Boy! What exciting times in Washington, huh? I mean we've got Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, and Kathleen Willey all making news with public statements and testimony, and their stories look rock solid!
Thursday, March 19, 1998 --- New York (APJP) -- Beltway press mavens and the New York media elite were abuzz today over the latest developments in the "Slick Willey" scandal.
The first bombshell came in the form of a sworn affadavit released last night by Julie Steele, a friend of Kathleen Willey, accusing Willey of asking Steele to corroborate her story to Newsweek's Michael Isikoff (of being fondled by President Clinton in the White House) -- by lying. Steele claims that Willey had told her last year to falsely "describe her demeanor" after the alleged 1993 incident "as 'upset,' 'humiliated,' 'disappointed,' and 'harassed."' When Steele protested that this would be a lie, Willey reassured her that the conversation would be "off the record," an assurance personally reasserted by Isikoff.
In an article by John Broder in this morning's New York Times, a second bombshell was dropped:
This afternoon, Isikoff claimed that Steele "was the one constantly changing her story." Who do you think you're fooling, Michael? This is a weak rationalization of not following through on the fact that she changed her story in the first place! This should have raised a few major red flags, even in your microcephalic noggin, and prompted you to undertake some form of further corroboration before pushing the story.
Worse yet, if the twin bombshells prove to be true, then Isikoff has sunk one level lower than even Matt Drudge on the journalist food chain: first by lying through his teeth about comments being "off the record," then by running a story he had been told was based on a lie.
In the stepped-up media fight for market share, circulation, and quick bucks made on the personal lives of public servants and those with whom they associate, Steele's sworn affadavit only serves to reinforce the impression of so many Americans that a desparate press will now go to any extreme, any length, starting from and going well beyond the spinning of allegations into "major stories."
Poll numbers say the American public doesn't see a correlation between Clinton's personal and professional life. What's more, the public is growing weary of the incessantly hyped "crisis," the tittilating pap of the trumped up "scandal" surrounding Clinton's groupies. This is due in no small part to the arrorgant contempt in which so many members of the press and the body politic hold the public.
The bottom-feeding "media elite" and their allies in the Beltway should be paying more attention to the ethics and practices among their own.
If the allegation that Isikoff flogged a story he was warned was based on a lie proves true -- and there seems to be little reason to doubt Steele's word -- it's all the more of a wake-up call for the media to put their own house in order and stop taking after the "lead" of Matt Drudge.
Boy! What exciting times in Washington, huh? I mean we've got Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, and Kathleen Willey all making news with public statements and testimony, and their stories look rock solid!
…unless you count the lies, of course.
Not that lies are important, mind you. Heaven forbid we call someone a liar because they tell two (or more!) different stories.
Can you call Kathleen Willey a liar because she has testified that nothing sexual happened between her and the President, AND testified that something sexual happened between her and the President? Those sworn statements are exactly opposite, but can you call one a lie?
Can you call Kathleen Willey a liar because she claimed to have gone to a friend's house to complain about the President while that friend has testified that's a lie? (Can you call it suborning perjury when that same friend says Willey urged her to lie under oath about the story?)
Can you call Paula Jones a liar because she testified she was demoted at her Arkansas clerk job when that actually didn't happen?
And what about when these people (can you call them liars?) call each other liars?
Tripp says Willey was mussed up with smeared makeup after a meeting with Clinton. Willey says that's a lie.
Willey says Tripp angrily promised to "get" her and everyone else at the White House. Tripp says that's a lie.
And of course on the Old News front, there's Monica, who has testified nothing happened with the President and also claimed maybe something did happen. Can you call her a liar?
But anyway, it's not like there's anyone with a consistent story in this case.
…unless you count the President, of course!
Search American Politics Provided by Hot Bot |
