genitals.   At that time, she pushed him away and asked what he was doing.  Prior to letting her leave the room, Trump implied that it was best the incident was kept between the two of them.
According to Harth's story,  January 24th marked the end of the alleged sexual assaults.  But, she claimed in her lawsuit that Trump continued to sexually harass her by doing such things as:

  1. Calling her on January 4th to make demands that she sleep with him
  2. On January 15th during a business call mused about what she was like in bed and indicated he would be the "best lover she ever had."
  3. making denigrating comments to George Houraney, her business and romantic partner,  regarding all women as sex objects and comparing Jill to other women.
  4. Telling Houraney, "There is going to be a problem. I am very attracted to your girlfriend."
  5. called her on February 9th to tell her he "loved and adored her" and that she was "the most beautiful girl in the world"
  6. in April invited her to have sex with him when she was ready
  7. During a business event on July 16th, Trump introduced her to his associate, Nick Ribis, and both kept touching her.  Trump implied he had slept with Harth and she would be willing to sleep with Ribis as well.
  8. on November 16th,  Ribis claimed Trump told him he was having a sexual affair with Harth, he approved of it, and wanted a similar relationship.
  9. On November 20th, Trump demanded Jill provide him access to a 17-year old Czech contestant.
  10. In October 1993 made sexual demands during a conversation that included his unhappiness and lack of attraction to his wife
According to Harth,  around March of 1994,  Trump told her she had better keep her "mouth shut or else" about his treatment of her.  Then in April 1994,  she made her rejection of him clear, although it should had been given her refusal to give into his advances.  The following August, during a telephone conversation an associate of Trump's, told her that Trump was only interested in the partnership as source for women and to "get in Jill's pants."

Trump eventually broke his contract with the American Dream Festival.  Harth and Houraney believed it was because Harth would not succumb to Trump's advances.   As owner of the company, Houraney filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit in 1995, the same year he and Harth married.  They alleged Trump had made unwanted sexual advances on Jill Harth, including physical ones.  And, when he realized she was not going to succumb to his wishes, he broke the contract.  Both Harth and Houraney provided sworn depositions.  According to more than one site,  any reference to the sexual allegations had been sealed by a Federal judge.

According to Harth, in October 1996, it was relayed to her that Donald Trump wanted to destroy her any way it took, legally or illegally. The threat appeared to have merit as in September 1996 Trump had told the Enquirer that Jill Harth was "obsessed with me and would do anything she could to get in my pants."
 However, a contestant from the American Dream Fesitival, Rhonda Noggle,  indicated that if that was want Jill wanted to do,  she would have had no problem. 

“He had taken a liking to Jill for sure,” Noggle said. “I remember that.”

In January of 1997,  Donald Trump gave an interview to High Society, a porn magazine, and stated against that Jill would do "anything to get into my pants."   And on March 24th, 1997, just before mediation and within earshot of Harth and Houraney,  Trump told his lawyer, "See, I told you she was gorgeous. She was a great piece of ass."  Once inside,  Trump made more sexual statements about Harth:
  • "She slept with him"
  • ""had sex with him"
  • "was very good in bed"
The next month,  Jill Harth met with a lawyer to seek his assistance in filing a sexual harassment lawsuit against Donald Trump.   After telling her story,  the lawyer drew up a lawsuit for 1.25 million dollars against Donald Trump, Nick Ribis, and Roger Wagner.   A week later Trump went on record denying the charges and claimed it was "a desperate attempt to get me to settle a case they can't win."
Trump had avoided the breach-of-contract lawsuit for two years and a friend reiterated that Trump would never settle the lawsuit. But, two months later he did.

The sexual allegations in the breach-of-contract lawsuit and Jill's lawsuit were similar.  But, a big difference between the two was that the allegations in Jill's could not be sealed upon request of Donald Trump.  Just prior to the case Donald would never settle went to court, Trump settled it.  He wrote a 6-figure check to The American Dream company but later alleged it was "just peanuts." Trump downplayed the settlement,  after claiming the case was unwinnable.  So, why settle if he believed that?  In a later statement, Jill Harth indicated he settled because he did not want to litigate hers.   Soon after the earlier case was settled,  Harth dropped her lawsuit.  According to Harth, she agreed to if Trump settled because she did not want to deal with the situation anymore.  It was something she wanted to put behind her.  And she did.

After settling the case,  Jill tried to move on, but she failed to do so.  The year after the lawsuit, Harth's marriage to Houranay ended with animosity. She lost her job and suffered the death of her father.  She fell into a deep depression which made her vulnerable.  Then, Donald Trump called.

According to Jill, Trump turned on the charm and started comforting her. She said he encouraged her to come back to New York to see him and indicated that he still had feelings for her.  She had just lost her brother, her job, and the man she had been in a relationship with for over 15 years.  She convinced herself to accept his offer thinking that he could useful in getting her a job.  Eventually, she decided that if he was still interested in her, she was willing to give him a chance now that she was single.  She downplayed his sexual advances on her as just something a man does to beautiful women when interested.  It is an idea that some still hold to this day.

Harth said the relationship only lasted a few months.  It turned out, Trump was the guy she thought he was early on.  She claimed that after her divorce, she cried often.  His response was to offer her a boob job and make an appointment for her in Miami.  According to Harth, once they were dating, he rarely offered the emotional support that she needed.  She decided to leave him and they amicably parted ways.  Soon after, Trump met Melania.

Flash forward to 2015.  Trump was running for president and Jill Harth had started a business in New York as a freelance make-up artist.  After learning Trump was running for president, she decided to contact him and ask to work on his campaign.  If Trump became president, a job doing his make-up would look impressive on her resume.  So, Jill reached out, offered her support, and her skill as a make-up artist.   Trump accepted.

The initial meeting was friendly as were the following.   Inevitably, the subject of Jill Harth's 1997 lawsuit came up as would be expected since the allegations contained within could damage Trump's campaign.   According to Harth, she assured Trump that if the lawsuit was ever discovered, she would not comment on it to the press.  Then they hugged, which she thought was a mutual agreement to ignore the subject should it come up. And it did.

In February 2016,  LawNewz discovered the 1997 and they had to go wild with excitement.  They shared the details of the lawsuit and soon it became a popular subject in mainstream media.  The Clinton campaign had alleged for months that Donald Trump's view on woman was poor, and now there was a lawsuit claiming he not only treated them badly, one had alleged he sexually assaulted her.

When the story broke, Trump's lawyer claimed that Jill Harth was pressured to file the lawsuit by her boyfriend  and said, "“There is no truth to the story at all. The plaintiff in the matter, Jill Harth, would acknowledge the same."  But she didn't.

Jill Harth acknowledged she was pressured to file, indicated that some of the lawsuit was blown out of proportion, but when later asked if she would stand by those allegations in it, she answered, "Yes." In May, a New York Times article came out listing the woman Trump had wronged and included Harth in it.   According to Harth,  Trump's campaign reached out and requested she recant her story. (Trump's campaign denied it).  Harth refused because her allegations were the truth.  After the story, Trump claimed Harth was lying.  Jill finally had enough of his rhetoric and went back at him.



Harth's last tweet to Ivanka is reflective of the shame and embarrassment that causes a victim to fail to report. Many push the incident deep down and hope it just goes away.  They don't want to relive it as a court case would do, which supports Jill Harth's statement that she felt pressured into filing the case.  It does not mean she lied.  The fact is she stuck by her allegations all these years and would not recant the story as Trump's lawyers said she would despite the benefit staying on good terms with Trump had for her business.  Her refusal to do as he asked risked causing harm to her business, which, according to Harth has happened.

In July, with her attorney by her side, Jill Harth gave a statement.  For the Video:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/20/donald-trump-sexual-assault-allegations-jill-harth-interview

Another fear sexual assault victims display, is a fear that they will not be believed or ridiculed for their allegation.  It is what happened in Harth's case.  Trump supporters claimed she was lying and referred to her relationship and friendship with Trump as evidence. However, studies of sexual assaults show it is not unusual for victims to maintain contact with their abuser;  the women are either in denial or playing down the incident, such as Harth did.

The fact Harth played down the events is not an indicator she is lying. It is a form of denial that sexual assault victims commonly use.  

In October, 2016 a 2005 recording of Trump was released, and it corroborated Harth's 1997 assault allegations.  At the time the words were caught, Trump did not realize his mic was still on and recording.  Trump said:

"You know,  I am automatically attracted to beautiful -- I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait."
Harth alleged:
" He pushed me up against the wall and started kissing me...."

Trump said:
"And, when your a star, you can do it. They let you do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
Harth alleged:

"He tried to grab my private parts under the table............    kissing me and tried to go for my private parts again"

The 2005 tape corroborated Harth's allegations.  But, in the second presidential debate, Trump claimed what was said were only words and claimed he didn't do anything on that tape.  It angered Harth who stated, "He’s saying from his words what he does. How can people not believe me now?"  When she was asked about his statement in the debate, she replied, "He lied."   Others agreed.

After the debate,  several women came forward with allegations of sexual assault against Donald Trump.  He later threatened to sue every single woman who alleged he sexually assaulted her.   Harth's lawyer spoke out in defense of Harth's and the other's defense:

“My law firm will continue to proudly represent Jill and any other accusers sued by Donald Trump and crowd-fund defense costs,”

She added she would subpoena his business and personal records to find:
 "any recordings that may exist in which he brags about sexual assault”

Harth's attorney Lisa Bloom and women's rights attorney Gloria Allred seem to be prepared to take these women's cases as far as possible and intimidation of financial ruin from Donald Trump is not going to work.   Bloom made that clear:


“I reject Donald Trump’s effort to intimidate and silence women,



CLINTON / ZERCHER ALLEGED INCIDENT 1991
In March, Cristy Zercher's allegation of being groped by President Clinton was released for the first time ever.........  in a paid interview for the tabloid, Star magazine.   Cristy was a stewardess who worked on Clinton's campaign plane back in 1991 and claimed she felt "humiliated" by Clinton's sexual harassment.   According to the Star story,  unnamed family and friends of Zercher verified that she told them about the incident when it occurred.

According to Zercher:
Clinton had made various unwanted sexual advances and sexually harassed her during his campaign. Included in those advances were:
  • fondling her breast for 40 minutes while Hillary was asleep a few feet away. During the encounter he was asking her personal questions about her previous marriage such as, "Is the sex good?"
  •  walked into an unlocked plane bathroom to find Clinton standing there with his pants unzippped. He said to her, "Well, why don't you come in and shut the door?" 
  • The three female flight attendants were reading the Gennifer Flowers article in Penthouse.  Clinton saw them and asked what part they liked best. Debra Schiff stated the part were Flowers said he was good at giving oral sex. Clinton replied, "That's pretty accurate. It's one of my favorite things."
  •  Made sexual gestures towards the flight attendants and crude sexual jokes.  One time he told them that a couple he knew were getting a divorce because the wife caught the husband with one of the barnyard animals. 
  •  Clinton found a shriveled and deformed orange that "looked like a woman's sex organ"  ?  He showed it to her and made the comment he was going to keep it because he hadn't been "getting any."  He carried it with him for the next to weeks and frequently flashed it to Zercher on the plane.
  •  She did not tell any of the above to The Post in 1994 because earlier she was called by Clinton aide Brian Lindsey and told to only "say positive things"  about Clinton.
Zercher came out with her story soon after Willey came out with hers.  Given Starr's inquest at the time into obstruction of justice in the Lewinsky case,  it would have seemed Zercher would had been a corroborating witness in that she was allegedly instructed by a Clinton staff member to stay quiet about the alleged unwanted sexual advances.  But, Starr did not.  His decision to not call Zercher as a witness said a lot about the quality of her claims. Starr had good reason to leave her out.

  • Brian Lindsey admitted to having called Zercher, but he stated the call did not go as she stated.  According to Lindsey, he was informed by a Whitehouse receptionist that Zercher expressed to her that she was upset about being approached by the press.  Lindsey stated he reached out to Zercher to tell her that she did not have to talk to the press if she didn't want to.  In fact, at the time, Lindsey was known for his extreme avoidance for everything press related, unless there was no other alternative.  It made his job easier to snub them. 
  • Zercher had been contacted by The Washington Post back in 1994.  When she was asked if Clinton had made unwelcomed sexual advances towards her, she replied the only thing he did was to tell her,"I could get lost in those eyes."   When asked about the issue,  Zercher answered that Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey instructed he to only say positive things about Clinton.  
  • Star magazine admitted that Cristy was paid for her story but would not go on record as to how much.  A Starr investigation would had uncovered how much the woman was paid.
  • Cristy also was paid to appear on Inside Edition. Inside Edition aired the Zercher story in two parts.  The first night of the story relayed Cristy's story.  The second night of the story included pertinent details, such as how she miserably failed a lie detector test. Bob Brisentine, a former president of the American Polygraph Association, was interviewed during the episode and he stated "She failed the test."   To defend failing that test,  Zercher implied the test was wrong, "I want everybody to know that I'm not lying. . . . I had no resistance in doing the test because I knew I was telling the truth."
  • A key Clinton aide claimed that Clinton did not have a regular charter until after he won the Democratic nomination in 1992.
  •  Clinton's press secretary stated Clinton was friendly with all the stewardesses but she had never witnessed anything inappropriate.
  • The other two stewardesses on the plane initially declined to comment on the story.
  • Zercher was interviewed in 1992 by a paper in her home town about her experience with the president.  The editor stated, ""She seemed very complimentary about Clinton."
  • Carlene Charlemagne, a friend and once coworker, indicated that Zercher kept pictures of herself and president Clinton on her desk.  According to Carlene,  Zercher did tell her about being groped by the president, but laughed about it each time.  She seemed honored by it. Carlene and Zercher were good friends, with Zercher serving as her birthing coach.
  • Zercher initially tried to go public on "Hard Copy."  The show declined to say if there was payment promised.  The show indicated it had interviewed Zercher's family and friends and decided there was "not enough there" to go forward with the story.


CLINTON/JONES (alleged incident 1991)

The Jones' complaint came out after David Brock's article, "His Cheatin Heart," was released in The American Spectator Magazine.  Brock later acknowledged that the article, although true, was politically motivated as were the Troopers who provided the story.  The story involved the tale of four Troopers who claimed that during Clinton's term as governor,  they assisted him in having marital affairs, both long-standing and isolated incidents, and kept it from Hillary Clinton.  The Troopers in the story expressed a dislike for Clinton but at the same time stated it was not the motive behind coming forward;  it was what they considered to be an abuse of power as governor.

In the article, Trooper Ferguson relayed the story of a woman only known as "Paula",  and stated after her "time" with Clinton,  she asked if she could be his long-standing girlfriend.   That was the extent of the "Paula" portion of the article.
"Clinton asked him to approach the woman, whom the trooper remembered only as Paula, tell her how attractive the governor thought she was, and take her to a room in the hotel where Clinton would be waiting. As the troopers explained it, the standard procedure in a case like this was for one of them to inform the hotel that the governor needed a room for a short time because he was expecting an important call from the White House. (Not a terribly plausible story during the Reagan and Bush years, but it seemed to work like a charm with hotel clerks in Arkansas.) On this particular evening, after her encounter with Clinton, which lasted no more than an hour as the trooper stood by in the hall, the trooper said Paula told him she was available to be Clinton’s regular girlfriend if he so desired."
Paula Jones claimed that shortly after the article came out, she recognized "Paula" to be her even though the incident was incorrect.   Paula stated she sought out a lawyer to find out what to do and was advised to "go public" with her story.

Feb. 11, 1994 

Conservatives assisted Paula Jones in holding a press conference at The Conservative Political Action Conference.  For the first time in public, Paula Jones alleged that she was sexually harassed by Bill Clinton and demanded that he confirm he rejected the his sexual advances and apologize to her for his.  According to Jones, she had to come forward to clear her name.  She alleged that she had told a few close friends and family of a time Clinton allegedly exposed himself to her and requested oral sex. According to Paula,  these people would know who she was from reading the article so she had no choice but to come forward.  It is unclear as to how sharing the details in public would make her close friends and family believe her and a private conversation would not.   It had to be obvious in any case that the President would had denied such allegations.   Jones' reasoning for the press conference gave the appearance that it was a targeted political attack.
 

FEB - MAY 1994 

Jones' press release got little attention form the mainstream press.   It was reported that Jones was willing to settle the incident out of court for an undisclosed amount  if President Clinton publicly admitted he made sexual advances, apologized them, and stated she did nothing wrong.  Clinton refused, denying her claims, and called it a political trick.

May 6th, 1994 
Just two days before the statute of limitations ran out, Jones filed her sexual harassment with an added charge of defamation.  Jones claimed that Clinton's denial of the alleged sexual assault should be punished because it meant he was calling her a liar.  In the initial lawsuit, Jones named Ferguson as a co-defendant. 

According to Jones, "I felt that to get my reputation back, and to do what's right, and to get my good name back, I had to file a suit against him."


Jones lawsuit alleged: 
Clinton made unwanted sexual advances towards her on May 8th, 1991.  He exposed himself and told her to "kiss it."  She rejected him and both Clinton and Ferguson sexually harassed her after that.  Her decision to reject Clinton lead to rude and hostile treatment by some superiors, and a transfer to a position that had no responsible duties for her to be evaluated to earn promotions.  It also resulted in her not receiving the pay she deserved for the transfer, which was a much higher position.  And, when it came to pay raises, Jones alleged she was only getting living wage increases while most of her coworkers received merit-based increases.  She was trying to show financial harm in her case. She tried to prove emotional distress as well. 
According to Jones, when the alleged incident occurred,  she described it in detail to a friend and three family members.  But, when it came to her then-fiance now-husband, she only told him Clinton made a pass at her but did not go into details.  According to Jones, she was suffering emotional distress because the article threatened her relationship with her family and friends.   She claimed it would cause them to think she was lying and had a sexual affair with the president.
A detailed explanation of Jones' complaint as filed in her lawsuit:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/complaint.htm

Jones requested a total of 350,000 singularly from Bill Clinton and another 350,000 dollars jointly and severally from Clinton and Ferguson for a total of 700,000 in damages.   Jones cited retaliation for her rejection of Clinton's advances for the basis of her damages.  


June 16, 1994 
Paula Jones gave her first interview on Primetime Live:


It turned out that Jones was right about being the "Paula" from the article.  Trooper Ferguson, a man who Brock described as having a political agenda against the president, stated he remembered riding up the elevator with Jones and admitted to pointing to the room. But, he claimed Jones was a willing participant and interested in the governor. He claimed she said, "the governor is good looking and had sexy hair."  Ferguson denied that he either gave Jones the note or that he told her the president wanted to see her.   

Jones' sister confirmed that Paula told her about the incident but had told her "She smelled money, no matter which way it went."   It was a claim that the sister had stuck by and Jones' brother-in-law said she was promiscuous.  Paula denied the allegations and repeatedly denied she was in it for the money. She stated she only wanted an apology but she did ask for money even prior to filing the suit. Additionally, Paula's later actions supported her sister's claim.

** Polls taken at the time indicated that the majority of the people believed Jones was doing it for political purposes and financial gain.  Paula denied the claim, blamed it on the press,  and deflected it towards her sister and brother-in-law stating they were the ones lying for money..... Sound familiar?  She continued to claim she only wanted to clear her reputation but again, later actions showed that was not so.


JUNE 1994
Clinton requested the case to be delayed until the end of his term as president, claiming that it would distract him from his presidential duties (and perhaps the interns he was pursuing?)  

December 24, 1994
The Judge overseeing the case, Judge Wright, grants his request. (perhaps if she knew about the time he spent pursuing interns she would have told him to give that up instead?).   The ruling indicated that the trial could not proceed until he left office, which meant it could have been as late as 2001 if he was re-elected.  Wright did allow for fact-finding procedures to proceed.

January 7th, 1995
Feeling it was unfair that her case would have to wait,  Jones filed an appeal with the 8th District Court of Appeals to reverse the decision to delay the case.

February 24th, 1995
Judge Wright delayed fact-finding procedures pending on the COA decision.  It's not quite clear as to why they would be suspended at this point.  If Clinton won, the fact-finding process would resume. If Jones won, the fact-finding process would resume.  There may be possibly more legal reasoning behind the Judge's decision or it could possible show some bias.  Delaying any fact-finding process meant that any new information related to Jones' sexual assault claim meant that it would not turn up during Clinton's campaign for re-election.  However, it may not have mattered.  The Gennifer Flowers scandal did not.


September 14th 1995
 The case was heard by the  COA.

JANUARY 9 1996
The COA  ruled 2-1 in Jones' favor and stated the case can go on before the end of Clinton's presidency.

May 15, 1996
Clinton filed another appeal with The Supreme Court

JUNE 24, 1996
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

May 27, 1997
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jones and upheld the lower court's decision.  The decision had set precedent for future cases if any lawsuits were pressed against a sitting president.

AUGUST 22 1997
Judge Wright sets a  trial date for May 27th, 1998. The defamation portion of the case is dismissed, as it should have been.   A denial of charges should not be used to set precedent for defamation cases.  The Fifth Amendment protects a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case.  It continues to say that if a person decides to testify and refuses to answer a question, inferences can be drawn. Although the Jones' case was not a criminal case,  the same reasoning used in the Fifth Amendment is why a plaintiff should not be sued merely on the denial of the case.  When posed with a question as to if a defendant is guilty,  a refusal to answer can draw inferences.  However, if the defendant goes beyond denying the allegation and slanders the plaintiff for her accusations,  then  a case for defamation may be supported.
An example would be to repeatedly state that a woman was trying to do anything to get in the defendant's pants,  have it printed in a magazine, and then say it where others could hear.

September 1997
Clinton offered to settle out of court for the amount Jones was originally requesting in her lawsuit. He agreed to pay her the full cost of her suit.  Additionally, Jones' explanation for bringing the issue up in the first place is addressed:  her reputation.  Clinton agreed to publicly state that Jones did not engage in any sexual activity with him.   The settlement addressed her complaints. She refused the settlement.

September 8th 1997
Upset at Jones for not taking the settlement,  two of her lawyers quit her case citing that they were no longer to work amicably with their client.
"Davis and Cammarata had told Jones she could walk away with a settlement of $700,000 – the amount she asked for when she filed the suit in May 1994 – plus a general statement of regret from Clinton that would not admit any impropriety but attest that she did not engage in any sexual misconduct either. The statement would have acknowledged that her character and reputation had been harmed and called that regrettable" - Washington Post, 1997
Jones defended her action, demanding that the only way she would settle is if Clinton both publicly admitted to and apologized for his alleged actions.  Jones' refusal of the settlement strengthened the rumors that her suit was politically and financially motivated.

November 1997
A much needed witness in Jones' case refused to talk with Jones investigators and makes it clear she would deny the claim if subpoenaed.

DECEMBER 8th, 1997
Jones dropped the charges against Ferguson; the case solely focused on Clinton despite Jones' earlier allegation Ferguson sexually harassed her too and never publicly apologized for it.

January  1998
Juanita Broaddrick provided an affidavit swearing she was not raped.
Monica Lewinsky provided an affidavit swearing she was not having an affair with Clinton.
Kenneth Starr is contacted by Linda Tripp with evidence that Lewinsky lied.  He requested to investigate the story.

February 17th 1998
Clinton's lawyers file a motion asking for the Jones case to be dismissed based on the grounds she was not able to prove the damages she claimed.

March 13, 1998
 Jones' lawyers respond with 700 pages of allegations of Clinton made sexual advances towards several women.

March 28, 1998
Despite the lack of evidence and the denial in the deposition, Jones'  team files papers specifically alleging Clinton raped Broaddrick.  They include a letter the Yoakum letter.

April 1st, 1998
Judge Wright dismisses Paula Jones' case after having reviewed it. She ruled that evidence to show Jones' employment status in a state government job was affected by the alleged incident was lacking.  And, it was.   Jones could not support her allegation.

  • She said she was treated rudely and with hostility by her superiors at work.
    • Shecould not produce evidence
  • She was transferred to a position that did not allow room for advances.
    • She was transferred because her position was eliminated
  • She was only given cost of living raises whereas her co-workers received merit raises.
    • records showed she did receive a merit raise at least once. 

When confronted with this evidence in her Primetime interview,  Jones struggled to answer. Her body language suggested she was caught off guard at the subject and could not offer an honest answer.
squints eyes... sighs...... long pause...... looks up..."..uh.. well.. their still checkin in on those.. um.. eh .. the record .. and whatever the record shows.. that... that (tight lipped)  what will be"
July 31, 1998
Jones and her lawyers file an appeal with the Federal appeals court asking to have her case reinstated.

AUGUST 19, 1998
in a Fox Interview, Trump defends Bill Clinton : "It’s like it's from hell, it's a terrible group of people. I don't agree with his victims, his victims are terrible.  The whole group, Paula Jones, Lewinsky, it's just a really unattractive group.  I'm not just talking physical.......... "

October 1998
 New York real estate magnate Abe Hirschfeld offered Paula Jones 1 million dollars to settle the case with Clinton.  Hirschfeld stated he did not "give a damn" about Jones' case, his interest was on the economy and to get the markets moving. 

October 1998
In negotiations, Jones continued to demand Clinton to pay her $1 million dollars but let go of her demand he publicly admit to sexually assaulting her and apologize.  Clinton's team counter-offered, citing the reasoning behind it was the impending impeachment trial for the Lewinsky case. They believed doing so would make it easier to focus on the upcoming impeachment hearings as they would not have to focus any effort on the Jones' appeal if they settled.  Initially, a settlement offer of 500,000 was presented but they soon raised it to the original offer of 700,000.  Jones refused and asked for one million to help cover her legal fees.   She had currently owed 800,000 in legal fees to her prior attorneys.  Jones continued to insist on a total of two million - the Hirschfeld million which would tie Clinton to him and another million from Clinton.

November 13, 1998 
Shortly after the House's hearings to determine if there are grounds for impeachment begins,  Clinton decided to settle the Jones' lawsuit.  He agreed to $850,000 without either an admission of apology; she accepted.

1994- 1998

The Paula Jones scandal lasted from January 1994 - 1998 when Clinton paid her.   Jones was a very publicized figure and had given multiple interviews.  Her interviews were solely about Bill and the pressure she believed was pushed on her to keep her quiet.  At no time in those interviews did she indicate Hillary Clinton intimidated her to keep her quiet.

1998 -1/2015
There are not any direct interviews,  quotes, or otherwise printed or aired material in which Paula Jones indicated Hillary Clinton intimidated to keep her quiet or that Paula was afraid of Hillary. However, Paula Jones was interviewed in 2004 when it came to the release of the president's memoirs. 

2004 ABC INTERVIEW

"Paula Jones, the former Arkansas state employee who launched a sexual harassment suit against then-President Clinton, tells ABC News she was the first step in an effort by anti-Clinton forces that eventually led to his impeachment. 
Hillary Rodham Clinton famously blamed the scandals that led to her husband's impeachment on a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Jones told ABC News "Primetime's" Cynthia McFadden: "I agree that I was a small little entity in this big vast whatever-you-want-to-call-it that got erected." 
She continued, "It started with me — and they did use me for their own agendas."
Just like Trump is using her now for his own agenda -- and Jones is playing right into it, knowingly or unknowingly.

In the interview, Jones never expressed a statement that Hillary knew that what they said Bill had done to them was true. She only addressed what Hillary knew Bill had done to Hillary, referring to Bill Clinton's confession of his infidelity.
"She was asked if she felt sorry for the former first lady, now a U.S. senator from New York. "Well that's between them, I guess, you know. To each his own," Jones said.But she added, "If she knows a lot of the stuff that he has done to her and if she's still with him, that's what she wants to do. And, no, I don't feel sorry for her. She's a very big, strong political woman. She knows what's going on and, you know, there's no reason for me to feel sorry for her. If they want to be together, let them be together. Probably they're happy together."

At no time in the interview did Paula Jones indicate that Hillary knew that her claim Clinton had accosted her was true.  But, like Trump's views on Bill and Paula Jones who Trump called a loser, her opinion changed in 2015. 

May 28, 2015
In an interview with the daily mail, Paula implied that Hillary was not fit to be president.  According to Paula, Hillary "must have" known about Bill's behavior. As far as a google and Yahoo search has turned up,  May 2015 was the first time Jones alleged that Hillary knew about Bill's behavior.

There is no way that she did not know what was going on, that women were being abused and accosted by her husband They have both lied.'
.
January  2016
Jones again expresses her anger at Hillary because Hillary did not believe her sexually assault allegations against Bill:

“And how dare her. You know what? She don’t care nothing about women. Because if she did she would believe what I had to say. She would believe what the other women had to say. 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?”
10-07-2016
The Trump tapes are exposed.  Hours later, he presents an "apology" video consisting of a 20-second long apology.   In the final words he brings up the allegations against Bill Clinton and implies that more is to come of it in the next few days.

10-09-2016
Trump holds a press conference with three women who alleged Clinton sexually assaulted them. One of the women is Paula Jones, who Trump had previously labeled a "loser", called terrible, and stated was victimizing Bill Clinton.

Paula Jones, along with Kathleen Broaddrick, give an interview to Breitbart, a pro-Trump site.
Jones claimed that Hillary had:

  1. called all of Bill's accusers names like "Bimbo's, Trailer Trash, The Bimbo eruption. 
  2. defended Bill Clinton
  3. "covered it up" for him
  4. "She helped him do it."
  5. (She) went after us
  6. "terrified is she becomes president."
  7. "She'll (annihilate) any one that has spoken against her
  8. "how can this not scare people"
  9. "How can they think we're sitting her and making this stuff up?
    • Because prior to 2015,  Paula Jones did not make any claim against Hillary Clinton.
    • because even after Jill Harth alleged that Trump kissed and groped her before he made the comment he did those things to women, Jones supported Trump.
The evidence would suggest that something did happen between Clinton and Jones in 1991.  Some evidence suggests it was not quite as Jones has told it to be.  According to Trooper Ferguson, she was a willing participant and wanted to be set up with Clinton on later dates.  Ferguson admitted to disliking Clinton, thus, if there were signs of Jones or any other woman saying Clinton assaulted her, then why would he keep it to himself?  
Other witnesses came out and stated that after Jones met the governor, she had a different demeanor than what Jones described in her lawsuit:
  1. Charlotte Brown, Jones' sister: said Jones was matter-of-fact to somewhat amused with the meeting.  According to Brown, Jones did tell her she was propositioned by Clinton but instead of being upset, she was "thrilled."  Brown later said that before Jones came out she said that no matter which way it went, she smelled money.  
  2. Pam Hood, a coworker of Jones's:  the meeting sparked a "bubbly enthusiasm" in Jones similar to her demeanor after seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger visiting Little Rock
  3. Carol Phillips, a switchboard operator at the governor's office: Jones had a "happy and excited manner" in describing her meeting with Clinton and described him as ""gentle," "nice," and "sweet"
Jones provided some "evidence" in her case by describing the appearance of Clinton's penis, but left this detail out when she told the story to her first lawyer.  The next set of lawyers claimed that her first lawyer didn't probe deep enough into her case.  A notorious part of Jones' lawsuit was that Clinton's penis had a distinguishing appearance.  Her claim brought forth some of the strangest details in a presidential investigation ever:  What did Clinton's penis look like?

Three doctors who had examined Clinton in the past stated, "A thorough dermatological examination disclosed no blemishes, no moles, no growths."  Jones changed her "distinguishing" description of his penis to that she only meant that it was bent when erect.  However, Monica Lewinsky disagreed and who should know but Monica who had a close up view?  According to Monica, the president's penis was "normal." 


Given the evidence, something did happen between Clinton and Jones in 1991.  The extent of it is unclear because of the political links to the story and the contradicting evidence as to Jones' motivation. In the end, it would appear that Clinton did proposition her but did take it further and expose himself?  The answer is unclear.



CLINTON/ WILLEY Alleged assault: November 29, 1993

On March 15, 1998, Willey claimed  Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her on November 29, 1993
embraced her.  She said during a visit to his office he:
  • kissed her on the mouth
  • grabbed her breast
  • forced her hand on his genitals
However, while testifying under oath to a Grand Jury, Linda Tripp, who far from supported Clinton stated:
  • she felt Willey was pursuing Clinton
  • Willey speculated with Tripp as to how she could get set up on assignments with Clinton
  • Routinely showed up at events Clinton would be attending wearing a black dress she knew he liked. 
  • Willey wondered if it could be arranged for Clinton to meet her at a home she had access to.
  • Willey appeared excited about the alleged sexual assault.

Willey had multiple issues with her credibility:
  • Willey gave false evidence to the FBI about a sexual relationship with a former boyfriend. When she was confronted about the contradictions in her evidence, she admitted to lying.
  • Her Paula Jones deposition testimony differed from her grand jury testimony on multiple material aspects about the alleged sexual assault.
  • She had a history of telling a boyfriend she was pregnant and miscarried when she was not.
  • A friend of Willey's,  Julie Hiatt Steele,  provided an affidavit stating that Willey asked her to lie to corroborate her sexual assault claims.  Controversy surrounded Steele's claims. 
    • Kenneth Starr attempted to prosecute Steele for obstruction of justice, saying she lied about Willey. According to Starr she was paid off.   The trial ended in a mistrial and Steele requested Starr be investigated for prosecutorial misconduct.  Starr did not refile his charges. 
    • Steele explains her side:  http://americanpolitics.com/20020311Steele.html

The biggest evidence against Willey's claims are the Willey/Clinton letters.  A collection of letters was released to the press in which Willey contacted the president after the alleged November 29, 1993 assault.  In the letters, she used fond and warm terms towards the president.  She not only wrote with warmness, she sent him a gift and invited him to her daughter's  wedding. 


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/17/willey.docs/


Willey was part of the group Donald Trump once called terrible and implied were victimizing Bill Clinton whom he invited to his October press conference.  It's been alleged that a man associated with Trump set up fund to pay for Willey's mortgage.  



TRUMP/ JANE DOE alleged rape, 1994


In April 2016 a woman  filed a pro per lawsuit in California alleging that in the summer of 1994 Donald Trump raped her. According to the lawsuit,  she was 13 when she  met Trump at parties hosted by Jeffery Epstein.  The lawsuit indicated the women had four sexual interactions with Trump, the last being forced sex.
  • a "hand-job"
  • Oral-sex
  • Lesbian sex with another teen-age girl while Trump watched ending in the girls performing oral sex on him.
  • Tied to a bed and raped.
Link to the California filing

The allegation came forth during the primaries.  Trump responded, insisting either a fame-seeking or a political motive behind the complaint, “The allegations are not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps  are simply politically motivated. There is absolutely no merit to these allegations. Period,”

The lawsuit was originally filed under the name of "Katie Johnson".   She requested federal monetary relief to help pay for the lawsuit stating she only had $300 to her name.  The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed because "Katie Johnson" failed to prove her economic status.
" "Johnson” had previously filed forms asking to be let off the hook for the costs of the lawsuit, claiming she had only $300 to her name ... such an allowance — known as in forma paupers — is only given in civil rights cases in California, and the judge ruled that she “failed to state a claim for relief” on a civil rights basis, even though she “utilized the form provided by the Central District of California for civil actions.”

On June 20th, 2016, the woman refiled the lawsuit with the assistance of an attorney.  This time, she filed under the name of "Jane Doe" and included a witness using the alias "Tiffany Doe."  The suit alleged that the aliases were necessary to protect the women.  Jane Doe claimed Trump had threatened her life and the safety of her family should she ever come forward.  According to Doe's lawyer, the threat created an exception to the statute of limitations.

Link to the New York Filing

JULY 2016
An video with an interview hiding the identity of Jane Doe is released, just in time for the republican national convention....



Donald Trump won the nomination but the lawsuit did not go away.

SEPTEMBER 30th, 2016 
The New York lawsuit was amended to include charges of defamation for statements Trump made in April 2016 after news of the original complaint was released.

Link to amendement

October 7th 
The infamous Access Hollywood Trump tapes were released, giving validity to Jill Harth's lawsuit.

October 9th
Trump denied having groped women or kissed them without their consent. His denial unleashes an outpour of several women who say he did.  One woman in the group was a strong Trump supporter who admitted he kissed her without her consent, was surprised by it, but did not find it offensive.

October 11th, 2016

A judge set a date for a status conference to be held on December 16, 2016, following the election.
Link to Status conference

It has to be noted that the Jane Doe lawsuit came up before  Trump won the republican presidential bid. At the time,  polls were showing that the majority of the candidates would beat Hillary Trump, the expected nominee for the democratic party.  Trump was not one of them but was winning the republican primaries.  Trump has claimed, as has his supporters that the Jane Doe lawsuit was politically based.  If so, it was created by the republicans. According to pre-2015 Trump, republicans did the same when it came to Bill Clinton.  It was a man with a republican agenda who first introduced the Broaddrick rape allegation.  Paula Jones did introduce her claim via the conservative ticket. Despite being sealed,  the House members did see Juanita's testimony, which was not probative to the current charges.  And, it was a republican who urged senators to look at the Broaddrick information prior to determining the president's fate.

It also has to be noted that it was not until after Trump won the nomination that the "Jane Doe" charges were refiled, using a lawyer, and showing up with a witness.  It will be interesting where this case goes after November 8th, 2016.   Should Trump win the election,  it will still go on.  The precedent was set during the Paula Jones lawsuit, which I suspect Doe's lawyers would refer to should Trump win and the lawsuit continue.

TRUMP/ HELLER (ALLEGED INCIDENT ~ 1997)

Cathy Heller alleged that the first time she met Donald Trump, he grabbed her and tried to kiss her on the lips.  According to her story:

She was attending a mother's day event at Mar-a-lago when she first met Trump. Her husband and in-laws were with her.  Trump was making rounds and when he stopped by her table, her mother-in-law introduced her.  Cathy stuck out her hand to shake his and he pulled her in and tried to kiss her on the lips.  She leaned back, almost loosing her balance.  Trump stated, "Oh, Come on!"  while she turned her head as he planted a kiss on the side of her mouth.  Per her perception, Trump was angry that she resisted. 
The Guardian obtained confirmation of Heller's from two other people. A friend,  Susan Klein, and a relative who was present that day.  The relative did not want to go on record out of fear of retaliation, justifiably so.  Trump has attacked his accusers, and some of his supporters have followed suit.  Additionally,  Trump had threatened to sue media for reporting his accuser's allegation, despite the fact that they included Trump's denial of the alleged incident.  One witness' business had suffered and one of the accusers feared for her safety due to the backlash.

Trump denied the allegation.



 TRUMP TAGGART ALLEGED INCIDENT 1997

In May 2016 former Miss Utah Temple Taggart McDowell claimed Donald Trump had planted an unwelcomed kiss on her lips twice in 1997.  Her story came out months before the 2005 tape of Donald Trump admitting to kissing women without their permission was released
He kissed me directly on the lips, I thought 'oh my god, how gross.' He was married to Marla Maples at the time. I think there were a few other girls that he kissed on the mouth and I thought, 'wow, that's inappropriate.'"
Trump denied the incident stating that he did not kiss strangers on the mouth. According to The Daily Mail, on Monday, May 23 Trump admitted to knowing Taggart and claimed she recanted her story :

"Then there was this nice girl from Utah, the one who said I gave her a kiss.  She recanted.  She said it never happened. You know what? She was a nice kid.  She was in front of her parents. We had thousands of people there in the audience and she said, "Hi, Mr. Trump."  And, she came over, and gave me a hug, and I kissed her on the cheek.This was done on television! This was just before the pageant. And they made it sound like it was some act that happened in a dark bedroom somewhere."  DAILY MAIL

  Taggart had never recanted.  After the tapes were released, Taggart told the story again.  
"My dad introduced himself to Donald Trump and then he introduced me. It was at that time he embraced me and gave me a kiss on the lips.  I remember being shocked....  I was very young and I remember feeling kind of embarrassed. ....  He was very nice and that was the first time I met him"
I met him a few more times after that.  I remember going to Trump Towers to meet with him.......... I remember him coming out and the first thing he did was give me a big embrace and another kiss right on the lips.  I remember thinking "what does he think this is" and feeling super awkward.... I thought maybe this is just something they do. I was uncomfortable, definitely.
I remember speaking to my chaperone after and she had said she felt uncomfortable to where she did not want me back there alone so the chaperone went with me back into his office.
I don't kiss anyone I don't know.... if I had a boyfriend I was meeting for lunch, that is the kind of kiss it would have been. I mean, it was a warm embrace and it was  kiss.
Donald Trump responded to the claim, and told NBC news:

"I don't even know who she is. She said this took place in a public area. I never kissed her. I emphatically deny this ridiculous claim."






Trump claimed 5 months earlier that he remembered Taggart enough to provide his version of events.  He not only admitted 5 months earlier that he knew who she was, he also had taken a picture with her.








Taggart's allegation came out before the Access Hollywood tape of Trump saying he kissed beautiful women and implied it was without their consent.   Harth's allegations came out before Trump said he kissed beautiful women without their consent and that, as a star, he could get away with grabbing them "by the pussy."  Yet, many of his supporters claim their was no evidence to support these women's claims.

THE ACCESS HOLLYWOOD TAPES 2005 OCTOBER 7th, 2016  

In September,  2005 Donald Trump appeared on the show "Access Hollywood."   While on a bus with Billy Bush and several other people,  Trump had a conversation with Bush that was caught by the live mics pinned to them.  During the conversation, Donald Trump made statements showing his lack of respect for marriage and women.
  • I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married.”
  • “I did try and fuck her. She was married.”
  • “Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”
  • “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”


During the third presidential debate, Trump stated he never did any of the things he said he did to women.  His denial launched several women to come forward and claim he was lying.   Later Trump vowed to sue every single woman who claimed he sexually assaulted them.  Then, he turned his focus on Access Hollywood.

On October 27th, Trump implied that Access Hollywood performed an illegal action by having the microphones on during the bus trip.  According to Trump, it was an invasion of his privacy and called the bus a "private dressing room." And then, he implied he might sue.  However, Trump could have a problem. There were several other people on the bus with him so it was not clearly a private situation.  In addition, the California law that makes it illegal to record others without their consent, provides an exception  "in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.”  There were several others present when Trump made the statement.  Additionally, he knew he was wearing a microphone and the purpose of the microphone was to record him.  It's unclear if the lawsuit would take him anywhere.  But it does make one wonder if he was successful in such a lawsuit and the tape considered illegal,  could it be used to support a lawsuit against him or in defense of the women who came out against him?

The threat to sue Access Hollywood and his accusers would not be the first time Trump threatened to sue over the sexual allegations.   Trump had also threatened to sue The New York Times for defamation for  printing the allegations of two of his accusers.   The Times fired back, citing that he already defamed himself with the Access Hollywood tape and many other past statements he had made.  TIMES RESPONSE

Trump's threat of suing Access Hollywood, his accusers, and the Times is an example of why women who alleged he assaulted them would be fearful of coming out: Fear of retaliation.



TRUMP ACCUSERS COMING OUT AFTER THE TAPE

TRUMP/ SULLIVAN  ALLEGED INCIDENT 2000

Trump basically admitted to this one.  During an interview on Howard Stern, Trump stated:

"I’ll tell you the funniest is that I’ll go backstage before a show and everyone’s getting dressed. No men are anywhere, and I’m allowed to go in, because I’m the owner of the pageant and therefore I’m inspecting it…. ‘Is everyone OK’? You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody OK?’ And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.”

Bridget Sullivan, stated Trump really did what he said he did.  She recalled a time during the 2000 Miss USA pageant where Trump walked into the dressing room while they were dressing.

TRUMP / BILLADO ET ALL.  ALLEGED INCIDENT 1997

Mariah Billado, a former Ms. Vermont Teen USA, along with three other contestants who requested to remain unnamed alleged Trump walked into the dressing room in 1997 while some of the girls where changing.   Billado alleged that as he walked in, Trump said, “Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.”  She added she, "I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,’”

One of the contestants who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation stated, "At the time, you’re a teenager, you’re intimidated. It’s Donald Trump, he runs the pageant.”


TRUMP / LEEDS ALLEGED ASSAULT ~ 1980

On October 12, 2016 Jessica Leeds came forward and alleged that during the late 1970's early 1980's Trump had sexually assaulted her on an airplane. According to Leeds:
  • She was offered a bump to first class on a flight coming back to New York. She accepted.
  • Sat down next to a young man, blonde, tall who introduced himself as Donald Trump and they chatted.
  • "somehow or another, the armrest in the seat disappeared... and it was a real shock when all of a sudden his hands were all over me.  He started encroaching on my space. 
  • "he was like an octopus. It was like he had six arms, he was all over the place.  Had he stuck with the upper part of the body, I might had not gotten so upset... but it was when he started putting his hand up my skirt and that was it. I was out of there."
  • I didn't say a word.... The culture of the 60-80's instilled in us that we were responsible for the behavior in men.
  • I started telling my friends about 1.5 year ago when Trump started running for president. 

According to Leeds, neither she nor Trump said a thing during the alleged groping incident.  She admits that she never told him no or called for help.  She stated a man across the aisle who saw the incident sat there "wide-eyed."   A man named Anthony Gilberthorpe  contacted the Trump campaign.  In a letter the Trump campaign shared with the press, Gilberthorpe confirmed that Leeds and Trump was on the airplane together.   By sharing the letter with the press and not denying that Trump and Leeds were ever on an airplane together,  the Trump campaign admitted Trump was there.

According to Gilberthorpe's statement he was sure it was Leeds he saw because he had a "photographic memory",  implying he would remember the face of some unknown woman from 30 years earlier.  The problem with Trump's witness, is that it later came out he was known to have fabricated other stories in the past.  It made his allegations not credible but by that time, the Trump campaign had already placed Trump with Leeds by refusing to deny that Trump was ever on a plane with Leeds.

Some of Trump's supporters have also stated that because Leed's supports Hillary it must mean she was lying.  Should we say the same for Lesilee Milwee who recently came out alleging she too was assaulted by Bill Clinton?  What about Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathy Willey who all say Hillary threatened them?  They support Trump, does that alone make them a liar?  In most cases, unless they had something to gain or were in denial, a woman who claimed she was assaulted is going to throw her political support to her alleged attacker's opponent.


Another item some  supporting Trump claimed was proof that the incident was made up was the fact Leeds said, "Like an Octopus."   According to those supporters,  it could be told Leeds was lying because those words were in a song by The Velvet Underground.  Others cite a two-year old sexual assault article from another country where the victim used similar words.   It don't think anymore needs to be said about the ridiculousness of this argument.  But, just to set the tone:  Wonkette

The last item that some Trump supporters and even his campaign use as their proof Leeds is lying is the airplane seat itself.  According to Trump and some of his supporters who "just know",  airplane seats in first class were stationary, and didn't move.


"We're talking about the early 1980s, Don, seriously? Back then you had planes — what, a DC-9, a DC-10, an MD-80, a 707, and maybe an L-1011. But she said specifically that this was to New York. This is important, so we can X-out the DC-10 and the L-1011. Guess what? First-class seats have fixed armrests.” --  Katrina Pierson

And, of course, ignore the actual armrest and manual from Braniff, the airline Leeds said she used on that flight from Dallas to New York.




Of course, since Leeds said the flight she took was a Boeing 707 that stopped flying in 1973 instead of the Boeing 727 that had flights out of Dallas to New York during that time and looked similar to a 707,  it must mean she is lying right?  My guess, some will say "absolutely."   Maybe since Leeds lives in New York and Hillary was New York senator that should be counted against her too.



 TRUMP/ ANDERSON ALLEGED INCIDENT 1990's

  


On October 14th, 2016 Kristin Anderson's allegation against Donald Trump was made known.  Anderson did not have any links to either the Clinton or Trump campaign, and stated she did not support any of them.  It was not Anderson who reached out to the press about her alleged experience with Donald Trump; it was a friend to whom she had relayed the story to who contacted The Washington Post when the Trump tape story was released.

Anderson admitted she downplayed the seriousness of the incident.  But, when Anderson had watched the Access Hollywood video and saw Trump greet the woman, it made Anderson concerned, thinking that he could have done to that woman what he did to her.  Even so, when The Washington Post reached out to Anderson she did not immediately agree to come forward. It was not until after she read the story of Jessica Leeds and the other women who had, that she changed her mind and decided to go public with her allegation.

According to Anderson:
Donald Trump had put his hand up her skirt and touched her vagina through her underwear at a nightclub in the 1990's.  The incident occurred while she she was sitting with a group of friends engaged in conversation at the China Club, a popular Manhattan Night club.  At the time, Anderson was a tall, blue eyed, blond hair model, just Trump's type.  While engaged in conversation, she felt a hand slip up her miniskirt and touch her vagina through her underwear.  She jump up, turned around, and saw a man she recognized to be Donald Trump.  They said nothing to each other and she walked away. Once they left, her friends told her the man was Donald Trump, who Anderson claimed there was no mistaking due to his eyebrows. 
TRUMP,  1990



Anderson stated she had told friends a few days about it after it happened.  One friend, Kelly Stedman, corroborated the claim.   Another friend, Brad Trent, stated that he had heard Anderson tell the story of Trump doing that to her during a dinner with several other people.  According to Trent, the conversation was between the girls about how they had been hit on by creepy old guys and Anderson told the Trump story.


Trump denied the claim and added that he would never had went to a nightclub alone.  Anderson indicated that the club was very busy and it was not unusual for people to sit next to strangers.  She indicated that as packed as it was, it was impossible to tell if he was alone or with others.  According to Trump,  Anderson was only doing it for free publicity.


 TRUMP/ VIRGINIA ALLEGED INCIDENT 1998

On October 20th, 2016 Karena Virginia alleged Trump groped her in 1998.
""I knew who he was, but I had never met him. He was with a few other men. I was quite surprised when I overheard him talking to the other men about me. He said, 'Hey, look at this one, we haven't seen her before. Look at those legs.' As though I was an object, rather than a person. He then walked up to me and reached his right arm and grabbed my right arm, then his hand touched the right inside of my breast. I was in shock. I flinched,"

Some Trump supporters have claimed Karena is lying, based on the fact that she waited years to come out.  However, the same thing occurred in the Bill Clinton case. Less than 20% of woman report sexual assault when it occurs.  Others have suggested that Karena is a plant because she works for the Huffington post.  Karena does write for the Huff-po in the "Wellness" section. SEE: Karena Virgina  She also has a video on Yoga, is currently writing a book, and a member of Oprah Winfrey’s Belief Team.  Many of her clients are professionals and celebrities.  Or, in other words, she had a lot to loose by coming forward against a man like Donald Trump and nothing to gain from doing so.  Causing anger in a man known for retaliation against those who have done so could have resulted in career suicide.


TRUMP/ McGILLIVRAY ALLEGED INCIDENT 
JANUARY 24, 2003

On October 12, 2016, Mindy McGillivray alleged that Trump grabbed her butt on Jan. 24, 2003 during an event at his Mar-a-Lago estate where Ray Charles had played that night.  Some Trump supporters claim that there was not any Ray Charles concert at Mar-a-lago on January 24, 2003.  

However, there is evidence that Ray Charles was at the Mar-a-lago estate on January 24,2003.

The photograph was taken by Davidoff studios where Ken Davidoff and his father Bob Davidoff where taking pictures for a Ray Charles concert. Per Mindy, she was with Ken standing at a pavilion with several others as Ray said his goodbyes.  Regis Philbin and his wife were on one side of her, and Trump and Melania on the other. As she waited, she felt a nudge to her buttocks that felt sort of like a grab.  She thought maybe it was Ken's camera bag and turned around, expecting to see Ken but saw Donald who did not look at her.  Moments after Trump allegedly groped her, Mindy pulled Ken aside and stated, "’Donald just grabbed my ass!’’  Ken did not see the incident but he corroborated that Mindy did pull him aside to tell him Trump groped her. 

Mindy had a lot to risk by coming forward.  She had a checkered past which she knew would be drug up if she did.  She had a lot to loose and not much to gain by sharing her story.  And, the repercussion to her sharing her story was bad.  According to Mindy, she has been harassed by Trump supporters since she came out.  And, according to a comment on a Youtube video of Mindy talking about her concerns, it is likely true. 

Mindy was not the only one to face negative fallout from coming forward.  Davidoff's business had suffered as Trump supporters started to boycott him which caused his family to be angry with him.


With so much to loose, and not much to gain, why would Mindy and Ken be willing to make up such a story? 

TRUMP/ MURPHY ALLEGED INCIDENT 2005
Apprentice star Jennifer Murphy came out and alleged Trump did kiss her unexpectedly on the lips in 2005.  However,  she stated she was "OK" with it.  So, why is she being included in the list? Simply because Trump claimed he never  kissed a woman without her consent.  And, according to Murphy, he did:  "He walked me to the elevator, and he reached in and gave me a little kiss. I was a little surprised, but not offended."  And, that is her right to feel that way.   Regardless of how she felt, a Trump supporter just verified that Trump lied when he stated he didn't kiss women without their consent.

Some Trump supporters have mocked the women who are upset that Trump kissed them.  They say, "big deal, it was just a kiss, so what?"   What they fail to realize is that these women have a right to their bodies and nobody has a right to touch them in any intimate way, including a kiss, without their permission.
TRUMP/ CROOKS  ALLEGED ASSAULT 2005

On October 12, 2016 Rachel Crooks stated that when she was 22 working at the Trump Tower in 2005 Trump kissed her on the lips without her permission. Allegedly, she bumped into him outside of an elevator.   She introduced herself, shook hands, and Trump then kissed her cheeks and planted one right on her mouth.  Crooks states she was so offended that she called her sister back home to tell her what happened. According to Crooks sister,  Crooks did call her and was "worked up" about it.

Following Crooks' allegation,  a person claiming to "know" Crooks' family claimed Rachel was lying about the encounter.  It was enough for some Trump supporters to claim that her story was discredited, despite the allegation coming from a big Trump supporter and being unfounded.



Two of Crooks' high school coaches form her home town were interviewed by a local newspaper. Her volleyball coach described Rachel as,  "very well respected and liked in school" and added, "I have no doubt that she's being truthful and that this did happen to her,"  Her high-school basketball coach said, ""I think the world of her. She's a great kid, a great student and a great player."  A third person from her home town described her, "Rachel is just a fine, wholesome young girl. She went to school with my daughter. She's just a good, all-American kid. This puts a personal face on the Trump story. He was accosting our children."

TRUMP / STOYNOFF ALLEGED ASSAULT 2005

People magazine writer Natasha Stoynoff alleged Trump sexually assaulted her in 2005. According to Stoynoff:

During an interview with Trump and Melania about their first year of marriage, Melania took a break to change her wardrobe.  During that time, Trump invited Stoynoff to so see a "Tremendous"  room in his estate.  Once in it, he pushed her up against a wall and tried to stick his tongue down her throat. They were interrupted by a butler who told them Melania was on her way back down.  The butler too them back to the place of the interview and before Melania returned, Trump said, ""You know we’re going to have an affair, don’t you?’ He also referenced a statement that Marla had made which was featured on the cover of the New York Post, "“You remember,” he said. “‘Best Sex I Ever Had.’ ”
A photograph from People magazine clearly showed that one part of her story was definitely true.  Stoynoff had interviewed a pregnant Melania and Donald Trump.


According to Stoynoff, she questioned if she had done something to lead Trump on because he had pulled some strings to get her in for a massage at the fully booked Mar-a-lago spa.   She showed up 1/2 hour late, apologized, and informed the therapist she would pay for the entire hour.  At that time, she learned Trump had been waiting for her but left after she was 15 minutes late for the trip.  Stoynoff stated that she cut her session short because she feared that Trump would come back while she was lying half-naked on the table.

Stoynoff stated when she returned to the People office the next day, she told a colleague of the incident.  The colleague later  corroborated her claim.  She advised Stoynoff to go to the managing editor and to kill the story.  However, Stoynoff did not. She explained her reasoning behind her decision, and the matched several of the reasons why sexual assault victims do not come forward:

  1. fear of retaliation - ruining her career
  2. shame/ embarrassment
  3. playing down the incident
  4. feeling like she did something to cause it.
Stoynoff said she asked to be taken off the Trump assignment, and she was.  The 2005 article was the last time Stoynoff ever reported on Trump, despite him appearing in later articles per People. Stoynoff stated she bumped into  Melania months later after Baron's birth.  It seemed obvious that her abscence was noted.  Stoynoff claimed that Melania asked her,  "Natasha, why don’t we see you anymore?” and then gave her a hug.

This time, Trump did not threaten to sue for the article.  He left that up to Melania who claimed Natasha's statements about meeting her on the street were untrue: Melania letter  She demanded People retract the story and apologize. However, Melania's statement was odd in the fact Natasha had been covering Trump for People for much of the early 90's, a relationship that earned her an invitation to Trump and Melania's wedding.  The story remains on the People website.

A friend of Stoynoff's,  Liza Herz, stated the interaction between Melania and Natasha did happen.  She claimed she knew because she was with Natasha that day. 

They chatted in a friendly way  And what struck me most was that Melania was carrying a child and wearing heels.
Another witness to come out in defense of Stoynoff was her former journalism professor, Paul McLaughlin.


Trump reacted to the Stoynoff story, just as her journalism professor warned her he would. Trump implied she was lying, then attacked her for her looks. Trump worked one of his crowds of supporters into a frenzy until they were shouting the "lock her up" slogan in reference to Stoynoff.  He also made a statement suggesting that people should "go to her Facebook site."  He had to know that making the statement would invite his followers to send her harassing messages.  If Trump is anything, he's not stupid.

A total of six people have come forward to defend Natasha's allegations. Some Trump supporters, and Trump himself claim that it's obvious she is lying because of how long she waited to come forward.  As Natasha said, and as noted by Trump's current actions to retaliate,  doing so could have ruined her career.  He was a wealthy and powerful man and in the end, it was her word against his. Now that the 2005 tape was released and others have come forward, there is less of a risk to Natasha. 

 TRUMP/ DRAKE Alleged Incident 2006
On October 22, 2016 Adult film star Jessica Drake alleged that Donald Trump forcibly kissed her and offered her money to meet with him.  According to Drake, she and Donald Trump met at a golf tournament in 2006 where he grabbed her and kissed her on the lips.  He later invited her to dinner and when she refused, he asked her "how much?".  Later, he or someone on his behalf offered her $10,000.

Trump denied the claim then implied that due to Drake's profession, she was used to such treatment.  However, in her profession, she consented to the contact; it does not mean that any man who wishes can touch her at anytime without her consent.

Trump:

“One said, ‘he grabbed me on the arm.’ And she’s a porn star. You know, this one that came out recently, ‘he grabbed me, and he grabbed me on the arm.’ Oh, I’m sure she’s never been grabbed before.”





Trump also claimed that he did not know the who Jessica Drake was.


Trump claimed the picture was just another of many that he had posed for that weekend with fans.







 TRUMP/ ZERVOS ALLEGED ASSAULT 2007


On October 14, 2016 Summer Zervos alleged that Donald Trump kissed her on the lips upon greeting and leaving during a meeting one day during a 2007 meeting discussing potential future employment. He allegedly told her he would love to have her work for him and wanted to meet with her in LA on a future trip.

Zeros claimed that days later she met him for dinner at a Beverly Hills hotel. The dinner she expected to occur in the restaurant ended up being a private one in a hotel room.
According to Zervos:

  • She waited in the living room of the suite for about 15 minutes for him to come out of the bedroom.
  • When he did, he pulled her towards him and started to kiss her open mouth. 
  • She moved away and sat down in a chair.  Trump sat down too and then requested she sit next to him.
  • When she did, she alleges"he grabbed my shoulder and started kissing me again very aggressively and placed his hand on my breast." 
  • She got up, walked away, and he followed.  Next he grabbed her hand and said, "Let’s lay down and watch some tele-tele."  and tried to embrace her.
  • She said, “C’mon, man, get real." and pushed him away.
  • He responded by thrusting his hips and repeating, " get reeeeal”
  • She said she made it clear that all she wanted was to have dinner and talk business so Trump relented.
  • They met the next morning to discuss business and he called her later to offer her a position at 1/2 the salary she had requested.   She continued to talk business opportunities with him but after the rejection, she was told not to use his private number anymore.   Finally, Trump told her he couldn't afford to hire her. 


Trump's campaign responded to Zervos' allegations by sharing an email she sent to him in April.



Zervos claimed she was trying to take advantage of a business opportunity.  A visit from Trump, and his support of her restaurant meant increased exposure, more business, and increased profit.  Reaching out for a business opportunity does not mean Trump did not do as she said he did.

A man claiming to be Zervos' cousin sent a letter claiming that she was acting out in retaliation because Trump said  "no" to coming to her restaurant. Despite Zervos being a contestant on the apprentice,  Donald Trump stated he only had a "vague" recollection of who she was and denied that he ever met her alone in a hotel room.


SIMILARITIES 

  1. Trump accusers waited years to come forward.
    • Clinton accusers waited years to come forward.
  2. The majority, not all, waited until Trump entered politics to come forward. Ivana's original allegation was 1989;  Jill Harth's was made in 1997
    • Almost of Clinton's accusers did not come out until either his presidential run or during his term as president except for one, at that one did not come out to accuse him until his wife was running for president.  
  3. Clinton paid off Paula Jones in a settlement.
    • Donald Trumped paid off a lawsuit connected to Jill Harth that he implied he would never pay off. He did not pay off the lawsuit until after Harth filed her own with the same allegations. According to Harth, one of the verbal conditions for Trump to pay off the related lawsuit was if she dropped hers.
  4. Trump accusers have stated various reasons for not coming out sooner.  At the top of the list was fear of retaliation, not being believed, and shame.
    • Clinton accusers have stated various reasons for not coming out sooner. At the top of the list was fear of retaliation, not being believed, and shame.
  5. One of Trump's accusers supported his campaign 20 years after the alleged sexual assault.  She played down the incident and said she decided to forgive her - until he called her a liar about it.
    • One of Clinton's accusers supported his campaign after the alleged sexual assault. Her initial story was that she was in a state of denial so she went to Clinton's campaign fundraiser. 
  6. A political agenda has been alleged in both situations.  
    • Clinton: 
      • At the time,  one Clinton supporter implied that Kenneth Starr, a republican was "out to get" Clinton.  Years later the same supporter called the Clinton impeachment "nonsense."
      • It was a Republican activist who initiated the Broaddrick rape allegation.
      • It was the Republican party who Jones turned to for her press release instead of the various woman's groups out there. 
      • It was a Republican activist who turned over a letter to the Jones' investigation stating that Broaddrick was bribed to deny the alleged rape.
      • Broaddrick's testimony was released to the House even though it did not have any probative value to the issue on hand.
      • It was a republican who urged the senate to review the Broaddrick rape allegation even though it was not probative to the charges against Clinton.
    • Trump:
      • The Katie Johnson rape allegation filed in California was released during the republican primaries.
      • The Katie Johnson rape allegation video was released just prior to the republican national convention. 
      • A new lawsuit was filed in September under the name of "Jane Doe" was released in New York.  The lawsuit had the same details as "Katie Johnson" thus it was assumed to be the same person. 


There appeared to be a definite political agenda linked to the cases of Broaddrick, Jones, and Jane Doe.  It does not mean that the allegations are false, but definitely shows that the alleged sexual assaults were being exploited for political means.  In 1998 and again in 2008, Trump alleged that the sexual assaults allegations were based upon a political agenda.  In 2016 he stated the same about the allegations against himself. However, that didn't stop his campaign from doing the same and exploiting the allegations of Jones and Broaddrick to further Trump's own agenda.  Remember, according to Trump, these women where in the group of "terrible" and "unattractive"  people who were making a "victim" out of  the guy he "loved as president" and said "what's not to like" about.


With the excepion of Millwee, the Clinton accusers have been around for more than a decade.  Their cases have been thoroughly investigated over the years.  Except for Harth,  the Trump accusers have only recently came out.  It is unclear if more investigation will occur if Trump does not become president, but it should.  Trump's name, connection, and money makes him a very powerful and influential figure so it is important that the truth be found, whether it proves him guilty or not guilty.  If Trump does become president, it is almost assured the investigation will go on.  The list of alleged victims contained in this article may grow, and the information linked to them will grow as well should more details come out.


One thing that should never be forgotten is that Trump and Bill Clinton appeared to be good friends until Trump started running in 2015.  Will the friendship return after the election, no matter who wins?  And if so, what does it mean for all these women who have alleged sexual assault?  Will they be forgotten, or placed upon a self until they are useful again for a political agenda such as what happened with Broaddrick, Willey, and Jones?

It started with me — and they did use me for their own agendas. -- Paula Jones. 






THE JERRY EPSTEIN CONNECTION

Both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton had connections to convicted pedophile, Jerry Epstein.  Evidence in the Jerry Epstein case supported that between 1998 - 2007, and possibly earlier,  multiple underage girls had been paid $200 to perform daily sexual massages.  These girls earned incentives to recruit younger girls to do the same or go beyond the sexual massage. Eventually, Epstein would serve 13 months in prison for soliciting an underage girl for prostitution.

DONALD TRUMP/ EPSTEIN.

Donald Trump claimed he 'barely knew' Epstein.  The evidence suggested otherwise:
  • During the 1990's, before Epstein was convicted,  NY media regularly reported Donald Trump's visits to Epstein's Upper East Side palace
  • Epstein had 14 numbers for Donald Trump in his little black book

  • in 2002, Trump admitted to New York Magazine that he knew Espstein, "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
  • According to Espstein's brother's testimony, Trump and Epstein were friends and he was present when Trump joined Epstein on his plane.
  • Juan Alessi testified in the Epstein case that Donald Trump did come over to Epstein's house for dinner but would eat with Alessi in the kitchen instead of at the table.
  • In his deposition,  Epstein admitted to knowing Donald Trump.  When he was asked if he socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of underage girls, Epstein pleaded the fifth.  There would not be a need for this if he did not. 

  • Virginia Roberts' attorneys claimed he served Donald Trump with a subpoena in 2009 due to his relationship with Epstein. Trump's attorneys later denied it but one of Roberts' attorneys stated, ""There is no debate over what happened. I served Mr. Trump with a subpoena for deposition in 2009. He talked to me voluntarily, and consequently we withdrew the subpoena in light of his voluntarily providing information…. I can't imagine there being any dispute of any of this."
Virginia Roberts was a victim of Epstein.  She was recruited in 1998 by Epstein's associated, Ghislaine Maxwell.  At the time of her recruitment,  Roberts was 15 and working as a 9/hr locker room attendant the Mar-a-lago club owned by Donald Trump. According to Roberts,  Donald and Trump were good friends.  She claimed she met Donald Trump during her time with Epstein and implied that Trump knew about Epstein's girls, something that Trump has also eluded to in a statement.  Roberts added that she did not see Trump with any of the young women but did add that Trump flirted with her.
"‘Donald Trump was also a good friend of Jeffrey’s. He didn’t partake in sex with any of us but he flirted with me. He’d laugh and tell Jeffrey, “You’ve got the life.’
CLINTON / EPSTEIN

Bill Clinton has not commented regarding his association with Jerry Epstein.  He did break all personal ties with Epstein after he was convicted and jailed.  However, Ghislaine Maxwell, the woman who was believed to had been working for Epstein was spotted as a guest at Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010.

Bill Clinton had been a guest on several international flights on Epstein's plane. ( Click for Flight logs) During these flights various women, some only known by their first names, were present. As was Chauntae Davies, a woman Epstein hired to play hostess for his flights.  Davies also worked as a masseuse but never had sex with Epstein.  Davies also implied that she had never witnessed Clinton in any inappropriate act nor had she ever given him a massage.

 According to Davies, during her employment she did wonder why Epstein had all these women around him but it was not until after the Epstein scandal hit the news that she realized there were red flags in his conduct that she should have noticed.  If she was a frequent flyer and missed it, it's possible that both Clinton and Trump could have missed it as well.

Virginia Roberts indicated that Clinton was friends with Jerry Epstein but she also denied that Clinton ever took part in the sexual activity going on in Epstein's home.  Despite being "lent out" to many of Epstein's wealthy and influential friends,  Roberts stated she was never "lent out" to Clinton.   Additionally,  she stated that Clinton was given a chance to partake in the sexual activity but he didn't show an interest.
According to Roberts:
Epstein gave a dinner on his island for Clinton shortly after he left office. Clinton attended.  Epstein brought along two brunettes who looked to be about 17 years old.  Roberts believed they were there for Clinton, but he was not interested.  She stated, " Maybe Jefferey thought they would entertain Bill, but I saw no evidence that he was interested in them."
Roberts denied Clinton participated but she implied that he "must have known" about Epstein's attraction to younger women.  According to Roberts, there were naked pictures of young women throughout Epstein's home, including one of her.



2 comments:

  1. This is excellent, Deborah. I respect that you are careful to note that these accusations are accusations unless the accused claims responsibility or a court rules. Many folks want to blindly accept accusations against the candidate they dislike. I refuse to do so. I have opinions, but they are only that, opinions.

    I need to read a few of the incidents more thoroughly. I'm going to address Juanita Broaddrick's claims.

    I have struggled a lot with Juanita Broaddrick's claim of sexual assault. I have always believed that women and men should be believed when they claim they have been sexually assaulted, at least until contradictory facts come out. Sexual assault is difficult to prove unless reported immediately. In cases in which time has passed, the burden of proof lay on the alleged victim. Victims have many honest reasons to not report or to wait to report.

    I don't believe Broaddrick. This is not because I support Hillary Clinton. My disbelief stems solely on her many contradictory statements, including those made in legal proceedings. It has been her choice to give extremely contradictory claims for over 20 years. As you note, some sexual assault victims have good reasons to change their stories. But what are Broaddrick's reasons and why does she just come out and explain the many contradictions. She has explained some of the contradictory claims, but the story changes every time she makes her allegations. At some point, she needs to acknowledge that she can only be credible if she stops changing her story.

    I don't believe that Hillary Clinton threatened Broaddrick. Hillary's statement to Broaddrick, if it even happened, sounds like a common thank you from a politician's wife. While Broaddrick may feel it was a threat, not once has she said that Hillary gave anything but a routine thank you to someone helping her husband's campaign.

    The final straw for me was when Broaddrick appeared at Trump's bizzarro press conference, and then planned to walk up to Bill Clinton during a Presidential debate ... in front of 80 million people. Many don't know that Broaddrick was paid $2,500 by Donald Trump to appear with him. She did this 3 days after hearing the Access Hollywood hot mic statement in which Trump, without prompting, tells about his sexual assault on a woman. After the Howard Stern recording were collected and made widely available. Trump admits to walking in to view naked women at pageants because he owns the pageants (he thinks he owns them). He admitted touching these pageant contestants while they were naked. Juanita Broaddrick wants to be believed yet she sits with Donald Trump, willing, to pull a vile stunt FOR MONEY.

    I struggled over my decision to believe or not believe Juanita Broaddrick's claims. But in the end, all of the circumstantial evidence points to her lying rather than being truthful in her allegations.

    ReplyDelete
  2. When it comes to the Broaddrick case, I am unclear as well. In most cases, I tend to believe women who do say they were sexually assaulted until there is something shown to cause doubt - and in all honesty, that is not fair to the men and that is why I call it an "allegation" until proven one way or another. When it comes down to it, I think many are afraid to speak their doubts when it comes to the case of rape because nobody wants to cause more suffering to someone that could have been raped. AND, I think the republican party and possibly the democratic party has capitalized on those fears.

    In Broaddrick's claim, the biggest thing that concerns me is that it appears she is willing to lie about something connected to her alleged rape for political means - Hillary's alleged knowledge and reaction. The most damning evidence that she has not addressed is her answer to Kenneth Starr's question during his inquiry. She had previously sworn under oath that she was not raped. Starr asked her and she recanted. According to JB, she could not lie to a federal prosecutor. He asked her if she was bribed or threatened in any way to lie in her deposition. She said no to the federal prosecutor she claimed she could not have lied to.

    Now, she is saying yes?


    Her answer in the Starr inquiry compared to what she is saying now suggests JB would be willing to lie about something related to the alleged rape for political reasons. That causes concerns with credibility with her story. But, in the end I am not sure if this is a case of a woman who was manipulated by the republican party to do so or someone who is working with them because she has convinced her self a handshake and thank you meant Hillary knew?

    The details about the alleged rape changing concern me too. Despite having the opportunity during her interviews with NBC, WSJ, 08 Hannity, the Drudge report, and the first interview with Breitbart, not once did JB claim she was raped twice. It was not until the 2008 interview with a republican house member was discovered that JB changed her story from one to two. In that video, he claimed it was his impression from the Starr testimony that she was raped twice. Breitbart used that as proof but ignored the part of the man saying JB indicated that she was not bribed or threatened in any way. Talk about cherry picking.

    ReplyDelete