"what was the point of the news conference?"
The point, as I understood it, was to clear his own conscience, to make a point about press coverage of allegations like this one that aren't sufficiently corroborated (his own mea culpa for not being sufficiently skeptical originally, and doing enough due diligence), and to say (once again, as if anyone with a brain and a decent education didn't all know this already) that there is a lot of press coverage out there that is politically motivated, but is masked as "journalism".
You can, as some obviously will and have, that somehow this is a "career" move for him, that he is cynically "switching" sides to make money or get ahead journalistically, but this doesn't ring right to me. If he actually believes that the original story was substantially true, he now stands to lose a lot more than he stands to gain. If Clinton is thrown out, or even gets a massive black eye from a credible Congressional censure, he will be persona non grata in every camp. He may still be that, but his only chance, I think, for a serious future in journalism is if the story isn't true. Then at least he gets credit for his mea culpa. |
