InsightMag.com recycled Clinton myths, Vince Foster conspiracy theories
In a May 14 column about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) headlined "Media ignores Hillary's scandals," InsightMag.com's "Washington Watch" claimed, "It is right to ask with fresh lenses: What was her role in Whitewater, the death of [Clinton administration deputy White House counsel] Vince Foster, the curtailment of 'bimbo eruptions,' Travelgate, Filegate, and Monicagate?" The anonymously authored column continued: "Did she have an affair with Vince Foster -- as was reported in The American Spectator in the 1990s? Is she a lesbian, as has also been rumored for years?"
Several independent investigations have determined that Vincent Foster's death was a suicide and that former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Clinton were not involved in a cover-up related to his death. Media Matters for America has documented multiple attempts by right-wingers to advance the rumor that Clinton is a lesbian or bisexual (here, here, here, and here).
Extensive official investigations into Whitewater, "Travelgate," and "Filegate" also found no criminal wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton. Robert Ray, the third and final Republican-appointed counsel assigned to investigate the Clintons, announced on September 20, 2000, that he had closed the six-year-long Whitewater probe after concluding that "the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct." In a June 2000 report on the firings of White House Travel Office employees, Ray wrote that the decision to fire the employees was "lawful" and that "the evidence is insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either Mr. [former White House director of administration David] Watkins or Mrs. Clinton committed perjury or obstruction of justice during the course of their testimony before GAO, the Congress, and this investigation." And in March 2000, Ray determined that, in regard to members of the Clinton White House having obtained confidential FBI files, "[T]here was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved in seeking confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation background reports of former White House staff from the administrations of President Bush and President Reagan.''
As Media Matters previously documented, InsightMag.com baselessly claimed that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) attended a madrassa as a boy and that this information had originated from Clinton's campaign.
From InsightMag.com's May 14 "Washington Watch" column:
It is right to ask with fresh lenses: What was her role in Whitewater, the death of Vince Foster, the curtailment of "bimbo eruptions," Travelgate, Filegate, and Monicagate? Any other candidate with this kind of past would surely be put into the hot seat on these points.
[...]
Did she have an affair with Vince Foster -- as was reported in The American Spectator in the 1990s? Is she a lesbian, as has also been rumored for years? (In fact, this was also alleged by Gennifer Flowers. In her memoir, entitled Gennifer Flowers, Passion and Betrayal, written in 1995, the former Clinton mistress states that Bill said of Hillary: "She's had more women than I have!").
it's an obsession with these people. just witness many of the conservative posters here who cannot stop with the same discredited talking points.
Monicagate is a myth? Thats a good one, because Bill said he never has sex with that women. Riiiiggght
riiiight, did i say anything like that? is anyone denying he had an affair? that all you got?
This is the way MMFA works, because you did not say the affair was not a myth. MMFA listed Monicagate as one of the myths in the posting, which you seem to agree with the MMFA posting, then yeah, you are guilty of denying the affair. Guilty, guilty, guilty.
Ooops.
Read the item again. At no time does MMFA refute the existence of "Monicagate".
The focus was on the Vince Foster myth, as well as other absurd right-wing memes. Just because MMFA quotes this InsightRag and THEY included "Monicagate" doesn't mean MMFA disagrees with that particular incident being labeled a scandal. MMFA provided plenty of evidence to refute the other items the InsightRag article mentioned.
You lose.
it's like arguing with a five year old. nobody is denying he had an affair, me, mmfa, no one. find a life.
What was her role in Whitewater, the death of [Clinton administration deputy White House counsel] Vince Foster, the curtailment of 'bimbo eruptions,' Travelgate, Filegate, and Monicagate?" The anonymously authored column continued: "Did she have an affair with Vince Foster -- as was reported in The American Spectator in the 1990s? Is she a lesbian, as has also been rumored for years?"
Mmfa seemed to go out of it's way to claim 2 of the myths were untrue. They did NOT dispell the other myths. They have extensive write-up on the Vince Foster event and whether she is lesbian, however they, in no way, dispelled the myths of travelgate, filegate or monicagate or the 'bimbo eruptions'. Concerning travel/file gates this was the exact quote; " the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct. ". I hate to pop your bubble about "dispelling" these "myths", but there was "insufficient" evidence in the OJ trial also. Did OJ 'do it'? So, by simply saying there wasn't enough evidence to get a jury to convict them does NOT mean they did not have any illegal involvement. It may be true they did not, but using that reason isn't sufficient enough to "dispell those myths". Then, with that kind of biased reporting, you have to wonder if mmfa is telling the truth on the other "dispelled rumors".
The point is, if mmfa was ONLY concerned with Vince Foster, then they would NOT have printed explanitory reasons for the other blemishes of the glorious Clinton years. But they DID so Vince Foster is not the "focus" of mmfa's biased attempt to clear a dirty name.
and the "insufficient" tag was the spin by the republican appointed counsel who failed to get anything on the clintons after a multi year investigation. do you really think we need to spend time on things such as foster and hillary having an affair? or if hillary is a lesbian? isn't there a time to just move on? how many times are you going to flog a dead horse? is there some rational limit?
my mistake. i used the word rational. a meaningless concept to you and many of your fellow conservative posters.
70 million dollars was spent trying to pin filegate and all the rest on the Clintons. NOTHING. The burden of proof works like this YOU make the claim like Clinton has a dirty name its up to YOU to prove your claim if you CANT its garbage. I say YOU molest small furry animals, PROVE you dont until you do I guess by your logic its fine for me to continue to make the claim and any other insulting smear that comes into my head that you cannot PROVE is false.
Hey believe what you want. Let me ask you, again. Do you think OJ killed his ex and friend? You know they didn't have enough evidence to convict, right? The way that quote was formed, it sounds awful 'fishy' to me. An official should have said, "we found nothing, so we're dropping it", but, nooooo, he says 'we don't think a jury would believe us'. Two totally different statements AND meanings.
I think you misunderstand solon's point. It is Insight magazine's burden to prove their own point. What insight did was irresponsible smear journalism. You do not expect Bill and Hillary to prove a negative do you?
I assume you base your opinion of OJ's guilt on evidence that was made public at the time and subsequent information. I can point to pieces of that evidence to make the case to support my opinion. Opinions are based on evidence - at least by most people.
What evidence that Insight Magazine (or perhaps other sources) has provided leads you to believe Bill and Hillary were indeed guilty on some level in the controversies you mentioned?
Opinions are based on evidence - at least by most people.
Yeah, but what is 'evidence'? The insight article will be read by people and they may think that is 'evidence' enough to form an opininon. Other people will read this mmfa article and create an opinion on this 'evidence'. So, it isn't the accuracy of the evidence that matters, it's the presence of it that will be used to form the opinion. Do you agree?
" the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct. "
This statement insinuates that the clinton's had 'some' amount of guilt, but the prosecuter did not think a jury would agree it was to the level needed for a conviction. Why was it phrased like that if not for that reason? Insight doesn't have the burden of proof in this case, it is mmfa who does. Mmfa is the one who reported on this instance and felt obliged to discredit the article. If they are not able to discredit in the fashion they had intended, then they need to do it in another way. Insight is acurate that some of those scandels need to be looked at with 'fresh glasses' since hillary is now running for the presidency. Simply being bill's wife or a senator was not enough to worry about her role in those events, but now it is. Whether they did it in an acceptable way is a matter of "opinion".
My thoughts on OJ are that I think he is guilty, but was not alone in the commission of the crime. From things I know about the case there were things that were not followed through (I think) properly or efficiently. He would have been found guilty if the prosecuter didn't have her head up her butt. That is neither here nor there, though. The fact that the 'jury' didn't think there was enough evidence says that he is not guilty of the crime. My comparison is that even though the jury thought him innocent, the general consesus is that he did it. And 95% (I made that number up) of the people you ask, today, will probably say he is guilty. My comparison is that the prosecuter thinks that bill/hillary have some amount of guilt in the events, but he wouldn't be able to convince a jury. That's where I draw my opinion on that aspect of this conversation.
But a key difference between the OJ case and Whitewater is that on the Whitewater case, the prosecutor himself decided there was not enough evidence to even try to convict - he's saying no jury would find them guilty on the evidence. In the OJ case, obviously the prosecutors thought there was plenty of evidence to allow a jury to convict him - that's why they went ahead and prosecuted him.
A better analogy would be to a case where a grand jury failed to indict, not a petit jury that failed to convict. Although neither case "proves" innocence (hard to do in any case), the failure of a grand jury to indict is more exculpatory.
That's a poor analogy, as the prosecutor in OJ's case believed he had enough evidence and indeed took him to trial. If OJ had never been charged or tried, then it would be a fair comparison to Clinton.
In this age of endless war, a spiraling economy and ever-mounting debt, I find it amusing that there still exists someone who can rummage around in Bill Clinton's past and give a god damn.
Leave it to Republican to bring an irrelevancy to a political discussion.
Jimmy Carter only wishes he was as irrelevant as Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions, for such irrelevancy is epic and therefore ironically relevant as an archetype of irrelevancy.
From my new book, Thoughts Bound to Warp Space and Time.
Randy
The myth is that Hillary was involved in a coverup. Do read the article next time.
"Monicagate" is about the attempt to throw a duly elected President out of office over a BJ.
Yet, there's no attempt... or even desire... to throw out a duly elected President who has repeatedly broken laws by subverting citizens Constitutional rights and lying us into war.
I just wish the worst we could say about Bush Jr. is that he stained an intern's dress.
And last I checked, "Monicagate" was not about Hillary.
The rights' Clinton inquest and these conspiracy thepries rae just silly. No different then the Bush conspiracy theories. Both were/are wrong. Both are divisive. Neither serves a useful purpose.
Cmon. Clinton didn't have anyone killed. Sigh.
Which Bush conspiracy "theories" are you trying to dispell as "just silly" and "wrong"? I can't really think of any that are still batted about that could be considered silly.
How bout, "bush knew about or was responsible for 9/11
You're not one of them are you?
I agree that is a pretty silly conspiracy theory. The entire case is circumstantial and unconvincing.
The irony of this regurgitated BS from Insight is that David Brock, the founder of MMFA, was once a part of the right wing smear machine that churned this kind of crap out. I think he may have the ability to spot a duck whence it walketh, talketh and quacketh like one.
ME, I was about to say the same thing.
I mean they spent over 40 million dollars, held hearings, had a independent counsel and Richard Mellon Scife's money to fuel any and every rumor they could find or create. ENOUGH!!!!!
Expect even more of this distraction, especially as Congress closes in on the truth in Gonzogate. They'll mount a two-pronged propaganda campaign...Be afraid of Iran...Be afraid of the Clintons. This is where their investment in conservative talk radio pays off! They couldn't mount these propaganda blitzes without it.
I think when it's all done we'll find the Gonzales thing little ado about nothing.
When all the Clinton investigations were done I thought it was much ado about almost nothing.
Think it's a non-issue but we'll see...
It'll be one more example of the Bush administration's politicization of EVERYTHING from the top down.
That would be the case, except...
the US Attorney findings were a blatant attempt to exploit an unintended (?) Patriot Act loophole that would allow the Administration to circumvent Congress. The interims the Administration appointed could stay without Congressional approval for... well, at least until the next President replaces them... who could then exploit the same loophole.
Then the AG gets caught lying, and throws McNulty under the bus.
Where's aa? He says he knows all about this, and that we should believe him. Very convincing
"Media ignores Hillary's scandals"???
Exsqueeze me???
Bill and Hillary were RAKED OVER THE COALS BY THE MEDIA when all this **** went down during the Clinton Administration! This is not recently uncovered dirt. These are dead horses that have decomposed back into the earth for cryin' out freakin' loud!!!
If the MSM had scrutinized the Clinton administration as closely as they have the Bush administration, Clinton would have been convicted by the Senate in 1999 and Hillary would have never been elected senator. Certainly, Janet Reno, the most incompetent AG in history, would not have survived for eight years.
And what, pray tell, did the Republican-run, Republican-ran, Republican-worshipping media not find that you have, O Finder of Secret Truths?
JamesBondKevin, now I KNOW you're full of crap. George W. Bush would never survive the media anal exam given to the Clintons in the 90s.
Kevin,
Janet Reno was the worst AG in history.
CAN YOU SAY ALBERTO? CAN YOU SAY GONZALEZ?
I CAN'T RECALL I CAN'T RECALL I CAN'T RECALL I CAN'T RECALL add that 75 more times!
Investigate? You would leave the fox to guard the hen house, cause that's what's happened for the last 6 years.
Try and I do mean try really really hard to imagine what would have happened IF Junior had has any many investigations as the Clinton's. It's not in your "talking points" memo you receive daily from Bill, Sean, Rush and the White House... oh I mean FOX. I requires a level headed THINKING person so give it a try. I know it's hard but try anyway.
Last I checked, it's Congress, not the MSM, that is responsible for putting a sitting President on trial.
During which Congress did Monicagate break open? During the fightin' 105th, of course, where both houses were controlled by the Contract-with-America Republicans.
Congress had the burden of proof, so your grievance over a lack of justice lies with them, not with the MSM.
I guess JamesBondKevin (who went to spy school, you know) is too young to remember the 90s. Clinton's actions were dissected ad nauseum EVERY NIGHT on cable tv. I know, because I actually watched that crap! If Bush and Cheney's WMD lies had been subjected to equal scrutiny, 3,000+ American soldiers might still be alive.
Here comes JamesBondKevin's 9/11-was-Clinton's-fault talking point....here it comes.....here it comes...
i guess kevin is unaware [as he is so many things] that ken starr had an unlimited budget and time, and he still couldn't pin anything on them.
Except lying at a deposition whose sole intent was to set a perjury trap, of course. $5000 and a blow job, that's what it was all about.
I'll agree with the Janet Reno part. What a disaster.
Not sure I'd agree with the rest. Both smack of partisan witch hunts to me.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I actually find myself genuinely beginning to miss John Ashcroft. Yes. Gonzalez is that bad!
Are you kidding me? The SCLM was all Clinton all the time for a solid two years. The government spent about 70 MILLION DOLLARS investigating Clinton had they spent one tenth thaty much investigating Bush he would be in prison. Had the SCLM looked at the Bush scandals one tenth as much as they did Clinton his approval rating would be about the same as Osama Ben Forgottens. I know you love your delusions but please you cant really expect anyone with the sense God gave the common garden slug to take that nonsense seriously can you?
Had the SCLM looked at the Bush scandals one tenth as much as they did Clinton
This ought to be fun!..... Which scandal(s) would have put Bush in prison?
>>"Did she have an affair with Vince Foster -- as was reported in The American Spectator in the 1990s? Is she a lesbian, as has also been rumored for years?"
I wish the righties would just make up there minds. Come up with one talking point and stick to it.
I think they failed to mention that Hillary actually had a child by Vince Foster, which she and her lesbian lover killed with a knife in a pagan ritual; and then they ate the remains. Hillary also smuggled illegal Mexican aliens into the country for profit, packing them in trucks by the thousands at $1,000 a head. She donated all the money to Al Qaeda after a brief but passionate fling with Osama Bin Laden, who enjoyed watching her make love to other women. And all the while, Bill was preoccupied with Paris Hilton...
Holy cow! How old was Paris back then???
Now that's funny.
Now that's just silly. Had Hillary had another child by anyone, you KNOW Rush would have made fun of the kid's looks.
Ahhh, yes! The 'fresh lenses' approach... You know, using Onslaughtgag's logic, I think we all should take a 'fresh lens' approach to the moon landing because my bar buddy said it was faked...
How do you "ask with fresh lenses", anyway? It seems like they have a grasp of the English language similar to their president's. And to think this comes from the "English-only" crowd!
It means the Republican Party has not only collectively developed Alzheimer's, but they now have cataracts.
Starr concluded that there was "no evidence" of any illegal Clinton activity in any of the investigations except Monica.
That said, I worry when Greg Palast picks at one of the old wounds...see his piece on entanglement with Entergy International at http://www.gregpalast.com/hillarys-mother-fing-tour-business/
"Say it ain't so, Joe."
Olivelawyers, I love reading anythin g by Greg Palast. The guy has some deep connections and whistleblower types seem to relish sending him docs over the fax machine. Thanks for the link on the Hillary and Walmart story.
"...as has also been rumored for years?"
No mention of these tasty tidbits lately, but...
Hasn't it been rumored for years that Bush was coke head and a drunk?
Hasn't it been rumored for years that Bush avoided the Viet Nam war by gaining preferential entry in the Reserves... and then didn't even fulfill his duties?
Hillary Clinton is not President... Bush is. Since Bush is actually in a position to do damage right now aren't the Bush rumors still more relevant than the Hillary rumors? What would the conservatives say about reviving the Bush rumors?
And, BTW, wasn't Laura Bush rumored to be a notorious pot head (and seller) at SMU?
Maybe we should go back and look at how Bush used his office to get choice real estate condemned for the Texas Rangers stadium. Hmmmm?
For those who have not clicked through to the actual article:
As is their right, MMFA chose to discuss 3 sentences from paragraph 6, which are, in my opinion, the weakest ones in the article. You are missing something if you just read those sentences spoon fed by MMFA and ignore the rest.
One of the postitives about MMFA is that they usually provide direct clicks through to the main article being discussed. It is a shame that more posters do not do this, as evidenced by the posts.
why don't you tell us what we're missing?
Really? Which parts of the column do you consider "strong"? Is it the part about the Clinton's "grotesque personal lives"? Or the part about her being "Co-President"? Or maybe you really liked this: "It is evident that Hillary behaves very much like Bill when it comes to the use of their marriage as a political tool".
Yep, that's powerful, ground-breaking stuff. I'm glad you brought it to our attention.
My favorite was how InsultMag admonished the mainstream media for *only* distorting Hillary's position on Iraq.
I also love that in the same week they run this bogus hit piece on Hillary because the media will not attack her enough, they also post an article excoriating Jimmy Carter for his "senseless", "tirade", "attack", "declaring war" on Bush. (link below)
Their message: the media should bring up every bogus accusation and make every personal attack against the Clintons, but if Jimmy Carter dares to criticize Bush's job performance, he's a nutcase.
http://www.insightmag.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=5D3B38F8A2584DB5A77BA05660C6045C&nm=Free+Access&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=2254383A8A0B4D68BC10725DA189FF8B
What part of the mission statement of Media Matters baffles you? It's really not hard to understand.
If the rest of the article is balanced (doubtful, but possible, and no thank you, I am not going to read it, because I don't care if they were not outlandish or out of line in the rest of the article, because it's irrelevant to this particular issue!) then Media Matters would have no reason to mention it!
Media Matters mentions bits and pieces of conservative misinformation. That's what they did here. If the rest of the article was fair and balanced, that's wonderful! Wonderful, but wholly irrelevant! They took what was printed, in context, and pointed out the blatant bias in that part of the commentary!
Can you explain what part of the purpose of Media Matters you don't understand? Good conservative information is not objectionable, and Media Matters doesn't object to it. It's only the objectionable material they, and we, find objectionable.
Why don't you find misinformation from conservatives objectionable?
Regarding the MMFA mission statement: I have read it and have actually been criticized around here for bringing it up too much, sine claiming that they have the right to do whatever they want since they do not charge anyone. Their idolatry of Olbermann is a recurring example of disregard for the mission statement, as were the reports about how many females and minorities appear on cable news and Sunday news programs.
My point is, that some posters read only what MMFA selects and erroneously think they know all about the topic in question. During the fuss about Bill O'Reilly being uninvited to speak before a group concerned about exploited children, it was obvious that some posters here had no idea that BOR was an advocate for Jessica's law, while even infrequent viewers of his TV show know this.
Regarding the current Insight article, I think the overall question about when Senator Clinton's participation in the "co-presidency" ended is a good one. If she was co-president through the end of the second term, then she also is saddled with those last day pardons.
Since the time the Clinton court cases were dismissed for what at that time was considered insufficient evidence to convict by a jury, we have had the conviction of Scooter Libby and also the firing of Imus for actions that were not illegal and were similar to things he had done for years. Times change---Have the Clintons? Or will behaviors tolerated in the 90's not be tolerated during the next 8 years? And I am not referring in any way to their private bedroom activity or inactivity, just what affects the government.
you're comparing imus to the clintons? i don't recall imus being subjected to a years long investigation by ken starr. would you like to throw anna nicole in the mix too?
Please refresh my memory...I don't recall the part of the Constitution which provides for a "Co-President". That being the case, the concept of Hillary as "Co-President"is irrelevant to any discussion of her candidacy now.
Maybe we need to look into the Cheney-Bush relationship, and find out who is really running the country...
It's in the same section that guarantees a woman's right to choose.
NO it isnt. That would be the ninth Amendment. The powers of the President are in article two, now I have read article two and there is NOTHING there than any person with the IQ of a gerbil could intepret as having anything to do with a co-President. Your snide comment was dumb
now I have read article two and there is NOTHING there than any person with the IQ of a gerbil could intepret as having anything to do with a co-President
And that could explain why YOU don't get it!
"...we have had the conviction of Scooter Libby and also the firing of Imus for actions that were not illegal..."
Are you trying to say what Libby did WASN'T illegal? Well, you better straighten out the lawyers and judges involved then. As far as Imus, he was never indicted or convicted for his recent rantings (don't know about his past in this regard, nor care) and it was an individual company that decided to can him. Blame them. There have been plenty of other times people have been outraged over such things and no one has felt any negative impact.
NO! What I am saying is that the cases against Hillary Clinton were dropped because the prosecution at that time did not believe they had enough evidence to convince a jury to return a conviction. The Scooter Libby case showed us how little is needed today to achieve a conviction.
Ah no. The Clinton investigations showed there WASNT enough evidence to prove anything and the Libby verdict showed he was GUILTY
Not correct.
The fact that Bill O'Reilly is a big supporter of Jessica's law doesn't mean that he cannot be called on the carpet for his distortions on that subject or any other! He doesn't get immunity from his nonsense.
You said that Media Matters didn't point out the good stuff in that story.
That's not their job. Their job is to point out the bad stuff. The bad stuff is there even when the good stuff is there too! The good stuff doesn't negate the bad stuff, numbskull!
Baloney Jessicas law is brought up in O'Reilly threads over and over. I doubt there is a regular poster here who doesnt know that. What is clear is that you dont know what you are talking about.
What is really sick is to spend 70 million dollars of tax payers money over a B.J and yet say nothing of a man that sent our children to death because he cooked the books to wage a war.
Cooking the books to sent our children to death is more of an offense against this nation than a B.J.
Bush and his cronies have shown a pattern of cooking books. The war was mentioned but have we forgotten that a member of Bush's administration was caught whiting out remarks suggesting global warming and then went on to work for an oil company. Do we not realize that the prosecutor gate is really about planting moles in our DOJ for the sole purpose of fixing the 2008 election in favor of a private organization known as the Republican Party. The people be damned.
What makes people like Limbaugh, O'Rielly, Savage, Bush, Cheney, Libby, Gonzales, any different than the formers heads of World Com or the former heads of Enron? They are all the same in cooking books.
Blame Bill Clinton, bash Rosie O'donnel, dehumanize illegal aliens, this is all the right wing media seems to be obsessed with. Why must they put out a smoke screen to mask all the problems in the world? Maybe it's because their kids aren't the ones starving, or the ones sick, or the ones fighting and dying in the misery that is Iraq.
It does not matter to the person who smears a candidate if the smear is debunked as long as the smear is repeated. This becomes more effective if the candidate actually addresses the smear personally. The denial gives the canard more airplay and a small but significant portion of the population will believe that where there is smoke there is fire. It works best when the lie is delivered by a third party. This allows the opposition candidate plausible deniability and distance from the issue a la Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
This stuff is going to be raked up ad nauseum over and over again--especially if Hillary gets the nomination. So, be ready for it. And don't feed the trolls!
If Hillary were a lesbian, would Bill have stayed with her for 5 minutes?
Well, yeah - what self-respecting straight man wouldn't want a lesbian for a wife?