NY Times Provides Mafia-like Protection for Hillary Clinton
Bob Kohn
This is absolutely amazing. Hold the presses!
Recall my post last month on how the New York Times completlely failed to report that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's former finance director was indicted on charges of filing false financial reports about a Hollywood fund-raising gala for the senator. (At the time the story broke, I had notified Times public editor Dan Okrent of this omission. I've heard nothing since).
Here is what I said at the time:
<<<
Here's what's happening: The Times must be pow-wowing with the Clintonistas on just how the mainstream press should spin the story. It is taking time because it's critical that the paper does not provide a scandalous headline that can be used by the Republican 2008 presidential candidate.
>>>
Well, the pow-pow is complete. Tomorrow, over a month after the story broke elsewhere, the Times will publish an article touching upon the affair. But in its article headlined, "Lesson of Clinton Fund-Raiser: Double-Check That Donor List," the Times portrays Senator Clinton as a victim of the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch. In other words, they are blaming it on the vast right-wing conspiracy!
Judicial Watch happens to represent Peter Paul, a Democrat who spent $2 million on an August 12, 2000 fundraiser in Hollywood for Senator Clinton's campaign as a way to curry favor with Mr. Clinton. (In 1979, Mr. Paul had pleaded guilty to cocaine possession and trying to defraud Fidel Castro's government out of millions of dollars, among other things. The Clintons claim not to have known about Mr. Paul's past).
It is important to note, which the Times didn't, that Judicial Watch was not involved with Mr. Paul or anyone else connected with the actions leading up to the indictment of Senator Clinton's campaign finance chief. But the overall message to readers of the Times is clear: don't blame the Clintons for the campaign finance violations; blame a conservative legal group who has been making "legal trouble for the couple."
And here is how the Times finally reported the indictment that was handed down over a month ago:
<<<
A spokesman for the Justice Department, Bryan Sierra, said in a recent interview that Mrs. Clinton was not a subject of the investigation that led to the indictment, which named not Mr. Paul, but another person connected to the event, David Rosen, the finance director of Mrs. Clinton's Senate campaign, who is accused of underreporting the cost of the fund-raiser. No one else has been accused of any wrongdoing arising from the accusations.
>>>
Well, with that paragraph, they certainly put a lock-box around Senator Clinton, even though at the end of the article, a person closely associated with the Hollywood fundraiser in question was quoted as saying, "Paul knew that he had to give up Mrs. Clinton to save himself."
It seems clear that Mr. Paul provided the government with evidence against Senator Clinton's campaign in an attempt to cut a deal with federal prosecutors. The Times repeats that point several times in the article. But there's nothing new about this tried and true prosecutorial practice and its use here doesn't make the Clinton campaign any less culpable.
I won't see the printed version of the story until tomorrow morning, but the Times chose a photo to accompany the story on the web tonight. You think they might have found a photo of Senator Clinton standing with her indicted finance director? How about a photo of the Clintons with the convicted felon, Peter Paul? The Times has certainly has a copy of that photo--you know how I know? I read it in the New York Times:
<<<
Mr. Paul even has personal thank-you notes from both Clintons afterward, as well as photographs of him and the Clintons at the affair. Judicial Watch provided those items to The New York Times.
>>>
You know what photo the Times chose to use? Try a photo of President Clinton at the Hollywood fund-raiser interrupting the first lady's introduction of him to give her a kiss.
It's the clear the Times will do anything and say anything to protect Hillary Clinton.
posted by Bob Kohn
bobkohn.blogspot.com |
