Reply #157: Her case records are on file in that town in Texas...

[cascadiance]

If you look hard enough, you can get the PDF scans of the court records of her case. That should probably place the time of when it was alleged to have occured. It was some time ago, probably at least 2-3 years now.

The court records were put on file in December of 2002. You can read them here.

http://ccweb.co.fort-bend.tx.us/docdetail.asp?id=%0BNDF%2F5CS%03l%21E2UFDM02%21lc3O&ms=0&cabinet=civil&pg=&id2=y8yMDAgQU0%3DW%1FMTIvM%2100Vc%21Z5kM6KTg6MzQE1BCN%03yIDk6N

This link might be a link into their cache, so if you need to find it, go to this search page at this link:

http://ccweb.co.fort-bend.tx.us/search.asp?cabinet=civil

and search for "Schoedinger"

What is interesting is that it also returns a lawsuit record against some Sugarland cops too, one of who's names was "Sergeant Schultz"! "I know NUTHINK!!!" :)

I guess for me, it isn't so much a question of whether she was really raped or outed. She could have been a kook and outed herself. It did establish that she had dated Bush once earlier in their high school days. So there is some degree of connection there that isn't fabricated.

The big issue for me was how the media ignored it, but gave Barbara Walters style TV interviews to someone like Juanita Broderick for essentially the same charges. And Juanita Broderick wasn't found dead of mysterious circumstances later.

Now you can say that Juanita Broderick was looked at because Clinton had more of a history of pecadillos with other women, and Bush didn't so Broderick's story was more likely to be true. However, I'd take issue with that. The only *established* history Clinton had with outside women were for "consensual" affairs (Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers). Those that alleged "harrassment" like Paula Jones, Katherine Willey, may have had relationships with Clinton, but there was no proven elements of harrassment or nonconsensual sex/treatment, just their allegations. Broderick was the only one that alleged rape, which was not proven. So I would argue that though it was established Clinton had relationships with other women, he did NOT have a habit of abusing them, and therefore Broderick's case wasn't any more likely than Schoedinger's.

And I would argue now, looking back on the allegations that at the time seemed rather ludicrous, that what we hear of Bush's private behavior from various testimony, Capitol Hill Blue stories, etc. that Bush has tirades and tantrums privately that would make him *more* likely to have raped someone from a behavioral standpoint than Clinton. I still think it might be a far fetched issue, but any time you have someone that winds up dead with a gunshot wound to their head, it deserves to be investigated. Heck the Republicans have funded more investigations of Foster's death continuously way into Bush's term in office.

Currently for me, this story is more of an indictment of our press and the justice system, who DEFINITELY failed on this story than it is an indictment of Bush. But as we have more things investigated in an impeachment trial later of Bush, and other disclosed clandestine activities might show that Bush has other patterns and more potential for have been legitimately a suspect in this affair, that's where this story should be revisited. Unfortunately, since it was buried so quickly, there's probably little evidence that they can look at now.

Repeat again. Rape is a crime of VIOLENCE, not sex. Therefore, Clinton, who I would argue shows no history of violent aggression (and has probably one of the most sane kids of presidents in recent years in Chelsea) fits *less* the profile of a rapist than Bush does, who arguably has been rumored to be more out of control with his anger than Clinton has.