Conservative websites finally giving Hillary the vetting she deserved in 2008

posted at 10:01 am on June 20, 2014 by Noah Rothman

The Washington Free Beacon and their investigative journalist Alana Goodman have done it again. And by “it,” I mean the job the rest of the political press will not do: performing an intrusive examination of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s past.

This past winter, Goodman took the trip down to Arkansas where she dug into the records of Clinton friend, the late Diane Blair. Goodman unearthed notes detailing how Clinton felt about her allies, her adversaries, and the major events that dominated the headlines in the 1990s.

“HC tired of all those whiney women, and she needs him on health care,” Blair wrote of Sen. Bob Packwood (R-OR) in the heat of the 1993 debate over health care reform. Goodman’s reporting also revealed that the Clinton camp had authored memos on how to deal with President Bill Clinton’s serial infidelity as early as 1992. And, of course, the documents exposed the fact that Clinton had called Monica Lewinski a “narcissistic loony toon” – a quote the press elevated above all others in this expansive scoop.

Much as they may have wanted to, the political media could not ignore a story. Reporters descended on Arkansas in an attempt to replicate Goodman’s feat. Frustrated, prominent journalistic figures who reported on the revelations uncovered by WFB, in what came to be called “the Hillary papers,” often prefaced their reporting with some disparaging remark about the source of the original scoop.

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell said the Blair documents were uncovered by a nameless “anti-Clinton website.” Time’s Joe Klein simply referred to WFB as a “publication.” The lengths to which reporters went in the effort to avoid saying the words “Washington Free Beacon” became so absurd that the famously self-aware website created a montage of reporters contorting themselves into knots in the effort to obscure the original source of the Hillary papers.

It is easy to attribute this undisguised antipathy toward WFB as merely an expression of disdain from establishment reporters for an upstart journalistic outlet that got the scoop over them. It might be a juvenile reaction, but it’s also a human and understandable one. At least, that was the benefit of the doubt that I was prepared to extend the press in February. But Goodman’s latest triumph suggests I was mistaken.

This week, Goodman returned to Arkansas where she followed up the Hillary papers with “the Hillary tapes.” In a taped discussion, Clinton was captured bragging about her role in the 1975 defense of a man accused of raping a 12-year-old. The tapes featured Clinton gloating about her successful use of a piece of contaminated evidence to secure a plea bargain for her client.

Tasteless? Sure. Impolitic? That’s what CNN’s political reporters thought. But it’s also good lawyering, and the story surrounding Clinton’s involvement in that case had been covered, though clearly not exhaustively, in 2008. It was easy to believe that Goodman’s latest scoop would simply fade away.

And it would have, had the press not again followed WFB’s lead and quickly bought reporters tickets to Arkansas. The fruits of one such expedition surfaced on Friday morning in the pages of The Daily Beast where reporter Josh Rogin unleashed a bombshell: the victim in that 1975 rape case believes Hillary Clinton, a figure CNN’s Brianna Keilar described as someone who has branded herself as a “champion of women and girls,” smeared her and put her “through hell” in order to get a lighter sentence for a rapist.

“I would say [to Clinton], ‘You took a case of mine in ‘75, you lied on me… I realize the truth now, the heart of what you’ve done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that [being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing.”

That sound you hear is Team Hillary scrambling to their battle stations. They’re at DEFCON-1 this morning. But the most egregious portion of Rogin’s report was not what the victim in this case said, but why we are learning about it now.

In 2008, current Politico reporter Glenn Thrush, who wrote for Newsday at the time, interviewed the victim amid a cursory vetting of her role in this case framed as a window into how Clinton “deals with crisis.” The unidentified victim told him at the time that she harbored no ill-will toward her attacker’s unidentified defense counsel. “But the victim now claims she was misquoted,” Rogin asserted.

“If I had known that day what I know now I would have told him exactly what I’m telling y’all today,” the victim told The Daily Beast reporter. Thrush declined to comment.

Again, the WFB has performed a major coup. Too major, in fact. The font of Goodman’s revelations, the University of Arkansas archives, has been closed to Goodman and her colleagues. This reporter’s skillful ability to navigate the archives simply could not be tolerated by the University staff.

The University’s library Dean Carolyn Henderson Allen, a 2008 Clinton donor to the tune of $500, informed WFB editor Matthew Continetti that she was “disappointed” in the publication’s decision to publicize the content of their archives.

But a tersely worded letter from a Clinton ally is unlikely to deter WFB’s intrepid reporters. While admittedly a biased publication, WFB has carved out a niche by making truly fresh news about a figure who has dominated American politics for more than 20 years. That should shame the rest of the press. They have had every opportunity to vet the once and future presidential candidate, and they passed.

It’s clearly a new world, and Clinton is already getting the vetting she deserved in 2008, even if it is conservative outlets who are forcing the press to do that job.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Is anyone else turned on by that picture of her?

underpants on June 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Havent turned on the tv yet but i suppose the war on women, particularly Hillary will be revved up again. We simply cant have conservatives beating up on women and suppressing their voices.

jaywemm on June 20, 2014 at 10:08 AM

OT:
Isis storms Saddam-era chemical weapons complex in Iraq

The jihadist group bringing terror to Iraq overran a Saddam Hussein chemical weapons complex on Thursday, gaining access to disused stores of hundreds of tonnes of potentially deadly poisons including mustard gas and sarin.
Isis invaded the al-Muthanna mega-facility 60 miles north of Baghdad in a rapid takeover that the US government said was a matter of concern.

kcewa on June 20, 2014 at 10:09 AM

Noah, let us know when the liberal websites start giving her the vetting she deserves. Maybe you could nudge some of your dear friends and old colleagues to start.

HumpBot Salvation on June 20, 2014 at 10:10 AM

It’s clearly a new world, and Clinton is already getting the vetting she deserved in 2008, even if it is conservative outlets who are forcing the press to do that job.

Any and all vetting of this harpy has been done by conservative outlets of one kind or another, and it has been ongoing.

Akzed on June 20, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Absolutely brutal. This goes deeply into the heart of the “war on women” talking point for the election.

Naked Emperor on June 20, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Hildabeast was torpedoed by two things in 2008:

1. Her complete lack of appeal as a candidate
2. The left which fell in love with an empty shirt named Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

Same thing is happening now, we just don’t know who 2016′s empty shirt will be yet.

ConstantineXI on June 20, 2014 at 10:14 AM

underpants on June 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM

The best she’s ever looked was at the 93 inaugural ball.

mankai on June 20, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Is anyone else turned on by that picture of her?

underpants on June 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Anyone remember the pictures of what she wore the first day in office after being elected Senator?

I remember.. maybe it wasn’t the first day but it was shortly after being elected.. she showed up to some meeting or hearing in what looked like a roman toga carrying a cup of tea. She looked like she stepped out of the real Roman Senate. The picture was all over the internet everywhere but I haven’t found it since.

JellyToast on June 20, 2014 at 10:19 AM

In a taped discussion, Clinton was captured bragging about her role in the 1975 defense of a man accused of raping a 12-year-old. The tapes featured Clinton gloating about her successful use of a piece of contaminated evidence to secure a plea bargain for her client.

If I knew nothing else about Killary, this would be enough to hate her.

Bishop on June 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Noah, let us know when the liberal websites start giving her the vetting she deserves. Maybe you could nudge some of your dear friends and old colleagues to start.

HumpBot Salvation on June 20, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Hehehehe

Bishop on June 20, 2014 at 10:21 AM

It’s clearly a new world, and Clinton is already getting the vetting she deserved in 2008, even if it is conservative outlets who are forcing the press to do that job.

I don’t think it’s totally fair to say Hillary wasn’t vetted some in 2008 … in the primaries. Remember, she was running to the right of both Obama and the sleazy John Edwards during that campaign, which robbed her of some of the normal protection she’d have had in a general election fight (the interesting question is who tipped off Glenn Thrush — Newsday in 2008, after years of oversight by their parent Los Angeles Times, could arguably be said to have had a more liberal thought culture than even The New York Times. So the idea that some John McCain supporter pointed Thrush towards Arkansas and a 34-year-old rape case sounds a little less probable than someone who was part of Team Obama at the time directing the Newsday reporter towards her role in the rape case defense).

jon1979 on June 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM

“We cannot let a minority of people – and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people – hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

That’s all anyone needs to know about this gorgon, but then there’s everything else.

Akzed on June 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM

Hillary is NO Bill and she will not be as good on the national campaign trail, ESPECIALLY as Benghazi comes home to roost. I for one, cannot wait to see her “3AM phone call commercial ENDING with her yelling “what difference at this point does it make?” and a second one of this rape victim [see how I brought it back to the story there ;-)] yelling about Hillary being the head of the war on women

Dostacos on June 20, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Hillary was more vetted than Obama, which isn’t saying much.

bw222 on June 20, 2014 at 10:27 AM

As I’ve said, Clinton 2016… too big to fail.

MT on June 20, 2014 at 10:27 AM

It’s Alana Goodman, Noah.

BigGator5 on June 20, 2014 at 10:28 AM

While admittedly a biased publication, WFB has carved out a niche by making truly fresh news about a figure who has dominated American politics for more than 20 years. That should shame the rest of the press. They have had every opportunity to vet the once and future presidential candidate, and they passed.

Noah, hildebeest is a Democrat. The mainstream press is biased in favor of Democrats.

MisterElephant on June 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Hildabeast was torpedoed by two things in 2008:

1. Her complete lack of appeal as a candidate
2. The left which fell in love with an empty shirt named Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

#2 is correct. As for #1, Hillary actually got more votes than Obama while spending about one-fourth as much money and without the help of an adoring media. She won all the big states except Illinois and all of the swing states. She finished in a virtual tie in delegates and would have had a slight lead in those if the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee hadn’t awarded Obama with some of her Michigan delegates.

It was the Democratic superdelegates that gave Obama the nomination.

myiq2xu on June 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Noah, hildebeest is a Democrat. The mainstream press is biased in favor of Democrats.

The far-left and the mainstream press despise both Clintons. If you watched MSNBC in 2008 you would know that.

myiq2xu on June 20, 2014 at 10:33 AM

The Clintons are our own Macbeth and Lady Macbeth; consumed by ambition, they will destroy anyone who stands in their way. The only difference is that I doubt Hillary has a conscience to keep her awake at night, and we can’t rely upon a castle wall to get rid of her.

xNavigator on June 20, 2014 at 10:38 AM

” … even if it is conservative outlets who are forcing the press to do that job.”

Yes, I remember when Hot Air was a “conservative outlet” – perhaps it’s time for HA to shed it’s left-leaning commentators and return to it’s conservative roots.

Pork-Chop on June 20, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Can WFB get Obamas missing college transcripts and his real birth certificate? If anyone could they could.

neyney on June 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM

While admittedly a biased publication, WFB has carved out a niche…

Why is it necessary to include this tidbit?

Akzed on June 20, 2014 at 10:52 AM

Can WFB get Obamas missing college transcripts and his real birth certificate? If anyone could they could. neyney on June 20, 2014 at 10:46 AM

Yeah but they’re biased and all.

Akzed on June 20, 2014 at 10:53 AM

shame |SHām| noun
a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behavior

That should shame the rest of the press

Respectfully disagree. For some one to be “shamed”, they must first have a concept of “right” and “wrong”. Liberals have no sense of what is good or evil, and as such they have no shame. These people, however, were addressed by a Hebrew author some years back. The author not only described their condition, but their ultimate end.

Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; Nor did they know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; At the time I punish them, They shall be cast down,” says the LORD.
Jeremiah 6:15 (NKJV)

oldleprechaun on June 20, 2014 at 10:57 AM

While admittedly a biased publication, WFB has carved out a niche…

Why is it necessary to include this tidbit?

Akzed on June 20, 2014 at 10:52 AM

That’s just standard practice. I’m sure Noah uses that qualifier when introducing stories from the NYT, HuffingtonPost, Mediate, Daily Beast, Rolling Stone, WaPo…etc…

HumpBot Salvation on June 20, 2014 at 10:58 AM

The other potential bombshell in Ms. Goodman’s reporting is the fact that apparently in 2002 “the smartest woman in the world” and “superlawyer” decided that, well, for whatever reason, she didn’t need to do her mandatory Continuing Legal Education and was then suspended by the Arkansas Bar:

https://attorneyinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/info/Attorney/Attorney_Search_Detail.aspx?ID=6b117de4-d562-4e17-adc8-104aabe831d2

When Jason Mattera asked her to dedicate the signing of his copy of her book to Christopher Stephens, and after she refused and he asked, “What difference does it make?,” I wish he would have then asked, after whatever she muttered, “Is that a legal opinion?” Because she lists herself on Twitter as, “Wife, mom, lawyer, . . . .”

Enjoy this if you have not already:

http://twitchy.com/2014/06/19/you-magnificent-bastard-jason-mattera-confronts-hillary-in-beautiful-ambush-video/#

Let’s see if we can get a real investigative reporter to ask her, when she opines on any given subject, whether she’s providing a “legal opinion.” Because she can’t, currently, while on suspension. Put on the spot over and over about whether she’s still a practicing lawyer. She does not do “gotcha” well.

Of course she does not need her license any more, nor does Slick Willie, whose disbarment has ended and who no longer pays his bar dues, apparently. But someone needs to press this unannounced candidate for the presidency about why someone who calls herself “lawyer,” for all the world to see on Twitter, why she allowed herself to be suspended and whether she will ever try to reinstate herself.

Thank you.

Cold Warrior on June 20, 2014 at 10:58 AM

Tasteless? Sure. Impolitic? That’s what CNN’s political reporters thought. But it’s also good lawyering, and the story surrounding Clinton’s involvement in that case had been covered, though clearly not exhaustively, in 2008. It was easy to believe that Goodman’s latest scoop would simply fade away.

Do you read what you write, Noah? In your haste to “on the other hand” “be fair”, you’re saying it’s good lawyering to gloat over and cackle at one’s ability to do something, in this case to get one’s client out from under an indictment for raping a 12 year-old.

Dusty on June 20, 2014 at 11:03 AM

I always thought it was funny that Rodham was her middle name.

She’s literally “Rodham to the core”.

Alberta_Patriot on June 20, 2014 at 11:03 AM

It is strange that a library would not want information available to the public. It kind of defeats the point of being a library. Who pays for the library? Is it a public or private institution?

DAT60A3 on June 20, 2014 at 11:04 AM

While admittedly a biased publication, WFB has carved out a niche…

Why is it necessary to include this tidbit?

Akzed on June 20, 2014 at 10:52 AM

+1

Noah, to be taken seriously, if you are going to use personal bias phrases like that, you must also use them while describing the NYT, MSNBC, NYT, etc. Dems are always screaming “level playing field”….level your playing field as well.

herm2416 on June 20, 2014 at 11:04 AM

In 2008, reporters were too busy looking for Sarah Palin’s Gynecological records, evidence of faking a pregnancy, and trying to find evidence that her son was actually her grandson.

portlandon on June 20, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Would anyone like to “vet” Barack Obama? He’s into his 6th year as POTUS. Isn’t that a bit overdue?

IndieDogg on June 20, 2014 at 11:14 AM

Hildabeast was torpedoed by two things in 2008:

1. Her complete lack of appeal as a candidate
2. The left which fell in love with an empty shirt named Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

Same thing is happening now, we just don’t know who 2016′s empty shirt will be yet.

[ConstantineXI on June 20, 2014 at 10:14 AM]

Not that I mind you being unfair to Hillary, but I object to your suggesting Hillary’s sole ownership of her failed candidacy, should be shared somehow with Obama’s appeal to voters’ hearts.

Hillary’s complete lack of appeal as a candidate gave the Left no choice but to choose the only other pantsuit left in the ring, the one with the perfect crease, empty though it was. Barry never would have made it past the start line if Hillary had a shred of decency or competence.

Dusty on June 20, 2014 at 11:15 AM

As I’ve said, Clinton 2016… too big to fail.

MT on June 20, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Cankles 2016…too big to fall.

VegasRick on June 20, 2014 at 11:21 AM

[Akzed on June 20, 2014 at 10:52 AM]

Because it’s the type of “by the way, look at me, I’m totally objective” writing that Ed likes.

Dusty on June 20, 2014 at 11:21 AM

She was vetted in ’92, when people decided then they didn’t like her.

Is anyone else turned on by that picture of her?

underpants on June 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM

No, and you should seek professional help.

formwiz on June 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM

Why are we concerned about vetting Hillary? She is not going to be the nominee, and if she were to be, so what?

The Statists may have the opportunity to elect another “historic” candidate with First Female, but the War on Women card is simply not high enough to trump the race card in advancing their ideology.

Conservative and independent women will simply not vote for a leftist woman, no matter how many reproductive functions they have in common. The only potential pool of new votes is females who would vote for First Fem but would not vote otherwise, and I would guess that is not a large number.

Blacks as a group, on the other hand will vote for anything with a pulse as long as it has dark skin, even if they share no ideological similarities. The Dems will be sacrificing those black voters who are not interested in old white chicks in return for what I believe would be only a nominal amount of new votes from stupid women.

I don’t see how the calculus of First Female! works for the powers behind the throne, as long as cries of Rayciss! are still radioactive.

Dolce Far Niente on June 20, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Notice that the whole focus of the panel on CNN is how to explain Hillary’s bad behavior.

Just like they did to Republicans!

PattyJ on June 20, 2014 at 11:25 AM

As for #1, Hillary actually got more votes than Obama while spending about one-fourth as much money and without the help of an adoring media. She won all the big states except Illinois and all of the swing states. She finished in a virtual tie in delegates and would have had a slight lead in those if the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee hadn’t awarded Obama with some of her Michigan delegates.

It was the Democratic superdelegates that gave Obama the nomination.

myiq2xu on June 20, 2014 at 10:30 AM

My recollection was that Howard Dean wouldn’t allow Hillary to use all of her votes because of the early primaries.

So, if you look at it one way,the meltdown in the Middle East, Russia’s invasion, Obamacare, the unnacomapnied minor illegals crisis-all due to Howard Dean via Obama. Nice work, doc./

talkingpoints on June 20, 2014 at 11:30 AM

The letter from the paper’s lawyer to the librarian is well worth reading

June 19, 2014

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

Ms. Carolyn Henderson Allen Dean of Libraries University of Arkansas 365 N. McIllroy Avenue Fayetteville, AR 72701-4002

Re:Washington Free Beacon

Dear Dean Henderson Allen:

Covington & Burling represents the Washington Free Beacon, and I write in response to your June 17, 2014 letter, in which you demand that my client remove audio recordings from its website and state that you are suspending the right of Free Beacon’s journalists to conduct research in your public library. At the outset, I find it stunning that you would seek to censor the dissemination of lawfully acquired information that is clearly in the public interest, given the historic role that libraries long have played in fostering free expression and the broad dissemination of information. In addition to being entirely inaccurate as a matter of both law and fact, your letter is a clear assault on the First Amendment principles that are fundamental to libraries and to journalism…

Drained Brain on June 20, 2014 at 11:30 AM

Where, by the way, is Bill Clinton? Maybe I missed it but I haven’t seen him in weeks anywhere.

crankyoldlady on June 20, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Yes, I remember when Hot Air was a “conservative outlet” – perhaps it’s time for HA to shed it’s left-leaning commentators and return to it’s conservative roots.

Pork-Chop on June 20, 2014 at 10:44 AM

BINGO!!!

Almost every HA editor is in favor of some form of amnesty. And the current invasion surge (America, not Iraq) proves amnesty is an abject failure.

As a laboratory experiment, let’s look at the 2010 DACA amnesty Executive Order. Today the Border Patrol says that through interviews, 95% of the new flood of illegal aliens quote the DACA as their motivation. Amnesty, or even just TALKING about amnesty, as was done with McCain-Kennedy in 2006 and 2007, is a giant billboard saying, “Come on in, the water’s fine!”

And how many American invasion posts have you seen here, while dozens of arcane political posts abound?

I suggest the HA editors are embarrassed beyond belief and don’t want to moderate the replies to such posts.

Go to Drudge or Breitbart if you want to read about the invasion of OUR country.

fred5678 on June 20, 2014 at 11:36 AM

Much as they may have wanted to, the political media could not ignore a story. Reporters descended on Arkansas in an attempt to replicate Goodman’s feat. Frustrated, prominent journalistic figures who reported on the revelations uncovered by WFB, in what came to be called “the Hillary papers,” often prefaced their reporting with some disparaging remark about the source of the original scoop.

Sounds like Matt Drudge and the Clinton affairs only 16 years ago.

AH_C on June 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM

2. The left which fell in love with an empty shirt named Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

Same thing is happening now, we just don’t know who 2016′s empty shirt will be yet.

ConstantineXI on June 20, 2014 at 10:14 AM

You have one too many “r”s in “shirt”.

OccamsRazor on June 20, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Is anyone else turned on by that picture of her?

underpants on June 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM

.
I’ve seen pictures of Hillary, in which she looks what I consider to be ‘attractive’.

That picture ain’t one of them, but there are much worse pics out there.

listens2glenn on June 20, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Don’t pat yourselves on the back too much; many so called
conservative websites were lacking in the facts about Obama
prior to his run.

Amjean on June 20, 2014 at 11:55 AM

jon1979 on June 20, 2014 at 10:23 AM

When Dem “vetting” reaches even half the level of Palinization, give me a call…

If Killery and King Putt had both been properly vetted in 2008, maybe the world wouldn’t be crumbling right now….

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 11:55 AM

The University of Ark. should be pounded on this library decision.

GaltBlvnAtty on June 20, 2014 at 11:58 AM

I’m glad to see this happening.
But, had this come out, say, a year in the future, Mr and Mrs Clinton would be fighting these tidbits a lot more aggressively.
They’re counting on the short memory of the voting public.

TimBuk3 on June 20, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Yes, I remember when Hot Air was a “conservative outlet” – perhaps it’s time for HA to shed it’s left-leaning commentators and return to it’s conservative roots.

Pork-Chop on June 20, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Lefties seem to be infiltrating all over these days.
Our Colorado Springs Gazette used to be a conservative leaning paper, and KOA radio 850 from Denver used to be a solid conservative talk radio station – both are veering hard left these days.
Soooo, can’t say I’m surprised to see HA steering left as well……

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Don’t pat yourselves on the back too much; many so called
conservative websites were lacking in the facts about Obama
prior to his run.

Amjean on June 20, 2014 at 11:55 AM

And those that DID have the real facts, and tried to get out the real story were attacked and ridiculed as racist haters….

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Is anyone else turned on by that picture of her?
underpants on June 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM

I’ve seen pictures of Hillary, in which she looks what I consider to be ‘attractive’.
That picture ain’t one of them, but there are much worse pics out there.
listens2glenn on June 20, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Max Reede: My teacher tells me beauty is on the inside.
Fletcher: That’s just something ugly people say.

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 12:20 PM

Much as they may have wanted to, the political media could not ignore a story. Reporters descended on Arkansas in an attempt to replicate Goodman’s feat. Frustrated, prominent journalistic figures who reported on the revelations uncovered by WFB, in what came to be called “the Hillary papers,” often prefaced their reporting with some disparaging remark about the source of the original scoop.

Oh pullleeeeeeease just stop. Be honest with yourself and us and use the correct word here: refute is the word.

When they couldn’t refute the story outright, they downplayed the allegations and did anything else they could to cover it up including insinuating that the original reporters at WFB are not a credible source.

Swipes at WFB were the attempts to delegitimize a source and, by extension, the story. This same tactic is used all the time against FOXNews for the same reason. Even the White House does it.

To attribute such behavior to jealousy or frustration is either terribly naive or unforgiveably disengenuous.

ROCnPhilly on June 20, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Is anyone else turned on by that picture of her?

underpants on June 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM

All right, I admit it: Yes–a little.

We make fun of her and laugh at her now because she’s a booze-ridden, pop-eyed, bloated old hag. But once she’d gone through her hideous hippie phase, she was actually a fairly attractive young woman.

I can’t say the same for Chelsea–she’s never been attractive.

MisterElephant on June 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Pork-Chop on June 20, 2014 at 10:44 AM

herm2416 on June 20, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Preach it, brothers.

Can we have Ms. Malkin back?

MisterElephant on June 20, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Killary is a scumbag through and through.

John the Libertarian on June 20, 2014 at 1:09 PM

When Bill saw the pearl necklace, he knew she was his kind of girl.

NoPain on June 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM

I can’t say the same for Chelsea–she’s never been attractive.

MisterElephant on June 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM

That’s cuz Janet Reno is her real father….

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 1:24 PM

When Bill saw the pearl necklace, he knew she was his kind of girl.

NoPain on June 20, 2014 at 1:10 PM

I’m sure he’s tried to give her a few of those….

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 1:25 PM

They met in college, where they were dating the same girl.

PJ Emeritus on June 20, 2014 at 1:49 PM

All right, I admit it: Yes–a little.

We make fun of her and laugh at her now because she’s a booze-ridden, pop-eyed, bloated old hag. But once she’d gone through her hideous hippie phase, she was actually a fairly attractive young woman.

I can’t say the same for Chelsea–she’s never been attractive.

MisterElephant on June 20, 2014 at 12:45 PM

I also have seen some pictures of Hildebeast, from earlier days when see almost looks attractive. Then I think about the woman herself, and projectile vomiting ensues.

As far as Chelsea goes, I actually think she grew more attractive with age. Then, when I wake up screaming, from a bad dream, projectile vomiting ensues.

I think I see a pattern here.

ZeusGoose on June 20, 2014 at 2:23 PM

I’m sure he’s tried to give her a few of those….

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 1:25 PM

I think she still has the stained blue pantsuit she was wearing on the their first anniversary!

ZeusGoose on June 20, 2014 at 2:28 PM

They met in college, where they were dating the same girl.

PJ Emeritus on June 20, 2014 at 1:49 PM

Huma, Huma, Huma,

What are you trying to imply?

Is Hillary trying to become the second president accused of seducing a female underling in the Oval Office???

Oh, the Huma-nity!!!!!!!!!

ZeusGoose on June 20, 2014 at 2:32 PM

I think she still has the stained blue pantsuit she was wearing on the their first anniversary!

ZeusGoose on June 20, 2014 at 2:28 PM

I’d bet whenever he tried something like that, the response was along the line of “GET that thing away from me!!!”

Probably explains SOME of his interest in interns and trailer trash, no matter what they looked like.
But mostly just redneck horn-dog frat boy.

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Bravo. It’s been apparent to a lot of conservatives for a long time just how cold and calculating and corrupt and self-serving both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are. The rest of the world is just playing catch up. Just as they are finally facing the fact that the man conservatives said would be a horrible president years ago has turned out to be just that.

scalleywag on June 20, 2014 at 3:04 PM

I think she still has the stained blue pantsuit she was wearing on the their first anniversary!

ZeusGoose on June 20, 2014 at 2:28 PM

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 2:41 PM

HerbBubba: Judith Hillary calls mine “that thing.”
AlanAnthony: As in, “Get that thing away from me?”
HerbBubba: Yeah. How’d you know?
AlanAnthony: Just a guess.

dentarthurdent on June 20, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Same thing is happening now, we just don’t know who 2016′s empty shirt will be yet.

ConstantineXI

Maybe it will be an “empty bra” this time–or an Indian Headdress. (Yeah, I said it–INDIAN HEADDRESS!)

Ms. Contrarian Scientist on June 20, 2014 at 3:15 PM

OccamsRazor on June 20, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Good one.

S. D. on June 20, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Is anyone else turned on by that picture of her?

underpants on June 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM

You talking in a “buck fever” sorta way, or what?

ROCnPhilly on June 20, 2014 at 3:43 PM

Is anyone else turned on by that picture of her?

underpants on June 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM

.
You talking in a “buck fever” sorta way, or what?

ROCnPhilly on June 20, 2014 at 3:43 PM

.
. . . : )

listens2glenn on June 20, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Three words that aspiring and legitimate journalists must fear from the Killary: Fort Marcy Park.

If you get an invitation to visit from the Committee to Elect (you know who) … I recommend you use the short answer … NO.

Missilengr on June 20, 2014 at 4:56 PM

Does this mean there is a chance the media will start vetting the current president in 2017?

GreenBlade on June 20, 2014 at 5:50 PM

Hildabeast was torpedoed by two things in 2008:

1. Her complete lack of appeal as a candidate

2. The left which fell in love with an empty shirt named Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

Same thing is happening now, we just don’t know who 2016′s empty shirt will be yet.

ConstantineXI on June 20, 2014 at 10:14 AM

and neither of them happened to Bill.

Laura in Maryland on June 20, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Thought I should point out that Bill Clinton has been permanently disbarred. The Supreme Court sent him and his lawyer a form-letter telling them that they had 40 days to file an appeal. This form letter was never answered and they never filed any appeal. So far America has had only two Presidents permanently disbarred, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

Bugdust172 on June 21, 2014 at 1:02 AM

By the time we get to 2016, the Clintonistas will dismiss all this stuff as “old news.” And the slavering dogs of the legacy media will follow their lead.

Esaus Message on June 21, 2014 at 12:01 PM