Salon | Newsreal: Hillary was right

T A B L E+T A L K
Could a South African-style resolution bring peace to Israel and Palestine? Join the discussion in the International Issues area of Table Talk

D A I L Y+Q U O T E
A real patriot

R E C E N T L Y
Slick Willey
By Bruce Shapiro
Before you cry too many tears for Kathleen Willey, consider the unfortunate brother and sister she fleeced.
(03/18/98)
The ties that bind
By Murray Waas and Jonathan Broder
The lawyer who contributed $50,000 to Paula Jones' legal fund also served as counsel for Richard Mellon Scaife's anti-Clinton Arkansas Project
(03/18/98)
Salon exclusive: the road to Hale
By Jonathan Broder and Murray Waas
Key Whitewater witness David Hale received secret cash payments from anti-Clinton billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.
(03/17/98)
Bugliosi the bomb thrower
By Lori Leibovich
The last angry lawyer says the stupidity of the Supreme Court's Paula Jones ruling is rivaled only by the outrageous bias of Kenneth Starr's out-of-control investigation
(03/17/98)
Clinton's ghost
By Gene Lyons
Jim McDougal's quest for revenge finally killed him, but not before embroiling the country in the six-year torture known as Whitewater
(03/16/98)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Browse the
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

HILLARY WAS RIGHT | PAGE 2 OF 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Take the Jones case, which has become the flywheel of the anti-Clinton operation. Starr wrote a legal brief on her behalf. That was before he was made independent counsel, and around the same time Jones was making guest appearances in Falwell's libelous "Clinton Chronicles" video and onstage with the Conservative Political Action Committee. Since then, Starr's flailing Whitewater investigation has constantly been rescued by Jones. She has provided the rationale for Starr's G-men to terrorize the state of Arkansas with interrogations and subpoenas relating to residents' sex lives. The Lewinsky affair, brought illegally to Starr's attention by avid Clinton-hater and fortune-hunter Linda Tripp, was transmogrified by Starr, with a cowed Janet Reno waving him on, into a presidential "pattern of obstruction of justice." That Starr consistently piggybacks his "independent" investigation on the baseless Jones case seems not to have raised questions of obvious conflict of interest in any of the branches of government, not to mention our vigilant press.
And what of the Jones case itself, bought and paid for by Richard Mellon Scaife and various right-wing "foundations"? Jones has absolutely no evidence that she suffered any damage as a result of her alleged sexual encounter in a Little Rock hotel room with Bill Clinton eight years ago. In fact, like Kathleen Willey, she seems to have done rather well in the wake of her rejection of Clinton's alleged advances. Moreover, Jones and her changing legal teams have continually recut the cloth of their tattered case every time it becomes blatantly apparent that her harassment claims will be laughed out of court. Suddenly she remembered that she felt intimidated by Clinton when she went to leave the hotel room. Not good enough? Well, how about feeling frightened by the fact that Clinton's state trooper stationed outside the hotel door had a gun?
Had this case involved anyone but the president of the United States -- a political hot potato for any judge -- it would have been tossed out long ago. In fact, Jones herself might be in the dock by now. As both the Chicago Tribune and Salon have reported, money that donors thought they were giving to Jones' "legal defense fund" (based on a direct-mail appeal signed by Jones) was spent on personal items such as makeovers, dresses and doggie care for her canine, Mitzi. As Salon has reported, a highly placed official associated with the conservative Rutherford Institute, which is currently financing Jones' legal efforts, has used the term "mail fraud" in connection with the fund-raising scheme, which allows Jones to skim $100,000 off the top in the first year alone. No wonder Jones has displayed such doggedness in the pursuit of her case -- justice can be lucrative indeed.
Respected prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has expressed outrage that Jones' and the far right's get-Clinton project has been allowed to tie up the entire nation -- a concern shared by many Americans. But don't wait for the nation's agenda-setting press to shine its harsh light on these conservative machinations. The New York Times, the Washington Post and the TV networks seem to have no interest in any of the frauds, con games, money laundering, lying under oath, subornation of perjury and other tactics utilized by the conspirators. The Chicago Tribune's bombshell story about Jones' possibly illegal "legal defense fund" was dismissed in a couple of paragraphs by the Times as merely another piece of fodder in the White House spin-control armory. Vicious smears against a sitting president bought and paid for by one of the nation's leading televangelists? Yawn. Time magazine was perhaps too busy entertaining the good Rev. Falwell (along with an older practitioner of the Big Lie, Leni Riefenstahl) at its 75th anniversary bash to grant this story more than one passing line.
How is it that the "liberal press," second only to Clinton in the extreme right's demonology, appears to have signed up with the coup forces? There is no one cabalistic explanation, but as with the conservative plotters, there is a community of interests. One is the need to cover up its shockingly credulous reporting, especially by the Times and the Post, whose correspondents were spoon-fed early on by elder statesmen of the anti-Clinton brigade, Arkansas division, and then by Starr. Another is the Woodward-Bernstein -- or rather the Redford-Hoffman -- syndrome. Bringing down a president is a sure bet for a Pulitzer, not to mention lavish book deals and movie rights. Inconvenient facts cannot be allowed to get in the way of such rich rewards.
Finally, there is a certain Junker mentality among the media establishment, an aristocratic and arrogant self-regard. Exercising power without responsibility, these media grandees feel free to use their pages and airwaves to wage personal vendettas, vent spleen and cast out from polite society the Clintons, those declassé Arkansas hicks who never sought entry to the Washington club. These multimillionaire lords and bejeweled ladies are as breathtaking in their disregard for basic rules of their trade -- like accuracy, fairness and diligence -- as they are sickening in their hypocrisy.
The most recent example is Don Hewitt, executive producer of "60 Minutes," who told us in shocked, moralistic tones how his show's softball interview with Kathleen Willey was "incredible ... and leaves little doubt about what happened." Sexual harassment, pure and simple, opined Hewitt. Actually, the interview (essentially a re-reading of her deposition with correspondent Ed Bradley acting as a human microphone stand) left a great deal of doubt about what happened. It was interesting, for example, to note how little effort "60 Minutes" made to contact Julie Steele, a former friend of Willey's who claims in a sworn deposition that Willey asked her to lie. And Hewitt also failed to mention his own history as an accused groper and harasser of female employees.
Whatever the motives of the media potentates, they are quite right, of course, to report on Kenneth Starr's investigation, leaks or no leaks. They are equally entitled to interview Willey, regardless of her motivations, and to speculate on the culpability of the president. But by ignoring the parallel story -- the concerted effort to bring down Clinton by any means available -- they are failing to do their job. In its blood lust to see him fall, the media is ignoring people who present a far more serious threat to the politics of this nation than a man who might have insufficient control of his libido.
The people featured in this parallel story -- Scaife, the "reclusive" heir to the Mellon fortune; Tyrrell, the ultra-right wing magazine editor who was spreading anti-Clinton smears before the 1992 election (I was one of the recipients); Falwell, a man who will go to any extreme to impose his religious agenda on America -- exhibit a pronounced anti-democratic tendency. They never got over the fact that a man seen as so inimical to their interests got elected to the White House not once, but twice. With Clinton's election, the authoritarian conservatism they worked so hard to establish -- articulated by Patrick Buchanan's call at the 1992 GOP convention for a "cultural and religious war" -- turned to ashes. The loose anti-Clinton conspiracy, in major respects, is a continuation of that war by other means.
Sen. Jesse Helms, an early string-puller on behalf of Starr, once famously remarked that the president's safety could not be guaranteed if he ever set foot in North Carolina. Coming from the best friend of the late El Salvador death squad leader Roberto D'Aubisson, Helms' remark should not be surprising. But it is nonetheless chilling, and is a perfect example of the paranoid, fascistic mentality exemplified by the forces determined to topple an elected president. The kind of American order that these men have in mind is far from the free environment now enjoyed by the nation's press.
The next time the bewigged aristocrats of the Fourth Estate gather 'round Sally Quinn's Georgetown dinner table, chuckling at how they intend to cut the Arkansas hick's nuts off, they may want to think about that.
SALON | March 19, 1998

T A B L E+T A L K Could a South African-style resolution bring peace to Israel and Palestine? Join the discussion in the International Issues area of Table Talk D A I L Y+Q U O T E A real patriot R E C E N T L Y Slick Willey By Bruce Shapiro Before you cry too many tears for Kathleen Willey, consider the unfortunate brother and sister she fleeced. (03/18/98) The ties that bind By Murray Waas and Jonathan Broder The lawyer who contributed $50,000 to Paula Jones' legal fund also served as counsel for Richard Mellon Scaife's anti-Clinton Arkansas Project (03/18/98) Salon exclusive: the road to Hale By Jonathan Broder and Murray Waas Key Whitewater witness David Hale received secret cash payments from anti-Clinton billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. (03/17/98) Bugliosi the bomb thrower By Lori Leibovich The last angry lawyer says the stupidity of the Supreme Court's Paula Jones ruling is rivaled only by the outrageous bias of Kenneth Starr's out-of-control investigation (03/17/98) Clinton's ghost By Gene Lyons Jim McDougal's quest for revenge finally killed him, but not before embroiling the country in the six-year torture known as Whitewater (03/16/98) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Browse the Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		HILLARY WAS RIGHT \| PAGE 2 OF 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Take the Jones case, which has become the flywheel of the anti-Clinton operation. Starr wrote a legal brief on her behalf. That was before he was made independent counsel, and around the same time Jones was making guest appearances in Falwell's libelous "Clinton Chronicles" video and onstage with the Conservative Political Action Committee. Since then, Starr's flailing Whitewater investigation has constantly been rescued by Jones. She has provided the rationale for Starr's G-men to terrorize the state of Arkansas with interrogations and subpoenas relating to residents' sex lives. The Lewinsky affair, brought illegally to Starr's attention by avid Clinton-hater and fortune-hunter Linda Tripp, was transmogrified by Starr, with a cowed Janet Reno waving him on, into a presidential "pattern of obstruction of justice." That Starr consistently piggybacks his "independent" investigation on the baseless Jones case seems not to have raised questions of obvious conflict of interest in any of the branches of government, not to mention our vigilant press. And what of the Jones case itself, bought and paid for by Richard Mellon Scaife and various right-wing "foundations"? Jones has absolutely no evidence that she suffered any damage as a result of her alleged sexual encounter in a Little Rock hotel room with Bill Clinton eight years ago. In fact, like Kathleen Willey, she seems to have done rather well in the wake of her rejection of Clinton's alleged advances. Moreover, Jones and her changing legal teams have continually recut the cloth of their tattered case every time it becomes blatantly apparent that her harassment claims will be laughed out of court. Suddenly she remembered that she felt intimidated by Clinton when she went to leave the hotel room. Not good enough? Well, how about feeling frightened by the fact that Clinton's state trooper stationed outside the hotel door had a gun? Had this case involved anyone but the president of the United States -- a political hot potato for any judge -- it would have been tossed out long ago. In fact, Jones herself might be in the dock by now. As both the Chicago Tribune and Salon have reported, money that donors thought they were giving to Jones' "legal defense fund" (based on a direct-mail appeal signed by Jones) was spent on personal items such as makeovers, dresses and doggie care for her canine, Mitzi. As Salon has reported, a highly placed official associated with the conservative Rutherford Institute, which is currently financing Jones' legal efforts, has used the term "mail fraud" in connection with the fund-raising scheme, which allows Jones to skim $100,000 off the top in the first year alone. No wonder Jones has displayed such doggedness in the pursuit of her case -- justice can be lucrative indeed. Respected prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has expressed outrage that Jones' and the far right's get-Clinton project has been allowed to tie up the entire nation -- a concern shared by many Americans. But don't wait for the nation's agenda-setting press to shine its harsh light on these conservative machinations. The New York Times, the Washington Post and the TV networks seem to have no interest in any of the frauds, con games, money laundering, lying under oath, subornation of perjury and other tactics utilized by the conspirators. The Chicago Tribune's bombshell story about Jones' possibly illegal "legal defense fund" was dismissed in a couple of paragraphs by the Times as merely another piece of fodder in the White House spin-control armory. Vicious smears against a sitting president bought and paid for by one of the nation's leading televangelists? Yawn. Time magazine was perhaps too busy entertaining the good Rev. Falwell (along with an older practitioner of the Big Lie, Leni Riefenstahl) at its 75th anniversary bash to grant this story more than one passing line. How is it that the "liberal press," second only to Clinton in the extreme right's demonology, appears to have signed up with the coup forces? There is no one cabalistic explanation, but as with the conservative plotters, there is a community of interests. One is the need to cover up its shockingly credulous reporting, especially by the Times and the Post, whose correspondents were spoon-fed early on by elder statesmen of the anti-Clinton brigade, Arkansas division, and then by Starr. Another is the Woodward-Bernstein -- or rather the Redford-Hoffman -- syndrome. Bringing down a president is a sure bet for a Pulitzer, not to mention lavish book deals and movie rights. Inconvenient facts cannot be allowed to get in the way of such rich rewards. Finally, there is a certain Junker mentality among the media establishment, an aristocratic and arrogant self-regard. Exercising power without responsibility, these media grandees feel free to use their pages and airwaves to wage personal vendettas, vent spleen and cast out from polite society the Clintons, those declassé Arkansas hicks who never sought entry to the Washington club. These multimillionaire lords and bejeweled ladies are as breathtaking in their disregard for basic rules of their trade -- like accuracy, fairness and diligence -- as they are sickening in their hypocrisy. The most recent example is Don Hewitt, executive producer of "60 Minutes," who told us in shocked, moralistic tones how his show's softball interview with Kathleen Willey was "incredible ... and leaves little doubt about what happened." Sexual harassment, pure and simple, opined Hewitt. Actually, the interview (essentially a re-reading of her deposition with correspondent Ed Bradley acting as a human microphone stand) left a great deal of doubt about what happened. It was interesting, for example, to note how little effort "60 Minutes" made to contact Julie Steele, a former friend of Willey's who claims in a sworn deposition that Willey asked her to lie. And Hewitt also failed to mention his own history as an accused groper and harasser of female employees. Whatever the motives of the media potentates, they are quite right, of course, to report on Kenneth Starr's investigation, leaks or no leaks. They are equally entitled to interview Willey, regardless of her motivations, and to speculate on the culpability of the president. But by ignoring the parallel story -- the concerted effort to bring down Clinton by any means available -- they are failing to do their job. In its blood lust to see him fall, the media is ignoring people who present a far more serious threat to the politics of this nation than a man who might have insufficient control of his libido. The people featured in this parallel story -- Scaife, the "reclusive" heir to the Mellon fortune; Tyrrell, the ultra-right wing magazine editor who was spreading anti-Clinton smears before the 1992 election (I was one of the recipients); Falwell, a man who will go to any extreme to impose his religious agenda on America -- exhibit a pronounced anti-democratic tendency. They never got over the fact that a man seen as so inimical to their interests got elected to the White House not once, but twice. With Clinton's election, the authoritarian conservatism they worked so hard to establish -- articulated by Patrick Buchanan's call at the 1992 GOP convention for a "cultural and religious war" -- turned to ashes. The loose anti-Clinton conspiracy, in major respects, is a continuation of that war by other means. Sen. Jesse Helms, an early string-puller on behalf of Starr, once famously remarked that the president's safety could not be guaranteed if he ever set foot in North Carolina. Coming from the best friend of the late El Salvador death squad leader Roberto D'Aubisson, Helms' remark should not be surprising. But it is nonetheless chilling, and is a perfect example of the paranoid, fascistic mentality exemplified by the forces determined to topple an elected president. The kind of American order that these men have in mind is far from the free environment now enjoyed by the nation's press. The next time the bewigged aristocrats of the Fourth Estate gather 'round Sally Quinn's Georgetown dinner table, chuckling at how they intend to cut the Arkansas hick's nuts off, they may want to think about that. SALON \| March 19, 1998