Devil's Advocate: Thinking Like the Clinton's Press Secretary during The Broaddrick Allegations

Juanita Broaddrick was a nursing home administrator from Arkansas who claimed during an interview on Dateline NBC, in November 1998, that she had been raped by President Bill Clinton as far back as April 25, 1978 during his first campaign for governor- ship in Arkansas.

This was during the height of the Monica Lewinsky scandal; this was the last thing the Clinton Administration needed to hear or deal with at this point in juncture.

If I was Clinton's Press Secretary, there would be certain procedures taken, as well as certain public statements given, depending how national opinion responded with each press release or action taken by our political opponents.

During the time when the Broaddrick story initially broke, if the White House needed more time to contemplate their next move, whether to admit to charges, concoct alternative scenarios, deny outright ever knowing her, or whatever response would yield the least painful result, I would inform the press that the White House recognized the seriousness of these allegations in order to show some empathy, and that further details had not been revealed to me at this time, taking some temporary pressure off of me from hounding reporters . If any popular event, foreign or domestic, had occurred congruently with the press release, I would mention that the White House had been too busy concluding business with said event to immediately respond, biding time with distraction.

If no consensus was reached as to what response the White House should release to the press, I would take advantage of my previously stated strategy of silence-and-distraction by waiting for Broaddrick's version to come out publicly; you never want your version to contradict certain details given by the accuser that could be proven factual.

Broaddrick gave very credible background details; she alleged that the rape occurred at the Camelot Hotel during a nursing home seminar in 1978 and NBC news discovered that a nursing conference took place at that hotel on August 25th of that year. Also, Clinton remarked shortly before the incident, as he pointed to a jail across the street, that once he'd become governor he would renovate it, and it turns out that a prison was situated across the street of the Camelot Hotel during that time, until its eventual demolition a few years later.

With this much revealed information, which could tie Clinton to Broaddrick with some form of meeting or interaction, I would release a confirmation that a platonic meeting had taken place.

If a sexual encounter had taken place between Clinton and Broaddrick, it would certainly have lacked witnesses, but there may have been persons whom Broaddrick had told almost immediately after the event, considering that a swelling lip injury would be a call for inquiry, which an explanation would follow, and the Republicans would search under every rock and leaf to find them and get their stories out.

At this point, it might be wise for the White House to gather their own search party to find and speak with these individuals before their adversaries could, unless such an action would only raise more suspicions against the Clinton Administration. If the Republicans had already found their witnesses, the best defense against an accuser is to counterclaim a motive: gather information on their personalities, their affiliations, their beliefs, and most importantly their histories. One can immune themselves from a hypocrite far more than a conspirator, and even the latter is advantageous.

As it turned out, there were 5 witnesses. It is never good to have this many witnesses against you, but luckily 60 percent of them could be labeled as having ulterior motives. Out of these five who had either claimed to hear her account, noticed her obviously disheveled state and injuries, or both within the short time after her alleged contact with Clinton, two may have had a grudge against Clinton for commuting a death sentence previously given to a man who killed their father, and a third was Broaddrick's second husband, David Broaddrick.

This was the bit of solid gold information on Juanita; during the time when Clinton had allegedly raped her, she was involved in an extra-marital affair. We know this because it was David, the very man she has been married to these last 18 years, and it was revealed when she recounted her conversation with Clinton that occurred within just minutes before the rape allegedly commenced.

Apparently, Clinton had proposed to Broaddrick that a sexual encounter between them would be less complicated because they were both married. While she had admitted to Clinton that she was experiencing a falling-out with her husband, she was emotionally involved with another man and insinuated her disinterest in sex with him.

This information could sway the public in either direction: either the public will conclude that Broaddrick had a “reputation,” which is synonymous with “incredulous” for any woman, or they will point out that she had married the very man whom she had cheated on her first husband with and remained bound to him for almost two decades, suggesting a matter of compatibility rather than infidelity. However, once the stigma of “whore” has entered into the public's perception, it's almost impossible to reverse it. So if I was to use this leverage against Broaddrick, the insinuation would have to be quick and repetitious.

As far as the case for “self-inoculation” is concerned, Broaddrick signed a sworn affidavit with Paula Jone's lawyers that Clinton had never sexually assaulted her; if there was any further evidence she wished to include, which would certainly contradict her affidavit statement, it would be forever suspect. She may have hastily signed this document, a faxed replica originally intended for another woman sent from the White House, with true concern and worry for both her family's privacy and especially her own reputation, not wanting to appear as Jane Doe #5 looking for press releases and book signings, but nonetheless the words written within the affidavit states:

“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.”

As Clinton's Press Secretary, if Broaddrick had pushed to assert that her affidavit statement was false or coerced, I would assert that Philip Yoakum, and anti-Clinton Republican businessman from Arkansas, had pushed for Broaddrick to initially come out with her story during the presidential campaign in 1992, and may have even revealed it without her prior consent, which may have appeared more like a political ploy than a cry for justice. Also, Broaddrick's lawyer, who had arraigned for Broaddrick's affidavit with White House deputy counsel Bruce Lindsey, was Republican State Senator Bill Walters; If Broaddrick could provide any credible rape allegation, would Senator Walters have made any effort to protect a Clinton during such a politically polarizing environment like the impeachment hearings?

Regardless of one's political affiliation, all can agree in this day and age that it's one thing for a president to engage in extra-marital affairs, it's another thing to be accused of rape. Since rape is such a grave issue, and no one in their right mind would ever publicly make light of it, it would be very important for a press secretary at this time to stress the White House's contemptuous position on rape... several times! I would even advise the president to even attend rape counseling fundraisers for photo-ops!

Although the manners in which I speak of , acting as President Clinton's press secretary during the Broaddrick affair, are effective in saving an entire administration from going down in flames, I must confess that I place a higher value in certain principles than loyalty to any political party or short-sighted pursuit of wealth and prestige. If I was Clinton's press secretary and my instincts told me that what Broaddrick said was true, I would have either resigned from my post or leaked whatever damaging information I possessed to condemn a rapist, and in such a manner that would've made Mark Felt blush. My philosophy is simple: You show me a competent and just leader and you'll have my allegiance, show me a criminal which lies underneath the facade and you'll have my dagger in your back.