Archive for Bill Clinton

Ballad of a Plus-Sized Woman

Just an addendum to my Hillary post below. Who writes this material, Bill Clinton or Bob Dylan?

On conference call, @brianefallon says Clinton was “passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became classified.”

I hear an echo of Dylan’s “Ballad of a Thin Man”

But nobody has any respect
Anyway they already expect you
To just give a check
To tax-deductible charity organizations

You could substitute “passive recipient of unwitting information” for the last line and it almost fits the meter exactly.

If you prefer your doublespeak in the more traditional manner, there’s always Hillary’s old man:

“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement”.

Still the master. Dylan’s a piker by comparison.


How Bill Clinton Is Like Bill Cosby

Also true.

By the way, this is from Camille Paglia, a feminist, lesbian, scholar. I find almost everything that she writes to be interesting.

Paglia seemed to be on the winning side of the wars over feminism and political correctness in the 1990s, but recently those battles have been reopened. Suddenly we’re talking again and in very different ways about sexual culture on campus. Comedians like Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher talk about the return of a stifling political correctness. And we’re staring at the potential rematch of a Clinton and a Bush.

There were so many stories that we wanted Paglia’s take on: Bill Cosby, Donald Trump, the state of the Democratic Party. So we spent two hours discussing all of them on Monday, and we’ll present her thoughts over the next three days. Stand back: Paglia does not hold back on anything.

The banner on the Drudge Report this morning is that Kathleen Willey is starting a site to collect harassment claims against Bill Clinton. New York magazine, meanwhile, has the stories of 35 women who say they were raped or assaulted by Bill Cosby. I wonder if you see a connection between the two stories: Would Bill Clinton’s exploits be viewed more like Cosby’s if he was in the White House now, instead of in the 1990s?

Right from the start, when the Bill Cosby scandal surfaced, I knew it was not going to bode well for Hillary’s campaign, because young women today have a much lower threshold for tolerance of these matters. The horrible truth is that the feminist establishment in the U.S., led by Gloria Steinem, did in fact apply a double standard to Bill Clinton’s behavior because he was a Democrat. The Democratic president and administration supported abortion rights, and therefore it didn’t matter what his personal behavior was.

But we’re living in a different time right now, and young women have absolutely no memory of Bill Clinton. It’s like ancient history for them; there’s no reservoir of accumulated good will. And the actual facts of the matter are that Bill Clinton was a serial abuser of working-class women–he had exploited that power differential even in Arkansas. And then in the case of Monica Lewinsky–I mean, the failure on the part of Gloria Steinem and company to protect her was an absolute disgrace in feminist history! What bigger power differential could there be than between the president of the United States and this poor innocent girl? Not only an intern but clearly a girl who had a kind of pleading, open look to her–somebody who was looking for a father figure.

I was enraged! My publicly stated opinion at the time was that I don’t care what public figures do in their private life. It’s a very sophisticated style among the French, and generally in Europe, where the heads of state tend to have mistresses on the side. So what? That doesn’t bother me at all! But the point is, they are sophisticated affairs that the European politicians have, while the Clinton episode was a disgrace.

A cigar and the intern is certainly the opposite of sophisticated.

Absolutely! It was frat house stuff! And Monica got nothing out of it. Bill Clinton used her. Hillary was away or inattentive, and he used Monica in the White House–and in the suite of the Oval Office, of all places. He couldn’t have taken her on some fancy trip? She never got the perks of being a mistress; she was there solely to service him. And her life was completely destroyed by the publicity that followed. The Clinton’s are responsible for the destruction of Monica Lewinsky! They probably hoped that she would just go on and have a job, get married, have children, and disappear, but instead she’s like this walking ghoul.

Here’s what I think: Young women don’t care about this stuff; they will vote for Clinton if they bother to vote at all. Most of the college educated Millenials are struggling economically and would benefit from some economic sanity, but every role model – teachers, most parents, professors, etc., have instilled liberal/leftist values in them throughout their lives. Turning away from the nonsense would feel like a betrayal of their entire world. So they will continue to struggle; they will live in basements or crappy apartments; they won’t buy homes or start families (because young men are in the same predicament.) I am good with all of this. My only regret is that they could somehow see, Dickens-like, what life could have been if we’d had adults running the country during their early adulthood.

– Aggie


Doing Well by Doing Good

The Clintons got it half right:

EXCLUSIVE: A former charity executive who helped expose a questionable $500,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation is now being threatened by her old bosses with a lawsuit seeking tens of thousands of dollars, has learned.

Sue Veres Royal, former executive director at the Happy Hearts Fund, was initially quoted in a May 29 New York Times article that said the charity lured Bill Clinton to a 2014 gala only after offering a $500,000 donation to The Clinton Foundation. His office previously had turned down the charity’s invitations, but this time he accepted; the accompanying donation amounted to almost a quarter of the gala’s net proceeds.

Veres Royal, who spoke to about the fallout from that report, is now embroiled in a legal battle with the charity. She filed a formal complaint June 4 with the New York attorney general’s Charities Bureau, as the charity itself threatened her with legal action for allegedly breaking her confidentiality agreement.

Veres Royal said she was appalled not only by the 2014 Clinton donation but by details she had not known before the Times report was published — most notably that the $500,000, which was supposed to go to causes in the ravaged country of Haiti, still had not been earmarked for any particular project by The Clinton Foundation.

“It’s disgusting to me that this organization is being used in this way,” Veres Royal said. “I have been to Haiti three times. I’ve seen how desperate the need is, and it’s disgusting to me that people are trying to do good while they’re sitting on half-a-million dollars. I think that’s a disservice to those people who have donated the money, and to the people of Haiti.”

Ah yes, “the people of Haiti”. The phrase conjures images of a somewhat primitive folk, wearing bright colors, harboring dark superstitions. Why do bad things always happen to them? The Clintons steal from their collection plate; the Dominican Republic evicts their refugees; even the UN sh*ts in their drinking water (and is immune from prosecution for introducing the charms of cholera to an already bedraggled people).

You’ve got Bono, Jay-Z, and Rihanna singing your praises, and you’re still such a mess? I write this love, mes amis Hatiens, but maybe you need to look in a mirror (if any are left after the earthquake). They say no one can take advantage of you without your permission.


Knowing What You Know Now, Mrs. Clinton

Would you agree with your husband?

Former president Bill Clinton told interviewer Larry King in 2003 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

“The man needs to get rid of his chemical and biological weapons stocks,” Clinton said on February 6, 2003 as President Bush contemplated attacking Iraq.

Clinton listed a number of weapons that Saddam might have including anthrax, volunteering, “They may even have a little smallpox.” Clinton said that he was “pretty sure” that Saddam had the chemical agents VX and ricin.

“Sure,” Clinton said when King asked him point blank if he ever saw information as president that led him to believe that Saddam was making weapons.

“People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”

Clinton would have been two years out of office at that point, still recent enough, it seems to me, to be plugged into relevant intelligence. Same goes for every member of Congress, who was either briefed directly by the military and intelligence agencies, or had access to summaries of those briefings.

In other words, the question now ought to be the same as it was then: knowing what you know, do you support going to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq? Among those who voted yes: Sens. Biden, Clinton, Harkin, Kerry, Reid, Schumer, joined by 23 other Democrats.

Since we’re playing the hits of the ’00s.


Et Tu, Nancy?

Notice how gently she slips the knife in, and how her smile never falters as she twists the blade. Of course, that could be the botox.

THOMAS ROBERTS, MSNBC: There is a lot of excitement surrounding whether it’s President Clinton in the headlines or Hillary Clinton in the headlines. But I want to show you what The New York Times did. It details how Bill Clinton appeared at a charity event last year to commemorate the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami but only after the charity paid the foundation $500,000 for the speech. In the article, it says, “the donation made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds — enough to build ten preschools in Indonesia.”

What do you think the average American is supposed to think of Hillary Clinton going out there and fighting for the deck that she says is stacked at the top and trying to the get rules back in play for the middle class Americans when her husband’s foundation is taking in half a million dollars for a single event showing?

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): Well, the Clintons will have to answer for the foundation. But I would imagine that President Clinton’s participation in that event increased the take and the money spent at the foundation is for a very good cause as well. So it was a sort of everyone benefited from it. But no question, it raises questions that they’ll have to answer.

This from a woman who can justify anything—including passing ObamaCare without reading it. I don’t know what she thinks of Bernie Sanders and his gang-rape fantasies, but it’s pretty clear she’s not favoring Hillary.


Too Funny to be True [UPDATED]

And yet it is: the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation took money even from the open sewer of FIFA.

The embattled Clinton Foundation can add a new name to its long list of donors under scrutiny — the scandal-tarred world soccer federation.

FIFA donated as much as $100,000 to the charity headed by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, foundation records revealed, with no further details available.

Bill Clinton hobnobbed with FIFA President Sepp Blatter at the World Cup in Johannesburg, South Africa, in 2010.

Clinton was serving as honorary chairman of the effort to bring the event to the US in 2018 or 2022.

When the United States lost in 2010, Clinton was so enraged that he threw an object across a hotel room and shattered a wall mirror, Britain’s Telegraph reported.

The British media has even more to offer:

The fast-moving FIFA bribery scandal now has a Clinton connection, after news that the nation of Qatar and its 2022 World Cup organizing committee – and even FIFA itself – donated between $1.3 million and $5.55 million to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

The scandal-hit football world authority is listed by the foundation as having handed over at least $50,001 and as much as $100,000 to the Clinton’s controversial organization in a direct cash injection at some point before 2014.

There were also far larger donations from the Qatari committee which won the Middle Eastern nation its position as host of the 2022 World Cup, and Qatar’s government.

The committee is listed on the foundation’s website as having donated between $250,001 and $500,000, while the government of Qatar gave at least $1,000,000 and potentially as much as $5,000,000.

No wonder it’s pronounced “gutter”. And no surprise to find the Clintons right at the bottom of it.

PS: Is it too late for Chelsea to take her husband’s name?


Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation have been hit with a racketeering lawsuit in Florida court.

The lawsuit, filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, includes a legal request to have the Florida judge seize the private server on which Hillary Clinton and her aides hosted their emails while she served as secretary of state.

Klayman has filed dozens of lawsuits against the Clintons and other prominent politicians.

The racketeering, influenced and corrupt organizations, or RICO, case alleges the former first couple and their family philanthropy traded political favors for donations or generous speaking fees for Bill Clinton while his wife was the nation’s chief diplomat.

“Negotiations by email about influencing U.S. foreign policy or U.S. Government actions to benefit donors to … The Clinton Foundation or sponsors of speaking engagements would not be captured on a U.S. Government email account because her emails would not be with a U.S. Government official,” Klayman said in court documents obtained by the Washington Examiner.

“Hillary Clinton deleted 32,000 email messages from her email server that included her communications arranging, negotiating, and agreeing upon speaking engagements by Bill Clinton in return for large speaking fees and donations to The Clinton Foundation,” the documents, dated May 20, said.

Klayman pushed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to order a “neutral forensic expert … to take custody and control of the private email server and reconstruct and preserve the official U.S. Government records relating to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy during Defendant Secretary Clinton’s term as Secretary of State.”

Mother of mercy, is this the end of RICO? Hillary’s like John Gotti, only not as well dressed. Or coiffed


It Depends on the Meaning of “Bill Clinton”

HDR, meet WJC:

The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services, but which demonstrates the complexity of the family’s finances.

Because the company, WJC, LLC, has no financial assets, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was not obligated to report its existence in her recent financial disclosure report, officials with Bill Clinton’s private office and the Clinton campaign said. They were responding to questions by The Associated Press, which reviewed corporate documents.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide private details of the former president’s finances on the record, said the entity was a “pass-through” company designed to channel payments to the former president.

Seems reasonable: how many women has WJC “passed through”, with or without their consent?

WJC, LLC was set up in Delaware in 2008 and again in 2013 and in New York in 2009, according to documents obtained by The AP. The company did not appear among holdings in the Clintons’ financial disclosure released last week or in previous Hillary Clinton disclosure reports between 2008 and 2013, when she resigned as secretary of state. Bill Clinton signed a document as its “authorizing person” in a corporate filing in Delaware in 2013.

Delaware? Why Delaware?

Delaware’s business law is one of the most flexible in the country.

The Delaware Court of Chancery focuses solely on business law and uses judges instead of juries.

For corporations, there is no state corporate income tax for companies that are formed in Delaware but do not transact business there (but there is a franchise tax).

Taxation requirements are often favorable to companies with complex capitalization structures and/or a large number of authorized shares of stock.

There is no personal income tax for non-residents.

Shareholders, directors and officers of a corporation or members or managers of an LLC don’t need to be Delaware residents.

Stock shares owned by persons outside Delaware are not subject to Delaware taxes.

We expect this from Bill Clinton. That Arkansas dirt never really disappears from under the fingernails.

But Hillary? Is this how Hugh and Dorothy Rodman raised their little girl?

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States’ oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region’s fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

I haven’t been to the Clinton Presidential Library—it’s on my bucket list—but I have to wonder if they just have shelf upon shelf of copies of Willie Sutton’s memoirs.

Somebody pinch me: this guy was really President of the United States? And his old lady is a serious contender?

Yeah. Sure.


Cynical? Moi?

Try not to let this destroy your faith in the integrity of the Fourth Estate:

The ABC News spokeswoman who slow-walked The Washington Free Beacon’s request for comment on George Stephanopoulos’ undisclosed donations to the Clinton Foundation also worked in the Clinton administration.

Heather Riley — spokeswoman for ABC News programs “Good Morning America” and “This Week” — worked in the White House press office from 1997 to 2000, according to her LinkedIn profile, and is a member of the Facebook group “(Bill) Clinton Administration Alumni.”

The Free Beacon, a conservative-leaning publication, contacted ABC News on the afternoon of May 13 to request comment on George Stephanopoulos’s previously undisclosed donations to the Clinton Foundation.

“I was just forwarded your email about George. I’m going to send you something,” Riley emailed later that night, according to The Free Beacon. “Want to make sure you get it in time.”

Riley later told the Free Beacon that she would deliver a statement by 7 a.m. the next morning. However, the statement did not arrive until 9:40 a.m., about 15 minutes after POLITICO published its “scoop” about the donations.

White House records show that Riley’s duties included serving as a press contact for then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

So, a PR flack who lives to protect the Clintons, Stephanopoulos, was himself protected by a PR flack who lives to protect the Clintons. And it’s called news!

Howard K. Smith is spinning faster in his grave than Kristi Yamaguchi at the dramatic conclusion of her Olympic routine.

PS: Even when she doesn’t live to protect the Clintons, she—you guessed it—lives to protect the Clintons!

Prior to joining ABC News, Riley worked as a senior director of brand communications for Rodale, Inc.

The company and its charitable foundation have donated $20,000 to $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, records show. The Rodale family contributed at least $5,000 to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns from 2005 to 2008.

Kim Jong Un doesn’t command such loyalty.

Comments (1)

Stephanopoulos Syndrome

It’s like Alzheimer’s, but it strikes younger:

When Stephanopoulos invited me on his Sunday program, I knew that he had worked as a top adviser and campaign manager to President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, but I didn’t know about his donations or his other ties to the foundation founded and overseen by the former president and his wife, potential future president Hillary Clinton.

If Stephanopoulos had disclosed his donations to the very foundation I was there to talk about, perhaps it would have put the aggressive posture of his interview with me in context.

But he didn’t.

And even though he has apologized to his viewers for keeping this information from both his audience and his bosses, there is much that Stephanopoulos has yet to disclose to his viewers. Indeed, far from being a passive donor who strokes Clinton Foundation checks from afar, a closer look reveals that Stephanopoulos is an ardent and engaged Clinton Foundation advocate.

For example, in his on air apology for this ethical mess, Stephanopoulos did not disclose that in 2006 he was a featured attendee and panel moderator at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).

He did not disclose that in 2007, he was a featured attendee at the CGI annual meeting, a gathering also attended by several individuals I report on in Clinton Cash, including mega Clinton Foundation donors Lucas Lundin, Frank Giustra, Frank Holmes, and Carlos Slim — individuals whose involvement with the Clintons I assumed he had invited me on his program to discuss.

Stephanopoulos did not disclose that he was a 2008 panelist at the CGI annual meeting which, once again, featured individuals I report on in the book, such as billionaire Clinton Foundation foreign donor Denis O’Brien.

ABC’s most visible news employee did not disclose that in 2009, he served as a panel moderator at CGI’s annual meeting, nor did he disclose that in 2010 and 2011, he was an official CGI member.

Stephanopoulos did not disclose that in 2013 and 2014, he and Chelsea Clinton served as CGI contest judges for awards, in part, underwritten by Laureate International Universities — a for-profit education company I report on in the book. Bill Clinton was on its payroll until his recent resignation.

It’s a wonder he can still read the teleprompter, the poor dear. His mind’s obviously gone. Who but a drooling vegetable would give 75 Gs to Bill Clinton for “children” and “deforestation” when Bill pocketed over 90% of the cash?

If you’d like to contribute toward the cure of the terrible scourge of Stephanopoulos Syndrome, I understand the Clinton Foundation is taking donations.


See No Evil

Harry Reid is proof that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king:

JOSE DIAZ BALART: Senator, let’s talk about Bill Clinton. Do you think the whole Bill Clinton global initiative is kind of taking away or putting pressure on Hillary Clinton’s campaign? Do you think Bill Clinton should step aside? Do you think if she were to win the presidency he should step aside from the Foundation?

SEN. HARRY REID: People do not understand the strength of Hillary Clinton. She’s a marvelous woman, independent, thoughtful, smart, experienced. And Bill Clinton will step down from whatever he needs to do to help his wife. The Foundation, which has done so much good around the world, Haiti, for one example, no organization other than the United States government itself did more to help than the Clinton Foundation, so I don’t know all the intricacies of what he will do and what he can’t do, but I know he’ll step aside any time he gets in the way of his wife.

Strength? I know she can hurl an ashtray (or was it a lamp?) like a 1968 Bob Gibson fastball—but a strong candidate? To belabor the metaphor, she’s revealing herself to be the Dal Maxville of 2016—all glove, no power.

But then, Reid is delusional in everything he says—the only thing the Clinton Crime Family Foundation did for Haiti was give Tony Rodham a job.

Comments (2)

And Another Thing

George Stephanopoulos said he donated $75,000 out of concerns for “deforestation”:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: Now, I want to address some news you may have seen about me. Over the last several years, I have made substantial donations to dozens of charities, including the Clinton Global Foundation. Those donations were a matter of public record. But I should have made additional disclosures on-air when we covered the foundation and I now believe directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake. Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries

Then why didn’t he donate to organizations that worked for those causes, and not to one for the care and feeding of Hillary and Bill (and Chelsea)?

By one reckoning, only $4,500 of his $75,000 went to “help children”. Which makes Rush Limbaugh’s cynical headline “Fake Newsman Caught Giving 50 [sic] Large to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation” the most truthful statement on the story.

Stephanopoulos was paying tribute money to the Godfather. The only concern for deforestation was in paying with $100s, rather than $10s and $20s.


I’m Sorry, So Sorry

$75,000 was just an installment payment:

My first encounter with Stephanopoulos was during the 1992 New Hampshire primary, when Bill Clinton was grappling with womanizing allegations and his aide was trying to talk me out of doing a story. As a White House aide during the 1996 campaign, he gave me information—and a subsequent interview—aimed at tarnishing a former FBI agent who was making allegations about the president and the administration. Standard spinning stuff from a savvy operative.

People now forget that ABC originally hired Stephanopoulos as a liberal pundit, paired with Bill Kristol on the Sunday roundtable. But the network, impressed by his smarts and his political acumen, decided to move him into a journalistic role, first as host of “This Week” and then adding “Good Morning America” to his portfolio.

You know how Stephie got to be a “savvy operative” at the ripe old age of 30-35? By working on the Dukakis campaign at 27, followed by a job with Dick Gephardt. He stayed with Clinton through the 1996 campaign, for a full eight years of inside Democrat politics.

Who better to be an impartial journalist?

Let me be blunt: For George to give money to the Clinton Foundation, out of all possible charities, knowing full well that Hillary was gearing up to run, is a grave error in judgment. For him not to disclose this to his network or to viewers—especially when he was aggressively interviewing “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer about that very foundation—is unthinkable. And for ABC to brush this off as an “honest mistake” is embarrassing.

People already distrust the media as too liberal. A late-in-life journalist who began his career as a prominent Democrat working in the White House faces a special burden to demonstrate his independence. By donating to the Clintons’ family charity and keeping it secret, Stephanopoulos has failed that test.

In his statement of apology, Stephanopoulos said he gave the money because he cares deeply about AIDS and deforestation efforts.

I laughed out loud when I read that. The New England Patriots have mounted a more credible defense. If my wife should ever catch me in a compromising position, I’ll have to remember to cite my deep concern for deforestation.

Even a kinder, gentler BTL can’t accept this apology. In his position, I would have kept my “savvy operative” past foremost in the minds of the viewers. Not boastfully, but rather because every word I uttered, every thought I thought, would be suspect if I weren’t scrupulously open about my background. Just as they have been.

Son of a Greek Orthodox priest, and holder of an MA in Theology, where did he learn to prevaricate and obfuscate so expertly?

PS: Regular readers will know that my greatest beef is not with the individual reprobates in the Democrat/Media Complex, but with the Complex itself. ABC “News” (I’m laughing out loud as I type that) has not only excused Stephie’s “lapse”, they helped him spin it:

A worthy side note to the Stephanopoulos exposé is contained in its genesis. The story appears to have originated at the Washington Free Beacon, which asked ABC News for comment about the Stephanopoulos contributions last night. The next thing the Free Beacon knew, POLITICO had broken the story this morning. Free Beacon writer Andrew Stiles and site editor Matthew Continetti accused Stephanopoulos’ office and ABC of shipping the scoop to POLITICO. I sent email to ABC News seeking clarification on this point and did not hear back. I also asked Byers about the origin of his scoop to which he responded, “I’m not going to be able to talk about matters related to sourcing.”

If ABC News shopped the scoop, as the Beaconites claim, it wouldn’t be the first time that a news organization has been so preempted. Government and business play this retaliatory game all the time when journalists surprise them with a request for comment. What’s unbecoming is that a news organization might engage in this practice.

Come to think of it, that’s precisely the type of thing you could imagine the Stephanopoulos-era Clinton administration doing without compunction.

Exactly. But when “savvy operatives” become media whores, what is the network but a brightly lit brothel? Even Brian Williams was a career “journalist”—snort!—after interning for Jimmy Carter.


« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »