I just did a quick search. I found a few items, the same number using the spelling I used, Broderick, and using the apparently correct one, Brodderick.
But it's mainly people weighing in rather than a detailed discussion of the evidence.
It was very, very compelling to me. And you might remember that I was not at all impressed with Paula Jones's case. I got in a certain amount of hot water on feelies for expressing my lack respect for her motivation and claims.
Brodderick is a different case altogether. I would bet my house that he invited himself to her hotel room (she was there for some conference, she claimed; and by looking in old newspapers, the researchers for the program learned that the conference was, in fact, going on there at that time); they stood at the hotel room window and discussed a certain building (this building wasn't there, though, the researchers found when they looked out the window of the hotel room where she stayed those years before; but when they researched, they learned it used to be); he made a pass, and when she resisted, he pushed her down on the bed, pinned her down with his much superior weight and by biting hard on her lip to stop her from moving; ripped her pantyhose off; and raped her.
If I recall, he put his sunglasses on before he left the room.
A friend of hers arrived not long after. This friend was interviewed. Brodderick was lying on the bed, still. Her lip was bitten and swollen. Her pantyhose had been torn. She had been raped.
There were a couple of others who had been told contemporaneously. Her second husband, who was her lover at the time, I believe was one. (If I remember correctly, she at first lied to him about how she got the swollen lip, but then told him.) She was married to another man at the time, and the man to whom she is now married was her lover.
I heard all this a couple of years ago, so can't swear to every detail, and it is incomplete.
But I saw her interviewed at length. I believed every word. Unlike Paula Jones, she got nothing out of making this report. Her interview and the circumstantial evidence convinced me beyond any doubt.
And I believe he's never said she was lying.
People didn't know how to handle it. It couldn't be proved after all that time, and the statute of limitations had passed for prosecution. And it is just so utterly incredible.
Here's a quote from a Drudge Report link showing one media figure's reaction:
The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that
Editor Tina Brown did not want the
Broaddrick question explored in the Hillary
Clinton interview, hitting newsstands on
Tuesday.
According to publishing sources, Brown was
personally involved in the final edit of the
interview.
"The feeling was," one insider told the
DRUDGE REPORT, "that Broaddrick was not
important or relevant to the current
discussion." |
