What an objective and persuasive piece. Dick Morris sure is truthful and useful, as long as he's working the right side of the aisle. On one little bit of it:
Why The Times devotes such investigative resources to the continuing examination of how the Paula Jones suit flourished, secretly, in a cabal of conservative lawyers, while failing to describe to its readers . . . (blah blah blah). . ., matters that are only taken up in The American Spectator and other journals.
There was one story in the Times about how the Paula Jones suit flourished. As you may know, I found it very interesting. Pretty funny to complain about it, given the vast resources devoted to the Clinton hatred industry, Dick Scaife, "Who killed Vince Foster", and all that. Weiss's line about the Times story sounds very much like Neocon, in our long, tortured dialog. Again, funny, given how I'm continually labeled a WH agent here.
"Cabal of conservative lawyers". Right. It wasn't a vast right wing conspiracy, just a very small circle of friends. Smith planted the original Arkansas trooper story with Brock. Smith was assisted by Porter, who placated Brock on the matter of payments to the troopers. The "truth" of the troopers stories was sufficient to "stir up old feelings" in Jones. Sufficiently intense feelings to cause her to somehow find her way to a conservative conference and demand Clinton clear her (first) name, from a slur planted by Smith and Porter. Then Paula Jones shows up with a civil suit, fronted by a pair of "simple litigators", recruited by Marcus and Porter, with Marcus and Porter continually operating behind the scenes to provide a little assistance to the "simple litigators". Fast forward to Linda Tripp, where, when the time comes, Porter makes the call to Rosenzweig in Starr's office, Rosenzweig who was originally offered the "simple litigator" gig but went to work for Starr instead, because it wouldn't look good for Porter to call former law partner Starr.
I thought it was a good story, fairly simple, not many people involved, and the obvious sources (Brock and the "simple litigators") were well positioned to tell it. The story isn't complete, who knows what transpired with Jones between the time she happened upon the "Paula" reference in the American Spectator and the time she hooked up with those "simple litigators" that Marcus and Porter recruited. But it does cast an interesting light on the whole quest for truth and justice, rule of law thing. Especially with the American Spectator, which didn't seem all that concerned about the truth of the Arkansas trooper story, as long as it riled Paula Jones up. Or maybe the trooper story was the "truth", and Paula Jones did really want to be Clinton's "girlfriend". Who can say? Oh, right, Paula Jones can say for sure, as Neocon said, she's guileless. |
