Ah — I figured this would be all you’d be able to produce, because there’s nothing else out there. And this stuff is pretty lame.

Juanita Broaddrick has nothing except her interpretation of an encounter with Hillary Clinton that could have been interpreted any number of different ways. The actual verbiage did not contain any threat, but a thank you. So if there was a threat, what was it? What was Juanita afraid of? Oh, and taking someone by the hand is not “holding them against their will”. Unless you are claiming that Hillary’s physical strength was several times that of Juanita’s.

The January 27, 1998 appearance by Hillary on the Today Show also didn’t contain any specific threats against the women who accused Bill Clinton. This was the appearance where Hillary first mentioned the “right wing conspiracy”, and suggested that those who were attacking the President for purely political reasons (whether that included sexual assault accusers or not) would have their motives found out.

Neither of these would hold up in a court of law as evidence that Hillary Clinton personally threatened, intimidated, and silenced her husband’s accusers.

As far as the rest of the Gateway Pundit article? Plenty of hints that “numerous women accusers were publicly or privately persecuted” with nothing to back that up, comments like “It is commonly believed by Clinton victims that Hillary was behind the siccing of private investigators on the many women who accused her husband of rape, sexual assault or infidelity in the 1990s” with nothing to back that up, and investigations into those leading the attacks on the Clintons, such as Livingston and Gingrich, that only unmasked their own hypocrisy. But nothing about specific attacks on Clinton’s sexual assault accusers.

So — as usual — you have nothing. Big surprise.