On Wednesday, four choreographed articles were released by The New York Times, People Magazine, and The Palm Beach Post (two are attributed to the New York Times), all containing allegations against Trump.
Note: The following is an editorial piece, reflecting the opinion of the writer and is not intended to be a news story.
Jessica Leeds and Rachel Crooks in The New York Times have made it their mission to discredit Trump as a sexist misogynist. But it’s not going to work. Not now, not ever.
Trump stated, “the phony story in the failing @nytimes is a TOTAL FABRICATION. Written by the same people as last discredited story on woman. WATCH!”
Trump’s statements were in regards to a story put out by The Times in May. His statements turned out to be true; the two women have been scouring the earth to find any missteps in Trump’s dealing with women.
Compare this to Juanita Broderick who was allegedly raped by Bill Clinton and threatened by Bill’s main crooked crony, Hillary.
There have been no articles on Juanita’s journey and struggle in The Times. Some have stated that Bill Clinton is not running for president so these allegations are in fact useless to investigate.
Although we all know a candidate’s full family history, going back generations, can come into question during a presidential campaign. Especially if the nominee threatened and possibly silenced victims of her husband to further political means.
No questioning has been conducted by the biased and equally cooked New York Times.
The same magazine that spearheaded a campaign to discredit and undermine Bernie Sanders. The level of hypocrisy at which the failing New York Times operates has delegated its failure as an objective news source. By Thursday morning, Trump’s lawyer served the magazine with a letter demanding the retraction of the defamation articles or risk a lawsuit. It is clear The New York Times will unlikely retract the article, at least until after the election.
Natasha Stoynoff from People also released an article choreographed with The Times’ release, stating that Trump had made an unwanted advance on her in 2005, while he was interviewed for a story. Trump responded by tweeting, “Why didn’t the writer of the twelve-year-old article in People Magazine mention the ‘incident’ in her story. […] Because it did not happen!”
Aside from this, it is one thing to make an advance or ‘a move’ on someone, and quite another thing to repeatedly raping a woman on one occasion. One is legal, the other one is a felony indicted by a Federal court. Juanita Broderick was allegedly raped by Bill Clinton. According to Federal investigators, Broderick told five colleagues what had happened and showed them her bruised lip which Bill had allegedly bit, after the incident. During questioning by local authorities, Juanita stated that the incident had not happened.
Statements which were used to discredit her allegations in the same magazines making claims about Trump. When asked by Federal investigators Juanita Broderick is on record as stating that the rape had happened. That Bill Clinton had aggressively assaulted her then raped her twice, stating that she could not lie to federal investigators. Also stating she had to deny the claims out of fear of Hillary Clinton, who had underhandedly threatened her.
Aside from rape, lying to federal investigators is also a Federal crime called Making False Statements laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code. A crime indictable under law ‘even by mere denial’. By the extent of the law, Juanita Broderick would have been charged for Making False Statements to federal investigators by claiming Bill had raped her. Unless, Federal investigators believed she was telling the truth, but could not legally prove it or mount a case against the then President.
Essentially, Juanita discredited herself in a court of law by fear from Hillary Clinton; the very thing Crooked Hillary wanted to do in the first place by intimidating Broderick.
Not because the incident did not happen; but, due to the fact that, in a court of law, the case would have been ‘his word against hers.’ Cases which Hillary has extensive experience in; like the time she attacked an accuser by claiming the 12-year-girl had liked being raped by her accuser. Cases which are legally hard to mount. His word would have been that of the President of the United States. Her words would have been that of a rape victim who had made changes in her statement; something that does not go over well with a jury or judge.
So much for Crooked Hillary tweeting that “every survivor of sexual assault deserved to be heard, believed, and supported”!