Though Broaddrick was resistant to talking to the media, rumors about her story began circulating no later than Clinton’s presidential bid in 1992.[6] Broaddrick had confided in Phillip Yoakum, whom she knew from business circles and at the time considered a friend. When Clinton won the Democratic nomination, Yoakum, widely considered to have a Republican agenda,[6] contacted Sheffield Nelson, Clinton’s opponent in the 1990 gubernatorial race. Yoakum arranged a meeting between Nelson and Broaddrick, who resisted Yoakum's and Nelson’s push that she go public.[1] Yoakum secretly taped the conversation and wrote a letter summarizing the allegations, which began to circulate within Republican circles. The story reached the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times in October 1992, but the papers dropped the story after Broaddrick refused to talk to reporters and Yoakum refused to release the recording.[6]
In the fall of 1997, Paula Jones’s private investigators tried to talk to Broaddrick at her home, also secretly taping the conversation.[12] Broaddrick refused to discuss the incident, saying “it was just a horrible horrible thing,” and that she “wouldn’t relive it for anything.”[13] The investigators told her she would likely be subpoenaed if she would not talk to them. Broaddrick said she would deny everything, saying “you can’t get to him, and I’m not going to ruin my good name to do it… there’s just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he’s just too vicious.”[13] Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Jones suit soon after and submitted an affidavit denying that Clinton had made “any sexual advances”.[1][2] The recording of Broaddrick’s conversation with the investigators was leaked to the press, but Broaddrick continued to refuse to speak to reporters.
...
Because of the time elapsed since the alleged incident and the nature of acquaintance rape cases, there was limited corroborating evidence and so the allegations rested on Broaddrick's testimony. Because she had filed and then recanted an affidavit saying there was no assault, some thought she was not credible.[7] According to the New York Times in 1999, the problems with Broaddrick's accusations were that "There is no physical evidence to verify it. No one else was present during the alleged encounter in a Little Rock hotel room nearly 21 years ago. The hotel has since closed. And Mrs. Broaddrick denied the encounter in an affidavit in January 1998 in the Paula Jones case, in which she was known only as ''Jane Doe No. 5.'' Through all those years, she refused to come forward. When pressed by the Jones lawyers, she denied the allegation. And now, she has recanted that denial."[6]
In March 1999 Slate magazine ran an much-cited analysis piece, called "Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth?", that gave possible grounds for which Broaddrick should be believed, or should not be believed, on each of a number of key points.[7] On the disbelief side, it was suggested the five people that said Broaddrick had confided in them soon after the incident could be lying.[7] Rogers and Darden had an independent reason to dislike Clinton: as they notified NBC, Clinton had commuted the life sentence of the man who killed their father.[3] The disbelief argument proposes that they may have a grudge against Clinton. Even if the confidants were telling the truth, skeptics noted that Broaddrick could have been lying when she originally confided in them.[7]
Some details in Broaddrick's account corresponded with other women's allegations. In an interview that emerged after Broaddrick's allegations, Elizabeth Ward Gracen said that Clinton bit her lip during a consensual encounter that became rough.[17]
Broaddrick said that after the assault, Clinton told her not to worry about pregnancy because childhood mumps had rendered him sterile.[15] When contacted about the issue, Gennifer Flowers, who Clinton later admitted to a sexual relationship with, agreed that Clinton had thought he couldn't have children.[18]
