Special to Insider Cover
Christopher Ruddy
December 22, 1998

A civil war is brewing in the news room of ABC's World News Tonight over allegations that in 1979 Bill Clinton may have raped Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas woman, when he served as the state's Attorney General.

NewsMax.com has obtained an internal ABC News memo that was emailed to the top news producers earlier today about the controversy.

Chris Isham, a top ABC News producer, distributed the memo which lays out out the scintillating facts surrounding the alleged incident, and the interest sparked in the subject by Republican Congressmen who last week were permitted to review the Starr documentation of the case.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr had turned over additional documents and FBI statements with new details about the President's sexual activities. The ABC memo reports that about two dozen Republicans reviewed the new material the Thursday and Friday before the historic impeachment vote. Some may have been swayed to have voted for impeachment based on the material.

The memo states that Arizona Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth told ABC News -- off-the-record -- that the material makes Clinton out to be "a sexual predator."

The Broaddrick incident may be cited in a Senate trial of the President, Isham suggests.

NewsMax.com has learned that Isham's memo comes as a result of a feud between World News Tonight Executive Producer Paul Freidman and network anchor Peter Jennings. Jennings -- reputed to have a eye for the ladies much like the President's -- has vehemently objected to ABC news reporting on the subject.

The memo, in an apparent shot at Jennings, states, "...the potential that a rape charge could be leveled at the President makes the story one that can't be totally ignored."

Verbatim ABC News memo follows:

From: Isham, Chris Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 1998 12:45 PM

To: Friedman, Paul E.; Dunlavey, Dennis; Murphy, Bob

Subject: Broaddrick

Forwarding a memo by Josh Fine which is a good summary of the Juanita Broddrick (Jane Doe #5.) Her case MAY have tipped some moderate Republicans to vote yes on impeachment and MAY be introduced in the Senate proceedings.

Juanita Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Paula Jones case. She filed an affidavit that said "These allegations (that Clinton had made unwelcome advances towards her) are untrue." The allegations are that she met Clinton in 1979 when he was attorney general and that he raped or assaulted her. She owned nursing homes in Northwest Arkansas and was in Little Rock for a convention. Clinton met her in the afternoon and they made plans to meet later that night. He said the best place to meet was in her room (at the Camelot Hotel) since that way no one would see them (he was, after all, married).

They then went up to her hotel room in Little Rock and evidently had sex. It is unclear if he raped or assaulted her but that is the allegation made by Phillip Yoakum. Yoakum is a Fayetteville man who says Broaddrick told him in 1992 that she was raped by Clinton in the late 70's. I interviewed Yoakum in March and found him entirely uncredible. He had facts wrong, was a total Clinton-hater, and his claims to being friends with Broaddrick are untrue. The other person who supposedly knows about what took place is Norma Rogers-Kelsay, a friend of Broaddrick's who went to the convention with her in Little Rock and drove back with her to Van Buren where they live). Tamara Lipper spoke with Rogers on the phone in March. Rogers said that Yoakum was telling the truth. She was with Broaddrick before and after the incident and said that she was in "quite bad shape after."

In 1991 Broaddrick was at a nursing home convention in Little Rock and a man pulled her out of a meeting (this is all according to Rogers-Kelsay). The man took her to Bill Clinton and he apologized for hurting her and asked if there was anything he could do. She didn't understand at the time why he had taken that step but soon realized the real reason after he announced his candidacy for President a few months later. In the 1992 campaign these rumors began to circulate and Sheffield Nelson, a longtime Arkansas Clinton-hater, tried to get her to come forward. She did not. Yoakum evidently was at a meeting with Rogers and Broaddrick where they discussed the incident and whether or not Broaddrick should talk publicly about it. Evidently Broaddrick was worried no one would believe her (similar to what happened with Gennifer Flowers).

That was the last anyone heard of her until she was subpoenaed in the Jones case. Apparently Lisa Myers went to Van Buren and spoke with Broaddrick about her giving an interview. I also spoke with Broaddrick. She made it abundantly clear that she had no interest in her name getting out and didn't want to talk about it. She also made it clear that she was not denying that something had happened.

Last month the Schippers group sent two investigators to talk to her. One of them was Diana Woznicki, a Chicago police sergeant who is on loan to the investigation. We're not sure who the second person was. The conversation took place at the office of Broaddrick's attorney, Bill Walters, in Greenwood, AR. Walters says that the ground rules for the interview was that there would be no discussion of the underlying incident. The only topic that could be discussed was the possibility of obstruction. According to Walters, there is no obstruction despite the claims in the Yoakum letter. The Yoakum letter claims that Broaddrick's husband Dave said he was going to get a few favors from Clinton for keeping his wife silent.

Late last week Republicans began to stream over to the Ford building to look at the materials. According to a source of mine there were about two dozen members who went to look at the material on Thursday and Friday. Many Republicans were talking up the new material as evidence that could come up at trial because it would show a pattern and practice of behavior (paying off or influencing women to keep quiet). According to Rep. Inglis under federal rule of evidence 441(B) something showing a pattern or practice can be admissible in a trial. But it is unclear if Rehnquist would rule this admissible since it isn't a typical trial.

There is some question whether there is actually new evidence from the Woznicki interview or members are just seeing the Yoakum/Rogers evidence for the first time and consider it new. The big question is what does Broaddrick say. If she won't talk about the incident then there is only Yoakum and Rogers to show that she was raped/assaulted. If she won't say she was obstructed it would be hard to prove that. Still, the potential that a rape charge could be leveled at the President makes the story one that can't be totally ignored.

I'm told by two senior Republican members of Congress that Stephen Buyer (IN), Jim Ramstad (MN), and Steve Chabot (OH) were encouraging their colleagues to look at the materials. I'm also told George Radanovich (CA) took a special interest in the Broaddrick interview. Rep. Hayworth told me on background that the materials make Clinton out to be a "sexual predator."

There were rumblings from some Democrats (none of whom have seen the materials) that there was pressure put on undecided Republicans to vote for an article of impeachment based on the new materials. But two of the members rumored to be swayed, John Porter of Illinois and Jay Dickey of Arkansas told Ariane and I that they never went to view the materials.

This story is from NewsMax.com
Copyright 1999
All rights reserved

Back Back To Top Return To Main Menu

Promises Promises Promises

Here is a short list of the cost that Bill Clinton promised in the State of The Union Address. Well, So much for using the surplus to save Social Security first.

Remember 1 billion dollars is $1,000,000,000 or $1000 times $1,000,000. Furthermore, remember Bill Clinton said the American Tax Payer is not "WISE" Enough to invest our Social Security money ourselves!! Only the know all and wise Federal Government is!!

By the way, whatever happened to the tax cut the American working person was supposed to get?? Also, which sacred cow in this list is yours that you do not want cut or reduced?? Those who control your money control your freedom and liberty.

$25 billion for expanding Medicare to non-seniors.
$10 billion for Medicare drug benefits.
$8 billion for higher veterans benefits.
$5.5 billion for federal land purchases.
$15 billion for higher military pay.
$1.5 billion for new carpool lanes, bike paths and transit spending.
$4 billion for parks.
$10 billion for new farm programs.
$1.5 billion for the homelessness assistance.
$20 billion for new school construction and other educational programs.
$3.5 billion for the export-import bank, OPEC and other corporate welfare subsidies.
$7.5 billion for child care and after school programs.
$1 billion for drug testing.
$2.5 billion for a domestic version of OPEC.
$1 billion for AmeriCorps expansion.
$2 billion for global warming research.
$28 billion increase in the Housing and Urban (HUD) budget.

The total is--> 146 billion dollars

Back Back To Top Return To Main Menu

Inside Cover - NewsMax
Wednesday, February 17, 8:00 AM
NOW Civil War Over Clinton Sex Scandals
NOW Nixes Clinton 'Rape' Victim

National Organization for Women (NOW) chief Patricia Ireland confessed in late January that she had made no attempt to contact Juanita Broaddrick, who, court documents claim, was "forcibly raped and sexual assaulted" by then-Arkansas attorney general Bill Clinton 21 years ago.

"I heard her name for the first time only a few days ago," Ireland told WABC radio's Sean Hannity, who brought the Clinton rape allegation to her attention on his Fox News Channel TV show.

But a source who spoke to Broaddrick herself threw cold water on Ireland's alibi, telling Inside Cover that he had called her NOW office two days before she claims to have heard Broaddrick's name for the first time. Ireland's assistant had promised to bring Broaddrick's story to Ireland's attention that day.

The NOW staffer was briefed on the apparent cover-up underway at NBC, which filmed an eight hour interview with Broaddrick on Jan. 20. NOW was provided with information on how to reach Broaddrick directly.

But a week later Ireland was still pleading ignorance, telling Hannity only that the charge would be very serious if Clinton was "convicted."

Ireland did not explain why NOW had not waited for convictions in the Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood cases, before throwing their full support behind sexual harassment charges against each.

Broaddrick supporters have of late co-opted the old NOW slogan popular during the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas battle. Bumper stickers that used to read "I support Anita" now sport a two letter modification: "I support Ju-Anita".

NOW Chapter Demands Resignation of National Leaders

The top dogs at NOW headquarters can’t seem to keep the Dulles Area Chapter of the National Organization for Women on the leash since the Clinton-Lewinsky affair hit the press.

The National NOW leaders, who made sexual harassment a cause celebre for more than a decade, defended Clinton’s behavior saying they saw nothing wrong with a boss preying on a young employee. Their silence echoed equally hollow when they failed to support Kathleen Wiley, who claimed that Clinton tried to force himself on her when she was asking him for a job.

The Dulles chapter took exception to the Pavlovian support given Clinton and subsequently withdrew from the national organization in protest.

NOW leaders are surely howling over a prepared statement released yesterday by the rogue chapter, which praised the courage and dignity of the Republican House managers, and made dog food of the Democratic defenders.

"The eloquence and dignity with which the 13 House 'managers' defended the rule of law and sexual harassment will remain shining moments in the history of the women's movement ... Even though its outcome had been predetermined when the Democrat senators decided to vote as one block, the courage the 'managers' displayed in presenting their case under a vicious barrage of organized ridicule calls for recognition and applause ...

"We are ... unmoved by the display of moral outrage Democrats profess to feel toward a man they otherwise passionately support, someone we concluded uses and abuses women and then seeks to destroy those who attempt to expose the harm they suffered.

"American women deserved better than the year of unabashed sexism we just endured, relentlessly fueled by a political party we have long supported."

Unwilling to sit panting at their master’s knee, the Dulles Chapter continued:

"Given the shameless performance of the NOW four National officers and of the National Board, Dulles NOW will continue to ask for their resignation and we will not rejoin the organization until such blessed event occurs."

This story is from NewsMax.com
Copyright 1999
All rights reserved

Back Back To Top Return To Main Menu

The Pen, The Sword, And The MOUSE

In the modern high technology society of today, we find weapons of mass destructions and micro-chip spying that no one could possibly imagine. However, the pen still seems to reign supreme as quoted once long ago.

"Beneath the rule of men entirely great, the pen is mightier than the sword." From "Richelieu", act 2, scene 2, by Baron Edward Bulwer-Lytton. (According to Bartlett's quotations)

Therefore, in the light of modern day technology I find that it is the "MOUSE" that is mightier than the "PEN"!! Act 4, scene whatever, by Stephen B. Hoshal (According to Hoshal's quotations) By the way, I believe Bill Gates would certainly agree!

Back Back To Top Return To Main Menu

Republican Senator Says Rapegate 'A Private Matter'

Vermont's Jim Jeffords, the first Republican senator to announce he would vote to acquit President Clinton on impeachment charges, weighed in on Rapegate Friday morning -- calling it "a private matter." Appearing on the Mark Johnson radio show, heard on WKDR in Burlington, Jeffords was asked if he believed Juanita Broaddrick's charge that Clinton had raped her two decades ago. Jeffords immediately veered off course into some pretty deep water. The exchange went like this: JEFFORDS: ... I think things like that are supposedly a private affair that should stay that way unless they get into the public domain by the abuse of the use of the office of the president, as he did in carrying on in the White House. ... But other than that, I'm not interested in what people did 21 years ago. JOHNSON: How would that be a private matter?

JEFFORDS: Well, I don't know why it wouldn't be a private matter. I can ask you [to look at this] the other way around. If something had happened 21 years ago with a woman who invited, at least under her story, the president up to her hotel room and she was not happy with what happened, I don't know why that's not a private matter.

SO RAPE MY FRIENDS IS A PRIVATE MATTER NOW -> my comment s.hoshal

JOHNSON: OK. Rape usually isn't done in public. JEFFORDS: Well, no -- she claims she was raped. Whether she was or not, then why did she wait that long and all that? I'm not going to make judgment on the veracity of those things. And I think we could all spend the whole day trying to figure that one out. But if you wait 21 years or whatever to reveal something, you have to question what her reasons are. Inside Cover thanks NewsMax.com reader Margaret Booth for supplying the tape of what should be Jeffords' career-ending remarks.

This story is from NewsMax.com
Copyright 1999
All rights reserved

Back Back To Top Return To Main Menu