DOWNSIDE LEGACY AT TWO DEGREES OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
SECTION: CONVENTIONAL MEDIA FAILURES
SUBSECTION: PART 1
Revised 3/27/00

STRANGE PRESS RELATIONS
CONVENTIONAL MEDIA FAILURES - NBC
CONVENTIONAL MEDIA FAILURES - GENERAL

 

STRANGE PRESS RELATIONS
Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan
Margaret Carlson is married to a lawyer who does business w/Clinton
Steven Brill, Content (railing accusations against Starr) is a Clinton/Democratic contributor
Steven Brill and Donald Baer (White House Communications Director) joined up to form "Content"
Sid Blumenthal and SALON

 

Ironwood 12/13/98 notes ".Liberal Democrat Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank is the brother of White House Communications Director Ann Lewis. And lefty journalists Steve Roberts is the first cousin of Barney and Ann. Now, it doesn't take much of a leap of faith to figure out where Steve's wife, "Kookie" Boggs Roberts, gets her talking points for her NPR and "This Week" pro-Democrat diatribes." . Freeper Spyone adds ".Don't forget Al Hunt is married to Judy Woodruff of CNN. Don't forget Greta Van Sustern is married to that lawyer representing Judy Hiatte Steele, a straight out conflict that has never been disclosed by CNN." . Freeper Cicero about Cokie's mom Mrs. Boggs ambassador appointment ".Yes, she is in Vatican City right now, unless she's home for the holidays. Far as I can make out, and I don't know much, she's a big cut above her daughter."

Freeper TexMex 12/13/98 observes ".Tommy Boggs, Cokie's brother, has been for many years the head of the most powerful PACs/law firm in Washington and is sometimes given credit for originating the concept of political activists committees as a vehicle to circumvent campaign contribution laws.."

Freeper TC Rider 12/13/98 observes ".Ann Douglas at ABC and that cute Little Rock couple, Webb and Suzie Hubbel are best buds, they go on vacation together after Webb left Justice.."

MSNBC 1/28/99 Jeannette Walls by Freeper fintan ".IT TURNS OUT that Van Susteren doesn't just support the president's policies; her husband works with Clinton's brother-in-law. Van Susteren's husband, lawyer John Coale, has been working for years with Miami lawyer Hugh Rodham . Hillary Rodham Clinton's kid brother. Coale and Rodham have been working on a class-action tobacco case in which a group of Pennsylvania smokers are bringing suit against all the major U.S. tobacco companies.."He [Rodham] was almost certainly hired to lend credibility to their side - but more importantly because he would have access to Hillary." The Clinton connection doesn't stop there. Coale - who was referred to as "Bhopal Coale" after he signed up clients there after thousands died from a chemical leak - is also representing Julie Hiatt Steele..A spokeswoman for CNN says Van Susteren's analysis isn't influenced by her husband's affiliations with Clinton and "is based on her knowledge and interpretation of the constitution." But, quips one detractor, "It's another example of the vast left-wing conspiracy." ."

Washington Times 5/18/99 Wesley Pruden "....It's an unusual alliance, one highlighted in this newspaper and elsewhere: "There is something unhealthy when the recently married State Department's James P. Rubin and CNN's Christiane Amanpour cover the same 'breaking news' story." Kosovo being the latest. "There is clearly a conflict here," opined one writer. "Mr. Rubin should step down as spokesman for the State Department. How can he have any credibility considering with whom he shares pillow talk?"...There was even a suggestion that were it not for Mrs. Amanpour's daily dose of "pre-crisis" stand-ups from atrocity-ridden Kosovo, President Clinton, as former President Jimmy Carter put it Thursday, might never have made the "mistake" of going there...."

http://204.202.137.110/onair/gma/html_files/robertsc.html "…Along with her husband, Steven V. Roberts, a professor at George Washington University, Ms. Roberts writes a weekly column syndicated by United Media in major newspapers around the country…."

Roberts

Associated Press 8/8/99 Anne Gearan "...The Clinton administration, dismayed by the success of anti-American propaganda worldwide, is striking back with an information offensive of its own: a State Department unit that will control the flow of government news overseas, especially during crises. The new International Public Information group, or IPI, will coordinate the dissemination of news from the State Department, Pentagon and other U.S. agencies.....In the recent Kosovo war, the Pentagon, State Department and White House poured out information each day but no single agency tried to assemble it so that the United States spoke with a coordinated message overseas. The group came about partly in response to the spread of unflattering or erroneous information about the United States received abroad via electronic mail, the Internet, cellular telephones and other communications advances. ...President Clinton signed a directive April 30, in the thick of the Kosovo war, that set out plans for IPI, although the White House did not formally announce the group's existence or role. An unclassified mission statement obtained by The Associated Press described IPI's role: ``Effective use of our nation's highly developed communications and information capabilities to address misinformation and incitement, mitigate inter-ethnic conflict, promote independent media organizations and the free flow of information, and support democratic participation will advance our interests and is a critical foreign policy objective,'' the document said...."

 

Chemical & Engineering News Magazine, pp. 86, 89. 2/14/00 "…… What Will Happen to the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) ……. Public diplomacy promotes U.S. national security and other interests by seeking to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics and policy-makers, and by broadening the dialogue between American citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad. In comparison, public affairs is the provision of information to the public, press, and others about the policies and activities of the U.S. government.
* Bureau of Information (I), Area Offices, and USIS Posts Abroad -- Inform and seek to influence foreign opinion-makers by presenting U.S. positions on policy issues through a variety of products, including the daily Washington File, expert speakers (in person and in digital video or telepress conferences), Information Resource Centers overseas, electronic journals and Web sites, and print publications.
* Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (E), Area Offices, and USIS Posts Abroad -- Broaden long-term dialogue with foreign publics through a variety of person-to-person exchanges, including the Fulbright Program for scholars, teachers, and students; the International Visitors program to bring foreign leaders to the U.S.; Citizen Exchanges efforts to develop international exchange programs through nonprofit American institutions; and programs to affiliate U.S. and foreign academic institutions, advise foreign students about American colleges and universities, foster the teaching abroad of U.S. studies and the English language, and strengthen educational institutions abroad.
* Office of Research and Media Reaction (R) -- Seeks to understand foreign publics through opinion polling abroad and, utilizing reporting from USIS posts abroad and other media, to analyze attitudes toward U.S. policies and activities in the foreign media.......

……Proposed Integration into State …..

The Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs will advise the Secretary of State on public diplomacy and public affairs. The Under Secretary will provide policy oversight for two bureaus dealing with public diplomacy and public affairs, and coordinate such activities in State. State's Strategic Plan will encompass public diplomacy goals, and respective Bureau and Mission Performance Plans will reflect targets and projects for each region, country, and functional area. The office will have nine full-time permanent positions, all from USIA. The Under Secretary will chair the interagency international public information (IPI) Core Group, which will develop and coordinate U.S. public information strategies and activities to address regional and transnational threats and crises………

………The two bureau structure will bring together all elements charged with presenting and interpreting U.S. foreign policy to public audiences. It will give public diplomacy practitioners greater access to the foreign policy formulation process. The new structure will ensure that the policy content of State's domestic and international outreach programs is consistent and coordinated, yet tailored for specific target audiences. It will ensure that all applicable legal requirements are adhered to. And it will strengthen State's Bureau of Public Affairs by increasing its press expertise.

 

Diplomacy for the Digital Age Secretary's Open Forum 5/11/99 "….. Panel:
Dr. Ernest Wilson, Moderator, Director for International Development and Conflict Management, University of Maryland
Captain Richard O'Neil, President, Highland Forum
Dr. Jamie Metzl, Senior Coordinator for International Public Information, U.S. Department of State

…….Dr. Wilson discussed the transformation occurring in society with the advent of information revolution and the resulting effect on diplomacy. He stated that information is of accelerating importance, as it is a means of obtaining global power. As a result of this new emphasis on information, the traditional bases of power also are shifting which in turn effect diplomacy………. This information revolution has an indelible impact on diplomacy. The tools of diplomacy have changed to include the Internet, digital radio and teleconferencing. With increased access to information through open sources, the role of the government is diminished while the private sector gains importance. In addition, the following new issues are of central importance:

* Developing laws governing cyberspace
* Treating telecommunications as a trade and a service
* Developing policies towards NGOs

……. Dr. Wilson also discussed the flow of information into and out of the U.S. There are 500,000 channels broadcasting information out of the U.S. and far fewer channels broadcasting information into the U.S. With the rapidly changing structure of the world, the U.S. government needs to pay attention to the information and opinions from international open sources. The world is changing rapidly and the U.S. will miss opportunities unless it reorganizes internally to provide leadership globally……….

……..Similarly, in the diplomatic realm, government has dealt with other states over the years in the resolution of problems. In order to engage effectively in diplomacy in the future, the government has to face the growing importance of NGOs and perhaps the loosening of the control it has enjoyed in the past. Information technology allows individuals to connect and develop a strong collective voice. In addition, the tempo of the information society is much faster than in the past. Diplomatic decisions must be made very quickly, with little time for reflection. And often times, government officials only possess the same information as the public. The government is faced with opening up to the private sector in terms of the information revolution, and with trusting actors outside of government who may be in a better position to effect outcomes……"

 

Evelyn S. Lieberman Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Biography

…..On October 1, 1999, Evelyn S. Lieberman was sworn in as the first Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. Mrs. Lieberman was nominated for that position by President Clinton on June 23, 1999 and confirmed by the Senate on July 30.

The Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs was created by the merger of the U.S. Information Agency and the Department of State. As Under Secretary, Mrs. Lieberman oversees the State Department public affairs and international public information operations, and education and cultural programs.

Prior to becoming Under Secretary, Mrs. Lieberman, served as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State since May 1999. From March 1997 to May 1999, she was Director of the Voice of America. Before joining VOA, Mrs. Lieberman served as Assistant to the President and Deputy White House Chief of Staff, the first woman to hold that position. At the White House, she also served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy White House Press Secretary and as Assistant to the Chief of Staff in the Office of the First Lady.

From 1988 to 1993, Mrs. Lieberman was press secretary to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE). She has also served as Director of Public Affairs for the Children's Defense Fund and Communications Director for the National Urban Coalition....... Statement at Senate Confirmation Hearing…."

 

 

 

CONVENTIONAL MEDIA FAILURE – NBC

 

Drudge Report 1/29/99 ".There is now less than a 50-50 chance NBC will air Lisa Myers' in- depth interview with Juanita Broaddrick, network sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT. "There is a feeling that NBC brass do not want to get directly involved in the impeachment trial and throw it into chaos," explains one insider..One pro-Myers source on Thursday night questioned why her network is holding back the interview. "Why was it okay to release the first story at the height of the Paula Jones case, and now running the actual interview with the woman is seen as interfering with the president's impeachment?" asked the insider. "And we did cover Anita Hill, didn't we?". An NBC spokesperson said the network "does not comment on our newsgathering," but categorically denied there has been under pressure from the White House to hold the interview. One NBC NEWS source explained that the network is still working to corroborate Broaddrick's story and it will not run "until it is rock solid" and "fit for air." But a pro-Myers insider tells the DRUDGE REPORT the official NBC explanation is way off base. "The story is done, our investigation is over!" declared the source. "I challenge anyone to point out the holes in Lisa's piece." .. According to a well-placed source, Myers explained to Broaddrick during the conversation how she is being given the run around by her superiors at the network. And Myers recently confided to an associate that she is not even sure if she will have a say in the final cut, should NBC finally air the interview. There are growing fears that NBC has lost complete control of the situation. According to one report, NBC sponsors are starting to complain of receiving calls from angry viewers. The network itself been hit with nearly non- stop phone messages and e-mails on the subject. The story surrounding NBC's interview has turned into a talkradio sensation.."

Newsmax 12/22/98 Christopher Ruddy Freeper chuck allen ".A civil war is brewing in the news room of ABC's World News Tonight over allegations that in 1979 Bill Clinton may have raped Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas woman, when he served as the state's Attorney General. NewsMax.com has obtained an internal ABC News memo that was emailed to the top news producers earlier today about the controversy... NewsMax.com has learned that Isham's memo comes as a result of a feud between World News Tonight Executive Producer Paul Freidman and network anchor Peter Jennings. Jennings -- reputed to have a eye for the ladies much like the President's -- has vehemently objected to ABC news reporting on the subject. The memo, in an apparent shot at Jennings, states, "...the potential that a rape charge could be leveled at the President makes the story one that can't be totally ignored." ."

The Ether Zone 1/29/99 Freeper Roscoe Karns ".NBC said late yesterday that they are sitting on the Jane Doe #5 interview until they can corroberate the story. However, close sources told the Zone last night that this is nothing bit a smoke screen, "They have serious internal problems if they run the interview. Even Brokaw has threatened to quit. We also get word that the White House operatives have been putting pressure on NBC to withhold any airing until after the trial.",according to one source.."

NewsMax 1/28/99 Hugh Davies ".A FURIOUS row was reported at a major television network yesterday over whether to broadcast an interview with a woman who was allegedly raped by President Clinton in 1978 when he was the attorney general of Arkansas...Another network source was quoted as saying: "There is a civil war developing between those pushing for the interview to air and those who think it is completely reckless."."

Original Source 1/29/99 Mary Mostert Freeper hope ".This promises to become a double- header in the news next week, as Monica Lewinsky testifies for the U.S. Senate impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton and, the London Telegraph suggests, may have been casting a long shadow over the "backroom dealings at the Senate trial of Mr Clinton, with argument raging over how a videotape of her cross-examination was to be handled." Could it be that fear of the rape story is the real motivation behind the strange behavior of Senate Democrats lately? A major portion of the Democrat plank in their effort to halt the Impeachment Trial before witnesses could be heard, and their incredible determination to get the trial over with by the end of next week seems suspicious.."Miss Myers said NBC talked to four people who confirmed that the woman had spoken of the assault at the time. The woman denied any sexual encounter with Mr Clinton in an affidavit prepared to assist him in the Jones suit. She later told the FBI during the Starr investigation her affidavit was 'false'. This, I suggest, is pretty serious stuff. Far more serious than Anita Hill's charge that Clarence Thomas talked dirty to her. She never charged, and no one ever claimed, that Clarence Thomas did anything worse than that, and yet Sen. Tom Harkin dramatically appealed for a postponement of the confirmation vote to allow the Senate time to "investigate" her salacious charges against Judge Thomas. It appears that THIS time the Democrats have been desperately negotiating a plan to short-circuit the first Impeachment trial against a president in 168 years by eliminating all witnesses, if possible and simply closing down the process. I'm not one to jump to conclusions, but based on the behavior of Senate Democrats in 1991 when they demanded immediate inquiry into the unsworn statements of Anita Hill, their determination to cover-up serious charges, felony charges no less, of perjury, obstruction of justice and now rape, ought to slow down the rush to short-circuit the Clinton trial. ..If there is a court document charging Bill Clinton with rape in the Paula Jones court documents, that would certainly explain why Clinton suddenly decided to buy her off Paula Jones with a settlement after years of claiming she made it all up. And, if there is such a document, and NBC has it and is refusing to broadcast the story - the American people are simply being manipulated by a propaganda campaign managed by the White House to keep Bill Clinton in the Oval Office. Increasingly, the area of greatest concern to me as a journalist, is the seemingly total lack of independence and integrity in the Networks and major newspapers of America. Voters in America should not have to read the London papers to find out what is going on, or has happened, to our own president.."

Daily Republican 2/1/99 Rich Davis ".During the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, a woman (Anita Hill) came forward with a very old, poorly corroborated story. The story was a stretch in it's attempt to accuse Judge Thomas with a watered-down sexual harassment accusation. At the time, however, it was considered to be newsworthy..An old, highly corroborated story has been discovered about the President. It is not sexual harassment. It concerns rape. And later intimidation of the victim (Juanita Broaddrick) that resulted in her signing a false affidavit for the benefit of the President. The charge is relevant to the impeachment proceedings because the President has been accused of encouraging the signing and filing of a false affidavit in a sexual harassment case (Paula Jones). The affidavit was needed to unfairly de-rail that sexual harassment claim against the President. Now, whether or not the Senate considers this old story may largely depend upon the news media. The media (NBC news), whose responsibility is to inform the public about corruption by public officials, is struggling with whether to share such information with the public... Hiding relevant information from courts is punishable by law. Hiding relevant information from citizens is a breech of responsibility. Both types of cover-ups are corrupting influences. Both are manipulative acts geared to protect, in this case, a master manipulator. Both are corrosive to the fabric of trust that should exist between our judicial branch and citizen and between media and citizen.."

Newsmax 2/2/99 Freeper FISHHOG ".IMUS: Does a taped interview exist between Lisa Myers and this woman? RUSSERT: ah, er, ah, I'm not going to get into where we are. It's a work in progress about a whole lot of things. IMUS: In other words, the answer is yes. Thank you. RUSSERT: Well, ah, er, alright Mr. Falwell. IMUS: (laughing) No, I just wondered. RUSSERT: I mean, you know - there's a videotape available if you want that says President Clinton murdered people. I mean, put it on the screen.After Russert left, Imus said he doubted NBC would be a party to any Rapegate cover-up, then tossed this barb at his erstwhile friend: "It would be as if they set a truck on fire, or accused somebody of planting a bomb." The references were to past NBC News debacles involving a staged car explosion passed off as spontaneous and a false report fingering Richard Jewel as the Olympic Park bomber. ."

Newsmax.com 2/2/99 InsideCover Freeper chuck allen ".According to the insider political tipsheet "Hotline", NBC sources claimed on Thursday that Lisa Myers and her "Dateline" team are still working to corroborate serious allegations, believed to involve rape, leveled by Juanita Broaddrick against President Clinton. Reportedly, the network wants the story to be "rock solid" before airing it. The Drudge Report blames White House pressure for the apparent media-cover-up, which NBC, not suprisingly, denies. But early last week, Inside Cover's exclusive on the scene source revealed that Broaddrick's claims had been corroborated in NBC interviews by multiple witnesses close to the victim. "They are still stalling," our source revealed last week. "NBC's investigators have gone through everything." Broaddrick's husband and four of her friends were interviewed; people in whom Broaddrick had confided within days of her alleged Clinton attack."

Drudge 2/2/99 ".White House spokesman Joe Lockhart personally warned a news network on Tuesday not to air a story on Juanita Broaddrick, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. The development comes two weeks after Broaddrick sat for an exclusive in-depth interview with NBC NEWS reporter Lisa Myers -- an interview that NBC NEWS executive have determined is not fit for air. FOX NEWS CHANNEL on Tuesday evening ran with a story about the interview and questions swirling around NBC NEWS. According to network sources, earlier in the day, Lockhart called FOX NEWS CHANNEL's White House correspondent and warned him not to pursue the story. "You guys will regret this," Lockhart told the reporter. "Clinton haters have been putting this story out for a decade now, as far back as the '92 campaign." Lockhart warned: "If you go with the story after NBC NEWS decided not to there won't be any argument about whether FOX NEWS is right wing or not." Meanwhile, Lisa Myers has been told by management not to comment on her spiked interview with Broaddrick. Over the weekend, Broaddrick told an confidant that she is now deeply disappointed in NBC, a network she says "hounded" her for nine months to get the interview and is now giving her the run-around.."

New York Post 2/3/99 Richard Johnson w/Jeane MacIntosh and Kate Coyne ". The Internet is buzzing over the fact that NBC has yet to air the piece, and the assumption is that Broaddrick is now claiming the tale of her sexual assault is true. But nobody outside a small group at NBC and Broaddrick herself knows for certain what Broaddrick told Myers. The NewsMax.com website reports Broaddrick gave an ''exclusive bombshell interview'' and was told that the story would run last Friday. It didn't, says the cyber report, because ''network executives had come down with a case of cold feet.'' ."

Freeper Yaya123 2/3/99 reports on Today show ".Russert was on TODAY show a few minutes ago and in answer to questions, said: "No, Jordan did not contradict his earlier testimony. No, Jordan did not contradict Monica's testimony." I couldn't believe Russert was spouting these lies without even blinking an eye."

Freeper ridensm 2/3/99 reports on CSPan ".NBC sitting on the story was just on C-Span Washington Journal. The dam is breaking.."

Freeper republic 2/3/99 observes ".Britt DOES have bigger . than Imus. I'm surprised is a way. I would have been thrilled for Kathleen Crier on Fox or Bill O'Reilly---Two reporters/journalists I deeply respect---to report on Juanita's heartwrenching story, but that BRETT, possibly the finest reporter/commentator on televisioin today, to have the integrity to take on this story is ASTOUNDING!."

National Review 2/2/99 Jonah Goldberg Freeper Marcellus ".The Fox News Channel was the only network to report that Lewinsky's lawyers and the White House lawyers exchanged knowing glances, winks, etc. In fact, Fox reported that at times White House lawyers were signaling Lewinsky to stop talking....Many of us have written about the possibility of legal (and illegal) collusion between Monica and the White House. Is this more grist for the conspiracy mill?...Another example is the Lisa Meyers interview with Jane Doe #5....we do know that the White House put considerable pressure on NBC....The New York Times story that Ken Starr is weighing whether or not he can indict the president is another example. Clearly this story has been inflammatory. Why did the Times choose to run a story helpful to the president, while NBC chose to kill a story detrimental to his interests? Where did the story come from? Why did it appear the day before Lewinsky was going to testify? .."

WorldNetDaily 2/4/99 Joseph Farrah ".Why is it that investigators all seem to know there is much more at stake in this impeachment debate than the issues surrounding Monica Lewinsky, yet none of this ever seems to get on the table as a matter of record? There is overwhelming evidence that Clinton has used the IRS to pursue his political enemies, yet the media and Congress have pretended they know nothing about it. I have personally testified before a congressional inquiry into the political abuse of the IRS against my own news organization. I have made it my business to make key members of the House and Senate aware of the pattern of audits of Clinton enemies and adversaries. Yet, this issue has never been taken seriously -- even though it is the kind of offense that could not be dismissed out of hand by political partisans..We are pressing a $10 million civil rights lawsuit against representatives of the IRS and Clinton administration for their overtly political audit of the Western Journalism Center, parent company of WorldNetDaily..If I got half the media coverage for this aggressive and well-documented case against the government that I got when a U.S. park policeman filed a nuisance suit against us for raising questions about the death of Vincent Foster, I wouldn't complain. But I am convinced the officer in that case was put up to his suit by the administration and its allies -- and, of course, no one ever bothered to report its dismissal on summary judgment. I sometimes wonder if the establishment press will even bother to cover our IRS case when we win our judgment.. Do you see the problem here? There is an amazing double-standard at work. You can see it in the way NBC refuses to air its own reporter's exclusive interview with Juanita Broaddrick, who has claimed Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her 20 years ago. You can see it in the way the U.S. press selectively reported the massive $655 million Canadian class-action lawsuit last week on the tainted blood trail that leads right back to Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. You can see it in dozens of ways -- from slanted reporting to outright self-censorship.."

newsmax.com Inside Cover 2/4/99 Freeper chuck allen ".Is NBC trying to discredit its own Rapegate exclusive by leaking details of Juanita Broaddrick's blockbuster interview to Clinton friendly reporters? Anyone who heard Newsweek's Eleanor Clift Wednesday night certainly got that impression, as she slammed the Rapegate victim as a less than credible witness. Appearing on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes, Clift claimed that Broaddrick's story had "numerous discrepancies" and insisted that NBC was sitting on her story because it didn't check out. "She can't even remember that date when it happened," Clift barked, after host Sean Hannity challenged her on NBC's cover-up. Clift's apparent insider revelation about Broaddrick's story begs the question: How does she know? Since she told all to Dateline, Broaddrick and her husband have refused to comment on the content of the interview, hanging up immediately on most reporters who call. The detail Clift cited has not been reported elsewhere.. But Clift's claim that NBC is sitting on Broaddrick's story because it lacks credibility flies in the face of what Broaddrick herself was told by NBC's Lisa Myers last Tuesday. Explaining NBC's skittishness, Myers warned Broaddrick: "The good news is, you're credible. The bad news is, you're very, very credible." The network's private investigators combed through the Clinton accuser's backround and deemed her "squeaky clean". On Monday, NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert also tried to discredit his own network's Rapegate exclusive, comparing the story to videos distributed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell charging Clinton with complicity in murder.."

Judicial Watch 2/4/99 ".Today's story in The Washington Times that the White House effectively threatened Fox News to keep the Juanita Broaddrick (Jane Doe #5) story off the air comes as no surprise to Judicial Watch and others who have investigated the corruption in the Clinton Administration. Despite 12 hours of blockbuster testimony, during which time Ms. Tripp detailed the misuse of FBI files in The White House, and implicated Hillary Clinton and the President's agents in the illegal and impeachable scheme, only FOX and AMERICA'S VOICE have aired large segments of the testimony. CNN and MSNBC have aired about two minutes each. The major VHS networks have aired nothing. Given that Ms. Tripp had never before been seen on video, and given the importance of her testimony, one can only come to the conclusion that White House pressure had been applied to keep her testimony off the air during this crucial and volatile period for The White House. Recently, Ms. Tripp testified that Bruce Lindsey, the President's closest advisor, threatened that talk of what she had observed in The White House would destroy her. This video has yet to be seen on television."

FoxNews 2/4/99 Freeper Prince Charles reports ".Right at the end of his Special Report show, Brit took time to send good wishes to Lisa Myers over at NBC News. The camera then zeroed in on a big button he was sporting on his jacket, which read: FREE LISA MYERS FReepin' Hilarious!".Freeper dittomom adds ".The others on the panel were wearing the buttons too! Great slam at NBC!!!!."

American Spectator 2/1/99 Wlady Pleszczynski ".In the suffocating politesse of Washington, much remains unstated, which is the final reason for the Democrats' unease. Bit by bit by bit, what really happened to Kathleen Willey is being pieced together by the likes of ABC and the Washington Post. NBC has reportedly deep-sixed an interview with Juanita Broaddrick, but it was conducted by Lisa Myers, a mainstream pro with no known ideological axes of any sort. Sooner or later, one way or another, its contents will become known. The behavior of NBC's brass in this case recalls what honchos at the Los Angeles Times did in trying to kill their reporters' story about Clinton and the Arkansas state troopers who pimped for him. Another reporter working on the story for The American Spectator was thus freed to run with it first, and it became known as Troopergate. The L.A. Times confirmed its essentials by publishing its version a few days later. Back then, liberal denial and anti-conservative outrage saved Clinton. This time around the same crowd will be too spent to defend him against new evidence of congenital sleaze.."

Time 2/22/93 William Henry III ".NBC News might have been touting itself for having exposed the danger of GM's controversial ''sidesaddle'' gas tanks in a riveting Dateline NBC segment. Instead the network singed its reputation, and the car company won in the court of public opinion the safety battle it had lost in the courthouse. Dateline's report on Nov. 17 featured 14 min. of balanced debate, capped by 57 seconds of crash footage that explosively showed how the gas tanks of certain old GM trucks could catch fire in a sideways collision. Following a tip, GM hired detectives, searched 22 junkyards for 18 hours, and found evidence to debunk almost every aspect of the crash sequence. Last week, in a devastating press conference, GM showed that the conflagration was rigged, its causes misattributed, its severity overstated and other facts distorted. Two crucial errors: NBC said the truck's gas tank had ruptured, yet an X ray showed it hadn't; NBC consultants set off explosive miniature rockets beneath the truck split seconds before the crash -- yet no one told the viewers. There was plenty of sarcastic speculation about what happened between Monday afternoon, when NBC was defiantly dismissing GM's charges, and Tuesday morning, when it drafted an abject apology largely on GM's terms. NBC News president Michael Gartner says he simply realized that he had goofed by speaking first and asking questions later: ''The more I learned, the worse it got.."

Associated Press 1/4/97 ".NBC paid more than $500,000 to Richard Jewell to avert a lawsuit over comments Tom Brokaw made about the one-time Olympic bombing suspect, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday... NBC issued a statement saying that it had agreed to the settlement to protect confidential sources. It offered no apology or retraction. .Mr. Jewell, a 34-year-old security guard, found the knapsack that contained the pipe bomb just before the July 27 blast that killed one person and injured more than 100. He was the only named suspect before he was cleared by the government in October. Mr. Jewell's attorneys contended that Mr. Brokaw insinuated last summer that Mr. Jewell committed the bombing. "The speculation is that the FBI is close to making the case," Mr. Brokaw told sports commentator Bob Costas. "They probably have enough to arrest him right now, probably enough to prosecute him, but you always want to have enough to convict him as well. There are still some holes in this case."."

Dallas Morning News 12/3/96 David Bauder AP ".A rape victim whose story will be told on Dateline NBC Wednesday complained after seeing an advance screening that the documentary is distorted and "fans the flames of racism." The show tells the story of Karen Pomer, a Santa Monica, Calif., woman who was raped at gunpoint and subsequently went public with her story when she was dissatisfied with the police investigation. "Screams in the Night" is narrated by Maria Shriver and is billed as an effort to "document one woman's journey from crime victim to crusader." "I'm stunned," NBC senior producer Claudia Pryor said of the criticism. "Most of the hour is based on her description of what she went through and is narrated by her." Ms. Pomer, in a letter to NBC officials, said she was "publicly disassociating" herself from the show. She accused the network of playing the "race card" by concentrating on the racial angle of her assault and opening the documentary with reaction to the O.J. Simpson verdict, which was announced on the day of her attack in 1995. She is white and her attacker was black.."

Newsmax 2/5/99 ".Colleagues Call for NBC Reporter's Release... "Free Lisa Myers" Those were the words emblazoned on Brit Hume's blue lapel button as he closed his Thursday night Fox News Channel news broadcast. Hume was joined by FOX 's Jeffrey Birnbaum and Morton Kondracke, who also sported Myers buttons. Hume explained: "And finally we wanted to send our best wishes to our colleague at NBC News, Lisa Myers. She has done remarkable reporting on the Clinton-Lewinsky case. And her latest coup is the only interview anyone has done on tape with the mysterious Jane Doe # 5. NBC News, however, has yet to air that interview. And we just wanted Lisa to know that we were thinking about her over here at FOX News and we wish her well." (Camera close-up of "Free Lisa Myers" button) .."

Freeper imdoug 2/5/99 reports FoxNews ".CNN is working on a Juanita Broderick interview. Drudge on Hannity just gave out this little tidbit Also, just reported that the Wash. Post spiked a story about NBC spiking their story.."

Accuracy in Media 2/5/99 Reed Irvine ".It is obvious that nothing short of a bombshell could shatter the unity of the 45 Democratic Senators and persuade a dozen of them to vote to convict President Clinton and remove him from office. NBC News has been sitting on such a bombshell. It is an eight-hour on- camera interview by Lisa Myers with Juanita Broaddrick in which Mrs. Broaddrick charges that she was brutally raped by Bill Clinton in 1978, when he was attorney general of Arkansas. Lisa Myers first reported this on the NBC Nightly news last March. The airing of her story by NBC might have forced the Senate to convert its pro forma exercise into a genuine trial where her testimony might have had some impact on those Senators who say that the fuss is about nothing more than consensual sex between two adults... They still have three investigators in Arkansas working on it, but a reliable Arkansas source says that all the major elements have been documented, and the investigators are busying themselves with minor details. What has kept it from being given an air date? Robert Wright, the chairman of NBC, told me that they were still missing a piece of very crucial information, and he didn't feel comfortable airing the story until they got it. He told me, off the record, what the missing information was, and he okayed my checking it out with Mrs. Broaddrick. She informed me that NBC had that information and the documents that proved it. I was able to confirm this and inform Bob Wright that he had been given false information. He responded that he must be out of the loop farther than he thought. He said he would look into it. In an earlier conversation he had acknowledged that there were people with clout at NBC News who, like CNN's Rick Kaplan, were friends of Clinton's. When, in our second conversation, I told him that I was going to write that it looks like the Kaplan clones at NBC are responsible for the delay, he did not agree, but he did not protest my saying it. The prime suspect would be the president of NBC News, Andrew Lack. Washington bureau chief Tim Russert reports to him, and Lack reports to Wright... Russert assured me that there were no phone calls to NBC from the White House about this story, but he could not possibly know if Clinton or one of his aides had spoken to Lack.In 1992, Rick Kaplan, who was then with ABC News, was suspected of having been behind ABC's sacrifice of a big scoop-Clinton's infamous 1969 letter to Col. Eugene Holmes. The letter explained why he had not kept his promise to enroll in the ROTC at the University of Arkansas, a promise he made to escape induction. ABC's delay in reporting the story helped save the Clinton candidacy. It appears that a Kaplanesque official at NBC News has now helped save Clinton's presidency by sabotaging the timely airing of NBC's exclusive interview with Juanita Broaddrick..."

Progressive Review 2/4/99 Sam Smith ".The story the White House pressured the media not to run -- with highly positive results so far -- was the lead in the February 4 Washington Times: "The Clinton story that's too hot too handle. White House accused of pressuring networks to spike tale of Arkansas rape." Suppressing the rape story has been key to the media-enabled White House spin that whatever Clinton has done wrong sexually simply involved consensual acts. In fact, serious journalists have long known that Clinton's sexual activities have left a trail of false affidavits, physical threats, public abuse, and heavy pressure from state police and private investigators -- far removed from the over-hormoned frat boy image projected by the Clintonista press.."

2/6/98 Drudge Freeper report ".Drudge said that NBC is in fear that a transcript may be on the loose containing all or much of the interview. He also showed pictures of the NBC protest.."

IMUS 2/8/99 Freeper yikes ".Stuart Taylor was a guest this morning. He said that acquittal will not mean the end of scandals...there are new revelations to come, without being specific. Imus pressed him and Taylor alluded to the Juanita Broaddrick story. Imus indicated that his sources at NBC News tell him that it would help if Ms. Broaddrick could remember "when it happened". Indicated that she is hazy about details, as would I be about events 20 years ago. Taylor pointed out that NBC ran with the story last March, subtly suggesting that NBC wasn't concerned then about hazy details. Imus said he didn't know anything about that.."

newsmax Inside Cover 2/8/99 ".Is the press really so afraid of Juanita Broaddrick's story that they'd deliberately fib about the grass roots groundswell rallying to her cause? That's what Free Republic protestor Andrew Amirault says the Associated Press did, when they covered a pro-Broaddrick rally outside NBC's New York studios on Saturday. Amirault claims that an AP photo-journalist waited for an hour to get the right shot; one which featured a protest placard reading "The Media is Out of Control." When the photo turned up in some Sunday newspapers, the caption explained that marchers were angry over the fact that Monica Lewinsky's videotaped grilling by G.O.P. prosecutors was being broadcast to the nation.Juanita Broaddrick has at least one friend in the Senate, and he showed his support during closing arguments in President Clinton's impeachment trial. That was Senator Charles Grassley (R - Iowa) sporting a "Free Lisa Myers" button as he and his colleagues watched Monica Lewinsky make her small screen speaking debut. The same pro-Broaddrick button adorned the lapels of FOX News anchor Brit Hume and two of his colleagues on Thursday.."

Investors Business Daily 2/8/99 Editorial ".It was Drudge who broke the Monica Lewinsky scandal. And more recently, his ''Drudge Report'' ran a story about NBC News withholding a bombshell story, reported by Lisa Myers. In it, Juanita Broaddrick alleges Clinton sexually assaulted her in the late 1970s. She's the Jane Doe #5 cited in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's materials as having retracted a denial that Clinton pressed her for sex. At this writing, no Broaddrick story has appeared, even though Myers got an on-camera interview with the woman. Drudge also reports that ''Nightly News'' anchor Tom Brokaw threatened to resign if the Broaddrick interview were broadcast. NBC News Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert has been doing damage control. .Russert did not deny that the story exists within NBC, having called it ''a work in the process.'' .Too bad NBC and other major outlets follow the Russert standard at their convenience. The network has failed strikingly on stories containing explosive sexual content, according to the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group. In 1991, NBC's ''Today'' show aired not one, but three days of segments on author Kitty Kelley's allegations, including one that Nancy Reagan had an affair with Frank Sinatra. Nor has NBC always balked at inserting itself into an ongoing story. Remember Anita Hill? The network broadcast an interview with her before the Senate decided to delay its vote to confirm Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. NBC even ignored the Russert standard on possible criminal wrongdoing. The MRC documents air dates of a story, since recanted, that all but accused the late Chicago Cardinal Joseph Bernadin of having sexually abused a teen-age boy. The reporting was based on rumor.."

Newsmax 2/9/99 Carl Limbacher ".A women's advocate and rape crisis counselor who has befriended Juanita Broaddrick told NewsMax.com on Sunday that the Clinton accuser has no political or financial motive and has not timed her allegation to coincide with the President's Senate impeachment trial. But despite Broaddrick's lack of ulterior motives, her friend believes that NBC News will not air the January 20 interview Broaddrick gave to Lisa Myers until the trial is over... Since the Rapegate controversy exploded two weeks ago, Broaddrick's friend has become the target of what appears to be a White House inspired intelligence-gathering operation.How do rape victims and their counselors feel when feminist leaders turn away from sexual abuse victims like Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick? "We keep in contact with women across the nation who've had things like this happen. And I can tell you, they were really upset with Clinton even before Juanita's case came to the forefront. It's annoying when people think Gloria Steinem and Patricia Ireland speak for us.".. If NBC won't run her interview, why doesn't she just go to another network? "People who say she should take her story elsewhere don't understand that most victims are emotionally exhausted after an interview like that. It's not easy to recount the intimate, embarrassing details of a rape experience. Now that NBC won't run it immediately, it's almost like saying they don't believe her. That's every rape victim's nightmare. Besides, what guarantee does she have that the next network won't do the same? ..The person who counsels women like Broaddrick won't say what her friend actually felt at that moment, adding only: "Right now I'm concerned for her because I believe NBC is jerking her around. And the longer NBC waits, the more time the White House has to discredit her. It took all that she had to make the decision to grant an interview. Now that she has made that decision, Juanita's story should be heard." ."

Newsmax 2/10/99 ". Sgt. Schultz would be proud. The comedic "I know nothing, I see nothing," obedient Nazi soldier from "Hogan's Heroes" has nothing on CNBC anchorman Brian Williams, who told a Boston talk radio audience Tuesday that he'd rather not know why his own network is keeping Juanita Broaddrick's bombshell interview on ice... Carr then confronted Williams with examples of other stories his network had deemed germane, like a false TODAY Show report based on rumors that Chicago's Cardinal Bernadin had molested a boy. The anchorman explained that NBC didn't want to make a similar mistake with Broaddrick's allegation against Clinton. NBC's must have discovered it's journalistic conscience very recently, since just weeks ago Williams' CNBC colleague Geraldo Rivero let investigative pornographer Larry Flynt debut his dirt on Rep. Bob Barr to a national television audience.."

newsmax.com 2/9/99 ".This morning when jolly Al Roker greeted the crowd outside of NBC's "Today" show fishbowl studio in Rockefeller Center, he wasn't all smiles. Clinton critics from the FREEREPUBLIC.com have been showing up to wave placards denouncing NBC for not airing the interview with Juanita Broaddrick aka Jane Doe #5. NBC camera crews have been instructed to avoid wide angle camera shots and to be on the lookout for anyone engaging in free speech about Broaddrick, Inside Cover has learned. "Gotcha," was the only thing we could say when we saw Roker introduce one smiling fan who unfurled his poster reading "NBC Rape Cover-Up, Free Juanita." Roker turned, as if to say "Oh my God, I hope Bob Wright didn't see that," and immediately segued back to the bunker-studio where Lauer and Katie are holed up pretending business is as usual. FREEPERS -- the nickname for Freerepublic.com aficionado-- are not letting NBC off the hook for censoring the Broaddrick story.."

Page Six - New York Post 2/11/99 Richard Johnson with Jeane MacIntosh and Kate Coyne ".During Tuesday's ''Today'' show, portly weatherman Al Roker went out into the street to greet the throngs of fans gathered outside. As Roker chatted on-camera with tourists, he approached one smiling person holding up a large sign proclaiming he was from Hawaii. But as soon as Roker began to talk to the ''Hawaiian,'' the man flipped the sign over to reveal a different message: ''NBC Supports Rape! Free Lisa Myers!'' Roker, and the camera crew, quickly zoomed in on a different crowd member.."

Freeper 4Liberty reports on Drudge ".Matt said on the radio today that "Juanita has been talking to the Wall Street Journal during the past 24-36 hours." ."

Inside Cover (NewsMax.com) 2/12/99 ".The folks at NBC aren't the only insiders who know the secret details of Juanita Broaddrick's story, which she recounted to NBC's Lisa Myers last month in an eight-hour interview the network now refuses to air. The House Judiciary Committee still retains control over sealed evidence stored in D.C.'s Gerald Ford Building -- evidence known to include Broaddrick's account of her alleged 1978 rape by Bill Clinton. On Thursday, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) hinted, in an exchange with WABC radio's Sean Hannity, that the veil of secrecy over the sealed Broaddrick evidence could soon be lifted.Flashback to impeachment eve. Wexler's House colleague, Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-FL), tells CNBC's Chris Matthews that material on Broaddrick "and others" is under seal because of tentative plans to use it at trial. But those plans never materialized. Now that Clinton's trial is history, the need for secrecy is gone. And, as Wexler suggests, the House Judiciary Committee could release the Ford Building evidence with a simple majority vote. That evidence, after all, was gathered on the taxpayer's dime. And, presumably, "we the people" are now entitled to know why congressmen left the Ford Building "horrified" (Rep. Chris Shays) and "nauseated" (Rep. Matt Salmon). Or why another was reportedly reduced to tears by what he saw (Rep. Mike Castle).."

New York Post 2/15/99 ".THE fallout over NBC's shelving of Juanita Broaddrick's bombshell interview - which many suspect revisits her old claims she was raped by Bill Clinton - continues. The other day, CNBC anchor Brian Williams told a Boston talk-radio show he's "recused himself from knowing too much about this story." But Williams toed the company line when pressed by WRKO radio's Howie Carr on why the segment hadn't run. "The story is still in play, I think," Williams said. "It's still being reported ... They're searching for germaneness."."

Freeper Tatze and MMMike reporting on Lucianne Goldberg Radio interview of Steve Maltzberg WABC Talk Show Host ".Interesting news: .just says he talked to Juanita today and she is, through her laywers, filing a motion in court to stop NBC from airing the interview. He says that she doesnt trust NBC to handle the interview anymore. Neither . nor Trixie seem to think she has a case to stop NBC. Still an interesting development.."

Wall Street Journal 2/19/99 Dorothy Rabinowitz ". To any reporter, it was the kind of story that doesn't come along often in a career--an alleged 1978 sexual assault involving William Jefferson Clinton, then attorney general of Arkansas. From the viewpoint of Juanita Broaddrick, it has been a trial and concern ever since reports began emerging in the 1992 presidential campaign, through the Paula Jones case and into the impeachment proceedings. Indeed, her story was crucial to the outcome of those proceedings--just one among several reasons it is far more than another now-irrelevant Jane Doe account.. Mrs. Broaddrick finally agreed to see NBC's Lisa Myers, who had already done a brief report on her in March and who had been calling her regularly for nearly a year. .The interview took place Jan. 20, just over a month after the president's impeachment on Dec. 19. The Senate trial had been under way for nearly two weeks--focused, at this point, on whether Monica Lewinsky should testify. At NBC, the debate was what to do about the Broaddrick interview--a large question. NBC had scheduled the program for airing on the Jan. 29 episode of "Dateline," Mrs. Broaddrick heard--but it did not air then or later. The network had an explosive story on its hands, to be sure, and also an exhaustively investigated one. NBC's researchers had combed through the Broaddricks' entire lives, through dusty basement files and court records. .As the days passed, with no Broaddrick interview--and the Feb. 12 Senate impeachment trial vote imminent--NBC News spokesmen told all callers the "Dateline" report was still a work in progress, requiring more investigation. Other sources at NBC asked--profoundly off the record--how much more confirmation could the story need? They had four witnesses giving corroborating testimony--citizens with nothing to gain and possibly much to lose by going public and talking, as the husband of one witness kept warning her..NBC had investigated and investigated, and it was not yet enough. Word went out from NBC that the network had to cross-check dates, or lacked enough dates.. All she had tried to avoid by refusing all these years to talk to the press, all that she had feared--that she would not be believed, that she would be passed off as just another bimbo with a Clinton story--had now come to pass, in her view. As soon as it was evident there was to be trouble about airing the piece, she recalls, Lisa Myers told her: "The good news is you're credible. The bad news is you're very credible.". It meant that to encounter this woman, to hear the details of her story and the statements of the corroborating witnesses, was to understand that this was an event that in fact took place. "Too credible" sums the matter up nicely. It isn't hard to see what had given NBC pause. There was, first of all, the detail. Then the subject herself--a woman of accomplishment, prosperous, successful in her field, serious; a woman seeking no profit, no book, no lawsuit. A woman of a kind people like and warm to. .."

Wall Street Journal 2/19/99 DoughtyOne ".The pride and joy of General Electric's news gathering service, NBC has just passed over one the most sensational heart wrenching stories of abuse, this nation will ever see. riminal assaults of women occur each and every day. All too many go unsolved. But when the President of the United States is reported to have been the perpetrator of such a perverted and devious act, wouldn't you think an organization which prides itself in being a women's oriented network, would sit up and pay attention? I wonder how little Katie Couric will feel, when she finds out. Better yet, how will all those self aware totally in-tune women who watch NBC feel when they find out? It's 1999, decades of sensitizing later, and NBC News still doesn't get it. .. NBC certainly didn't want the truth to be aired at such a critical time. So they stonewalled! But low and behold, the nation wouldn't sit still for this complicity. And thousands upon thousands of people flooded their phone lines, fax lines, and front doorsteps! Enter the Wall Street Journal. What nailing down the story issues NBC couldn't iron out in three weeks or more, the Wall Street Journal accomplished in much less time, airing thousands of words on the subject this morning... for this NBC will forever be known as the accessory network! Not only did NBC elect to give the first pervert a free pass on the claims of Broaddrick, but they elected to give him a free pass on an issue that most certainly would have led to his being bounced out of office, or better yet jailed! It's one thing to have a preference of who you wish to support. It's okay to even present the positive aspects of that individual. But when you essentially become an accessory after the fact, then you're aiding in the cover-up of a crime. And this was a crime NBC, even if you couldn't recognize it as such. .."

NewsMax 2/19/99 Carl Limbacher ".What might have happened had NBC News broadcast its Jan. 20 interview with alleged Clinton rape victim Juanita Broaddrick during President Clinton's impeachment trial? With Clinton's sky-high poll numbers weathering a torrent of Sexgate revelations for more than a year, many believe the answer to that question is: nothing. But American public opinion wasn't always impervious to the Monica maelstrom. In fact, polling data from the first days of the scandal reveals that Clinton's popularity went into a tailspin almost immediately; one which, if repeated during his Senate trial, could have very well cost him his presidency..NBC executives surely worried about the impact of Broaddrick's rape allegation against Clinton as they ran out the clock. The Rapegate shocker threatened Clinton's popularity as no other revelation had since the opening days of the Lewinsky scandal.. Would NBC's timely broadcast of Juanita Broaddrick's story have caused it all to come out? Would one Rapegate revelation after another have replicated in spades the public's early revulsion over Monicagate? If Clinton's popularity began to slide all over again, how would Democrats explain their votes to acquit? Apparently, those are questions NBC News decided were better left unanswered -- even at the risk that history would be altered by "newsmen" who kept from the public vital information about a president they feared was all too guilty."

ATLANTA JOURNAL 2/19/99 Benita Dodd ".Broaddrick's story has been widely discussed and debated in media circles, but The Wall Street Journal, which ran the story on its opinion page, is the first mainstream publication to print the story. Broaddrick was interviewed about her allegations by NBC's Lisa Myers for a "Dateline NBC" segment on January 20. NBC scheduled the program for airing on the Jan.29 episode of "Dateline", Broaddrick told the Journal, but it has not yet been aired. NBC officials, asked at the time why the interview did not air, said it was a work in progress requiring more investigation. NBC now says it is still planning to air the interview, but that investigators are waiting for the White House to answer about 40 questions relating to the matter. Asked for a response to Broadrick's charges, a White House spokesman told the Journal Thursday tht the story was so old that Clinton's personal lawyer, David Kendall, should be the one to answer it. Kendall's assistant said he was unavailable for comment, the Journal said.."

AP 2/19/99 ".In the first published account of her story, an Arkansas woman claims she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton 20 years ago while he was the state's attorney general..White House spokesman Joe Lockhart was dismissive of the story. "I spend very little time reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page,'' Lockhart told reporters. "They lost me after they accused the president of being a drug smuggler and a murderer.'' . In the hotel room, Clinton forced her to have sex, Mrs. Broaddrick told the Journal in a detailed account. In a brief interview Friday with The Associated Press, Ms. Broaddrick said she did not go to the police at the time "because of the mentality of the '70s. There I was, I was married, I was also in a relationship with another man, and ... I was there alone in a hotel room with the attorney general and I didn't think anyone would possibly believe me.'' Asked why she was telling her story now, she said she was countering rumors that she had been bribed and intimidated to stay quiet. She also did an interview with NBC that has not been broadcast. Mrs. Broaddick said she felt NBC had let her "hang out to dry.'' .As for Clinton, Mrs. Broaddrick said, "I don't have an agenda where he is concerned. I could care less what happens to the man.'' ."

Freeper truthkeeper on Fox O'Reilly reports 2/19/99 ".O'Reilly made the following points: 1) Corroboration was provided by the nurse and others; 2) Juanita never tried to take money for the story; 3) She "should have been heard" because her story, if true, shows "a pattern of behavior" on WJC's part that would be of concern to America; 4) She desperately did not wish to get involved in this story, even going so far as to run from a FoxNews truck; 5) NBC and Lisa Myers "spiked" the story after pursuing her for months and this makes O'Reilly suspect their motives; 6) He has heard L.Myers is "not happy" about these developments and that NBC is "taking heat" over this; 7) NBC should say SOMETHING to its viewers on the air about it "developing the story" to dispel "conspiracty theories" (i.e., that GE is spiking the story); instead, it says nothing at all. This makes him very suspicious."

AP Pete Yost 2/19/99 ".In the first published account of her story, an Arkansas woman claims she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton 20 years ago while he was the state's attorney general..Clinton's personal attorney, David Kendall, denied Mrs. Broaddrick's account of the events. ``Any allegation that the president assaulted Mrs. Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false,'' Kendall said. ``Beyond that, we're not going to comment."."

MSNBC 2/19/99 Freeper chuck allen reports ".Brian Williams just mentioned the story, with only Kendall and Lockharts Comments. He made mention the NBC may have a story, but that the News division doesn;t comment on it's News gathering Facts. Absolutely Amazing!!."

Drudge 2/19/99 Freeper marshmallow reports ".Drudge reporting now, that Washington Post is going to put it on the front page....Kosovo seems to be taking the heat out of this story rather nicely at the moment. Amazing.."

Howard Kurtz Washington Post 2/20/99 Page A9 ".Under pressure from angry viewers, NBC News has wrestled for weeks with whether to air an exclusive interview with an Arkansas woman who has accused President Clinton of sexually assaulting her 21 years ago. NBC correspondent Lisa Myers got the first on-the-record interview with the woman last month, but NBC News President Andrew Lack and his top deputies have yet to run the story, maintaining that the network lacks sufficient corroboration of the woman's allegations. Yesterday, the accusations exploded into public view when Dorothy Rabinowitz, a Wall Street Journal editorial board member, published her own account of a lengthy interview she had with the woman, Juanita Broaddrick. But NBC is still holding back its taped interview. "There are moments in your life when you know . . . you know this is not a story that should be suppressed," Rabinowitz said yesterday. Broaddrick, she said, "is wealthy. There's no motive to lie. She's done nothing but hide from the press." ."

Drudge 2/20/99 ".President Lack may become Juanita Broaddrick's first victim as media outlets worldwide blared rape allegations against President Clinton -- allegations that Lack suppressed when he refused to allow NBC hot shot Lisa Myers' 30-minute interview with the once Jane Doe to clear air. NBC News President Lack was being hit with all of the blame for the Broaddrick debacle late Friday night. "Andy Lack should resign. Resign now. We have to save our face," declared one television insider Friday night as word spread throughout elite media circles that the WASHINGTON POST had frontpaged a chilling story of sexual assault and coverup. Myers fought to get it on the air. Washington Bureau Chief Russert fought to get it on the air. Thousands of phone calls jammed NBC's phone lines after the DRUDGE REPORT revealed that NBC News put Broaddrick on ice for the second time. "I feel so betrayed by NBC," Broaddrick told the WASHINGTON POST.. It was Lack who personally blocked the interview, and continued to thwart NBC's Washington bureau going into the last week of network sweeps. Behind the scenes on Friday night, calls for Lack's resignation accelerated. And there are new signs that Lack knowingly stood by as the White House manipulated NBC owner GENERAL ELECTRIC. "The White House pressure to prevent the Broaddrick interview from reaching air worked its way to the highest levels of the parent company GE," says a senior executive at another network. .It is not clear if White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart has been in personal contact with NBC News President Lack, or to what lengths Lockhart has gone to keep the story bottled up. One thing became clear Friday night. The cork had popped and had shot around the world. .. "

Drudge 2/23/99 "... On Wednesday night at 8 pm ET [Family Hour?] NBC NEWS will broadcast an exclusive television interview with Juanita Broaddrick, a woman who has accused Bill Clinton of rape.... The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that NBC NEWS Washington Bureau chief Tim Russert got sick to his stomach when he viewed the five hour session between NBC NEWS reporter Lisa Myers and Broaddrick., Russert told associates that Broaddrick's story left him speechless and upset him physically after he viewed raw tapes of her interview. Broaddrick tells NBC NEWS, in graphic detail, how Bill Clinton raped her back in 1978.... "NBC is just trying to compete with the GRAMMY AWARDS," one White House source told the DRUDGE REPORT on Tuesday afternoon...."

Hockenberry - MSNBC 2/25/99 "...Hockenberry: ...The reason we know about this rape accusation is because of the ambitions of a reporter, not because of a search for the truth. What do you say to that? Meyers: Well, I would say that reasonable people could disagree about whether this kind of story should be pursued. Yes, there is a statute of limitations on rape. But there isn't a statute of limitations on whether somebody is fit to be president. In that context, an allegation like this one is relevant. Now one of the reasons we proceeded carefully is that is it 21 years ago, there aren't any records, you want to be fair to the president which is why we gave the White House more than 2 weeks to answer -- to give us any reason at all not to believe Juanita Broaddrick or not to consider her story credible. Hockenberry: If all of the "i"s and "t"s are dotted and crossed, and this story was ready for broadcast on the day of the impeachment vote in the Senate, are you confident that this network would have run it? Meyers: I don't think it would have run on the day of the impeachment vote. I don't think it would have been proper. There's kind of an unwritten rule in the news business that you don't run an explosive story like this on the eve of an election and I certainly don't think that it should have been run on the eve of a vote in the Senate. Hockenberry: Some have said that this network held this story.... Meyers: (interrupting quickly) But let me add, it wasn't ready then. So it was not a matter... "

***Media Research Center CyberAlert*** 2/25/99 Vol Four No 36 "...1) NBC's Lisa Myers denied any unwarranted delay with her Broaddrick interview, insisting Wednesday that "this story finally was ready yesterday when Andy Lack made the call." But then why were staffers still working on it Tuesday night? 2) MSNBC's John Hockenberry: "If this has no legal standing now, if it's past the statute of limitations, why are we bothering with it at all?" 3) Helen Thomas obliquely raised the Broaddrick matter to Clinton at a joint press conference, but only FNC bothered to mention Clinton's refusal to respond. 4) NBC's euphemisms for rape. Tom Brokaw cited "controversial accusations" while MSNBC employed the term "sexual encounter."..."

Freeper Evocatus observes 2/25/99 "…NBC may have been sold a little short on the Lisa Myers -- Juanita Broaddrick story. They are now doing a full court press -- the big slam. All of their MSNBC cable shows are reinforcing the message and re-running Juanita's footage. It's powerful all by itself, and yet, it's much more powerful under the constant reinforcement. NBC is in to this big time and this reinforcement doesn't happen by accident. It's centrally directed. Whether it's being done for naked commercial gain or (gasp!) journalistic patriotism, it's hard to tell. This is not going to go away. Listen to the beat, beat, beat of the drums. Feel the slow burn…."

***Media Research Center CyberAlert*** 2/26/99 Vol Four No 37 "...1) White House wants Broaddrick story to "fade away." Actually, it never even became a story this week on any broadcast network evening show, not even on NBC, nor on ABC or CBS in the morning. 2) NOW President Patricia Ireland labeled Broaddrick's charges "devastating" and warned Clinton to not impugn her, but only MSNBC and FNC found it newsworthy. 3) Thursday morning only Today discussed Broaddrick. 4) Howard Kurtz maintained he knows "people at NBC who felt this interview was ready for airing at least a couple of weeks ago." Lisa Myers conceded there was internal debate about whether NBC should run the story....."

The American Spectator 2/26/99 R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. "...NBC's long-delayed broadcast of Juanita Broaddrick's charge that Arkansas gubernatorial candidate Bill Clinton raped her adds still more evidence to my growing understanding of how a man with such a gamy biography could become president of the United States. The interview was to be aired on January 29. Andy Lack, NBC News President, explains the delay by claiming that he had to be sure that all the i's were dotted and the t's crossed. During his dottings and crossings my contacts with Broaddrick made it clear that Lack's labors were make work. Weeks ago her story was solid. In fact I cannot perceive any significant corroboration that NBC came up with while it delayed broadcast of the Broaddrick interview. Ah, but officials at NBC feared that by airing the interview during the impeachment trial the network would be unduly influencing the trial. On the other hand, to delay broadcasting the interview was to influence the trial, too. Influencing life is an unavoidable consequence of being alive...."

2/28/99 Matt Drudge "…NBC NEWS executives are washing Juanita Broaddrick right out of their hair. NBC NEWS has issued an order restricting the use of Juanita Broaddrick's DATELINE interview, it has been learned. Effective March 1 at 12:01 AM, NBC outlets will be restricted from using the exclusive Broaddrick footage. "No wonder the White House isn't concerned, no one will see her anymore," one frustrated MSNBC anchor said off-the-air. MSNBC and CNBC producers will have to work through NBC lawyers, on a case by case basis, to receive authorization to use any of the Lisa Myers/Broaddrick session…."

Laissez Faire City Times 3/22/99 William DeVore Mickey Pall Freeper Rex Rogers "… Special surgeons at NBC literally cut the life out of what should have been the TV Event of the Year. NBC edited the piece down to 23 minutes, and they ran their mini cut a month after it was first scheduled. NBC then put Juanita's story up against the Grammy Awards without advance promotion, and late enough so that TV Guide and the other scheduling services could not alert viewers. It was a story "made for TV," one novice NBC producer said, "It wasn't easy for the top brass to avoid a wide viewership. But they tried every trick in the book." These efforts were only partly effective…."

Media Research Center/Washington Times 5/19/1999 Brent Baker "...The morning after Mr. Richardson's appearance, as Mr. Russert told radio's Don Imus how Mr. Clinton has handled the espionage situation recklessly, NBC "Today" viewers were watching co-host Matt Lauer broadcast live from Mt. Everest, interrupted only for co-host Katie Couric's interview with daytime talk show host Jenny Jones about a jury holding her show liable for a murder. ABC's "Good Morning America" also featured a talk with Jones as well as, in its relatively more newsy first hour, tips on barbecuing. Asked by Mr. Imus why Mr. Richardson was so reluctant to tell what he knows, Mr. Russert asserted: "Because if he does, then he has put the President of United States in a position where he is lying about national security." Mr. Russert scolded the Clinton team: "You don't spin your way out of national security breaches. It happened on their watch and they're trying to spin their way out of it. You confront 'em, you accept responsibility." Though he carries the title of NBC News Vice President, hours after Mr. Russert offered his grave assessment "NBC Nightly News" skipped the China story. Instead, NBC featured an "In Depth" segment on how a deadly Louisiana bus crash demonstrated the need for more regulation of buses. ABC's "World News Tonight" also ignored Chinagate and allocated nearly six minutes to how retirees are becoming more active. The "CBS Evening News" explored whether more regulation is needed to protect consumers from aggressive credit card pitches..."

Drudge 5/30/99 "...Bill Carter of the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to unleash a new media scandal, according to publishing sources. Carter is set to accuse the ABC-TV Network of checkbook journalism in the Columbine High School Massacre! Carter will charge: "ABC News paid a friend of one of the teen-age gunmen in the Columbine High School shootings $16,000 for the exclusive broadcast rights to home videos and other materials containing details about the killers. Then last Monday, the network presented what it called an exclusive interview with the 18-year-old, Nathan Dykeman, on GOOD MORNING AMERICA." "It is gross on some level to profit off this tragedy,'' Jeff Zucker, the executive producer of NBC's TODAY show, tells Carter. "It's a clear example of buying a story and it's an unseemly thing for ABC to do.'' ..."

**Media Research Center CyberAlert*** 6/14/99 Vol Four No 106 "...1) ABC found support in Iowa for Bush's "call for compassionate conservatism," NBC determined they are only backing "a Republican who they think is going to win," while CBS insisted "the Texas Governor is still more curiosity than candidate." 2) Suggesting that Democrats will paint George W. Bush as a "hardline conservative," CNN's Jeanne Meserve asserted they will only be following what his father did to the "moderate" Dukakis. 3) Newsweek's Evan Thomas compared the Christian Coalition's activities to the Spanish Inquisition. 4) CNN/USA President Rick Kaplan complained that Ken Starr is "putting obsession ahead of the best interests of the nation" while Bill Clinton has had "extraordinary" achievements. ..."

Judicial Watch 6/15/99 Larry Klayman and Monty Warner "...."The Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce," a 331-page manifesto and brainchild of Associate White House Counsel Jane Sherburne and the DNC, was circulated to select reporters in a tortured effort to describe how the "right wing" conveyed "fringe" stories into the mainstream American media. In essence, this document was an effort to "alert" friendly journalists that such a "conspiracy" was being promulgated by certain groups dissatisfied with the moral lapses of the Clinton White House. In short, it was a 1990's enemies list...... In December of 1994, Associate White House Counsel Sherburne prepared a memorandum that outlined strategies to use against individuals and organizations perceived to be adversaries of the Clinton Administration. The memo also assigned staff members to carry out these strategies - and specifically identified the Western Journalism Center for having investigated Foster's death. WJC was the only news organization targeted for action...."

Judicial Watch 6/15/99 Larry Klayman and Monty Warner "....In July 1996, after absorbing months of swirling rumors of a pending audit, Joe Farah answered a knock on his door at the Western Journalism Center. Thomas Cedarquist, an IRS official and one of the chief defendants in Judicial Watch's lawsuit on behalf of WJC, strode in and announced that, having seen the WJC's work on "60 Minutes," he had arbitrarily decided (as this Administration does) that WJC was a political and not a non- profit organization. Cedarquist then confirmed he and others in Washington were going to challenge WJC's tax-exempt status and audit their 1995 tax returns..... Regrettably, our sensibilities to this end would be quickly overwhelmed when we saw - as Joseph Farah did - that the search Cedarquist and the IRS were conducting was not for financial reasons, rather to review the content of WJC's work. Farah was asked about his affiliation with Christopher Ruddy, a thorn in the side of the Administration, and why WJC chose to work with him. Nearly every query posed to Farah was related to a story or developing story concerning the White House - an IRS search completely devoid of concern for money. Rightfully exasperated, Farah questioned the tactics of the agency and received the following rejoinder from Cedarquist: "Look, this is a political case, and the decision will be made at the national level." Taxpayers Bill of Rights? Over the course of the investigation of WJC, nearly 20 other conservative organizations - including the Heritage Foundation, NRA and Citizens Against Government Waste - felt the close, warm touch of the Clinton audit machine. Ironically, all of these groups happened to take issue with its policies and political hatchet work. Even more oddly, the media who knew of the "Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce" never saw any pattern developing that would signify an orchestrated White House effort - much less actually troubled themselves to report it. Meanwhile, the Western Journalism Center's offices were being broken into, with, mysteriously, nothing stolen. Their phone messages were apparently being monitored, and some of these developments happened to coincide with WJC breakthroughs in Clinton investigations....The scrutiny of the WJC by the IRS lasted 9 months. During this time the Center almost went bankrupt. One donor called Mr. Farah and told him that Hazel O'Leary, then the Energy Secretary, had related to him that he would lose his federal contracts if he continued to support the Western Journalism Center. WJC employees lost their jobs and livelihoods...."

Judicial Watch 6/15/99 Larry Klayman and Monty Warner "....Finally in October of 1996, Farah exposed these corrupt practices in a piece in The Wall Street Journal, and the tide began to turn. Margret Milner-Richardson, IRS Commissioner and close friend of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, abruptly resigned. The New York Post attributed her departure to political audits of conservative organizations. Some began to probe these rampant abuses, and the audit of the Western Journalism Center was "concluded" - a verdict of "no wrongdoing" rendered in May of 1997. Under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights enacted by Congress, Farah requested his case file from the IRS so he could review its contents. In keeping with the Clinton Administration standard practice, these rights were trampled on with a terse refusal to turn over the documents - the IRS frivolously citing "government privilege" as a means of keeping Mr. Farah from seeing justification for what had nearly bankrupted his organization. But Farah would not be deterred. On behalf of WJC, Judicial Watch, a public interest watchdog group, filed a $10 million lawsuit against Ms. Richardson, Mr. Cedarquist, numerous unidentified agents involved in the case and the IRS itself. We are determined to ensure that Mr. Farah sees justice in this case, and that every American is free to express his or her First Amendment-protected views without vicious, detached harassment from its own government...."

Judicial Watch 6/14/99 "...Last week, Roberto Suro, Attorney General Janet Reno's and the Clinton Justice Department's favorite reporter at The Washington Post -- and the person who routinely discloses tactically-timed Justice Department leaks -- published an article on Sunday, June 6, 1999, entitled "Justice Department Puts Starr Investigation on Hold, Sources Say," which suggested that Reno would not proceed with an investigation into alleged ethics violations by Judge Starr's Office of Independent Counsel ("OIC"), if the OIC would drop any on-going investigations of the Clintons. With yesterday's article in The New York Times that indeed Starr is ending his investigations, and will issue a final report recommending against indictments of Bill and Hillary Clinton, it would appear that Reno's "message" may have been favorably received by the independent counsel. In Judicial Watch's cases, it has learned that Judge Starr and his team have not completed their investigations, and that key witnesses have never been approached or put under oath on important issues. "If the reports are true that Judge Starr is about to 'throw in the towel,' we therefore hope that Judge Starr -- whose criminal mandate provides him with important powers -- will reconsider," stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman and President Tom Fitton...."

 

 

CONVENTIONAL MEDIA FAILURES - GENERAL

 

The scandals have been consistently described as having begun last January, when major concerns about Clinton actually surfaced as far back as the 1992 primary.

The Starr investigation is consistently portrayed as only (or primarily)interested in Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky. The significant issue of Kathleen Willey (and attempts to deep-six her story) have been ignored or underplayed. Little or no mention is given to the many other aspects of the Starr investigation.

The conventional media have dismissed reports by Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and Linda Tripp having been personally threatened (Tripp was even put in a safe house for a while by the FBI). The treatment of these women has been disparaging and of the sort the police once accorded women who claimed to have been raped.

The conventional media have dismissed Filegate and Travelgate even though what is even publicly available about these scandals rates them as stunning abuses of power.

The conventional media have failed to tell the public such simple facts as how many of Clinton's associates have already been convicted, how often the Clintons and their associates have given evasive answers under oath, how many witnesses in the scandals have pleaded the Fifth or left the country, how many witnesses have been subjected to physical threats and how many sudden deaths have occurred.

The conventional media have badly misrepresented the cost and length of the Starr investigation compared to other such inquiries by independent prosecutors.

The conventional media have failed to tell the public of ties between the drug trade and organized crime and the Clinton administration.

The conventional media have failed to tell the public of a 20-page statement that supervising judges ordered attached to the Starr report on Vincent Foster's death. The statement recounts highly suspicious events affecting Foster witness Patrick Knowlton.

The conventional media have ridiculed those journalists and independent investigators who have produced leads and stories that might threaten the Clinton myth.

The conventional media have failed to describe in an understandable fashion the import of successful attempts by foreign and domestic power brokers to buy influence in the Clinton administration.

Washington Post 9/9/98 David Broder ".But it is not only the political world that has been wrestling with the issues of honesty and credibility so starkly framed by Clinton. The September issue of the American Journalism Review, published by the University of Maryland, devotes most of its news coverage and commentary to the scandals that have shaken newspapers and television in recent weeks, raising fundamental questions about the trustworthiness of my business.."

Freeper Report on CBS Evening News Dan Rather 9/24/98 "Last week during the Cristian Coalition's anual meeting in Washington D.C., on the CBS Evening News, Dan Rather refered to the Christian Coalition as "The lobbying group that calls itself quote: The Christian Coalition""

Washington Weekly 8/3/98 Carl Limbacher ".But it's Clinton's pattern of witness intimidation that should scare the daylights out of every American. And that pattern would no doubt put a severe crimp in those sky-high presidential approval ratings if the media began calling attention to the terrorist tactics employed against so many who cross this president. Just a month before Linda Tripp went public about her own "dangerous" predicament, Kathleen Willey reported that her property had been vandalized - after which a stranger approached her, invoked the names of her children and then said, "I hope you're getting the message?" No doubt this was a bone chilling experience for the widowed Ms. Willey, especially after she had exposed the president on "60 Minutes" as a crude sexual predator. There were a handful of reports about the threat against Willey, but the press decided it wasn't worth raising a fuss over. The media did a similar tap dance around the case of Juanita Broaddrick, a woman uncovered by detectives working for Paula Jones. Reportedly Jones' investigators tape recorded Broaddrick as she unburdened herself about a traumatic encounter with Clinton when he was Arkansas State Attorney General, an experience that she said turned her life upside down and caused her to flee to California. Broaddrick would not go into detail, saying she did not want to "re-live" the episode. But two network news divisions, ABC and NBC, spoke to witnesses who recounted Broaddrick's story, as told to them years ago by Broaddrick herself. Back then, according to these witnesses, Broaddrick had claimed Bill Clinton had brutally raped her. NBC's Lisa Myers actually interviewed the nurse who had treated Broaddrick's swollen lips after the attack. ABC identified that nurse as Norma Rogers, and named another witness to whom Broaddrick had confided. Broaddrick hastily issued an affidavit recanting her allegation. But questions remain as to why she changed her story. Nevertheless, the media played dumb. Instead of running down an obviously substantial story, the press blamed attorneys for Paula Jones for leaking such a scurrilous charge. According to the London Telegraph (3/30/98), Ken Starr has subpoenaed all relevant evidence gathered by investigators on the Broaddrick case, in an effort to determine if Juanita Broaddrick has been silenced by the Clinton attack machine. The list of Clinton scandal witnesses who claim to have been approached by operatives bearing bribes and/or threats is astonishingly long, and promises to grow longer as journalists ignore the phenomenon.."

9/26 The Sun Jonathan Weisman [SEE REBUTTAL BELOW] "."At this point, we have no evidence that would indicate a referral [to the Judiciary Committee] is even a remote possibility," said Brent Bahler, the select committee's spokesman. "No smoke, no fire," he emphasized, but he noted that the investigation will continue until the end of the year.. But when Gingrich suggested the Judiciary Committee include the China issue in an expanded impeachment probe, Cox bridled. Cox said there is little conceivable way his probe could show impeachable offenses. The White House did override national security warnings from the State Department in 1996, when it shifted oversight of satellite-licensing authority to the less restrictive Commerce Department. And that shift did coincide with campaign contributions from satellite companies that had been clamoring for the policy change for years. `We don't have much' But, Cox said, "the problem is, we know as much about these campaign contributions as we're going to know. Unless we come across a memo that says, `This is going to violate national security, but this is so much money, let's go for it,' we don't have much." Moreover, he said, the committee would have to show the president was personally involved in wrongdoing, not simply his minions at the State, Commerce and Defense Departments who make such policy changes. Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington, the lead Democrat on the select committee, reported not a single witness testifying in secret sessions has said he was pressured by superiors or political appointees to make policy decisions or behave in any particular way.. "This is simply not a premise for impeachment," Cox said. Said Dicks: "There are maybe some policy changes we may want to recommend, but any wrongdoing is already being investigated by the Justice Department, and it involves companies that have admitted violating the terms of their [export] licenses." "And that is the consensus of all nine members of the committee," Dix said, referring to Republicans as well as Democrats. Those conclusions mirror what many Democrats have been saying for months: The satellite technology issue relates to policy decisions that date to the Reagan administration, not to criminal wrongdoing. ."

Reply from Rep. Christopher Cox, Chairman House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military-Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China - to The Sun: "Your article "Inquiry adds no Clinton charges" (Sept. 26) is false and inaccurate in several respects. First, given the nature of the House Select Committee on National Security's nondisclosure rules, Rep. Norman D. Dicks, the ranking Democrat, is unlikely to have told The Sun anything about the substance of testimony by witnesses in "secret sessions" concerning Clinton administration wrongdoing. Moreover, Defense Department officials have publicly testified before other committees that they were pressured by superiors and political appointees to make decisions harmful to national security. Second, "the consensus of all nine members of the committee" most definitely does not mirror "what many Democrats have been saying for months: The satellite technology issue relates to policy decisions that date to Reagan administration, not to criminal wrongdoing." The Reagan administration never granted a satellite waiver. The Clinton waivers are the subject of ongoing criminal probes into national security violations by the firms involved, including President Clinton's $1 million donor, Loral Chairman Bernard Schwartz. Third, I told The Sun reporter nothing about the ongoing work of our committee. The inferences drawn in your article are directly at odds with the formal statement issued by our committee, to which I referred him: "The Select Committee has reached no conclusions about what the evidence will or will not show."

USA Today 10/12/98 Richard Benedeto "One of the great myths going unchallenged in the impeachment debate is that the process has fallen into shameful partisanship and unfairness in contrast to the Watergate inquiry. Republicans and Democrats were supposedly models of bipartisan comity in that probe. Most of the media and much of the public have bought the line, carefully spun by the White House and Democrats in general as they try to delegitimize the investigation of President Clinton led by Republicans in Congress.."

10/15/98 CJ Barr ".Within the last several weeks, many potentially explosive facts have floated by on the surface of the Clinton cesspool: The OIC Referral revealed that Juanita Broaddrick (Jane Doe #5) had lied in her affidavit denying that she was sexually assaulted, virtually raped, by Bill Clinton in 1978. (This journal interviewed her shortly after the disclosure. She confirmed the assault.) The story has had no traction in the established press. A subcommittee of the Reform Committee of the House of Representatives recently released a detailed report documenting a systematic misuse of Federal assets by the Clintons for partisan, party purposes -- a misuse amounting to outright theft. The subcommittee also referred a senior White House aide to the Justice Department for obstruction. This story aroused little notice. The Reform and Oversight Committee, itself, just released an Interim Report containing dramatic proof of massive campaign finance abuses by the Clinton administration. The report has been ignored. Judicial Watch recently released a report on its several legal cases arising from abuses of office in the Clinton Administration. Were they a Nader organization exposing the perfidy of corporate America, the report would have led the news. It has, instead, been virtually overlooked. There have been several reports and columns exposing the Clinton administrations systematic breaches of U.S. security, either out of gross negligence (like the averted release of nuclear weapons secrets) or cupidity (like the transfer of Motorola's missile guidance technology). They were mere flashes in the pan; no wider fire was kindled. But yesterday NPR interviewed Gil Davis and learned that he had once made a series of telephone calls to Starr to sound him out on the law of presidential immunity. There is nothing new about this. Everyone knows that Starr was, at one time, actually thinking about contributing to an amicus brief in the case. It would not have been extraordinary for him to have had some casual words with other lawyers, including Davis. Carville has, in fact, long been asserting overt collusion between Starr and the Jones team based on this tenuous connection.."

7/6/98 Washington Weekly Marvin Lee "The last two months have seen more dismissals of journalists for fabricating stories than almost the entire decade before. At least that is how it seems: Stephen Glass, Patricia Smith, (James Fallows), Mike Gallagher, April Oliver, Jack Smith, and Pam Hill have all been dismissed just recently. What happened? There may be several contributing factors but we trace the shift to one key event in January: a split inside the White House. For years, there had been unity between the White House and its defenders in the mainstream press..But in January, Matt Drudge broke the Lewinsky story.The split within the White House turned to a split in the media: those who followed the Lewinsky story believing it could finish the Clinton administration, and those who stayed loyal to Bill Clinton and started attacking their fellow journalists for deserting the cause. By June it turned into an open, public food fight. Steve Brill led the Clinton camp in a charge that named mainstream reporters had become shills for Kenneth Starr. The reporters responded with anger.The latest in the series is James Fallows, another one in the Clinton camp who as editor allowed U.S. News and World magazine to be used for a defense against the Lewinsky charges just as Brill had allowed the use of his "Content" magazine. Fallows was removed last week."

Brill retracted statements in his article concerning Judge Starr and the press - relating to the a Wall Street Journal interview evidently because the interview was taped (Brill misrepresented the interview.)Syndicated columnist James Pinkerton: Steve Brill praises Watergate reporting while he laments that the press has fallen short of that high standard.

U.S. News and World Report associate editor Elise Ackerman heard two hours of tapes or read transcripts, but was not allowed to take notes on Lewinsky tapes that said she was looking for a job two months before she was subpoenaed in the Jones case.

White House: "There are some staffers up on the Hill who think that if we embargoed every country we'd have the world's best nonproliferation policy, whether it impeded anyone or not." Congressional staffer: "When it comes to implementing sanction laws the Executive traditionally takes the view that ends justify the means. But the problem is that it degrades the credibility and, thus, the deterrent effect of these sanctions if they're not implemented when flagrantly triggered, even if the executive finds some legal loophole." Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment said he believed that Chinese access to sensitive American technologies and exports should "not be an inducement for changing behavior, but a reward for changed behavior."

 

WorldNetDaily 10/14/98 Joseph Farah ".Where did the press go wrong? It allowed itself to become hostage to a narrow worldview. It permitted itself to become captive to a political and social agenda. Worst of all, the press stopped comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable and became an advocate of bigger and more intrusive government in the lives of all Americans."

AP 10/16/98 Michael White ".Almost nine in 10 Americans believe journalists use illegal or unethical methods, according to a study released Friday that underscored the need for stricter attention to ethics and accuracy in the news business. Of those responding to surveys by the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center, 88 percent said they believed reporters often or sometimes use unethical or illegal techniques. Seventy-six percent said journalists often or sometimes plagiarize material and 66 percent said stories are made up and passed off as real."

Compare coverage of Police beating of Rodney King v. Teamstears beating Anti-Clinton protestor

Compare coverage of Clinton behavior v. Starr behavior

Compare coverage of death of Shepard v. deaths of others

USA Journal Online 10/20/98 Jon Dougherty ".But Americans love an underdog. And if there is one force more powerful than money in this country it is favorable public opinion and support. Such is the case of the Free Republic, an Internet information web site that has billed itself as a shining example of the First Amendment in action in the age of the online news source. The kind of information forum provided by the Free Republic is wholly legal, but it is irksome to the big media conglomerates because the biased stories which pass for news in the corporate-owned media outlets usually appear as fodder in the Free Republic..In the end, this lawsuit is just another attempt to stifle dissent and freedom of speech. It's also a classic example of how nasty the "fair" and "objective" mainstream news organizations can get when they are getting outdone and overlooked. Corporate news organizations have so obviously been bought and paid over the decades that readers have, in record numbers, begun to look elsewhere - mostly to independent news sites like the Journal and select others - for their information. This paradigm shift in readership was born out of necessity and caused by the very "objective" news organizations that sold their souls out to big government ideals long ago. My guess is that the LA Times and the Washington Post don't even care whether or not they win their case. Perhaps they don't even believe they can win - but they will go through with this because they want to break the will and the finances of Jim Robinson, and they hope to kill the Free Republic web site in the process.."

Media Reality Check 10/22/98 Keith Appell ".So far, the national media have totally ignored Monday's front-page scoop in The New York Times headlined "Chinese Said to Reap Gains In U.S. Export Policy Shift." (Web browsers could not find the article on the Times home page. You had to click on "Politics" to get it.) Reporters Jeff Gerth and Eric Schmitt announced: "An examination by The New York Times of the administration's export control policies on China, based on interviews as well as government and industry documents, shows that the looser regulations enabled Chinese companies to obtain a wide range of sophisticated technology, some of which has already been diverted for military uses." Gerth and Schmitt tied the real-world dangers of Chinese technology acquisition to Clinton's anything-goes fundraising tactics.. What was going on in the world Monday that the networks had no time for Clinton aiding China's military? In the morning, ABC found Westminster Abbey is selling chairs used at Diana's funeral. CBS found a teen trying to build a nuclear reactor. NBC interviewed British CEO Richard Branson on his book Losing My Virginity. That night, ABC showed that 100 pilot whales died after beaching themselves in Tasmania. CBS noted arson is suspected in a ski resort fire in Vail, Colorado. CNN relayed that five more victims were pulled from the wreckage of a train crash in Egypt. NBC covered the Kroger supermarket chain's latest acquisition. The networks haven't aired a single story on Clinton's export-control repeal since June. Since the Times broke the story in April, the breakdown of evening news stories is: ABC 7, CBS 3, CNN 3, NBC 2. Even in the missile story's brief heyday in late May and early June, Monica stories outnumbered it on TV morning and evening shows 78 to 21. Is it any wonder the public believes that Clinton scandals are mostly about sex?."

Washington Weekly 10/26/98 Edward Zehr ".We have experienced political crises before, but this one is different. At long last the country is coming face to face with some very unpleasant truths about the way we are governed. We have seen a President of the United States lie brazenly to a grand jury on nationwide TV. Nobody doubts that he lied, but the press is chock full of denial and sickly rationalization. The pundits and presstitutes act as though they believe that so long as they take no notice of the obvious fact that the emperor is starkers, we can all pretend that he is nobly attired. Yet, here we are a few years later, with the president's supporters turning a blind eye to the fact that he has publicly committed a felony which carries a penalty of four years in prison, as though they feel privileged to ignore any statute that doesn't suit their fancy of the moment..Well over a hundred daily newspapers in this country have called for his resignation. Still, many newsies continue to play the smelly, deceitful spin and smear games dreamed up by the White House to protect the guilty. In this they depend heavily upon the assumption that the public are too dumb to figure out what they are up to. Some of us couldn't help notice how the mainstream press feigned moral indignation at Clinton's misbehavior until the polls indicated that his public support had not collapsed, at which point they resumed defending the miscreant in their accustomed underhanded manner..Just as the Middle Ages culminated in a weakening of religious belief, the Age of Reason ended with a lot of intellectuals losing faith in reason itself, thus paving the way for the monstrous excesses if the Twentieth Century. If it doesn't get written that way in the history books that is only because they are written by intellectuals.."

The New York Times 10/28/98 Frank Rich ".The question raised in the full-page ad from the Anti-Defamation League in Sunday's Times was plaintive: "Is there no moral responsibility at NBC News anymore?" What prompted the ad -- an open letter to NBC's president, Bob Wright -- was Louis Farrakhan's appearance on "Meet the Press" the previous Sunday. Under the cover of the flimsiest of news pegs -- the otherwise unremarked third anniversary of the Million Man March -- Farrakhan had been invited on air to give his opinion of "the President's moral behavior and his possible impeachment.".Welcome to the "New News" -- as it has been appropriately christened by Marvin Kalb, in a paper just published by the Shorenstein Center on Press and Politics at Harvard. While the extent of Monicagate's stain on our civic institutions is not yet fully known, its effect on our culture is already profound. The 10-month saga has solidified for good a 20-year trend in which the media -- especially the electronic media, by which the vast majority of Americans get the news -- have steadily replaced journalistic standards with those of show business. Crowding out the old ideals of public service and truth-seeking are the imperatives of star performances, suspenseful plot twists, sex, celebrity and box-office profit..Good or bad, that accuracy record -- the historic criterion for journalistic quality -- is now almost beside the point. The real flavor of the Monica marathon could be found during the days and sometimes weeks when there was no news at all, and the story filled up endless hours anyway. The time was passed with show-biz stunts: new bit players, mindless speculation that became the journalistic equivalent of sideshows, and Emmy-caliber."

AP 10/28/98 Freeper noting the deceptive headline "Clinton To Give $156M To Fight AIDS."

From Freeper Born Free - Labor's Untold Story Richard Boyer Herbert Morais ".One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying: "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it . There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. "The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." ."

Freeper Coyote 10/29/98 shares ".Of course you all remember when conservative Senator Jesse Helms made a joking comment that Bill Clinton would need a bodyguard if he came to North Carolina where Clinton's unpopularity had just cost Democrats four House seats in the '94 election. You know, the election where the unbiased media anchor Peter Jennings referred to the American voter after the conservative landslide as "children having a temper tantrum...and in need of more parenting?" The media jumped all over the Helms story in a whirlwind of scandal. White House Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta called Senator Helms, "reckless ... dangerous and irresponsible." Liberal columnist Carl Rowan's headline read, "GOP's Helms, Gingrich Lead Parade of Hate," the New York Times called him a "mean -spirited, loose- lipped legislator," and The Chicago Sun-Times reported that "Helms rears Ugly Head." The ultra-liberal Cleveland Plain-Dealer newspaper went so far as to call Helms "a 73-year old thug." But during the Bush Administration, liberal Massachusetts Senator John Kerry cracked that the "Secret Service is under orders that if Bush is shot, to [then] shoot Quayle." Kerry's slur was subdued and ignored by a media that claims to have no bias. The watchdog organization, Accuracy in Media, found exactly three articles in all newspapers and periodicals about Kerry's remark, while there were an astronomical 375 about conservative Jesse Helms! Now someone could be in complete disagreement with Helms and still have to admit that this is clearly one sided reporting by a media that claims no bias... And then there's yesterday. When I did a metasearch using six different search engines, I came up with exactly ONE article under "March for Justice." With Connie's publicity, Alan Keyes on his talk show, and even the ever loud Rush Limbaugh discussing it for weeks, it's difficult to imagine that the press hasn't picked up on the march even in an effort to discredit it. One could easily get the idea that they're suffering the common fate of being conditioned to ignore anything they disagree with. Another way of describing such willful denial is "brainwashed." ."

WorldNetDaily 10/30/98 Alan Keyes ".A few days later, I caught a little bit of Crossfire on CNN. Anne Coulter was the guest, and they were talking about whether the Founders meant it when they wrote that only virtuous men should serve as president, and if you weren't virtuous, if your conduct violated virtue, you should be impeached. And Anne Coulter was, of course, saying that was the Founders' position. The liberal, Bill Press, said "Oh, you mean to tell me that the Founders meant that only virtuous people would become president?" And he laughed.I will not assume that the Democrats are so corrupt as to be traitors to speech and reason, nor will I think them so ignorant as to suppose that the Founders wanted vicious presidents. What is left? Press and his friends must be ridiculing the notion that the Founders of this country considered sexual propriety to be a part of virtue. And I sat there, in my living room, marveling at how being in front of a camera can give someone like Bill Press the effrontery to posture and to spout demonstrable falsehoods. Because, you see, what he said was false. Of course it was false. How do I know that? Because the Founders showed what they thought about sexual impropriety and virtue in the case of Alexander Hamilton, and they reacted to Hamilton's impropriety very harshly indeed. I did my doctoral dissertation on Alexander Hamilton. And studying Alexander Hamilton years ago, I noticed a number of things. First, in raw talent and intellectual power Hamilton was probably the most capable individual of his time, and many of his colleagues would have acknowledged the fact -- even Madison, Monroe, John Adams, and others whose names we know better.. If anybody in that generation was marked by destiny for real leadership and the presidency, it was Alexander Hamilton. He had two strikes against him, one of which probably wouldn't have mattered enough to be a permanent barrier: He was illegitimate.. But do you know what was a permanent barrier? Do you know the reason he wasn't even considered as somebody who might eventually become president of the United States? It's because, while he was secretary of the Treasury, he got himself involved in a scandal: he had an affair with a married woman, and even though it was hushed up, his colleagues and a congressional committee knew all about it. And that was it. That was it for Alexander Hamilton. He could go so far and no farther. In fact, before the end of the Washington administration, he resigned from his secretaryship. And though he was the universally acknowledged head of his party, the Federalists, the next president was John Adams, not Alexander Hamilton..Once it became a matter of general public knowledge, Hamilton could never hold elected office in the American Republic, and he never did. All these things our cynical modern academics claim to have discovered about who was sleeping with whom in those days don't mean a thing. There was a public standard, and it was applied to Alexander Hamilton. It was the chief thing that limited his career in spite of what was acknowledged to be his enormous talent and ability. So I watched Bill Press, not knowing whether I should feel pity or anger. If you knew anything about the Founding period, you hoped that he was simply ignorant, because if he wasn't ... well, if he wasn't, then he was lying through his teeth, trying to fool uninformed people by sneering: "Oh, you can't be serious that the Founders would actually consider as disqualifying improper sexual activity." And the point of this sneer is to cover his party chieftain, Bill Clinton. How sad! Or, worse, how base! ."

Freeper Semi Civil Servant 10/31/98 ".Almost everyone on this forum could have could have predicted an attack story on Starr coming out this weekend: one turned up in the LA Times. The "negative attack ads backlash" story was predictable as well. Why don't Conservatives with a national voice point out this type of press partisanship for what it is? The American people already dislike the press. The press is the weak link in the liberal monolith.."

Freeper report LarryLied 10/31/98 ".The local CBS affiliate in West Palm Beach FL just ran a story about ministers protesting Ken Starr in DC today.When I called and asked why they covered a protest with less than 100 in attendence and ignored they Freeper rally, I was told, "Clinton protests happen all the time. People protesting Starr is news!" The station was WPEC News 12 CBS.."

Washington Weekly 11/2/98 Robert Stowe England ".Seeing themselves as modern-day patriots responding to a moral crisis in the nation, thousands of protestors hailing from Honolulu to Boston descended on the nation's historic mall here Halloween day for an old-fashioned protest rally that repeatedly and vigorously called for President Clinton's impeachment, conviction and removal from office. The rally, held near the Washington Monument, was the successful culmination of a concerted effort by volunteers who had never met one another, and who organized the event in only three weeks. Its organizers are all members of the conservative Free Republic web-site, www.FreeRepublic.com. It was the largest anti- Clinton demonstration since protestors began to dog the President in his travels around the country after he went on national television in August and admitted he had lied to the American people when he had no sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Media coverage was thin, with C-SPAN and CNN apparently among the few broadcast media present."The mainstream media tell us no one cares, but the truth is that the American people are sick are tired of people lying to them" says Hair. "They make people who care think they're rabid. We're not. We're people you live next door to, or people you work with, or people you go to church with," she said.."

Freeper Son_of_Liberty report on 11/2/98 CBS Evening News ".Dan Rather closed tonight's broadcast by reminding people that the "...election tomorrow will determine the fate of President Clinton." Or something real close (I'm typing fast!). Dan looked very sad. I was shocked!."

Capitol Hill Blue 11/2/98 Doug Thompson ".My guess is some overworked web programmer is going to have his head handed to him by morning for the Election '98 "results" posted on ABC's news site this evening. What happened is that the ABC screwed up the pre-election test feed from Election News Service (ENS), the computer vote count service that many news organizations, including Capitol Hill Blue, subscribe to to for up-to-date tallies on election night. We've been receiving the same numbers as a test feed from ENS for most of the day now (at least we didn't screw up and put them on the web). The test is necessary to make sure the automatic updates on our web pages work properly. It's supposed to be an internal test, but ABC apparently let their test go live. Both AP and Reuters are also running the same tests over their wires. At least they're smart enough to keep the numbers from going public. Don't let the numbers get anyone down. In 1996, the first ENS test feed had Dole beating Clinton.."

Washington Weekly 11/9/98 Wesley Phelan ".(following from interview with Larry Klayman, Judicial Watch).".QUESTION: On Saturday, October 31 you attended the Free Republic March for Justice. You were one of the major speakers in the morning. How would you characterize that event? KLAYMAN: It was truly an excellent event. I enjoyed being there among our supporters and friends. Those are the kinds of people who are going to bring the country back. They are out there in greater numbers than people realize. They just need leaders, people who believe in something. When we spend time with individuals of conviction it reaffirms what we're doing and what others are doing to see justice done in this country. It gives us all the courage and energy to continue, even in the face of a completely disingenuous Congress and an Independent Counsel who was for many years lost in the wilderness of irrelevance. QUESTION: What do you think about the fact that the mainstream media did not mention, or mentioned only in passing, that the event took place? KLAYMAN: I thought it was amazing that some news broadcasts showed a demonstration in front of Ken Starr's office by ten or so people, yet did not publicize thousands of people at the Washington Monument, marching for justice. It does show the skewed coverage that exists.."

The Dallas Morning News 11/11/98 ".A word of sympathy, brethren, for the "religious right." And before I proceed, one innocent question: Anybody remember the last time our all-knowing media dissected something called the "secular left"? Just asking."

Freeper Jack Aubrey 11/15/98 reports ".When I referred to my pals in the White House "swamp" as "whores," I know exactly whereof I speak because I was a whore myself until I got religion about five years ago. By that I mean I have behind me (and I do mean BEHIND me) a thirty-year career in "broadcast news" as .Over the years my various jobs took me to 22 countries in Asia (including four years in Vietnam, 71--75); 22 countries in Central and South America, plus Iraq (5 times), Israel, and Russia among other places, obviously almost aways working as a foreign correspondent, or in the United States on stories with a domestic foreign-affairs angle, like the Iran-contra mess. I know PRECISELY how the media (often, Harvard) harlots tilt, slant, distort, omit, lie, and basically behave like whores. I know many of these people personally, and I would and will say to their faces what I said at the White House today. Most, but, it is very important to note, NOT ALL, are whores and flacks for the White House. They do it on remote control. Nobody explictly says, "Write this, say that." Nope, to get up that slippery, greasy, cut-throat-loaded ladder of the broadcast media, you learn how to do it yourself. It doesn't take a lot of brains to figure out what the PARTY LINE is and to follow it slavishly.."

Media Research Center CyberAlert 11/16/98 ".1) Al Hunt called Starr's indictment of Hubbell "outrageous." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann compared Starr to Joe McCarthy and the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne endorsed the historic analogy. 2) On the Jones settlement only FNC and NBC even alluded to Clinton's insurance deal and how the court was looking at his perjury. Only FNC noted he will pay more than Jones asked for. 3) Dateline also looked at a woman under house arrest for lying about sex in a civil case, but Josh Mankiewicz bizarrely asserted: "It is painful as well to the President and so far, at least, Bill Clinton isn't being held to a different standard." 4) Letterman's "Top Ten President Clinton Screen Names." ."

Washington Post 10/30/98 Charles Krauthammer ".Whoever said that history is written by the victors has not seen CNN's 24-hour epic documentary "Cold War.". But "Cold War's" bias is deep and disturbing. It consists of a relentless attempt to find moral equivalence between the two sides. This is not easy, seeing as millions of Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Germans and others wept with joy when liberated from one side and permitted to join the other. "Cold War" tries nonetheless..In Episode Six, however, subtlety is abandoned. ("Reds 1948-1953" airs this Sunday at 8 p.m. Don't miss it.) The premise is explicit: There was paranoia on both sides of the Iron Curtain. "Both sides turned their fear inward against their own people. They hunted the enemy within." In the Soviet Union it produced the gulag; in the United States, the Red scare. Half the show on one, half on the other. This is moral equivalence with a sledgehammer. Forget the fact that the gulag long predates the Cold War and derives instead from the savage intolerance of Leninism. The gulag -- a vast continental system of arrest, torture, disappearance, execution, forced labor, starvation -- is juxtaposed with what? The Hollywood Ten! Jailed, we are told. But not told that the sentences ranged from four to 10 months. For about a decade, too, they were blacklisted. Some were forced to write under pseudonyms. The horror. Yes, of course, this shouldn't have happened. It is a blot on our history that these men's civil rights were trampled. But a blot is no mirror to an ocean of blood. Enter the one U.S. "Red scare" execution of the Cold War, the Rosenbergs. (This to match the 20 million to 40 million murdered by Stalin alone.) Extensive footage of the Rosenbergs' lawyer saying that the judge condemned them to death for craven political reasons. What were they convicted of? "Spying for the Soviet Union," we are told. What kind of spying? No mention. A high-schooler watching this might imagine they passed a picture of a power plant to a Soviet attache. ."

From Media Check 11/12/98 Keith Appell Freeper reports the following quotes about Newt Gingrich ". "These are some of the things said about your son. A very dangerous man... visionary...bomb-throwing guerrilla warrior...abrasive." -- CBS's Connie Chung to Newt's mother on his first day as Speaker, January 4, 1995..

WorldNetDaily 11/13/98 Joseph Farah ".Pretty bizarre. Klayman's report offers substantial evidence of Clinton administration corruption at the highest levels, abuse of power, and illegal activity that should cross even John Conyers' threshold of impeachable offenses. So why is Hyde entertaining the idea of limiting the inquiry to Monica Lewinsky? Why do the Republicans avoid Filegate, Chinagate, Commercegate, Travelgate, Trustgate, IRSgate, Campaigngate, Fostergate, Browngate, Renogate, and on and on?. Some suggest Hyde's approach is merely a strategic ploy -- that he knows Clinton will never agree to answer his 81 questions and, therefore, all bets are off on the limitation of the scope of the hearings. I don't think so. This is a very tough White House to outmaneuver politically. Should Hyde decide to broaden the hearings at this point, the White House spinmeisters would have a field day picking that development apart. How many Americans realize that Hyde's offer to limit the scope and witnesses in the hearings was conditional upon Clinton answering the questions truthfully and completely? Very few, thanks to the pathetic job of reporting by the establishment press."

Reuters 11/14/98 ".By huge margins, Americans do not want to hear more about the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, think press coverage influenced Congress' decision to hold impeachment hearings and say the media have the same moral standards as President Clinton or lower ones, a new poll has found. The poll of 1,000 Americans nationwide conducted for New York magazine on Oct. 14-18 found that 79 percent of Americans thought the media distorted or rearranged facts to make for better copy, 71 percent said the more respectable media had sunk to the level of tabloids and 67 percent thought the media's morals were the same as Clinton's or lower."

Freeper Kristinn 11/14/98 report ".A new element was added to our Saturday protests at the White House today when Peter, aka "Jack Aubrey" led the heckling of the WH press corps. Startled producers and talent fumed as cries of "Wolf Blitzer, stop flacking for Clinton !", "where's the coverage of the Mike Espy trial ?" and "tell us the truth !" filled the air. A uniformed Secret Service officer approached us to issue an order : Do not use profanity when heckling the media. After we got over the shock of not being ordered to cease and desist, we listened as the officer explained to us that it is perfectly okay to yell criticism at the media in the swamp (the outdoor reporting area between the Northwest gate and the West Wing of the White House complex). However, he said, the press corps had complained to the Secret Service that we were cursing at them. We told the officer that none of us was using profanity and he replied that the media told him that we had called them "whores". Peter explained that he had asked a reporter which outfit he worked for and the man said the A.P. Peter declaimed that the A.P. is a media whore. The officer said that because of the presence of children we should not use the word whore to describe the media. I asked if it was permissible to call them prostitutes, instead. He broke into laughter, but shook his head, no. He said that would be abusive. We carried on our guerilla assault on the WH press corps all morning long and into the afternoon. Each time we were at the NW gate during our walk along Penn. Ave., we would stop and hurl a few choice words their way: "Tell the public about the Judicial Watch report !", "John Palmer, you used to have credibility !","Hey Wolf, it's the MEDIA that's obsessed with sex !" and "Clinton News Network !". The tourists mostly agreed with us and marvelled at our audacity. Even David Blum, a reporter for NBC, agreed with us. When Ken, aka "Patriot", yelled "CNN LIES !", Mr. Blum (who stood within earshot of Wolf Blitzer and the CNN crew) yelled back, "you're right !" At one point, a producer came out to the sidewalk in an apparent effort to silence us. We had moved up the sidewalk to the front of the WH by then and he didn't find us. In a later conversation with the Secret Service officer about the press corps trying to silence us, the officer agreed that we had a First Amendment right to call the WH press corps whores. Basically he was trying to maintain some decorum and keep the media crybabies off his back."

Washington Times 11/17/98 John McCaslin ".Perhaps we now know why David Brock, the one-time conservative journalist who dug into the "Troopergate" story for the American Spectator, later apologized to President Clinton for delving into his marital infidelities. Human Events sheds light this week on a "very cozy relationship" between Mr. Brock and senior White House aide Sidney Blumenthal, a former New Yorker Washington correspondent who refused at the time to write about Whitewater. "Turns out that Blumenthal has admitted under oath in his libel suit against Matt Drudge that he has not only dined with Brock, but also has been to his house," reports the weekly newspaper. "He estimated that he has had 30 to 50 conversations with Brock." Ironic, Human Events continues, given that Mr. Blumenthal, as part of his lawsuit, has been trying to detail Mr. Drudge's contacts with conservative journalists."

CAS List 11/18/98 Carl Limbacher ".Throughout Tuesday, the electronic press was filled with snippets from the Tripp-Lewinsky tapes. Monica laughing, Monica sobbing, Monica explaining that oral sex isn't sex. (Where'd she get that from?). No matter where you tuned in, the same 15 or so audio clips were being recycled ad nauseum. Almost immediately the press complained that by releasing the Tripp- Lewinsky conversations, the House Judiciary Committee had "turned us into a nation of voyeurs." But if the media really find the purient aspects of this audio soap opera so objectionable, why don't they move to a more G-rated topic; one that might be an even bigger ratings booster.."

CAS List 11/18/98 Carl Limbacher ".Why aren't the networks, the cable stations or even talk radio playing Lewinsky's explosive taped remarks about being afraid for her life, which were part of the transcripts released in early October? It was precisely that fear, explained the former intern on the tape recorded Jan. 13, 1998, that was her primary motivation for filing a false affidavit in the Paula Jones case. Here Tripp is heard begging Monica to reconsider that desision: Tripp: You - you are - are you positive in your heart that you want to do that? I mean - Lewinsky: Uh-huh. Tripp: I'm only saying - I'm only saying that in case you should change your mind. Lewinsky: No. I - I - I - first of all, for fear of my life. I would not - I would not cross these - these people for fear of my life, number one. (Transcript - New York Times, Oct. 3, 1998) This is "stop the presses'' material. Here's Monica explaining to her friend that her numero uno reason for committing perjury on Bill Clinton's behalf is - not the mere job she was promised by Vernon Jordan - but Monica's own perception that telling the truth could be deadly. And this wasn't the first time the ex-intern had raised the issue of her personal safety in her talks with Tripp. In another cut the media can't seem to find; this one from the Nov. 20, 1997 Tripp tape, Monica reacts after Tripp comments on her plan to tell Clinton she wants to break up. Tripp: Well, let me put it to you this way. By hanging up and saying you're telling your parents and then hanging up the phone, you're saying a whole hell of a lot more than you could ever do in a 20 minute conversation. Lewinsky: I know (tape skip) (inaudible) my mom will kill me if I don't tell him - make it clear at some point that I'm not going to hurt him, because - see, my mom's big fear is that he's going to send somebody out to kill me. (New York Times - Oct. 3, 1998) Curiously, Linda Tripp shoots such speculation down immediately and emphatically. Tripp: Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Lewinsky: So -- Tripp: Shut up. Lewinskly: Well, that's what she thinks. Tripp: Oh, my God. Don't even say such an asinine thing. He's not that stupid. He's an arrogant....but he's not that stupid. Lewinsky: Well, you know, accidents happen.."

The New York Times 11/18/98 Maureen Dowd ".But in the weeks since the election there has been too much gloating from the White House and its supporters. And there has been too much self- lacerating journalistic commentary misconstruing the public reaction as a vindication of the President. He won. The press lost. The press should get lost. Game over. In a nation ruled by polls and ratings, where even newspapers hire focus groups to see what kind of news readers want, we are losing sight of something we should have learned as teen-agers: Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. At the White House, the truth is employed only to the extent that it's useful. When the Monica story broke, Dick Morris said, the President asked him to do a poll to tell him what would play better, the truth or a lie."

New York Times 11/21/98 Frank Rich ".Its love affair with Monica at long last over, TV has turned nasty. Only 15 minutes into Kenneth Starr's two-hour-plus monologue -- the "Meet Joe Black" of testimony, as one Hollywood observer described it -- the NBC affiliate in New York pulled the plug and switched to Sally Jessy Raphael. The same happened on other channels, in other cities, including Washington itself. In Seattle the local NBC station had to yank the impeachment hearings to quell a popular uprising: viewers were on the phone demanding a return to regularly scheduled programming. Hours later, when the Starr-Kendall confrontation at last arrived, the All Monica cable network MSNBC hyped it as "the big showdown," a prime-time battle so highly anticipated (said one commentator) that people might even watch it on pay-per-view. But none of the Big Three networks aired so much as a minute of it live.."

Jewish Task Force 11/18/98 Aryeh ben Moishe ".There is another major reason why Republicans did not do as well as expected in the 1998 midterm Congressional elections. The idiotic Republicans fell hook, line and sinker for the left-wing media trap of diverting attention from the REAL Clinton scandal involving Communist China. Left-wing Democrats and their loyal allies, the left-wing media, realized that Bill Clinton, yimach shmo ve- zichro (may his name and memory be obliterated), had given the Communist Chinese the most advanced American missile technology in exchange for direct bribes from the Chinese Red Army to the Democratic Party. This clearly is the most serious scandal in American history. It is a scandal which few Americans would say does not matter as long as they believe that the country is not in a recession. Clinton reversed longstanding American policy as soon as the Chinese Communists gave the Democrats a million dollars for the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign in 1996. The evidence against Clinton and Vice President Al Whore is overwhelming. Even the Administration's own Justice Department had strongly advised against allowing the deal to go through. Recognizing the gravity of the treasonous conduct which Bill Clinton and Al Whore are so clearly guilty of, the spinmeisters in the Clinton-loving media immediately seized on a diversionary, and far less serious, scandal: Clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice as a result of his attempting to cover up his adulterous affairs with Monica Lewinsky and many other women. The media instinctively understood, and was aided in this understanding by numerous national polls, that most Americans have become so immoral that even breaking laws to cover up cheating on a marriage partner is no longer something of any great importance. A President abiding by the law or being faithful to his wife and children is simply not relevant to most people in our evil, G-dless society.."

Philadelphia Inquirer 11/21/98 Gail Shister ".If Americans are as fed up with the Lewinsky scandal as they say they are, you wouldn't know it by the ratings for cable's live coverage of independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel and Court TV all experienced dramatic increases in Nielsen ratings during Starr's 10-plus hours of testimony. Live coverage began at 10 a.m. Each channel's numbers peaked between 9:30 and 10 p.m., when the President's lawyer David Kendall cross-examined Starr. CNN averaged a 1.6 rating for the day, which translates to 1.2 million households. That's up 220 percent from the network's October average and represents CNN's second-highest rated day of the year -- behind only the Sept. 21 telecast of the tape of Clinton's grand jury testimony. MSNBC notched a 24-hour average of 0.7 rating, equaling 300,000 homes. That's an increase of 119 percent from October and ranks sixth on the NBC-owned channel's all-time ratings list. (Princess Diana's funeral, on Sept. 6, 1997, is No. 1.) Fox News Channel was up 157 percent over its October average, with a 0.5 rating and 175,000 homes. And at Court TV, coverage averaged a 0.2 rating and 70,000 homes over 24 hours, more than double the channel's October figures. (The number of homes equivalent to a ratings point can vary from one cable channel to another, because some cable channels are more readily available than others. CNN, for example, is in virtually all homes with cable, but many cable systems do not offer the Fox News Channel.)."

Washington Post 11/21/98 William Raspberry ".My own little question is much simpler: Whose water have the media been carrying, and when are they going to tell the people? What occasions this question is a fascinating exchange between Starr and David E. Kendall, Clinton's personal lawyer. Kendall apparently raised the question of leaks just once too often for Starr's taste, and the independent counsel shot back with this: "When you look at the information that we had in our office, and [at] the FBI, as opposed to information that you had access to, it [the former] never entered the public domain." He mentioned specifically the celebrated blue dress with its DNA secrets. "Those were never in the public domain because you did not have a witness in your joint defense arrangements whom you could debrief." In short, those yelling so loudly about the leaks might well have been the leakers -- perhaps in an effort to soften the unavoidable blows. The reporters who published the leaks know which side they came from -- and they know that the source of the leaks (by affiliation if not by name) is an important element in the public judgment of the fairness of the investigation. When are they going to tell the people? ."

Drudge Report 11/21/98 ".Key political stories have leaked out of the WASHINGTON POST newsroom to the White House -- days before publication, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned! A top WASHINGTON POST staffer has shared details of developing stories with their spouse, according to a well-placed source, a spouse that in turn briefed an individual who had an open communication line with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. The information breach occured under the radar of WASHINGTON POST executives and management. One incident involves a story that was being developed by POST veteran Thomas B. Edsall. Details from a yet-to-be-published Edsall story reached the highest levels of the White House -- through the spouse of the POST staffer. Edsall did not have a clue that his story was being leaked, one insider claims.

Face the Nation 12/8/96 ANCHORS: BOB SCHIEFFER with Sam Dash about Carville ".Mr. DASH: ...between the right of a citizen and even the right of an organization to go to the people about a political issue, about a social issue. Here there is a clear difference, it seems to me, that--number one, Mr. Carville is not just anybody. He really is a representative of the president of the United States. He's his political strategist, public relations person, and most people will believe that he's not doing this alone. I think it's unreal to say that the White House has nothing to do with it. It seems to me that if the White House and the president were to disagree with what Mr. Carville's doing and they told him to stop, he would stop. SCHIEFFER: Mm-hmm. Mr. DASH: Now the president of the United States is the senior law enforcement officer of the country. The Constitution says he has a duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed. What Mr. Carville seems to be doing is trying to prevent the laws from being faithfully executed. SCHIEFFER: So you are saying--what would he actually have to do to cross this line where this would become obstruction of justice? Mr. DASH: Well, if, in his ads, he threatened the independent counsel, that he would stand in his way for any further advance in the government, that if he told grand jurors that they ought to ignore this so-called 'politicized independent counsel,' and that they shouldn't indict anybody based on his request, I think he's going too far there by interfering with the system of justice. After all, the independent counsel, Ken Starr, was duly appointed under a statute applied for by the attorney general of the United States, and, earlier, that independent counsel investigation was recommended by President Clinton. This is not just an off-the-cuff investigation. This is a duly-authorized law enforcement investigation, and although Carville, as I say, has a right to criticize what Ken Starr does, he does not have a right to interfere with, influence or interrupt that investigation.."

Wall Street Journal 1/6/97 Micah Morrison ".Bill Clinton's Whitewater problems are due to a "media food chain" through which conservative philanthropist Richard Scaife engineers a "media frenzy"-- at least according to a White House report running 331 pages. The notion: Mr. Scaife's funding of the Western Journalism Center and publication of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review introduces "conspiracy theories and innuendo," which are then picked up by the likes of the American Spectator magazine and London's Sunday Telegraph. From there they enter the "right-of-center mainstream media," such as the Washington Times and this editorial page. Then Congress looks into the matter and "the story now has the legitimacy to be covered by the remainder of the American mainstream press as a 'real' story." ..Lanny Davis, the new White House special counsel for scandals, says the report was created "in response to press inquiries and provided to journalists who asked." Mr. Davis complied with this newspaper's request for a copy, but declined to respond to questions. A version of the report was posted on the Internet by an ostensibly independent group of Clinton defenders, the Back to Business Committee. The committee, chaired by former Democratic National Committee vice-chairwoman Lynn Cutler, lists a board of advisers that includes former Reps. Tony Coelho and Robert Drinan, S.J.; Dukakis campaign manager Susan Estrich; Carter administration officials Jody Powell, Anne Wexler and Andrew Young; as well as Arthur Coia, president of the court-supervised Laborer's International Union. .. One of the striking things about press coverage of Whitewater is the number of star reporters who, for one reason or another, are no longer on the beat. Investigative reporter Douglas Frantz quit the Los Angeles Times.."

Washington Weekly 5/4/98 ".Survival of the Clinton administration has also been contingent upon successful corruption of the press. The most prominent Clinton operator at this time is Murray Waas, gaining fame in the mainstream media for finding a psychic in Arkansas whose son had seen money given to Whitewater witness David Hale. Murray Waas has actually been doing opposition research for the Clinton administration for several years. His journalistic "scoops" (or are they merely ventilations of White House FBI files?) include research into the background of Kenneth Starr and into the background of Clinton critics. In this research, his Mafia-style methods have become apparent. Waas threatened to have reporter Michael Lewis killed after Lewis wrote a New Republic story looking into murder and drugs in Arkansas--a story that was unflattering of Waas [3]. Who does Waas know who would be able to enforce such a threat? .."

Drudge 11/28/98 ".There are only a few things more embarrassing in the news business than a story that comes back to haunt, and haunt, and haunt. Or, in the case of TIME magazine, a story that exposes the true quality of a product. In its January 26, 1998 issue, TIME magazine pulled out all of the stops to cover the fallout from President Clinton's Paula Jones deposition. Reported by Jay Branegan, Margaret Carlson, Michael Duffy, Chandrani Ghosh and Viveca Novak, the TIME magazine story -- that was trumpeted in a TIME press release just hours of the Clinton testimony finished -- would have to be a finalist for this year's Propaganda Pulitzer: "The President felt that the [Paula Jones] deposition had gone smashingly for him. Describing the mood Saturday night at the White House, one person close to the President said, "Everyone is going to sleep well tonight." Clinton prepared to do just that, forgoing an evening at the Kennedy Center or a dinner with chief of staff Erskine Bowles to stay in for the night... he momentarily set aside the noble task of searching for his place in history -- part of his preparations for the State of the Union address -- in order to answer questions more suited to a giggly teen's game of Truth or Dare." TIME magazine founder Henry Luce must be twitching in his grave... "

The Independent - UK Mary Dejevsky 11/27/98 ".THOUSANDS OF sensitive documents relating to US national security have been leaked, according to reports on the Internet yesterday. But America's mainstream media, preoccupied with the Thanksgiving holiday, seemed not to want to know. The documents, as many as 20,000 pages of them, are said to detail efforts by the Clinton administration to conceal the extent of Iraq's weapons development plans, White House approval for exports of sensitive satellite technology to China, and information about the incentives offered by Washington to North Korea in return for curbing its nuclear programme - terms that North Korea has in the event ignored...Verbatim details from the papers were not available yesterday, and Murray Waas, the reporter said to have the papers, could not be reached. Drudge suggested that Waas, who writes for the pro-Clinton Internet magazine Salon, was reluctant to divulge the contents while Bill Clinton faces impeachment proceedings.."

Washington Weekly 11/30/98 Edward Zehr "."If Richard Nixon had such loyal devotees, I guess he would have probably served all eight years," said Starr advisor Ronald Rotunda, a former assistant majority counsel to the Senate Watergate committee, to a reporter from the New York Post. I take Mr. Rotunda's point, but I don't believe this for a minute. It was the mainstream press that dismissed President Nixon from office because they didn't like the way he ran the Vietnam War (he wouldn't give up when they told him to), and in particular, didn't like Nixon. All Congress did was to ratify their decision.."

Washington Weekly 11/30/98 Marvin Lee ".Palladino was hired by Betsy Wright during the 1992 campaign. But if Paula Jones didn't file her lawsuit until years later, then Gennifer Flowers wasn't a witness in a lawsuit and the witness tampering statutes would not apply, right? Wrong. Former Clinton employee Larry Nichols in 1990 and again in 1992 filed lawsuits alleging that then-Governor Clinton used state property and state employees to conduct illicit meetings with women. Flowers was among the women named by Larry Nichols in his lawsuit. By asking about Palladino, Chairman Hyde has made the 1992 witness tampering effort part of the impeachment inquiry within the scope of the charges of obstruction of justice. By his inability to deny the charges, Clinton has made sure that they stay part of the inquiry. The mainstream media, in its analysis of Clinton's responses to Hyde's 81 questions, has completely overlooked this aspect. They, as well as the Democrats, prefer to keep the inquiry narrowly focused on Monica Lewinsky.."

The Washington Weekly (http://www.federal.com) 11/30/98 Marvin Lee ".Last year Matt Drudge pried loose from underneath the behind of Newsweek "reporter" Michael Isikoff the Kathleen Willey story. Isikoff had decided to sit on it. The White House was concerned. They could control Isikoff but could they control Matt Drudge? . In January of this year he broke the Lewinsky story that some members of the "press" had been sitting on for months. When Clinton read the Drudge Report that day, he set in motion a cover-up effort and the rest is history. On Tuesday of last week, Drudge pulled another one. He blew the lid on a story that pro-Clinton reporter Murray Waas as well as two Washington newspaper editors had been sitting on: the leak of more than 20,000 classified foreign policy documents detailing the failed national security policy of the Clinton administration towards North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iraq and China. "The papers also reveal new details on the Clinton policy towards China in which the White House allowed ballistic missile technology exports to China at the behest of wealthy Democratic campaign contributors," reported Drudge. No mainstream media outlet has picked up on the story yet, but a British newspaper attempted to contact Murray Waas for confirmation.."

Congressional Record-Page S13251 9/19/91 Sen. Bob Dole ".Mr. President, I raise this issue for two reasons. One is to make it clear that this body should expect a very serious debate over reauthorization of the independent counsel statute, which expires next year. And the second reason is to point out the fact that pure hardball politics and not any desire for justice is usually the motivating factor behind the appointment of an independent counsel. If proof of this point were needed, all one has to do is listen to the silence coming from the other side of the aisle over the BCCI scandal. Here is what appears to be the juiciest of all scandals--one involving bribery, money laundering, and financial fraud spanning several continents. This is a big deal. Yet, those who have so quickly jumped on the independent counsel bandwagon before, are now nowhere to be found. The media, usually leading the drumbeat for an appointment, is also strangely silent. Where is the media? Why are not some in the media demanding a special prosecutor in the BCCI case? Someone a little more skeptical than I might suggest that the reason for this is that the overwhelming majority of names implicated in the scandal are Democrats. Chief among these is David Paul, financial angel to the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, and perpetrator of the Centrust Savings & Loans fiasco--a multibillion-dollar ripoff of the taxpayers..."

Drudge Report 11/29/98 ".Waas on Sunday night was said to be "bitterly angry" over the leak regarding the leak. "He is furious that word got out," a close friend to Waas explained late Sunday night in Washington. "He has been holding the documents close after showing them to two Washington newspaper editors." .. During the 1992 presidential campaign, both Clinton and Gore often praised Waas exclusives exposing the Bush administration's Iraq policy, which involved the leaks of thousands of pages of classified papers regarding the Gulf war. It is not clear when Waas will begin to unload on Clinton. Some in Washington speculate that left-wing Waas does not want to write a major expose about the Clinton administration in the midst of the impeachment hearings, fueling the flames for conservatives. "He's bitterly angry," says a close associate. "Conservatives have been spreading rumors to pressure him to do it. And now his White House contacts are now extremely angry and have stopped talking to him because he is doing it!"."

http://etherzone.com/ 11/29/98 ".A 32 year old ex-store clerk turned journalist sits in his $600.00 a month Hollywood apartment and blows the lid off the Lewinsky/Clinton matter last January. He reports about a blue dress and everyone laughs. The President of the United States reads the Drudge report and begins a massive eight month cover up. Some members of the main press take weeks even months to report what the internet surfer saw as old news. Last Tuesday, Drudge once again blew the whistle on the White House. Pro-Clinton reporter Murray Waas as well as two Washington newspaper editors who had been sitting on: the leak of more than 20,000 classified foreign policy documents detailing the failed national security policy of the Clinton administration towards North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iraq and China. Even more damaging, the report talks about the Clinton White House selling ballistic missile technology exports to China at the behest of wealthy Democratic campaign contributors. As any reader of the Zone knows this is the real scandal behind this deceitful administration. It is now almost a week later and not a peep on this has been heard in the main stream press. Why? Because the main stream liberal press is co-conspirators in this massive cover-up of this administration's high crimes and misdemeanors. The success of the Clinton's administration agenda is dependent upon the successful corruption of the press. As we reported last month, "Murray Waas has spent endless hours looking into the backgrounds of Clinton enemies and those of Ken Starr. Waas's mob style methods of reporting has surfaced. Waas threatened to have reporter Michael Lewis killed after Lewis wrote a New Republic piece looking into drugs and murder in Arkansas. Lewis's story in 1996, presented an unflattering look at Waas. It may take weeks, perhaps months, but this story like the Lewinsky scandal will eventually surface. The press will reluctantly have to report it and the cover up will unravel. This time the scandal will reach the breath of National Security and the public outrage will be real. One man, one website, and the freedom of the press may well bring down the President of the United States, this time for real. . . ."

Freeper Bob Shearer 11/30/98 response from David Talbot - Salon Magazine ".Dear Mr Shearer: Murray Waas does indeed work for Salon as an investigative reporter. But we don't comment on our investigative work before these stories appear. Mr. Drudge, as usual, operated unethically and unprofessionally by running his report on Mr. Waas. Thanks for reading Salon. Best wishes, David Talbot "

Newsmax.com 12-4-98 Brent Bozell ".Diane Sawyer's recent "20/20" interview with Kenneth Starr proves with a vengeance that the media culture's take on Monicagate has become positively Orwellian: Good is Evil. Space doesn't allow a recital of all the objectionable Carvillesque attacks Sawyer proudly launched on this soft-spoken officer of the law. So let's just explore the themes. 1. Repression. Sawyer suggested Starr was disqualified for the Monicagate probe because of his personal opposition to adultery..Flip to Sawyer asking Starr: "So to the people who say you're a prude, you're a puritan, you're the sex police, you say what?" . 2. Pornography. Here's where Sawyer's logic completely collapses upon itself. She suggested the American people are not shocked about the president's wild life but were shocked that Ken Starr included the tabloid details of the president's encounters in his referral to Congress. Sawyer complained: "I think there were 62 mentions of the word 'breast,' 23 of 'cigar,' 19 of 'semen.' This has been called demented pornography, pornography for Puritans. Were there mistakes made in including some of this?" What is she talking about, "demented pornography for Puritans"? I highly doubt Sawyer the religious scholar has ever studied Puritan predilections for pornography... 3. Certainty. In Sawyerian theology, certainty is to be feared, and ambiguity is the path to righteousness. She declared: "As you know, you have been cast in the role of a moral crusader in an ambiguous world, that you are self-righteous, sanctimonious, that you have moral certainty into areas where other people have doubt and humanity. What do you think about extramarital sex?" ..There is something about certainty that scares a lot of people." In other words, good is evil. Insisting that a president abide by something called the truth, and insisting that reality somehow matters, becomes a much greater offense than lying under oath to protect yourself in a sexual harassment lawsuit. Sawyer's bluster is nothing but politically convenient situational ethics..

Washington Post (via St. Louis Post-Dispatch) 12/6/98 ".A prize-winning documentary about Colombian drug-runners that was broadcast on the CBS program "60 Minutes" was a fake, a commission has concluded. It said that paid actors portrayed drug dealers and that the producer's hotel room was disguised as a drug kingpin's jungle hide-out. An independent panel of lawyers and veteran producers said the news program "The Connection" was essentially fiction. The film had dramatic footage of a drug "mule" said to be carrying millions of dollars worth of heroin to London for Colombia's Cali drug cartel. The panel concluded that there was no "mule" and no heroin, and that the "important new smuggling route" the program purported to expose does not exist. The documentary was made by Carlton Communications, a prominent British television and film production company, and was sold to CBS in 1997. It features hidden cameras, disguised-voice interviews, secretive locations and other tools of documentary filmmakers. The flaws in the production were revealed in May by London's Guardian newspaper. The Guardian report prompted Carlton to set up the independent panel, which issued its devastating report Friday.."

Washington Weekly 12/7/98 Robert Stowe England ".Aldrich said he had been approached by some conservatives who had been contacted to speak to the Free Republic rally and who asked him about the people who were organizing it. He gave the Free Republic a ringing endorsement, he said, comparing Free Republic activists to those who organized the Boston tea party and to Patrick Henry. "I've completed my background investigation and I'm happy to be part of this," he says he told those who asked. Aldrich criticized the liberal media for weakening the country's freedoms by failing to cover such events as the Free Republic rally of October 31. He faulted CNN for failing to report any part of the event even though its cameramen and reporters were present. CNN did not cover this rally either.."

UPI 12/7/98 ".Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and former Education Secretary William Bennett (Monday) have awarded their dubious ``Silver Sewer Award'' to CBS-Television for airing ``The Howard Stern Radio Show'' and the ``60 Minutes'' broadcast featuring Dr. Jack Kevorkian's role in the death of a man by lethal injection.."

The Brazosport Facts 12-10-98 Col. Otis C. Taylor, Ret. -- WWII Veteran ".A very important chapter of American history will soon come to a close. The Panama Canal, a monument to American "know-how," will come under the control of Communist China in the year 2000. Not only will our government's "Most Favored Nation" control the Panama Canal, but also the U.S. Army and Navy military installations within the Canal Zone. The American Legion Magazine (Oct. 1998) gave a good account of how China managed this. In recent bidding for future control of the canal, and associated security installations, the U.S. was the highest bidder. After all the bids were received, the Panamanian president changed the rules of bidding and allowed Communist China to submit a second bid. China's second bid exceeded the U.S. bid. the Panamanian newspaper, El Siglio, reported that "China was allowed to submit a second bid after bucketloads of money arrived from Asia...One would think that China's pending control of the Panama Canal, and all of our military installations within the canal zone, would get the attention of all U.S. news networks. However, I am aware of no mention of this debacle by any radio, TV, or major newspaper. How much have you noticed? Are the news networks unaware of what is happening? I have little doubt that our politicians in Washington know, but just don't care. They have more important things to worry about, like the next election.."

12/11/98 Rep Bob Barr ".In a statement today, U.S. Representative Bob Barr (GA-7) blasted President Clinton's defenders for conducting a scorched-earth campaign to smear members of the House Judiciary Committee with false allegations. The statement followed an attempt by trial lawyer Alan Dershowitz to call Barr a racist, based on his appearance before a group in South Carolina called the Council of Conservative Citizens. In another case, White House operative Sidney Blumenthal has attacked Committee Member Lindsey Graham (R-SC). The National Enquirer, which is represented by Clinton Attorney David Kendall, also reportedly published an article today alleging an affair involving Committee Member Mary Bono (R-CA). Barr also noted a report in the New York Daily News today that White House Chief of Staff John Podesta is ordering prominent businessmen to pressure Members of Congress on the upcoming impeachment vote. "I am adamantly opposed to discrimination in any way, shape or form. For the President's henchmen to suggest otherwise, based on a brief appearance I made before a group in South Carolina to discuss the impeachment process, is outrageous. The fact is, I strongly disagree with many of this group's ridiculous views, and have said so publicly. "It is a sad day in our country when a Member of Congress cannot speak before a group without subjecting them to an exhaustive investigation to determine if one of their members has ever written an offensive or ridiculous column. Sadly, there appears to be no despicable conduct the President's defenders will not stoop to in order to protect him.."

USA Today 12/12/98 David Lieberman, excerpts by A Whitewater Researcher ".EXCERPTS: "...CBS' Andy Rooney knows how stressful it can be to work at a company facing declining prestige, layoffs and management turmoil..."We're distraught and resigned," says Rooney...of TV's 60 Minutes...TV broadcasters ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, UPN and WB face daunting problems as their collective ratings sag and programming costs soar....CBS and NBC each eliminated about 300 jobs to cut costs. ABC instituted a temporary moratorium on raises and some promotions - and engaged in a fierce showdown with a union...NBC, Fox and WB announced new programming chiefs; CBS got a new CEO....realization that the network business continues to weaken at an alarming pace. The networks' collective audience is off 9% this season, vs. the same period a year ago. A continued slump could lead advertisers - which spent $14 billion this year on network air time - to stop paying premium rates....Only one network, NBC, definitely will end 1998 in the black...major networks weren't designed for a world of competition...."

ABC 12/12/98 Michael Smith reporting ".Responding to Cokie Roberts report on the status of upcoming House impeachment votes, Charles Gibson made this interesting comment, which I am paraphrasing as closely to his actual words as I can recall by memory. And keep in mind that the tone in his voice evidenced disbelief and exasperation when he said it: Many have stated that the reason the Republicans lost some seats in the mid-term elections is because they were pushing for impeachment. Even though they lost these seats, they are still pushing, and pushing, and pushing.."

New York Times 12/13/98 John Broder ".But a political ally who spoke with the president on Friday night, after the Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment, said that Clinton was in a state of "disbelief" about the week's events. The president did not think he would lose his job, Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., said in an interview. But he has not yet reconciled himself to the strong possibility that the House next week will impeach him and plunge the country into a period of constitutional crisis.." Note from Alamo-Girl: listed here because the assignment of responsibility for the plunging is made to the "House" instead of the President.

Freeper Arthur McGowan on ABC 12/13/98 ".ABC claimed that no one cares about the hearings today, whereas in 1973-74, the people were "riveted" to their sets watching the Watergate proceedings. Ha! I remember the news stories in 1973-74 about the floods of calls protesting every time the networks pre‰mpted "Batman" and the soaps for the Ervin Committee, etc. And the polls were AGAINST impeachment then, too. ABC showed lots of mindless, brainless, morons saying they were "tired" of Monicagate, etc. These are people who do not read, think---or vote, thank God. (I hope.)." and continued by Freeper Bonaparte ".I remember those hearings, too, Arthur. Each day you had to find out which network was airing them, because in spite of the networks' glee over Nixon's dilemna, none of them wanted to run the hearings each day. Too few people were interested in watching them and too much money was being lost. So they rotated. Now, twenty-five years later, none of the networks consider the Judiciary Committee's deliberations worthy of air time -- the deliberations that have resulted in four articles of impeachment against the president of the United States.."

Freeper Ron C. 11/13/98 on LA Times ".Yesterday a post on FR referred to an LA Times poll with unlikely numbers. I pulled the results page, and by doing repeated reloads, I could watch the numbers (in Clinton's favor, of course) increasing between 20 and 30 every few seconds between 2:30-3:00AM!! Now I know the web is popular, but what are the chances of 20 ro 30 Clinton supporters hitting that poll every 5 to 6 seconds during that time, eh? ... (here is my email to Mark Willes, the publisher, sent to mark.willes@tm.com) Dear Mr. Willes, I have discovered what I believe to be a blatant fruad on the LA Times website. I was pointed to an on-line poll regarding impeachment, there I watched as the numbers increased at a steady (and unlikely rate) at 2:30AM. I saw the numbers rising at a rate of several hundred in just a few seconds. As a computer programmer, I know it is easy to create such a fraud, and you should be concerned if such is the case, which is most likely from what I have seen. What numbers were rising at a virtually impossible rate? Why, the ones any good Clinton supporter would like to see - of course. The Times is having hard finacial times these days - could it not be that such dishonesty might be the reason? Good luck, Mr Willes. I think you are going to need it..It was only a few minutes after sending that email that the numbers magically quit rising... could it be the system operator got a clue?? As an ISP, I know how easy it is to read ALL email on a system, especially if you are a bit worried about some fraud going on! Could it be?? Several Freepers saw what I did, and might like to drop Mr. Willes a note saying we don't appreciate such "spin" (aka LIEING!) Others might want to keep an occasional eye on the results page... it's easy to make CGI code calls do "magical" things with numbers... if you are a mind to.."

Freeper Bob Ireland 12/13/98 on NBC Late Night with Conan O'Brien ".During the show Late Night With Conan O'Brien' on NBC-TV Friday night/Saturday morning, Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin became very agitated about the House Judiciary impeachment hearings. At one point he leaped from his chair, obviously very exercised. ''We should go to Washington and stone Henry Hyde to death.'' [Crowd cheers...] ''And then we should go to his house and kill his family!"[paraphrased] Now folks... this show doesn't air 'live'. NBC had adequate opportunity to delete this part of the show or take measures to preserve common decency. They chose to leave the comments intact for 'air'."

Drudge 12/13/98 ".Uttering the phrase "The American people..." [usually followed by "believe", "have decided", "want", or "understand"] has become the ultimate ego-trip of TV and radio hosts, their guests and callers, newspaper columnists, White House advisers and congressional know-it-alls. Just ask CNBC's Geraldo Rivera. His show is king of the term "American People." The ego phrase was used 53 times in the past week on GERALDO LIVE, according to a DRUDGE REPORT crunch taken from transcripts.."The American People..." was used 33 times on CNBC's HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS during the past week. [Host Matthews, in a complete fit, used the term 10 times in one exchange.] There were 14 mentions of 'The American People..." on CNN's LATE EDITION with Wolf Blizter [12/13]. *14 mentions on NBC's MEET THE PRESS [12/13] *9 mentions on ABC's THIS WEEK [12/13] *9 mentions of FOX NEWS SUNDAY [12/13] *5 mentions of CBS's FACE THE NATION [12/13] Throw in programs rotating on MSNBCFOXNEWSCSPAN, where references to "The American people..." occur by the minute, and the brainwashing nears perfection.."

Media Reaearch Center 12/14/98 Sam Donaldson ". At the top of the December 13 roundtable Donaldson told Cokie Roberts, Bill Kristol, George Stephanopoulos and George Will: "Many reporters who've covered the President all during thescandal, and who may have been pretty tough on him, are almosttoday beseeching the White House to get out there and fight, orwondering why at least he doesn't. For instance, the Presidentsays he will talk to any of these moderates who want to talk tohim, but he's not going to call them. What's wrong with calling aslong as you don't threaten them or do anything improper? Why notpick up the phone and say `sir, can I just at least give you myside of the case?.."

'

London Times 12/14/98 Ian Brodie ".BILL and Hillary Clinton will not be shaking hands and having their photographs taken with the White House press corps this Christmas. Nor will they be playing host to them in the state rooms that Mrs Clinton has richly festooned with Christmas decorations. Instead, members of the Fourth Estate have been banished to a tent in the garden.."

Press Journal (Vero Beach, FL) 12/12/98 Paul Craig Roberts ".If news stories trickling out of Canada are true, impeachment is too good for Bill Clinton. Drawing and quartering would be more appropriate. According to these reports, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are conducting a criminal investigation of an illegal blood collection scheme with links to then Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton..Canadian reporters are amazed that their U.S. counterparts have ignored this story.."

Brian Williams and the News MSNBC 12/14/98 by Freeper Danno ".Brian was doing his regular feature where he does a tour of what is being said in the national rags. In Newsweek's Conventional Wisdom section the magazine attacked Schippers as something out of "Twin Peaks" (arrows down) and giving kudos to Charles Ruff performance before the HJC as rising above the legal hairsplitting so often charaterizing the President's defense. He went on the report about 3 or four more Conventional Wisdom excerpts that were comically and obviouslly pro-Clinton. To which Brian Williams chuckled about Newsweek's true colors...It must have appeared so blatant to Williams that he just couldn't help his comment..."

12/15/98 Judicial Watch Press Release ".Geraldo Rivera, who limits the appearances by staunch critics of the Administration (most of his so-called conservative guests, not coincidentally, are actually against impeachment), has allowed his show to be used again by The White House and its allies. Yesterday, Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor, branded Bob Barr, Trent Lott and Tom Delay, "white supremacists." Geraldo did not do anything in response to rebuke Dershowitz, and in fact seemed to approve of the statements. "Rivera, who has been used by the White House to smear opponents of the Administration, including Democrat Representative Paul McHale, should be ashamed. He owes an immediate apology to these conservative leaders, and unless one is forthcoming, conservatives should not appear further on his show, " stated Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman. "As for Dershowitz, he is the equivalent of Louis Farrakhan, and should not be allowed to spew forth this hatred on any television medium," Klayman added.."

Norman Liebmann 12/14/98 ".Contrary to the contemporary "smarts", America is not sick of the Clinton scandal, they are sick of the media's "take" on it, dismissing the toxins of perjury and perversion Clinton has pumped into the body politic as just another episode of "Tammy and the President." A casualty of habituated thinking, the media clings to the notion Clinton will reform, a hope as ill-founded as Mickey Rooney's birthday cake wish that he will still "spring up overnight." America is sick of the media's management, manipulation, exploitation and capitalization of l'affaire Lewinsky. America is sick of the media allowing Clinton to redefine sex. So far he has re-labeled it everything but sperm-surfing. Presumably, Clinton was encouraged he could make his outrageous lie about sex stick, when he saw gullible American public swallow the television networks' preposterous assertion that the commercials are not louder than the shows. America is sick of the media's posture that Bubba only indulges in recreational perjury when the record shows he is addicted to it. Clinton is like a junkie who said, "If I thought heroin was habit forming I wouldn't keep "doing" it all the time." America is sick of the media portraying Clinton as the indispensable man. Despite their ambivalence about a President (any President) being removed from office, people know Clinton will be replaced by a guy who shakes down Chinese nuns - and it will be a step up from what we've got. America is sick of being patronized by the media. It is an insulting assumption America is waiting for Candy Crowley to explain everything - including Creation. Having something explained to you by anyone at CNN is like having your grammar corrected by an illiterate - and besides, if she was any kind of a lady, she'd wait to be asked. America is sick of Margaret Carlson wetting her eyes, and Eleanor Clift wetting her pants because people say mean things about Bill Clinton [many more items in the article.]."

Trailer trash reporting on Shays townhall 12/15/98 ".Well all I know is that the Networks were pumping this up as a big event. Get ready to tune in etc. The first few poeple at the mic were very vocal for impeachment. Any anti impeachment comments were shouted down. Now if I remember right, 15 minutes before the show, Bernie Shaw let us all know that the calls into his district have been more anti impeach than anything. I guess they forgot to show up. After all the preshow hype,CNN/ MSNBC arre blacking it out. If you don't watch it or tape it it probably will not bee seen on the networks except for the clips they want you to see. I retract. CNN is showing a small clip. But they are cutting up the heck out of it.."

Washington Post Howard Kurtz 12/15/98 ".After President Clinton admitted misleading the country about Monica Lewinsky, a wave of revulsion swept through the media, with more than 140 newspapers and plenty of columnists urging him to resign. Less than four months later, many of the same purveyors of elite opinion are staunchly opposing Clinton's impeachment, which, if the Senate voted to convict, would lead to his eviction. Are these esteemed media heavies wimping out at the moment of truth? After all, Clinton was never very likely to follow their collective advice and leave town, making resignation a painless solution to champion.."

David Broder 12/15/98 ".When it was suggested here a few weeks ago that the impeachment process, then about to begin in the House Judiciary Committee, could be an instructive experience for the country, many readers responded incredulously. But despite many obstacles, that process has begun to work. We have had a healthy debate about the constitutional standard for removing a president from office, and we are now having an equally important discussion about the role of public opinion in a republic. The national conversation has not been all that it might have been, in part because the television networks, in flagrant disregard of their public interest obligations, refused to interrupt their entertainment schedules to carry the Judiciary Committee debate..No one demonstrated the statesmanship that compelled almost half the Republicans on Judiciary to vote to impeach Richard Nixon. And no one yet has done what the late Barbara Jordan did -- in lifting the tone of the debate to the level such issues deserve. The oratory so far has been pedestrian.."

Freeper F7 12/18/98 ".CBS cuts to interview with Hillary during Bob Barr's..."

Freeper Wright is right! ".They cut away everytime there's a pubbie speaking, then come back when a Dem gets up. It's a really blatant pattern.."

Freeper grobdriver 12/18/98 ".Anybody surprised?Here's the man who can and has made the most cogent arguments for impeachment, who is not going to pull any punches. I'm not surprised that CBS doesn't want the sheeple who don't know about or can't get FOX/CSPAN to see/hear Rep. Barr.."

Washington Weekly 12/21/98 Edward Zehr ".And so, in order to provide a scant day of grace for a disgraced president faced with impeachment, we find ourselves embroiled in what the British press is referring to as "Monica's War." If there is a more blatant way for a president to express his contempt for the intelligence of the American people it does not come readily to mind. Nor is it clear why the impeachment vote should have been postponed. After all, President Nixon was impeached during a shooting war, yet nobody thought to postpone the impeachment vote on that account. A number of Republican congressmen were asking their leadership that very question, and the following day Republican leaders announced that the debate on impeachment would begin in the House on Friday. Peter Jennings, the Canadian millionaire who reads the ABC News teleprompter, made the point during Friday's impeachment debate that "Nixon's war" had been "Vietnamized" by 1974, thus American troops were no longer involved. He referred the matter to that noted expert Michael Beschloss, who (surprise, surprise) agreed with him. With all due deference and every possible obeisance, BALONEY! American troops were being killed in Vietnam right up to the time Tom Polgar, the CIA station chief, evacuated the last American personnel from the roof of the U.S. Embassy, well after Nixon had departed the presidency. The main reason Nixon was impeached was to smooth the way for the betrayal and abandonment of a U.S. ally, South Vietnam, to the Communists. To suppose that all the unpleasantness over the removal of Richard Nixon from office took place because all those hardened, cynical Washington insiders found themselves morally deflowered at the thought of what had happened at the Watergate is to confuse pretext with purpose. Mr. Zeifman, a former insider on the Watergate task force has, somewhat belatedly, laid that one to rest with the revelation that the supermoralists of the "Kennedy government-in-exile" who had been shrieking the loudest at Nixon's perfidy, and who had provided many of the staff for the Watergate committee, were themselves implicated in covering up activities at least as perfidious as Watergate.."

Washington Weekly 12/21/98 Marvin Lee ".As Congress prepared to vote on impeachment, the president took hostages in a bid to save his skin. Using the defiance of Saddam Hussein which he had tolerated for so many months, he ordered U.S. soldiers in harms way. While the president did not say so specifically, his allies in Congress did: if Republicans went ahead with their plans for impeachment, they would put the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk. In the end, Republicans delayed their impeachment vote by just one day. In a 1995 interview, former Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson said about President Clinton: "You are not dealing with a normal person when you are dealing with Clinton. He is not controlled by character and truth, but by cunning instincts for survival and political expediency. Give him and inch and he will beat your brains out! He is capable of causing a Third World War, martial law, or whatever to maintain his position of power.While the Russians were left in the dark, Clinton's allies at CNN had been told well in advance to have their star reporter at Baghdad with a nightscope camera and a satellite link to Atlanta. As the movie "Wag the Dog" illustrated, a war has no propaganda effect unless carefully choreographed for TV consumption.."

Reuters 12/20/98 ".Top American newspapers Sunday criticized the U.S. House of Representatives for impeaching President Clinton, with most urging the Senate to censure Clinton rather than remove him from office. Editorials in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution said the House had erred in sending two articles of impeachment on to the Senate. Several of those newspapers urged the upper chamber to end the conflict by censuring the president. Only the Chicago Tribune said the next step should be Clinton's resignation.."

New York Times 12/21/98 Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter ". Somehow we must reach a conclusion that most Americans can embrace and that posterity will approve. Make no mistake, the judgment of history does matter. It matters profoundly. And impeachment by the full House has already brought profound disgrace to President Clinton. Whatever happens in the near future will do little to affect history's judgment of him. But he is not alone in standing before the bar of judgment. Our political system, too, is on trial. Can we find within ourselves the will, the vision, the generosity and, yes, the courage to resolve the present crisis in a way that makes Americans proud of their leaders, their institutions and themselves? It is with this in mind that we personally favor a bipartisan resolution of censure by the Senate. Under such a plan, President Clinton would have to accept rebuke while acknowledging his wrongdoing and the very real harm he has caused..Some may object that a censure can be repealed by a future Congress, and is thus rendered meaningless. They underestimate the power of the modern news media to foster indelible images in the public memory..."

The Review 12/22/98 Jack Ryan ".Well, he's impeached..Saturday, December 19th was a defining day in U.S. history -- for most rational thinking human beings. Hell, forget rational -- any minimally sentient American could feel the history of the moment. Bill Clinton became the only elected sitting president in the history of this Republic to be impeached (Andrew Johnson ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination). Where is the outrage? It's certainly not in the 70-75% of the American population who still think he's doing a good job. No, the outrage is in the mainstream media -- newspapers, broadcast networks and pop-culture rags who try to pass themselves off as "news" magazines. The media is doing its level best to ensure that Mr. Clinton's sorry rear stays ensconced in the White House. By trying to illegitimatize the impeachment, they just may succeed."

NewsMax.com 12/22/98 Christopher Ruddy ".A civil war is brewing in the news room of ABC's World News Tonight over allegations that in 1979 Bill Clinton may have raped Juanita Broaddrick, an Arkansas woman, when he served as the state's Attorney General. NewsMax.com has obtained an internal ABC News memo that was emailed to the top news producers earlier today about the controversy. Chris Isham, a top ABC News producer, distributed the memo which lays out out the scintillating facts surrounding the alleged incident, and the interest sparked in the subject by Republican Congressmen who last week were permitted to review the Starr documentation of the case...The memo states that Arizona Republican Congressman J.D. Hayworth told ABC News -- off-the-record -- that the material makes Clinton out to be "a sexual predator." The Broaddrick incident may be cited in a Senate trial of the President, Isham suggests. NewsMax.com has learned that Isham's memo comes as a result of a feud between World News Tonight Executive Producer Paul Freidman and network anchor Peter Jennings. Jennings -- reputed to have a eye for the ladies much like the President's -- has vehemently objected to ABC news reporting on the subject. The memo, in an apparent shot at Jennings, states, "...the potential that a rape charge could be leveled at the President makes the story one that can't be totally ignored." .."

Original Sources 12/23/98 Mary Mostert ".Does anyone remember "It's the economy, stupid!" Clinton's campaign battle cry in 1992 as he successfully trivialised George Bush's remarkable successes in foreign policy? In fact, at one point Clinton claimed the economy was in its worst condition since the Great Depression. The only salvation for the nation, we were told, was to elect Bill Clinton. Only, the recession was basically over, a point George Bush made. However, the national media sided with Clinton and the economy became the core issue. Clinton, like a barnyard rooster promising the make the sun rise with his crowing, took the credit for the improving economy long before any of his policies could have even affected it. Now we are being told by the Associated Press that, "at the end of a year that opened with allegations of a sexual affair and ended with his impeachment, President Clinton is enjoying some of the highest job approval ratings of his six years in office." In fact, a CBS News-New York Times survey completed Sunday, gave the president a 73% job approval rating, up 5% from the week before and tied for a high of last January, just before the Monica Lewinsky story broke. For most of the year we have been entertained by stories, especially in CNN that somehow or other the stock market is tied to President Clinton's fate. If he is impeached, we are told, the stock market will plummet. If he remains in office, all is well and the economy will boom. It is widely assumed that impeachment will create a recession. The House of Representatives impeaches Clinton on Saturday, and Monday and Tuesday, the stock market goes up. So much for the wisdom of CNN prognosticators... The signs are all around us that the Clinton administration is teetering on the edge of total disaster. How long can photo-ops be substituted for policy and propaganda take the place of programs? All his so-called foreign policy "victories" are propaganda victories. The much-touted Wye peace accord is evaporating. The billions of dollars sent to prop up one or another nation in the midst of crushing economic problems, the unending American involvement in Bosnia and Kosovo, the Iraq fiasco which ended with Saddam declaring victory and our allies angry ... and in America a growing anger and polarization among Americans that is being fueled by White House directed class warfare.."

Washington Post 12/27/98 E R Shipp "..And Post readers have not held their tongues about what they see in their newspaper. Many of them fear that The Post, a leader in American journalism, is abdicating its responsibility to report with impartiality. In that, they are typical of 78 percent of readers across the nation who indicated in a national survey that "the points of view and biases of journalists influence what stories are covered and how they are covered." Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed as part of the American Society of Newspaper Editors' credibility project "believe that newspapers pay lots more attention to stories that support their own point of view." Post readers are reacting to reporters' increasing tendency to slip the equivalent of "I think" into stories. The rule is that opinions belong only in editorials, opinion columns and reviews -- all clearly labeled as such. Its violation at The Post, especially in impeachment coverage that editors boast of as "the most authoritative and distinctive in the business," has occurred too often to escape readers' notice... After reading a Dec. 10 piece that lampooned the intelligence and sincerity of Judiciary Committee members, one reader wrote: "If I want opinions, I will read the editorial page. You reporters continue to cross the line." ."

Creators Syndicate - www.creators.com 12/27/98 L. Brent Bozell III ".Bill Clinton's decision to unleash the dogs of war as he tip-toes on the precipice of impeachment conjures up a vision of White House defense lawyer Greg Craig appearing before Congress declaring: "The President's military action was evasive, incomplete, misleading, even maddening - but it's not impeachable." There's no dodging the suspicion that Clinton is seeking to save his bacon by dropping some megatonnage on Saddam Hussein. After all, it's just what he did when he bombed Osama bin Laden's alleged facilities in Sudan and Afghanistan this summer. Both actions were launched with little or no consultation with Congress, and with too little consultation with the service chiefs at the Pentagon. Oh my, how the talking heads like Alan Dershowitz and NBC anchor-in-training Brian Williams are going nuts over that suggestion. How vile! How unpatriotic! What hypocrites. How about the Democrats? In 1983, Clinton defender John Conyers called for Reagan's impeachment for invading Grenada. (For good measure, he earlier called for impeachment over the Gipper's alleged "incompetence" in dealing with unemployment.) In 1984, as he ran for President, and again in 1986, Jesse Jackson suggested Reagan should be subject to an impeachment probe over U.S. actions in Nicaragua. Rep. Henry Gonzalez called for impeachment in 1983 over Grenada and again in 1987 over Iran-Contra. The National Organization for Women and the American Civil Liberties Union advocated impeaching Reagan in 1987. The major media didn't thump the tub for impeachment, but did suggest forcefully that Reagan's actions were even worse than the Watergate offenses that got Richard Nixon impeached. For example, in the January 9, 1984 New York Times, then-Senior Editor John B. Oakes proclaimed: "President Reagan's consistent elevation of militarism over diplomacy creates a clear and present danger to the internal and external security of the United States. Presidents have been impeached for less." Oakes wasn't alone at the Times. On December 12, 1986, columnist Tom Wicker offered an echo: "Mr. Reagan probably won't be impeached or forced to resign - though the offenses resulting from his policy, or his somnolence on the job, are more serious than any charge the House Judiciary Committee approved against Mr. Nixon.".So where are these noble folks today? Have you noticed how the words "War Powers Act" haven't been invoked much by the liberal media in the last, oh, six years, now that a President they favor is lobbing the bombs? Where are the calls for impeachment from John Conyers and Jesse Jackson? Where are the charges of abuse of power from the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post? Nothing but silence. Stinking dead silence.."

Inside Politics/Wash Times 12/27/98 Lance Romance Freeper reports "."When more than 400 of the country's greatest historians took out a full-page ad in the New York Times against impeaching the president just days before the elections, it raised eyebrows in the world of academia and beyond. Turns out that the pro-Clinton manifesto had a little help from a friend in high places," Richard Blow reports in the January issue of George magazine. "Sidney Blumenthal, who has a controversial reputation for planting favorable Clinton stories in the press, helped the historians create the ad. Blumenthal, who fancies himself the White House's resident intellectual, was the historians' 'connection at the White House,' says an informed source."

Originalsources.com Mary Mostert 12/29/98 ".Yesterday I posted an e-mail from a reader, Robert Karcher, who reported participating in a poll on ABC: "Do you favor impeachment of Bill Clinton....Yes or No?" Karcher wrote that "After clicking on the 'Yes' response button, another window came up displaying the poll results thus far. At that point in time approx 10,000 responses had been received of which 61 percent favored impeachment and 39 percent opposed." Then the Poll disappeared off the ABC Website and by the following Monday ABC was reporting that 70% of the public was opposed to impeaching Clinton. If this Website were a court of law, which it isn't, Mr. Karcher would need some proof - verification of his statement. In fact, in the law, in the Bible and in honest journalism, a second witness confirms an accusation or a story. In the law of Moses, the Lawgiver whose likeness etched in granite adorns the U.S. Supreme Court, we are told, "At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death." Well, perhaps false polls are not a capital offense, but the point is, is the media playing games with our minds over these much quoted polls? I present today the second, third, and fourth witness that "yes" indeed the polls cannot be relied upon..."

Wall Street Journal 12/29/98 ". Here's a question philosophers have pondered through the ages: If someone were to fire a cannonball up Pennsylvania Avenue, would anyone hear it? Or to put it differently, Is it true that trees only talk to one another? We raise these mysteries after observing that not much of anyone in Washington beyond a few reporters seems to have noticed that on December 22 a federal district judge denounced the behavior of a group of Clintonesque former Commerce Department officials as akin to "hooligans" and "scofflaws." What's more, he said the department's handling of a lawsuit over the late Ron Brown's trade junkets has been so untrustworthy that he is appointing a special magistrate to keep an eye on them. Judge Royce Lamberth found that the facts "strongly substantiate the claim that the agency was deliberately destroying and jettisoning documents," ending "in a flurry of document shredding" in Secretary Brown's office after his death in Bosnia in April 1996. He describes the department's four years of legal stonewalling as an "egregious . . . disregard for the law." Again, one must ponder the Beltway's apparently eternal mysteries: Does anyone connect the dots down there anymore, or do all the capital's solons and scribes really believe the whole issue is just Bill Clinton's pattycake habits?."

Insight Mag 1/25/99 Paul Rodrigues ".One of the latest twists in ongoing coverage of Rep. Dan Burton is a story recently "published" on the Internet by Webzine Salon. The story raises questions about the Indiana Republican's dual use of congressional and campaign funds to pay some employees.Several news organizations, including the Washington Post, seized on this latest allegation of wrongdoing plus others involving people who claim Burton has groped or otherwise made advances to several women over the years... Stepping aside from sexually related issues such as adultery or personal relationships between government employees and their political bosses, such as Colorado Gov. Roy Romer and Clinton, the issue of mixing personal and public behavior when it involves taxpayer funds raises legal issues and questions the press generally doesn't shirk from. But when it involves Democrats, the press appears to turn the other way or drops the story if there is no interest at home. An example of such unpursued questions involving a Democrat is found in Richard Gephardt of Missouri, the House minority leader. In the early 1990s, Gephardt had on his congressional payroll Robert Bauer, a prominent Washington lawyer who has done considerable work for the congressman going back a number of years. At one point, according to public records reviewed by Insight (see "A Matter of Ethics," March 4, 1996), Bauer was found to have received a congressional salary of about $1,200 a month at the same time he was being paid by Gephardt's campaign committee and representing the congressman before the Federal Election Commission over disputes involving Gephardt's failed 1988 presidential bid. Bauer, in response to Insight in 1996, denied he was an employee of Gephardt's congressional office despite the fact that the congressman signed monthly voucher receipts so stating, as well as congressional records showing he was an employee.."

The New York Observer 12/28/98 Joe Conason [emphasis mine] ".For the aging Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a Presidential impeachment trial is hardly a happy New Year's prospect. As he approaches the end of his judicial career, reportedly burdened by ill health, William Rehnquist must know that every ruling he makes will be evaluated in light of his own longtime political allegiances, not only by the public and the bar, but by historians as well... Among the questions that could be raised, however, is Mr. Rehnquist's responsibility for the Independent Counsel Act and the partisan perversion of that law by Judge David Sentelle of North Carolina's appellate court... More immediately, Chief Justice Rehnquist selected the relatively junior and inexperienced Judge Sentelle to preside over the three-judge panel that appoints independent counsels, despite a clear legal requirement that he give preference to senior and retired members of the judiciary ... Unfortunately, there was nothing startling about Chief Justice Rehnquist's partisan misuse of his authority in that instance. Dating back to his days as a Supreme Court clerk, when he wrote a nauseating memo on Brown v. Board of Education citing his own opinion that whites simply don't like blacks, he has aligned himself with the far right... Nor is Chief Justice Rehnquist in the best position to examine the President's alleged lies under oath. On both occasions when he gave sworn testimony at his confirmation hearings, he left a distinct odor of dishonesty in his wake. The late Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, among others, called Chief Justice Rehnquist's 1971 testimony "self-serving" and publicly questioned his veracity..."

USA Journal 1/5/99 Jon E. Dougherty ".Bill Clinton could not have picked a better time to be president of the United States. Even though he's the most corrupt man ever to sit in the Oval Office and only the second president in 220-plus years of American history to be impeached, he is fortunate because he rules at a time of national prosperity and well being. The economy of the United States is solid and getting more so everyday, we're at peace with the world for now, the trains and planes generally run on time, crime rates are falling, and there is a general feeling of success among most of our population. For these reasons, we are told, most Americans don't want to see Clinton removed from office. He's a louse, a liar, a serial adulterer, and probably even guilty of treason, but no matter. Most of us would, it seems, prefer that the Senate violate their constitutional mandate to try him and instead vote to censure him or something even less punishing than that. Or would we? What if the majority of Americans knew exactly what was at stake here because no matter which side of the issue you're on, it's fair to say that most of us have not been properly "educated" about impeachment. Just because the masses may want our leaders to do something that isn't called for in the Constitution doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.."

Irish Times 1/5/99 Joe Carroll ".The US media have virtually ignored the latest attempt to revive a six-year-old allegation that President Clinton fathered a child with a black woman while he was governor of Arkansas, Joe Carroll writes from Washington...The New York Post,, owned by Mr Rupert Murdoch, splashed the story in early editions last Sunday under the headline "Clinton paternity bombshell" but it has been ignored by the the mainstream US press and news agencies .."

Media Research Center CyberAlert 1/6/99 (Vol. Four; No. 3) Freeper Brian Mosely ".1) Cokie Roberts blamed the inability of Senators to agree upon how to proceed on "conservative Republicans who just want to torture the President for as long as they humanly can." ABC and NBC led Tuesday night by emphasizing "impeachment chaos." 2) "Whatever the verdict, Robert Byrd will make sure it's done right, for the Senate and for history" because he's "a Democrat known for integrity and independence." So gushed NBC's Lisa Myers in skipping Byrd's pork-barreling and Klan membership. .."

WorldNetDaily 1/6/99 Joe Farah ".Last weekend, reports on the Internet, in the New York Post and on the BBC told the story of young Danny Williams and his quest to determine whether Bill Clinton is really, as his prostitute-mother claims, his Daddy. The results of a DNA test should set the record straight very soon. But the question I was asked on radio talk shows all over America yesterday was: Why hasn't the "mainstream media" covered this story yet? It's a good question -- a darn good question. Let me try to answer it, not as a media critic, but as a news professional who has spent most of my adult life running daily newspapers in major markets. There are a couple of institutional problems at play. When we say "the media," these days, what we're really talking about is a very small group of newspapers and one -- count 'em, one -- wire service that controls nearly the entire flow of mainstream news. That's it. What Americans know from the establishment press is based on the decisions and the reporting of a handful of people. There are very few establishment news organizations that are actually doing any serious investigative or enterprising reporting. When they do, they count on it being recycled by the Associated Press, which really holds a monopoly nowadays as the major wire service. If it doesn't make it on AP, it didn't happen..."

Boston Globe 1/7/99 John Elli by I'mPeach ".The truth is that President Clinton is waging an all-out campaign for acquittal. He will accept nothing less. He believes that he is innocent. He believes that he did not commit perjury. He believes that he did not obstruct justice. He believes that he is the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy and a hateful media. ."

Media Research Center CyberAlert 1/8/99 (Vol. Four; No. 4) by Freeper Brian Mosely ".1) In Thursday daytime coverage Dan Rather relayed the Clinton spin about how "the people's business" is getting "put aside" and suggested Republicans should be worried about being perceived as conducting a "coup" against a twice elected President. 2) As they signed the oath book, ABC issued five ideological labels for conservative Senators but avoided tagging any liberals. 3) The networks opened Thursday night by stressing both the historical import of the day and partisan rancor. All but NBC briefly noted the indictment of Julie Hyatt Steele. 4) "Aren't you also honor-bound to do what's good for the country?" ABC's Elizabeth Vargas argued in making the case to avoid a trial. 5) "Democrats believe House managers are conservative zealots, and some Republicans agree," asserted Phil Jones on the CBS Evening News."

Heads Up 1/9/99 Doug Fiedor A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia 1/10/99 #117 "."They don't want a trial because the evidence is not their best friend," Rep. Lindsey Graham told the CNN talking heads last Tuesday about the Democrats and the White House gang. Correct. But there's just a little more to it than that. Actually, there is a lot more to it than that, but the Washington press corps will not tell us that story because many of them are involved. The fact is, the Impeached President and his cabal of obstructionists intend to fight back with every dirty trick they can invent. And, in Washington, there is a lot of leeway, because anyone who has been there a while has probably been involved in at least a few uncouth, illegal and/or perverted acts..."

Union Leader 1/10/99 Joseph W. McQuaid ".There was both a solemnity and a dignity to last week's formal opening of the Presidential impeachment trial that was strangely comforting. This entire affair has been distasteful, unseemly, and terribly degrading for the country and our children. There may be more of it to come, if a full trial proceeds. Perhaps the silving lining to this very dark cloud is that our form of government can survive, will survive. Using age-old rules and a Constitution that retains its durability after more than two centuries, the Chief Justice of the United States and the 100 members of the U.S. Senate carried out their prescribed roles. We hope that schools were making this a "teachable moment" by showing the television images and displaying the newspaper accounts. We hope adults, too, were taking in this extraordinary demonstration of our republic at work.. As much as the formal proceedings were dignified, some of the participants then turned right around to play for the cameras. It was disconcerting, for instance, to see, on the Larry King TV talk show, no fewer than six U.S. Senators discussing the case and taking viewer phone calls as if this were just the latest Hollywood gossip. It was good to see New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith decline to participate in what he rightly called the undignified spectacle.."

Washington Post 1/10/99 Richard Morin ". Never has polling been so risky - or so much in demand. Never have so many of the rules of polling been bent or broken so cleanly, or so often. Pollsters are sampling public reaction just hours - sometimes minutes - after events occur. Interviewing periods, which traditionally last several days to secure a solid sample, have sometimes shrunk to just a few hours on a single night. Pollsters have been asking questions that were taboo until this past year. Is oral sex really sex? (Yes, said 76 percent of those interviewed in a Newsweek poll conducted barely a week after the scandal broke back in January.) ...Every pollster knows that questions with slightly different wording can produce different results.Last month, less than a week before Clinton was impeached by the House, The Washington Post and its polling partner ABC News asked half of a random sampling of Americans whether Clinton should resign if he were impeached or should "fight the charges in the Senate." The other half of the sample was asked a slightly different question: Should Clinton resign if impeached or should he "remain in office and face trial in the Senate?" The questions are essentially the same. The results were not. Nearly six in 10 - 59 percent - said Clinton should quit rather than fight impeachment charges in the Senate. But well under half - 43 percent - said he should resign when the alternative was to "remain in office and stand trial in the Senate." What gives? The difference appears to be the word "fight." America is a peaceable kingdom; we hate it when our parents squabble and are willing to accept just about any alternative - including Clinton's resignation - to spare the country a partisan fight. But when the alternative is less overtly combative - stand trial in the Senate - Americans are less likely to scurry to the resignation option. .."

Washington Times Greg Pierce 1/11/99 by Freeper Lance Romance "."How cozy are the Washington press and the White House?" Paul Bedard asks in U.S. News & World Report. "Clinton accuser and former aide Linda R. Tripp claims that a Washington Post executive gives the administration a 'heads up' on damaging stories being readied for print. 'It happened frequently,' she say in a deposition for Judicial Watch Inc., a group that often tangles with the White House. She didn't name names, but said, 'It was someone high up. It wasn't some gumshoe reporter.' The Post had no comment.".."

WorldNetDaily 1/11/99 Joseph Farah ".Let me give you just one striking illustration. The following is a verbatim transcript of a CBS set-up piece on the Senate impeachment trial last Thursday called "A Look at the Prosecutors." See if you can detect what this "news story" has in common with the card trick you just played: "In some ways an impeachment trial looks like a normal criminal justice trial. There are defense lawyers and there are managers, or prosecutors. In President Clinton's trial, there will be 13 managers from the House of Representatives, reports CBS News correspondent Phil Jones." Jones: "All are Republicans and members of the House Judiciary Committee who approved articles of impeachment against President Clinton. "There are other similarities between the House managers: "All 13 are white. "All 13 are males. "All 13 are Christians "All 13 are lawyers and eight have been prosecutors. "The average age is 52. "With striking similarities, it's not surprising that many Democrats believe that these are conservative zealots out to get the president. What is surprising is that some Republicans agree with that. ..." If you don't believe I'm quoting the piece 100 percent accurately -- if you think I'm making this up out of whole cloth -- I invite you to see it for yourself on CBS News' own Website..."

***Media Research Center CyberAlert*** 1/11/99 Vol Four No 5 ".1) Eleanor Clift equated the "right-wing, zealous" House managers with Ku Klux Klan murderers: "All they were missing was white sheets. They're like night riders." 2) Sen. Tom Harkin abandoned impartiality, disparaging the House impeachment articles as a "pile of dung," but NBC didn't care..."

Insight Magazine 2/1/99 Jennifer Hickey ".Although Linda Tripp is not expected to be called as a witness in the Senate trial of President Clinton, her recent testimony about Filegate is having an impact of its own. As CNN correspondent Candy Crowley focused on Capitol Hill, and colleague Wolf Blitzer staked out the White House awaiting the latest spin on the Senate impeachment trial of President William Jefferson Clinton, a breakthrough occurred the week of Jan. 4 in the Filegate scandal. For the second time in a month, Linda R. Tripp marched briskly into an unassuming office building in Southwest Washington to deliver testimony in a lawsuit arising from the White House-FBI files scandal without producing so much as a blink from the national press corps.."

1/12/99 Larry Klayman Press Release ".With Latest Attacks on Bob Barr by Flynt, Rivera and Dershowitz, Show Has Again Gone Over The Line And Runs Counter to NBC's, CNBC's, and MSNBC's Otherwise Excellent Programming and Ethics Yesterday, true to form, Geraldo Rivera continued his White House-orchestrated campaign against conservatives and others who dare to question the corruption in this Administration. Flanked by Alan Dershowitz and Reverend Jerry Falwell, Rivera disingenuously allowed Larry Flynt, a close friend of James Carville -- head of the White House smear machine -- to slander Representative Bob Barr. If this was not enough, the one-two punch was delivered by Alan Dershowitz, the self styled defender of the radical, extreme left, who again branded Barr a "racist." In her deposition in Judicial Watch's Filegate lawsuit, Linda Tripp recently testified about The White House smear machine, and her knowledge of who is responsible. According to Tripp, it was being orchestrated, in part, out of the White House Counsel's office, the very same lawyers who are defending Clinton in the impeachment trial. Interestingly, following the display yesterday evening on "Rivera," Lanny Davis, the former Special White House Counsel who continues to participate in the Clinton smear machine, also appeared, and disingenuously claimed not to approve of Flynt's tactics.."

The Village Voice 1/12/98 Nat Hentoff ".This obstruction of justice charge has been underplayed in the press and in the referral to the Senate by the House Judiciary Committee. It has many dimensions, but the most disgusting and pertinent involves what Clinton and his emissaries have done to threaten his discarded women in order to prevent their testifying against him. It has become brutally clear that any former object of his lust who threatens his presidency should be put into the Witness Protection Program.."

City Times 1/13/99 Editorial "."a pornographic magazine" --Geraldo Rivera "the nation's number one pornographer" --Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. "sexually explicit," "offensive," "obscene" --Rep. John Conyers .Is this the evidence we've all been waiting for, of Clinton defenders distancing themselves from "the politics of personal destruction" by attacking Hustler magazine founder Larry Flynt? Alas, this is not to be. In fact none of the aforementioned quotations are directed at Mr. Flynt or Hustler. To the contrary, they are, respectively, Geraldo Rivera on the American Spectator, historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. on Judge Kenneth Starr and Rep. John Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, on the Starr Report. In post-Monica America, a judge who happens to sing hymns is thought indecent while a skin peddler finds himself feted on network television over morning coffee and cable TV in the evening."

Media Research Center (www.mrc.org) 1/14/99 L Brent Bozell III ". As the President's impeachment trial begins, some of the 89 percent pro-Clinton establishment press are, to put it bluntly, out of control. Their latest partisan attack on the Republican Party is perhaps their most intellectually and ethically dishonest one yet. The House prosecutors are now being blasted for being white. And male. And Christian. On the "CBS Evening News," reporter Phil Jones relayed the latest propaganda line: "Democrats believe House managers are conservative zealots, and some Republicans agree.". Jones elaborated: "Indeed, the impeachment managers are strikingly alike. All 13 are white, all 13 males, all 13 Christians, all 13 lawyers. Eight have been prosecutors. Average age 52. NBC's Lisa Myers felt the same need to conduct a Caucasian check when she examined the Senate jury. She began: "It's one of the most unusual juries ever assembled, one that looks nothing like America: 91 percent male, 97 percent white. The only minorities: Senators [Ben Nighthorse] Campbell, a native American, [Daniel]Akaka, native Hawaiian, and [Daniel] Inouye, Asian-American." Since this jury was popularly elected, is Myers implying America's voters are racist?.[Eleanor Clift] added the House managers "put a right-wing, zealous face on the Republican Party which does not serve the party well in the future." The GOP is no longer the party of religious-right zealots. It's now the Ku Klux Klan..."

Worldnet Daily 1/14/99 ".As the "Dear Mr. President" radio campaign storms into New York, it's making waves on the West Coast as well, landing one prominent San Diego radio talk-show host a reprimand from a television station where he does commentary. The radio campaign which dramatizes the apparent lack of honesty, integrity and accountabilty on the part of the president with letters from children, debuted in Washington, D.C., last Monday..."Dear Mr. President" has quickly become the second most talked about item on talk radio with superstations such as WSB, WRRK, KSFO, KABC, WMAL, KOGO, as well as syndicated talkers such as Mike Reagan, featuring the ads on a daily basis..Hedgecock featured Steve Vaus, the creator of the ad series, Tuesday night and was reprimanded Wednesday by station management. Hedgecock, in turn, unleashed the considerable power and wrath of his loyal followers on the KUSI switchboard Wednesday, causing a total shutdown for a time.. At this time WFAN is standing by its decision to ban the ads. Another station in Washington, D.C., also refused the ads. No. 1 rated urban music WHUR did not deem the subject appropriate for listeners.."

ABC Radio Commentators 1/14/99 Freeper williams ".After listening to 90 compelling minutes of Asa Hutchinson, the immediate ABC News Analysis dropped my jaw. The "reporters" immediately launched into the "disconnect" between how important the prosecutors claim this is , versus the "petty, tawdry, smallness" of the entire issue. Also complaining that the prosecutors claim the case is compelling, so how on earth can they want witnesses??."

Media Research Center CyberAlert 1/15/99 Vol Four No 8 by Brian Mosely ".1) CBS gave an ideological label to virtually every Republican. Dan Rather ruminated about doom, asking what if "the stock market should suddenly drop a thousand to twelve hundred points." 2) ABC relayed that bored Senators ate jelly beans and took their pulse. NBC on the House managers: "To conservatives, they may be the dream team....all white, all male, all conservative." 3) Democratic Senators got a private briefing from the House Democratic lawyers, but the networks ignored that and instead focused on how GOP Senators broke the bi-partisan spirit.."

NewsMax 1-15-99 Brent Bozell Freeper hope ".The House prosecutors are now being blasted for being white. And male. And Christian. On the "CBS Evening News," reporter Phil Jones relayed the latest propaganda line: "Democrats believe House managers are conservative zealots, and some Republicans agree." To validate that slam, Jones turned to one of the most liberal Republican members of the House (but not labeled as such), Rep. Peter King: "It's a very hard-core group. Some of them I have a lot of respect for, but I think on balance you're talking about a group of individuals who are very hard-nosed and determined to get Bill Clinton."."

http://www.vny.com/upiwire/backst.htm Helen Thomas Freeper tsister ".White House spokesman Joe Lockhart is facing growing unrest among reporters these days as his aides seek to limit access to the president to shield him from unwelcome questions about the Senate impeachment trial. While Lockhart insists he hasn't stooped to such tricks as placing reporters far away from the president or limiting the number who can attend events, complaints are on the rise among regulars who cover the White House..Clinton broke with tradition at the recent state visit of Argentine President Carlos Menem, declining to hold the traditional joint news conference usually concluding such visits. .And later, while reporters were standing in the back of the room where he made his announcement, three Arboretum staffers placed themselves in position to block the aisle leading up to the stage where Clinton spoke. ''We're here to block the press,'' said one of the aides. ''We were told not to let them get to the president.'' ."

AP 1/15/99 Brenda Coleman ".The editor of The Journal of the American Medical Association was fired today, and The Associated Press learned it was because he published a research article about college students' sexual attitudes apparently to coincide with President Clinton's impeachment trial. Dr. George D. Lundberg, editor of JAMA for 17 years, confirmed he had been called at home this morning and fired by AMA Executive Vice President E. Ratcliffe Anderson Jr. He declined to discuss the reason or release any other details on the advice of his attorney..The study of 599 college students, who were interviewed in 1991, found that 59 percent of them did not consider oral-genital contact as having "had sex.''."

CNS 1/15/99 ".While President Bill Clinton awaits the outcome of a Senate impeachment trial originally spawned by a "he-said, she-said" lawsuit, a San Diego broadcaster is involved in a "he-said, he- said" standoff with a local television station owner. Roger Hedgcock, a talk radio host on KOGO radio and a commentator for KUSI television, has been relieved of his TV duties following a Tuesday broadcast in which he promoted an anti-Clinton advertising campaign. Hedgcock told CNS that KUSI informed him Wednesday evening that he was "suspended until further notice," because of his TV commentary about the "Dear Mr. President" radio campaign, in which children read imaginary letters to Clinton seeking his advice on how to get out of trouble for lying. ."

ABC News 1/20/99 Freeper williams reports ".Everyone acknowledges Alan Greenspan as an essential architect of the economic expansion. He has served 6 years under Clinton. I NEVER hear him described as other than "Federal Reserve Chairman" and he is never involved in politics. But this morning an ABC radio report stated that "Alan Greenspan, a Republican," stated that he opposes Clinton's plan to invest Social Security funds in the stock market as "too risky." You see, you can't disagree with Bill Clinton without being "partisan."."

newsmax 1/21/99 Oliver North ".The Annual State of the Union Show is now history. Unfortunately, in all the hype, punditry and "politicking" no one chose to analyze what the Impeached President didn't talk about: the Moral State of our Union. Perhaps Pope John Paul II's visit to America's heartland will stimulate such reflection, for it seems that while our economy ."

1/22/99 Pilgrim's Progress reports ".The House Managers presented their case, showing how and in what way the President perjured himself and obstructed justice by thwarting Paula Jones' discovery. Three days of testimony which clearly explained the case against the President -- but NO NATIONAL television coverage - Only Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and other Clinton supporters to tell you that the Managers did a poor job of presenting their weak case which was without substance and strained. Then we get three days of the White House Defense Team - and guess what -- National Coverage plus the abovementioned Clinton cheerleaders -- telling us that the case was proven to be nothing but smoke and mirrors..."

Freeper truthkeeper 1/22/99 reports ".CUT IN FROM MSNBC: Voice of Brian Williams (very DEEP and ve-r-r-y slo-o-o-w): "The news of the day is that Senator ROBERT BYRD of Virginia has announced that it's TIME...for THIS...to END. The votes are JUST NOT THERE. And now BACK to the proceedings..." "

MSNBC 1/23/98 Daniel Stidham Freeper id Danno ".For those of you, who like me, do not have access to Fox News Channel, today was a day to put up with the most blatant and outrageous display of bias I have ever, ever seen. Starting with Brian Williams in the morning and later extending to John Siegenthaler, MSNBC hosts constantly displayed their displeasure with "despearte prosecution tactics" concerning the invocation of Judge Starr to obtain cooperation to do preliminary interviews with Monica Lewinsky. Brian Williams was absolutely giddy this morning as he opened his show with Cynthia Alksne. He could not contain his excitement that the whole affair was over. He even started talking about, "what next" strategy for both sides. It was unbelievable. In the middle of one of his interviews where his softballs were being regularly hit out of the park by a very grateful Clinton-lover, a news break came across about Judge Hollowy's ruling and Williams blanched. It was though a major disaster just took place. Please pardon my language but Williams was P*SSED and it showed for the remainder of his moderation. Seigenthaler with his smart-alecky expression kept it up. Williams kept lamenting in the most god-awful tones that the "wheels had fallen off".."

NY Daily News 1/23/99 Timothy Burger William Goldschlag "With their unity solidifying, Democrats intensified efforts yesterday to convince wavering Republicans that it would be futile to extend President Clinton's impeachment trial.." Freeper Nick Danger notes that with Republicans the term is "partisanship."

Drudge 1/26/99 Freeper Senator Pardek ".NBC NEWS hotshot Lisa Myers has conducted an in-depth interview with "Jane Doe #5", according to media sources in an around the network. The interview with Juanita Broaddrick of Arkansas went down late last week and is now being held tight by the network. NBC NEWS brass claim it has to be relevant and airtight before broadcast. The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that in the past 24 hours, network executives have come under enormous pressure from the White House not to air the interview! "There is a civil war developing," one network insider said on Tuesday. "Between those pushing for the interview to air and those who think it is completely reckless." The interview, believed to have been conducted inside of Broaddrick's home in Arkansas, is being described as "provocative." "At this late stage, the White House is trying to pull off another Aldrich!" declared one Myers supporter.."

1/27/99 Rush Limbaugh Freeper ClintonBeGone reports ".Rush is talking about NBC's holding the Juanita Brodrick story. He's airing Cannon's clips on MSNBC.." Adds Freeper mombonn ".WLS AM 890 in Chicago spend a good half hour on Juanita also. Read the Drudge report about NBC, really hammered it.."

Drudge 1/27/99 Freeper Roscoe Karns ".EXCLUSIVE: 'JANE DOE' INTERVIEW CAUSES DEEP SPLIT INSIDE OF NBC NEWS; BROADDRICK FEELS 'BETRAYED' AFTER NETWORK PUTS STORY ON HOLD ."

Drudge Report 1/27/99 Freeper citizen reports ".Congressman Chris Cannon in an interview with John Siegenthaler on MSNBC shortly after 9:00 am EST said: "Everyone in Washington, and I mean everyone, knows that you (meaning NBC) are holding a video taped interview that Lisa Myers did with Jane Doe #5." Sigenthaler said nothing..."

Drudge via e-mail 1/28/99 Freeper Senator Pardek ".Juanita Broaddrick has now told associates that she feels "betrayed" by NBC NEWS, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. One week ago, Broaddrick sat for an exclusive in-depth interview with NBC NEWS reporter Lisa Myers -- an interview that she was told would immediately air on NBC's DATELINE! Broaddrick doesn't hold Lisa Myers responsible for the building media nightmare, according to a source. Talk in the cafeteria at NBC'S New York headquarters on Wednesday had NBC NEWS anchorman Tom Brokaw threatening to resign if Andy "America's News Leader" Lack goes with the completed Lisa Myers package, one NBC producer, who asked not to be identified, said late Wednesday. Broaddrick is now being described as "emotionally drained" after the session with Myers. And since giving the interview, Broaddrick has confessed to a friend: "I'm so afraid over what is going to happen now."..Pro-Myers associates inside of the network question why the original Myers piece on Broaddrick aired, and now the actual interview with "Jane Doe #5" has hit a broadcast wall. "It was clear sailing, but now that Lisa has put the house up with the nails there is resistance by executives," said one pro-Myers source. And while no final decision on airing the interview has been made, the Myers situation has caused confusion throughout the ranks at NBC...

1/27/99 Freeper williams observes ".Enough already, I think when EVERY single story begins with some variation of "Senators look for a way to END the trial," or "Trial may END in 10 days" or "Calling witnesses may delay END..." or Americans want it to END..." -- That we are living through one of the most intense periods of change-the-subject brainwashing I have ever seen in my life. The trial is proceeding in a very orderly fashion. Can't SOMEBODY demand that the media stop ignoring the story and riveting everyone's attention, instead, on when the story will END? This is an escalation of the old pro- Clinton media tactic (which we are also seeing) of constantly telling people that no one is interested in the Clinton scandal news. Funny, but before Clinton I never knew the media to keep telling you that you aren't interested in a story they are reporting. This level of misdirection is a serious problem.."

Good Morning America 1/31/99 Freeper BP2 reports ".Diane Sawyer interviewed the incredible Robert Bork (my personal hero). The topic was the "leaking" of the possibility Ken Starr believes he CAN indict the POTUS. During all of Sawyer's questioning, her demeanor and facial expressions were "why don't you just leave the poor President alone?" She sounded like she was whining more than the WH is lately. Then came Charles Gibson's interview of Starr's spokesman. THREE times, old Gibson asked the spokesman, "why did YOUR office leak this information?" Each time, the spokesman said that contrary to your info, we didn't. But Charles Gibson asked again, saying the newspapers say you did, "why are you doing this?" IF Gibson was this persistant with his questioning with Clinton's proponents, we might actually learn something. The interview was completely hostile toward Starr's spokesman. Finally, Charles Gibson interviewed Jeffery Toobin. All Toobin had to say was that if Lewinsky's interview were released to the general public, all it would do is cause more humiliation for Lewinsky, as OPPOSED to the POTUS. ."

Drudge 2/1/99 ".It has been seven months since NEW YORK TIMES columnist Anthony Lewis printed questions that White House aide Sidney Blumenthal said were posed to him before the Lewinsky grand jury. Questions, it would later be revealed, that were never asked! In his June 29, 1998 column -- slugged "Questions that Degrade" -- Lewis wrote: ."... Mr. Blumenthal decided to tell me about the experience, as a grand-jury witness may do... Prosecutors asked Mr. Blumenthal to leave the room so they could consult. After five minutes he was called back, and Mr. Wisenberg asked him: 'Does the President's religion include sexual intercourse?'" But according to transcripts of Blumenthal's grand jury testimony, released four months after the NEW YORK TIMES column ran, that question was never asked by prosecutors! Lewis continued: "There was another sexual question in last week's grand-jury session, conducted by two new prosecutors. It was, 'Does the President believe that oral sex is sex?' It was just that -- a general question not tied to any particular matter." . Another question that prosecutors never asked! Lewis summarized: "What we have here, I think, is third-rate prosecutors full of hubris and obsessed by sex... It is sneering, smart-aleck stuff, the tone of Clinton-haters on cable television and the Internet." . "In two recent visits to the grand jury, Mr. Blumenthal said, he was asked, 'Does the President believe that oral sex is sex?' and 'Does the President's religion include sexual intercourse?'" -- JAMES BENNET's "The Titillating, Zigzagging Focus on Sex at 1600" June 30, 1998, Section A; Page 17. Seven months later, Bennet still has not informed his readers that Blumenthal's statements were false. And columnist Lewis has never straightened up his mess for the "newspaper of record.". A Starr associate explains that the Office of the Independent Counsel could not alert the media at the time of the smear due to restrictions covering grand jury secrecy. But the grand jury foreperson personally lectured Blumenthal during the closing moments of the session last summer: "We are very concerned about the fact that during your last visit that an inaccurate representation of the events that happened were retold on the steps of the courthouse." "I appreciate your statement," Blumenthal responded. "If Ken Starr is interested in the truth, he heard it today," Blumenthal told reporters just moments later.."

Creators Syndicate 1/29/99 L. Brent Bozell III ".Your mother may have taught you that it takes two to start a fight, but that's not the way the media have presented the Senate's impeachment battles. Partisanship is apparently a one-way street on which the Republicans are forever letting the innocent Democrats down.."

NewsMax 2/2/99 Carl Limbacher ".In the snows of New Hampshire, Clinton's presidential candidacy lay dying, mortally wounded by Flowers' revelation of a 12-year Clinton affair. And when he and his wife went on "60 Minutes" to deny the charge, Flowers delivered the coup de grace. She had tapes. Hours of them. And they were not so much smoking-gun as they were steaming.. Enter Pellicano. According to Ron Kessler's 1995 best-seller, "Inside the White House," Anthony Pellicano provided a scientific basis for the excuse Clintonites would offer for years: The tapes were doctored.. It made little difference that Flowers' tapes had been authenticated by the world-renowned Truth Verification Laboratories. Pellicano offered team Clinton -- and the press -- a way out. And most of the media took it. For years to come, journalists who knew better would refer to Flowers' "alleged tapes."."

World Magazine 2/6/99 Bob Jones Freeper Stand Watch Listen ".The president's much- touted job approval ratings mask a deep public ambivalence: While voters register disgust with Clinton the man, they say they are pleased with Clinton the president. But polling data showing public concern over his honesty, values, and moral leadership receive little emphasis in daily journalism. In those categories, he is at rock bottom. Here's a closer look at some of the underreported polls... For instance, the same week he achieved his record numbers on handling the economy, he also logged the lowest "honesty" rating in history, with a paltry 24 percent of Americans saying they trust the man they put in the White House. Only 35 percent say the president shares their values, another record low. And barely 20 percent of respondents think Mr. Clinton provides good moral leadership. Such numbers indicate the public's love-hate relationship with Mr. Clinton may be every bit as complex as the one between the president and his wife. They stand by him because he brings home the pork-er, bacon-but they neither like nor trust the man. Still, only the most voracious news junkie would know Mr. Clinton is anything but wildly popular because the major media rarely report fully on the public's schizophrenic views. For instance, a search of the exhaustive Lexis-Nexis database shows that in the week following the State of the Union address, readers were 12 times more likely to find news reports of the president's record high poll numbers than his record lows.."

Press Conference 2/3/99 Freeper Commomsense reports ".Henry Hyde just stated in a press interview that they (the House managers) had decided that it was too late to call additional witnesses " in this proceeding". He did not rule out pursuing additional evidence in other proceedings. Specifically, Hyde referred to the need for conducting "a very strong oversight role" over the Justice department during the current session of Congress. Hyde would not be more specific about any additional evidence he might pursue.. The commentators on CNN immediately jumped in after Hyde spoke to say that Hyde must realize that the game is over and it is time to give the witch-hunt up.."

Florida Times-Union 2/4/99 Editorial Freeper newsman ". Media Research Center put a stopwatch on the major TV networks. The networks had droned on with hours of coverage of the O.J. Simpson trial, Clarence Thomas hearings and Ollie North's proceedings but are finding the second impeachment trial of a president in history to be ho-hum. Prosecutors presenting the case in the Senate were given 90 minutes of live coverage by the three major networks, the center said. Yet, six days later, they gave an entire hour longer to the low-key defense of White House counsel Charles Ruff. Although the center did not note it, the network commentators also were lavish with praise about Ruff's oratory. Nightly news coverage and sound bites also were much greater for Ruff than for the prosecution, the center said.."

Accuracy in Media Joseph Goulden ".How much store should Americans put in the media's protestations that political bias has nothing to do with what comes out of newsrooms? Time and again, at Accuracy in Media, we hear the refrain, "I might have my own opinions, but they do not affect what I report." Oh, bosh. Few reporters can put their prejudices aside when they sit down before a word processor or stand before a microphone. Furthermore, many prominent journalists have the professional honesty to admit just that. Evan Thomas, Washington bureau chief, Newsweek Magazine, on Inside Washington, 11 May 1996: Commenting on Speaker Newt Gingrich's charge that the media are biased,, Thomas stated, "This is true. There is liberal bias. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic. They have for a long time. Particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for.".. "

Political review 2/4/99 ".Last Sunday, the New York Times published a hit piece for the White House spinmeisters entitled "Starr Is Sure He Has Constitutional Authority to Indict Clinton in Office." The only quotes directly attributable to the independent prosecutor dated back to his November Congressional testimony. Direct quotes from Charles G. Bakaly, Starr's spokesman, consisted of "no comment" and remarks he made last fall, which he contemporaneously hastened to indicate should not be construed as a decision one way or another. The remaining direct quotes attributed to named sources dated back to 1997 and 1973. The vast majority of the article referred only vaguely to "associates." The inevitably indignant Democrat responses could have been prepared before the story: "Starr is out of control," "blatant jury tampering," et cetera. The piece could have been written six months ago, or two months from now. In two months' time or less, far more tangible indications of Starr's intent will be public. Lest any doubt remain, the Times breathlessly concluded that Starr has decided he can indict President Clinton in any of a variety of ways. He can seal the indictment(s), ask for open indictments and postpone the trial, or even try the case now. Such definitive analysis falls into that vague, gray region kids today like to respond to with, "well, duh!" There was no news here and the timing, ill-advised or not, belonged entirely to the Times. Having readily recited previous outright lies of Sid Blumenthal and refusing to retract them, it wasn't surprising that the Times had the gall to editorialize about how awful that Starr would do such a thing. To date, no one has accused Starr of being stupid, but to accept the Times' slant requires the reader to conclude he must be..."

Landmark Legal Foundation Investors Business Daily 2/3/99 Mark Levin "."Fairness" has replaced "partisanship" as the Clinton White House's favorite word. Presidential press secretary Joe Lockhart condemns the Senate Republicans at every turn because they're "unfair." At his daily press conference, he lectures the public on behalf of Bill Clinton, via the media, that the president deserves "fundamental fairness," which the Republicans are denying him. The Senate Republicans refused "unfairly" to vote to dismiss the House's impeachment articles. They dared "unfairly" to send the president ten questions, which the Republicans knew the president would not answer. The Senate majority decided "unfairly" to depose a total of three witnesses. They voted "unfairly" to videotape the depositions of the witnesses so all senators could review them. They refused "unfairly" to keep the videotaped depositions from the American people. And the Senate Republicans refused "unfairly" to close down the trial by February 12th -- in advance of hearing from the witnesses. Mr. Lockhart's whining, robotic chants aside, how can the White House reporters sit there, day after day, without challenging such nonsense. Let's consider why the president was impeached and is on trial. He tried to fix the outcome of a court case - the Paula Jones lawsuit! First, he spent three years wrapping himself in the Constitution by arguing that upon his election as president, he was granted immunity from civil suits involving allegations of personal misconduct at the time he was Arkansas' governor. Every federal court that heard this argument, including a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court rejected this unprecedented claim. Nevertheless, the president had managed to push the case past his reelection, which, according to his super-expensive lawyer, Bob Bennett, was a primary objective..."

Washington Weekly 2/8/99 Robert Stow England ".Critics of the President's policies toward China and the Administration's handling of technology transfers are furious. "For the White House to leak selectively is a disgraceful manipulation of the national security clearance system," says Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (D-Calif.). "It's obviously being done to protect their exposed hineys," he adds.. Rep. Rohrabacher finds the appointment of an assessment team to be an inadequate response to the problems revealed in the Cox Report. "We need to see the President fire all those people who acquiesced in the transfer of technology of mass destruction to China and their delivery systems as well," he says. "We can't trust this Administration to do anything. I don't care who they appoint now to this commission. These are the same caliber of people he appointed before. Those are the people who gave all the rocket and nuclear weapons technology to the Communists in the first place," Rep. Rohrabacher says. When asked if the firings should include National Security Director Sandy Berger, Rep. Rohrabacher said, "Frankly, I think this goes right to the top. It includes Sandy Berger and all of [the President's] high level executive apologists throughout the Administration." Rep. Cox has stated there are 38 policy recommendations in the Cox Report. They are aimed at strengthening controls over the transfer of sensitive military and dual-use technology -- which is technology like satellites and computers that has both a commercial and military use.Crowley concedes that the leaked White House report came originally from the National Security Council and was the result of a review and declassification of sections of the Cox Report by the White House and various intelligence agencies. The leaks came after the White House sent a copy of its report to the Cox Committee, says Crowley. "A couple of reporters obtained a copy of it," he says. Crowley did not indicate how reporters obtained copies of the White House document... Reporters from four media sources obtained the White House document as early as Feb. 1: New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Associated Press, and filed reports that were published the next day. The Washington Times obtained a few days later and published a page one story on Feb 5.Both the White House and the Cox committee declined to release the White House document. Washington Weekly obtained the document from a third party.."

***Media Research Center CyberAlert*** 2/5/99 Freeper Brian Mosely ".1) ABC's Peter Jennings promoted a heckler's outburst: "We begin tonight with the voice of the people heard from the Senate gallery today." The trial may "finally" be over, Dan Rather hoped.3) Another 24 hour news cycle has passed without a syllable uttered by the broadcast networks about the IRS report vindicating Newt Gingrich's handling of his college course.. 5) Geraldo Rivera asserted that "Ken Starr is a terrible man," musing that Starr "may himself someday be a convicted felon." 6) John Hockenberry dismissed the relevance of Sidney Blumenthal's testimony about Clinton's lies, claiming bosses lie."

WBAL 1/13/99 Ron Smith ".There is something so beneath contempt, so despicable, about Bill Clinton and his defenders that it boggles the mind. That the people who sanctimoniously deplore "the politics of personal destruction" can themselves revel in such politics would be astounding had we not learned by now that they'll stop at nothing to preserve the Clinton reign. That the Democrat news media will countenance pornographer Larry Flynt's purchase of revelations about sexual wrongdoing by the president's political opponents likewise doesn't really surprise, though it does sicken. The idea of a moral equivalence between the president's actions in the Lewinsky affair and those of, say, Congressman Bob Barr, is laughable, unless one believes that the allegations against the president are all about the sex itself, and not the lying about it, and the subsequent lying about the lying and the use of the power of the presidency to silence and defame those who would tell the truth."

Washington Times 2/8/99 Donald Lambro ".Independent pollster John Zogby agreed. "I challenge these other polls," he said, noting he found in a poll of likely voters he conducted last week that the two parties were "dead even" in the generic congressional matchups. Mr. Zogby has long maintained that many polls conducted by the major news organizations were weighted in favor of Democratic voters. He said that a New York Times poll published last week, which found that GOP political prospects were badly damaged by the impeachment trial, was based on a sampling of adults that included 37 percent Democrats and 25 percent Republicans. "I can't believe that only 25 percent of the voters are Republicans these days," he said. Mr. Zogby and several other GOP officials also said the poll numbers were not very meaningful because the 2000 elections were nearly 21 months away.."

The American Spectator 2/5/99 R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. ".It is interesting that the twentieth anniversary of the Rev. Jim Jones' Jonestown holocaust has come and gone, unremarked by such liberal thought leaders as Professor Alan Dershowitz and the Hon. Barney Frank. Located in the steamy jungles of Guyana, Jonestown was the site of the People's Temple, "an interracial sharing community" that originated in San Francisco. Over 900 of the Rev. Jones' followers died there late in 1978. At his orders they drank poison or had it imposed on them... Letters found in the vast killing field that had been the People's Temple, "dedicated against the evils of racism, hunger, and injustice," maundered on about his followers' dread of "the capitalist U.S." and their affection for "the beauty of Communism." None of the thousands of letters found among their paltry possessions betrayed any interest in Christianity or any other organized religion but in "Communism." Yet when their corpses were found I cannot recall any major news report calling them "Communists." As I say, the notion spread that they were some sort of Christian believers run amok..Midst the corpses other laudatory letters were found, from California's Governor Jerry Brown, Congresswoman Bella Abzug, Senator Mike Gravel, and from Mrs. Jimmy Carter, who wrote from the White House that "your comments about Cuba are helpful." ."

The O'Reilly Factor 2/10/99 Freeper UnBubba ".According to a tally being kept by Bill O'Reilly, executive producer of the FoxNews' O'Reilly Factor, our lame duck, ImpPOTUS has not had an open-ended Q&A press conference in 285 days as of February 9, 1999. This is an outrage. If this were done by a Republican President the lame-stream media would call for his head.."

National Review 2/9/99 Jonah Goldberg Freeper Marcellus ".Hitchens is being blackballed by his left-wing colleagues...Yesterday the Washington Post approvingly recounted how various friends must now turn on him for being an "informer." But what has he informed about? He has admitted something under oath which everybody in Washington already knew and which he had said to numerous people. Was he supposed to lie to Congress? Wasn't that Ollie North's pernicious crime? Blumenthal and his lawyer, Bill McDaniel, on numerous occasions publicly released any journalist who felt bound by the rules of journalistic confidentiality.... To me the real outrage is that journalists kept Blumenthal's actions secret.... The allegation that the White House mounted a concerted effort to defame its opponents, especially Monica Lewinsky, is serious. If the press has evidence of it and they choose not to run it, they are making a conscious decision to skew popular perceptions...."

MadiaResearch 2/11/99 ".MRC analyst Paul Smith picked up on Nunn's response which hit both conservatives and liberals, but note his take on the role of the news media: ."And on top of all that, you've had a news media that's been all summer saying he should resign. But when impeachment got started, they basically shifted and went the other way. So I say at the end of all those events that have come together thank God for the founding fathers because the Constitution has worked." .."

Investor's Business Daily 2/12/99 Daniel Murphy ".The attack on straying members of the Fourth Estate is nothing new. The Clinton administration has long used ostracism as a weapon against media outlets that threatened to publish critical stories. While many observers point out that every White House has attacked unfavorable stories, they say Clinton's defenders have used unusually aggressive tactics as they've tried to suppress negative news. In 1996, for example, news surfaced that the White House was circulating a massive document detailing media coverage of Clinton. Some compared its tone and level of detail to President Nixon's ''enemies list'' of critics in the media and elsewhere. Hazel O'Leary, who was secretary of the Department of Energy at the time, landed in hot water when it was learned that she used public funds to track media coverage of her and her department. More recently, reports surfaced that White House Press Secretary Joe Lockhart threatened to label Fox News as a political outcast for reporting on another network's story. NBC News was allegedly refusing to air an interview with Juanita Broaddrick, who was listed as ''Jane Doe No. 5'' in Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's report to Congress. Broaddrick now says that Clinton sexually assaulted her 20 years ago. But she's denied it in the past. Lockhart reportedly said the White House would start calling Fox a ''right wing'' operation if it ran a story about the NBC controversy. The story aired anyway.."

Progressive Review 2/11/99 Sam Smith ".NOW CAN WE TALK ABOUT SOME OTHER THINGS? Such as. . . . When is the Washington Post going to report what is in its own clip-files on Nathan Landow? ..Why does no one in a public position -- Congress, the media, Kenneth Starr, or Justice Department -- want to find the truth about Mena, drug running and money laundering in Arkansas? .. When will the media show some interest in a pattern of alleged sexual assault by Clinton going back as far as Oxford days? ..When is the media going to tell Americans about the deadly blood shipped from Arkansas prisons to Canada during the administration of Governor Clinton? What was Clinton's involvement in this scandal? What was in the "tainted blood" file at the White House that Linda Tripp tried to access but couldn't? ..Who in the White House was involved in the Ron Brown/DNC extortion policy by which donors had to give the Democrats tens of thousands of dollars for the right to fly on government trade missions? Why is this less important in the media's view than the Olympic scandal? .When are major media going to report that a top aide in the White House was formerly a key associate of a major Arkansas drug trafficker? When is the media going to report that this drug trafficker had a back door pass to the Arkansas governor's mansion? ..

Progressive Review 2/11/99 Sam Smith ". The basic issue in the Hitchens/Blumenthal flap is whether a journalist is obliged to keep secret indictable comments made to him without reservation by a publicly salaried presidential propagandist out for his morning spin. The media confusion on this matter illustrates well a fatal flaw in contemporary journalism -- namely it regards the interests of one's sources as infinitely superior to those of the public. The mythology of sources has become indistinguishable from the code of a fraternity like Skull & Bones, a quasi-secret group such as the Council on Foreign Relations, or other institutions where one is taught that there are things the public just shouldn't know. Fin de siecle Washington has an overbearing sense of us vs. them and smart journalists know which side to be on, even it means that they betray their craft and suppress the news. I've been in this trade for over 40 years and have never been accused of betraying a source, but should I find myself in Hitchens' situation I would probably do as he did simply because, absent a promise to the contrary, my covenant is with my readers and not with whatever dissembling hack happens to be in power at the moment. The readers, more than ever, need to know the truth..."

Drudge 2/15/99 "..Feminist attorney Gloria Allred shocked the Los Angeles radio airwaves on Sunday night when she announced that Ted Turner's CABLE NEWS NETWORK banned her from its scandal lineup during the last seven months of its Clinton/Lewinsky coverage! On her weekly KABC talk show, Allred reluctantly admitted that she is now persona non grata at the Atlanta based all news network after calling for the President to resign last August for his legal and ethical misconduct in the Lewinsky affair..Allred, a former Clinton advocate, campaigner and friend, claimed that an inside source at CNN told her that network brass now considered her a "Clinton hater" and would no longer extend her face time.."

Conservative News Service 2/15/99 Larry Eglin ".Further, to say that it was news that Starr was considering indicting the President was a representation only an unquestioning press could fall for. Of course, an independent counsel assigned to investigate a sitting President has to decide whether to indict him for crimes for which there appear to be evidence, to submit a report to Congress or to do both. These things have been topics of debate for months and there has been a good deal of notice taken of it. That Starr would be coming to his conclusion as the impeachment trial upon his earlier referral was ending would only be news if you assumed that he did not operate as a law operation should, but just did things on the spur of the moment. Immediately we asked the question: why is the President floating this "story" of small substance through a friendly press now? The likely answer: it's been several months since the public was informed that Judge Johnson had assigned the matter of the 37 alleged leaks to a master. It is clear that the bulk of the public did not understand what that meant at the time -- assignment to a master. but Clinton and his lawyers knew and took full advantage of it to lie and say that judgment had been reached, and that lie was never opposed .. On the other hand, if it exonerates Starr, new lies would continue the pattern. So what is likely going on became evident in light of what should by now be a clear pattern. The White House seemed to be preparing against the possibility that Starr and his staff might be exonerated. A search of the internet news sources that are reasonably critical of the President revealed that on October 13 of last year Capitol Hill Blue quoted sources within the White House as saying that the 37 leak charge had been planted in the press by -- who else -- Sidney Blumenthal and James Carville. Not only is that kind of deception of the court not sustainable, it is itself sanctionable. If the story is correct then the possibility is that the President has accused others of doing what he does, breaking the rules of the court..."

Minneapolis/St. Paul Star-Tribune 2/15/99 Tom Hamburger ".Even as a chapter of the Clinton- Lewinsky scandal slogs to a close, public anger at news organizations is boiling over. Ask any reporter. Ask any group of citizens. Ask any pollster.. What leads the public to impeach the mass media's honor and thinning reputation just now? From surveys by the Gallup organization, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and others, Americans' criticism of the press performance over the past year can be boiled down to three complaints: leaping to judgment without carefully checking facts, perceived bias in reporting the news and relentlessly focusing on a story considered both well-known and distasteful..Veteran newsman Daniel Schorr described it this way in a commentary this month: "The lines have blurred between reporter and talk-show host, between respectable newspaper and scandal sheet, between politician and commentator, between information and entertainment. In the fevered competition among multiple channels, with the Internet as a bewildering addition to the mix, every minute is a deadline and every rumor is a story."."

Drudge Report 2/16/99 Matt Drudge "..Over the weekend, [Gloria] Allred broke her silence on the CNN blackball during her Los Angeles radio talkshow: "I think I am going to say something here that I've been reluctant to say. But I am going to say it right now. "As far as I know, I am the only feminist in the country, that is reasonably well known, who did say that the president should resign as a result of lying under oath. And it is interesting what happened to me after I said that. CNN carried that when I said it. And then, even though I had been on CNN since its inception, generally a number of times each month on a variety of shows, I have not been interviewed on CNN for the past 7 months." Allred continued: "I was told by someone at CNN that it is because certain management had made a decision that I was a 'Clinton Hater' and I was not permitted on." CNN head Rick Kaplan was not available for comment on Monday. But the DRUDGE REPORT did reach one Atlanta-based network insider who spoke about the Allred ban only on condition of anonymity. "She is not wrong to feel that she was dropped from shows, because, quite frankly, she was," revealed the network veteran Monday afternoon. "But come on, Drudge, this is no conspiracy. We've had Lucianne Goldberg on any number of times, and we just adore her son, Jonah. And who is putting Linda Tripp on live for 1 hour?" When pressed, the well- placed source refused to explain why Allred was never again invited back on CNN after she expressed her views on Clinton last August.."

Email correspondence from Suzanne Plunkett 2/14/99 ". Hello This is the caption I sent out with the photo "Andrew Amirault, of Boston, MA, left, and Michael Frost, of Bayshore, NY, demonstrate in front of NBC Studios during the closing arguments of the Clinton Impeachment trial, Saturday, Feb. 6, 1999, in New York. The two men, who are members of a conservative organization called the Free Republic, were protesting that a story about Juanita Broadderick, who has charged President Clinton with raping her, has not yet aired on NBC." That is exactly what I sent to Washington, I am ambivalent about President Clinton, I have no agenda, I only report what I see.." Freeper EdZep original email to Ms. Plunkett ". AP reporting of the rally against NBC was pretty SORRY. Where did you (all) learn "journalism?" That rally was for the express purpose of shaming NBC into running its story on Juanita Broaddrick and WJ Clinton. AP UNETHICALLY TWISTED the event into some sort of pro-Clinton rally. ."

CNS 2/17/99 Scott Hogenson ".Scholastic classroom magazines, which reach an estimated five million American students in grades 4-12, are featuring a series of age-specific editorials saying that President Bill Clinton did not "get away" with anything during the course of his impeachment and Senate trial. The magazines, which are published by the international children's media company Scholastic, Incorporated and are aimed at students in various grade levels, released editorials Wednesday for children in elementary school, middle school and high school. All of the editorials told youngsters that Clinton did not avoid justice during the impeachment process... In the editorial for children in grades 4-6, the magazine asks "Did the U.S. Senate votes of 'not guilty' on impeachment charges mean the President is above the law? Did the President get away with lying or twisting the truth?" The piece immediately answers its question, saying "Not at all!" In the editorial targeting young teens in middle school, the magazine asks a similar question: "Does the 'not guilty' verdict mean that President Clinton lied and got away with it?" Like students in lower grades, the older students are told "Absolutely not." .The editorial for children in grades 6-8 also reflected some of the arguments advanced by defenders of the president. "The Senators did not acquit the President because they found him blameless. They acquitted him because they did not think his behavior was a threat to the government requiring removal from office," reads the piece, which concluded "President Clinton has been punished." .."

The Boston Herald 2/21/99 Margery Eagan "...``It was one of those cases where everyone knows the deal but readers and viewers. . . . She is telling a story that is relevant to what sort of man this is. . . .'' So said veteran TV newsman Brit Hume in The Washington Post this week about unreported allegations of a 57-year-old Arkansas grandmother that Bill Clinton raped her 21 years ago when he was attorney general. Washington reporters like Hume knew of Juanita Broaddrick's claims. So did millions through the Internet. So did NBC: Correspondent Lisa Myers got the first on-the-record interview with Broaddrick a month ago, but the network has not aired the story and on Friday Myers would not talk about it.... NBC's Alex Constantinople would only deny White House interference and rumors that anchorman Tom Brokaw had threatened to quit if Myers' story ran. Yet without getting carried away here, it's clear that a lecherous, lying womanizer is one thing; a rapist is quite another...."

Zola Times 2/22/99 Wesley Phelan "...In 1996, shortly after the publication of Unlimited Access, Gary Aldrich appeared on "This Week" with David Brinkley. The panelists derided Aldrich's claims that security had broken down in the Clinton White House. After the show, ABC and other networks canceled their remaining interviews with Aldrich. Elizabeth Vargas rounded out the media attack, stating on "Good Morning America" that Aldrich was under fire for "what appears to be sloppy reporting." [1] George Stephanopoulos, a senior adviser to the President, had attempted before the program to convince ABC to cancel its invitation to Aldrich. He accused Aldrich of being a "tool" in a right-wing plot "to destroy" the President. He said that Bob Dole, Clinton's opponent in the 1996 presidential election, had "a responsibility to repudiate him or he is complicit in this campaign of character assassination". Aldrich's claims, according to Stephanopoulos, were "vicious", "totally preposterous", "absurd" and "outrageous". [2] Now, two-and-a-half years later, any reasonably informed person knows who is guilty of "sloppy reporting" and who is "vicious", "totally preposterous", "absurd", and "outrageous". On January 12 of this year Ms. Vargas interviewed Larry Flynt on "Good Morning America." She allowed him to air charges against Congressman Bob Barr, pausing only momentarily to note that it "might be a stretch" to imagine that Flynt was a White House tool. [3] Stephanopoulos, for his part, has been sanctioned by a federal judge for not telling the truth in a deposition to Judicial Watch. [4] Vindication is sweet..."

Wall Street Journal 2/22/99 "...there doesn't seem to be much interest in nit-picking her [Broaddrick] veracity. It appears her story will stand as a stark coda to the Clinton saga; let the world conclude what it will.... It's now widely known that the press has been circling Juanita Broaddrick's story for years. Now that she's gone public with her account with our Dorothy Rabinowitz, some like the Washington Post are going with their own versions. Perhaps NBC will yet air her earlier interview with Lisa Myers. Others are imagining reasons not to go with it--or not talking about it, in the case of ABC, NBC and CBS political talk shows atwitter over Hillary Clinton Senate speculation. We have trouble understanding why any journalist should think twice about this story. In an impeachment of the President of the United States, we would think, everything's on the table. Mrs. Broaddrick arises in the Paula Jones suit, then again in the Starr report, then another false affidavit like Monica's that is later repudiated. Finally, it is reported--so everyone in this business knows--that her account is perhaps proving decisive with key impeachment votes in the House. Why would any red-blooded journalist not want to get the story?... With this story, some journalists managed to convince themselves it would be relevant only if admissible in a court of law trying the obstruction charge. .... But the broader point is that journalists aren't judges; they are supposed to represent the interests of disclosure. Too often today they are applying rules of evidence, without even the benefit of an adversary proceeding, to their own output.... "

USA TODAY 2/22/99 "... Broaddrick had long denied the widely rumored assault, but came forward under media pressure, and Clinton denies everything. So as it stands Broaddrick's story is just another uncorroborated allegation of the sort that the public has been willing to overlook since Clinton's first campaign for president. And even if it did occur, the event, terrible as it may be, has no bearing on Clinton's actions as president.

Media Research Center 2/22/9 "...2) The Juanita Broaddrick stories in two newspapers generated a few seconds on GMA and Today, full stories on CBS and CNN, but zilch on ABC and NBC in the evening and nothing on ABC, CBS or NBC Sunday morning. NBC's Lisa Myers "frustrated" by not getting on air.... 4) In part two of NBC's prime time attack on Ken Starr a lead character regretted how he spread "forty million dollars worth of misinformation." And on ABC's The Practice a lawyer suggested Starr showed his "true calling was pornography" while another lawyer cited CNN's Tailwind as an example of media misdeeds...."

CNS Analysis 2/22/99 Brent Baker "...The Juanita Broaddrick story was still blacked out by ABC's World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News, though the CBS Evening News and CNN's The World Today, after ignoring Friday's Wall Street Journal editorial page piece, picked up on her story after the Washington Post put it on its Saturday, February 20, front page. Of the broadcast network Sunday shows only Fox News Sunday raised the subject. (Tony Snow asked Speaker Denny Hastert about it and the subject was the lead item for the roundtable.) Not a syllable on ABC's This Week, CBS's Face the Nation or NBC's Meet the Press nor on CNN's Capital Gang or the syndicated Inside Washington, though on McLaughlin Group Eleanor Clift denounced it. MSNBC's Brian Williams gladly relayed, as if accurate, Joe Lockhart's charge "that in the past that page of the Wall Street Journal has branded the President a drug smuggler and a murderer." ..."

Washington Times and Landmark Legal Foundation 2/22/99 Mark Levin and Arthur Fergenson "... Since Judge Wright issued her most recent order, the misinformation from the news media has turned into a torrent. The Washington Post and the New York Times committed the most egregious error by describing confidently the proceedings as involving civil contempt. First year law students know better... First, this is a criminal, not civil, contempt proceeding. Civil contempt is used, for example, by a court to compel compliance with an order...While civil contempt is coercive, criminal contempt is not.... Second, contempt of court will punish an obstruction of justice committed in the court's presence, not perjury. The obstruction in this case involves false statements employed by Mr. Clinton directly and through his lawyer to attempt to stop inquiries into Mr. Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Because perjury is not at issue, all issues of materiality are irrelevant.... Third, under the circumstances in this case, the definitions of sex that became so contentious in the impeachment proceedings fall away.... As to guilt, this is an easy case. If Mr. Clinton resists testifying, the hearing could last all of two minutes and consist of one question to Miss Lewinsky: did you and Mr. Clinton engage in sex acts in the vicinity of the Oval Office, yes or no? If the president testifies, he can describe how he was oblivious to the fraud that was being committed on his behalf by his attorney. In order to impose an appropriate sentence, Judge Wright should consider the extent of Mr. Clinton's premeditation. She can call Mr. Bennett as a witness and direct him to describe how he familiarized the president with the Lewinsky affidavit before his deposition. Under the crime-fraud exception, there is no attorney-client privilege barring this testimony. The time has come for Judge Wright to restore a sense of order and decency to her courtroom...."

The New Australian 2/21-27/99 James Henry "...The mainstream media's uniform defence of Clinton and the savagery of its ideological assault on his critics and victims clearly demonstrates who is really in control. These journalists are just some of Clinton's suited barbarians. For them there is no truth, only a cause and a pathological hatred of conservatism. True, the barbarians' control of the media is not complete, but it doesn't have to be. It only needs to be effective. There is no doubt that our leftist dominated media has had a pernicious effect on public opinion. I recall how William Shirer described that while living in Nazi Germany even he had been misled by "a steady diet over the years of falsifications and distortions" (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) despite his ready access to foreign sources of information, especially British and American. Then, of course, we have the Hollywood network. Its support for left-wing causes is as legendary as its scorn for conservative values. Not content with publicly cheering Clinton on, it has joined his smear squad with NBC productions Law & Order and Homicide being used to libel Ken Starr and belittle the accusations against Clinton. Do these actors, producers and directors have any shame or any common decency? Of course not. This piece of lying pro-Clinton propaganda is all in the cause. (But it sometimes makes me wonder who will be the Hollywood Leni Riefenstahl). So is Hollywood dominated by suited barbarians? I think so. Just recall Alec Baldwin's antics. This now leaves us with the universities. The extent of open support for Clinton in academia, mainly the humanities, has shaken quite a few people. It shouldn't have.... If this political plague is not stopped, and it can be stopped, it will eventually kill off American democracy. The first step in defeating this movement is to understand what it is. Fortunately, its nature is well understood in many quarters. The really good news is, it cannot withstand the antidote - and that is honest and open debate. Without a doubt, the Net will play a vital role in defeating this totalitarian disease, as Matt Drudge has already shown. I firmly believe that the good news will get even better...."

NewsMax (Inside Cover) 2/21/99 "...In what could only be described as the most surreal media moment in many a year, neither moderator nor guests on NBC's "Meet the Press" uttered a single word Sunday about the network's own Rapegate blockbuster, which exploded instead on Friday's Wall Street Journal editorial page. Censored panelists included New York Times columnist William Safire, who, a few months back, used his prestigious column to hint of the dire political consequences should Juanita Broaddrick's presidential rape allegation become public. Also on hand was Washington Post dean-columnist David Broder, whose paper had just front paged the Rapegate story a day earlier. Presidential gadfly and pseudo-historian Doris Kearns Goodwin rounded out the panel as the third blind mouse. ..."

The American Spectator 2/22/99 Wlady Pleszczynski "...Perhaps the most noteworthy part of Rabinowitz's story is that it finally gets Broaddrick on the record with an account that preemptively negates the attacks that already have been launched by the usual Clinton defenders. Eleanor Clift says these allegations "go back more than 20 years" and "blames them on right-wing haters." Paul Begala said much the same thing, calling them "20-year-old stories," the "kind of nonsense that some people in the right-wing put out." Clarence Page called them "déjà vu all over again" and "one woman's charge." But perhaps most disturbing -- to Clinton defenders, that is -- was the defense launched by Los Angeles Times Washington bureau chief Jack Nelson. "This is a story that's been knocked down and discredited so many times, I was shocked to see it in the Journal today," he told Salon magazine on February 19, the day the Rabinowitz piece was published. "Well, not shocked, since it ran on the editorial page. Everyone's taken a slice of it, and after looking at it, everyone's knocked it down. The woman has changed her story about whether it happened. It just wasn't credible. I don't know if NBC will run it, but if they do, they'll do it knowing there are real problems with it." This is the same Nelson who, to protect his social friend Clinton in late 1993, wouldn't allow his own reporters to run with the Troopergate story. And he's as wrong and bigoted today as he was then. Indeed, every one of his above points can be "knocked down." For one thing, until Broaddrick went public there were many confusing, conflicting reports and rumors, but never an actual story to knock down. For another, Nelson's predictable swipe at the Journal's editorial page notwithstanding, the Journal's story was quickly followed no only by the Washington Post's accounts (two stories actually, including one by media watcher Howard Kurtz filled with juicy information), but also by the Associated Press, New York Post, and Arkansas Press-Gazette, all of which now also had Broaddrick on the record. So much for "everyone" taking a "slice" of the story and discarding it. Above all, we now know why Broaddrick changed her story. She says she didn't care to get dragged into Jones's civil case, but realized that lying under oath before a federal grand jury would be another matter. Given that no one has uncovered political or financial reasons for Broaddrick's coming forward, her story remains eminently "credible" in a way that even Nelson should appreciate...."

Drudge Report 2/22/99 "...TIME magazine is being accused of making up a quote in a flash story about Juanita Broaddrick, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. TIME quoted Broaddrick calling Lewinsky player Lucianne Goldberg "crazy." The magazine quoted Broaddrick: "I see this crazy Lucianne Goldberg on TV saying that I was profusely bleeding and had to be rushed to the hospital." But on Monday, after reading the story, Broaddrick charged that she never called Goldberg "crazy" in her brief interview with the weekly! "That is a terrible lie," Broaddrick charged. "I would never say that. That is such a lie." ..."

The Washington Weekly 3/01/99 Edward Zehr "… The silence of the mainstream media with regard to the horrors of the Ford Building grows more damning with each passing day. Their credibility shrinks under the withering light of disclosures they are too cowardly to acknowledge. When those talking heads lined up last Sunday to ballyhoo the make-believe candidacy of Hillary Clinton in the New York Senate race, without even so much as mentioning Juanita Broaddrick, they revealed to us their true nature. They are the manipulated puppets of the power-elite, including most of those who play "conservatives" on TV. Their field of endeavor is not journalism, but propaganda. They are treacherous, deceitful people. Most mainstream pundits nowadays use their tongues primarily to spit-shine Clinton's jackboots….."
Capitol Hill Blue (The Rant) 3/2/99 Doug Thompson "…Who's doing the work here? The emails and phone calls started two weeks ago after we broke the story of a pattern of sexual assault by William Jefferson Clinton that goes back 30 years. "Urgent we speak to you," was the general tone. All were from news organizations. Most wanted Eileen Wellstone's phone number (Wellstone is the woman Clinton sexually assaulted at Oxford 30 years ago). Others wanted phone numbers of other women identified in our articles or the names of our sources. When we politely explained that we couldn't burn our sources by giving out information we promised to protect, most understood. Others, however, continued to press. "We won't tell anyone," one said. "You can trust us." Yeah, right. Trust a mainstream media that has either ignored the mounting evidence against Clinton or rushed to his defense whenever legitimate stories were published about his many high crimes. Others got nasty…"

Toronto Sun 3/2/99 Peter Worthington "…Contrary to popular belief that the media rushes to expose any scandal, the reverse is more likely to be true if the names are big enough. With Clinton, the media first rejected Gennifer Flowers in 1992, despite Clinton's voice on her phone tape suggesting she lie. The media initially disbelieved Paula Jones and accepted the White House view that she was "trailer park trash." Monica Lewinsky at first seemed too gross and improbable to be accepted…. Although most believe the allegations are true, it seems Clinton once again escapes retribution. White House denials are reminiscent of the Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Monica Lewinsky spin-doctoring. Editorially the Washington Times opines: "Clinton has no one to blame but himself. He's the one who has amply demonstrated a callous disregard for the women he treats as sexual objects. And ... when confronted about it, he will lie through his teeth." …"

FoxNews.com 3/2/99 David Asman Freeper JeanS "… When law professor Paul Rothstein, ardent foe of any previous attempt to impeach Clinton, says that "[Clinton] should be run out of town on a rail," it's time for even Clinton defenders like Eleanor Clift to perk up and take notice. Before Clinton lovers or haters get too exercised over Rothstein's pronouncement on Fox News the other morning, I should hasten to add that it was preceded by the following: "I seriously doubt that the President of the United States ever raped anyone. But if the charges leveled against the president can be proven, he should be run out of town on a rail ... If he doesn't resign, he should be impeached." …Now timing, as they say in journalism, is everything. NBC sat on this televised interview throughout the Senate Impeachment trial and unveiled it only after competing news organizations (including Fox News Channel) began to get some mileage based on their own reporting of the story. Had we seen Juanita Broaddrick make her case in person — rather than as an obscure footnote to the thousand-page Starr report-before the final Senate vote, public outcry may well have moved some Senators to convict Bill Clinton. …Nevertheless, all these pieces of Bill Clinton's past keep adding up to a three-dimensional picture that the president will never be able to run away from. So much of what has been uncovered about him has been successfully segmented from his character by Clinton himself. The president knows only too well how the media focus on the story of the moment rather than on a larger picture. My medium — a 24-hour news channel — is particularly guilty of this. But historians connect the dots in order to get a full understanding of historical characters and events. These details will not be forgotten by historians, even if they are forgiven by a scandal-weary public…."

Jewish Task Force 3/3/99 Aryeh ben Moishe "…Can one imagine what the left-wing news media would be doing now if it had been revealed that a conservative Republican President had sadistically raped a woman 20 years ago?

We need not rely on our imagination to determine what the media reaction would be. When Clarence Thomas was first nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court, he was reviled by the left for defining himself as a black conservative. Thomas was accused of merely engaging in verbal sexual harassment against Anita Hill. Hill never accused Thomas of ever doing anything physical. She claimed that he essentially propositioned her. There were no witnesses to the Hill allegations, and Clarence Thomas eloquently and forcefully denied the charges. Furthermore, no one else had ever made such an accusation against Thomas. And so he had no "history" of doing such things…. Now let us compare this to what has happened to the Satanic serpent Bill Clinton. Clinton is accused not of verbal harassment, but of numerous instances of physically assaulting and even raping women. And these are not the mere accusations of one woman, but the credible and substantiated accounts of many….. With revelations like these, if Clinton were a Republican, is there any doubt that he would long ago have been removed from office? Yet NBC, owned by the multinational General Electric Corporation, had this story since early January and refused to air it. Could this be the same Tom Brokaw of NBC who was the first to reveal the name of William Kennedy Smith's rape victim contrary to her wishes? Significantly, the left-wing, Clinton-loving media keep referring to Mrs. Broaddrick's violent rape as a mere "sexual assault," in a transparent attempt to whitewash and minimize the gravity of Clinton's offense…."

Jewish Word Review 3/3/99 Mugger "…The attacks against The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, WSJ’s Dorothy Rabinowitz and Matt Drudge, both direct and implied, in the past 10 days, demonstrate who comprehends, and who doesn’t, the current media world…."

Original Sources 3/2/99 Mary Mostert "…Word has gone out in media circles, it seems, to try to squelch the Juanita Broddrick rape story. On Sunday, in fact, on ABC's Roundtable, every effort was made by the participants to drown the story. Cokie Roberts started off the discussion with: "Well, the news this week was the interview of Juanita Broaddrick, a woman in Arkansas who claims that 20 years ago, 21 years ago, then Governor Bill Clinton raped her. And she gave a very compelling interview, and the question is, now what? Do people -George Stephanopoulos, pay attention to this-the idea that the President might have raped somebody?" Stephanopoulos, Clinton's former press secretary responded: "The people are not paying attention to this and I don't know where it can go. You know, one thing, if you look at this, there are a lot of patterns here. We have a pattern on the President, bad behavior with women, lying about it." The people who have heard about it are paying rapt attention to it. Matt Drudge reported Sunday that NBC NEWS executives are washing Juanita Broaddrick right out of their hair. "NBC NEWS has issued an order restricting the use of Juanita Broaddrick's DATELINE interview, it has been learned." Drudge reported. "Effective March 1 at 12:01 AM, NBC outlets will be restricted from using the exclusive Broaddrick footage." It's rather hard for people to "pay attention" when, once again, the president's supporters in the media are trying to kill the story. …"


reagan.com 3/3/99 From The Reagan Information Exchange Freeper sunshine "…President Clinton's personal favorable rating of 40 percent and personal unfavorable rating of 53 percent represent his worst ratings ever in Fox News Poll. It seems people believe J. Br oaddrick but do not want the allegations investigated. What on earth is the matter with these people?…"

Calgary Sun 3/5/99 Dave Rutherford "…If you have a healthy bit of skepticism about today's media, that's fine, because you should have. The Monica Lewinsky interview with the self-anointed dame of U.S. magazine shows, Barbara Walters, was the climax of a media frenzy that has consumed North America…. It should have been a story about the abuse of power, lies before the American public and under oath and obstruction of justice -- but it became a story about sex and celebrity. The direction of this story has been dictated by the media, and the media in North America loves to torque up stories that tear down people. The so-called mainstream media of today have become the tabloid pulp of the past…. The story here is about a powerful man gone off the rails by abusing the very office that he was elected to honour. He lied regularly, and he obstructed investigations, but all you hear about is new ways of defining the word "sex." What has happened to our principles? …These people created this editorial Frankenstein, but now they can't wait to kill the beast and pick over the carcass, then sit back and gloat about moral superiority…."

http://www.usajournal.com 3/7/99 Justin Valente "…There are many things that I find curious about the way the country has dealt with the recent rape allegations made by Arkansas woman Juanita Broaddrick, against Bill Clinton. Broaddrick’s charges have been common knowledge among media and political elite for some time. They have been discussed and written about on the Internet for over a year, but it is not until recently that anyone has heard her story. Since the airing of the NBC interview with Broaddrick, people have been saying (and not saying) some interesting things. …"


Letter from Christopher Cox to LA Times 3/8/99 "…A recent editorial ("Unlock China Espionage Data," Jan. 6) urged the Clinton administration to declassify the top secret report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China, which I chair. A comprehensive look at the apparent security breakdowns is necessary, The Times wrote, to provide "a clearer picture of how China got its hands on such important technology." Now comes columnist Tom Plate, however, claiming such concerns are nothing but a "new Red scare" (Commentary, March 2). In fact, the select committee's report is a sober, detailed look at some disturbing facts. Its entire 1,400 pages and all of its 38 recommendations were unanimously agreed upon by the committee's Republican and Democratic members. Since the report remains classified in its entirety, your readers may take preemptive criticisms with a grain of salt. In the meantime, the approach The Times encouraged in an even more recent editorial (Feb. 24) is one with which I wholeheartedly agree: "Strengthening economic and other ties with China has been a fairly consistent goal for more than two decades. But that policy must be subordinate to U.S. security interests." REP. CHRISTOPHER COX R-Newport Beach …"

Newsmax 3/9/99 Christopher Ruddy "…While America has been preoccupied with Clinton’s sexual shenanigans and Wall Street’s gyrations, extremely ominous developments have been quietly taking place within Russia and Communist China. These ominous developments have occurred during a time when President Bill Clinton has systematically moved to disarm the United States. While it has gone largely unreported, President Clinton has overseen the destruction of nearly two-thirds of America’s nuclear weapons stockpile. He has ordered that America no longer have a "launch on warning" policy and has replaced it with one that says America will retaliate only after it has been attacked. This non-sensical Clinton policy means that American cities and American military targets must first be destroyed before America retaliates. He has proposed taking computer circuitry out of land-based missiles, so that they could not be launched in an emergency. Clinton has proposed making it much more difficult for our submarines to launch their weapons, and even has suggested welding closed the missile hatches on our submarines. Most Americans assume that the Cold War is long over, and that we have nothing to fear from our new "friends," Russia and China. Such a notion is completely contradicted by Russia’s and China’s expansion of their nuclear arsenals at breakneck speed, and deployment of dozens of new weapons systems. Target: America. (Now, I know you may be saying this can’t be true, Russia is in chaos and China is just too weak to take on the United States. Please read on and then form your own opinion.) ….An enormous military build-up, including expansion of their arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons, and introduction of new biological and nuclear weapons with first-strike capability. A huge expansion of their navies (while the US mothballs over half its ships). A new form of brinkmanship, in which Russia and China regularly probe America’s defenses. Huge new civil defense programs, including enormous fallout shelters in Russia (one new underground city is larger than Washington, DC). At the same time, under Clinton, the US military has been cut to the bone, leaving America more vulnerable to foreign attack than at any time since the Cold War…."

Media Research Center 3/10/99 Vol Four No 43 "…1) Broadcast networks are not pursuing Chinese espionage. Nothing Tuesday night on ABC or NBC and only Today has aired an interview segment. In it Katie Couric forwarded the argument China would have figured out the science "on its own" so it's not a big deal. 2) Tom Brokaw refused to run an excerpt from NBC's Broaddrick exclusive on NBC Nightly News, but Tuesday night the show played two minutes from Couric's exclusive with Lewinsky's parents…"

Fox News 3/10/99 Robin Estrin, Associated Press "…In a letter sent to CBS on Tuesday, forensic experts, neuropathologists and pediatricians who specialize in child abuse said the network and the two doctors owe the Eappen family an apology. The group's leader, Dr. Carole Jenny of Brown University's School of Medicine in Providence, R.I., said Wednesday the strangulation theory is not supported by medical literature. I was pretty mystified by how in the world people can come to a conclusion that totally overlooks the skull fracture, the subdural hemorrhages and all of the other things that this child had,'' Jenny said. "There's no doubt he had his skull busted open.''…"

The Weekly Standard 3/15/99 David Frum "…Soon after President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, Timothy Phelps of Newsday and Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio heard rumors that a law professor in Oklahoma had accused Thomas of making crude sexual remarks to her when they worked together almost a decade before. Phelps and Totenberg called Anita Hill, for that's who it was, who refused to confirm the story. Then, with barely days remaining before the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the Thomas nomination, somebody leaked to the reporters the statement Hill had given to the FBI. On October 6, 1991, the story broke. At the time, Phelps and Totenberg had no witnesses who could confirm Hill's allegations, nothing except a complaint anonymously given to the police….In the eight years since then, however, journalistic standards seem to have become considerably more stingent. In 1999, Juanita Broaddrick stepped forward to accuse the president publicly of rape. There were five people willing to confirm that she had told them her story at the time it happened; one of them said she had seen Broaddrick's physical injuries. The strongest counter-evidence against her story - that she had earlier signed an affidavit denying the rape - actually tended to confirm it As we now know, Clinton's protectors have made a habit of collecting false affidavits from women linked to their man. But according to Rosentiel and Kovach, none of this was good enough to justify the Wall Street Journal's editorial page in publishing its interview with Juanita Broaddrick. It should have checked the story more laboriously, more thoroughly, rather than hurrying into print a mere four weeks after Broaddrick first publicly stepped forward…."