About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. falsely asserted Clinton's "experience ... includes lying under oath, and obstructing justice"

January 25, 2008 5:40 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: In a Washington Times column, R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. wrote that Sen. Hillary Clinton's "experience ... includes lying under oath, and obstructing justice." But Clinton has never been charged with, let alone found guilty of, "lying under oath" or "obstructing justice."

17 Comments

In a January 25 Washington Times column, American Spectator founder and editor-in-chief R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. wrote that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) "experience ... includes lying under oath, and obstructing justice." In fact, Clinton has never been charged with, let alone found guilty of, "lying under oath" or "obstructing justice." Following a lengthy investigation into the firings of White House Travel Office employees -- often called "Travelgate" -- the Office of the Independent Counsel issued a report in October 2000, which found that, while her 1995 statements to the counsel denying involvement in the firings were "factually false," the report concluded 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 [General Accounting Office], the Congress, and this investigation." The author of the report, Independent Counsel Robert Ray found that "there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton's statements to this Office or to Congress were knowingly false." The report also stated that "[t]he decision to fire the Travel Office employees was a lawful one "

From the summary of Ray's report:

With respect to Mrs. Clinton, the overwhelming evidence establishes that she played a role in the decision to fire the employees and provided input into that decision to Watkins, [former White House chief of staff Thomas F. "Mack"] McLarty, [former deputy White House counsel Vince] Foster, and [Clinton friend Harry] Thomason. Thus, her statement to the contrary under oath to this Office was factually false. The evidence, however, is insufficient to show that Mrs. Clinton knowingly intended to influence the Travel Office decision or was aware that she had such influence at this early stage of the Administration. To a real degree, her interest in the matter was first generated by Thomason's intervention, and then overstated by him to others. Thus, absent persuasive, corroborated, and admissible evidence to the contrary, there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mrs. Clinton's statements to this Office or to Congress were knowingly false.

Tyrrell is the author of several anti-Clinton books, including The Clinton Crack-Up: The Boy President's Life After the White House (Thomas Nelson, March 2007) and Boy Clinton: A Political Biography (Regnery, September 1996), both of which feature a series of unverified claims about the Clintons.

From Tyrrell's January 25 Washington Times column:

Thitherto, Mr. Obama was the antiwar candidate, the herald of change, the first black candidate to present a plausible campaign for residency at 1600 Pennsylvania. Almost overnight Boy Clinton was casting doubt on Mr. Obama's antiwar bona fides, his honesty and the viability of his presidential ambition. He called it a "fairy tale." Hillary, with her famous tin ear, was slighting Martin Luther King Jr. and doubting Mr. Obama's experience was sufficient for the rigors of the presidency.

No one was frank enough to mention her experience, which includes lying under oath, obstructing justice, slandering such collateral damage of the Clinton Saga as Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, and the fair Monica, and finally forget not her cattle futures bonanza. For that matter, no one was frank enough to say her husband (who in a plea bargain before leaving office admitted to lying under oath, gave up his law license, and paid a $25,000 fine) was unfit to judge Mr. Obama's honesty.

The immediate aftermath of Hillary's slim victory in New Hampshire was the Clintons v. Starr all over again. The race card went into play and the gender card -- all this in a Democratic primary. The only element missing from the Clintons' overwrought 1990s was Hillary's discovery of a "vast conspiracy," but there is still time. Wait until the action shifts to California where the paranoid style inspires some of Hollywood's greatest contemporary masterpieces.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dbeden4153 (January 25, 2008 5:46 pm ET)
         
      Thitherto?  I mean, I know what it means, but still.  Shouldn't he give his audience a little credit and not use such big words?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (January 25, 2008 5:59 pm ET)
           

        Thitherto? I use that word all the time. Very common with my crowd . And I don't think HC has much time for lying under oath and obstructing justice. She's much too busy murdering people and clapping like a Chinese person.

        What the hell is it about the Clintons that gets people so slobbering mad obsessed? I'm not a big fan of either Clinton, don't find either of them particularly interesting, but I don't hate them.

        There seems to be a small gang of deviants who have dedicated their entire lives to obsessing on and trying to destroy the couple.Not just those who do it for the money, I at least see the motive there, but people I meet in real life and posters at this site. Weird,emotional, sad but fascinating people.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by sportsguydave (January 25, 2008 5:57 pm ET)
         

      Tyrell and his putrid little rag, The American Spectator,  have had it in for the Clintons for years.

      And by the way, it's "hitherto." Another English-challenged idiot, just like  his beloved President...

      I don't think anyone outside Planet Wingnut pays much attention to the stupid little ramblings of this stupid little man.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dbeden4153 (January 25, 2008 6:03 pm ET)
           

        actually hitherto would be wrong too, because he didn't use it in a negative context.  Unless he meant it as a jab towards Obama, but even then, he still used thitherto, which is "until then" and really doesn't make sense at the beginning of that sentence.

         

        Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (January 25, 2008 6:35 pm ET)
             
          Maybe that's his childish way of bringing gays into the debate? Another idiotic stereotype?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (January 25, 2008 6:03 pm ET)
         

      Tyrrell exemplifies the freakanomics of Bill and Hillary.

      Look at all the economic opportunity that's been created for these otherwise talentless people.  What would they be doing for a living if the Clintons had never been inflicted on America?  Secretly, they're thanking Bill and Hillary all the way to the bank.  

      Report Abuse
    • Author by johnny_nyc8351 (January 25, 2008 6:11 pm ET)
         
      Lately I've been getting this image in my head from The Matrix where it's revealed the machines are actually nourishing the human embroyos and projecting a false image of the world without the humans knowing it instead its conservatives being nourished by the right wing smear machine that's creating a world for them that has no basis in reality.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Clevenative (January 25, 2008 6:22 pm ET)
           

        And now you know where Larry and Andy Wachowsk got their ideas for The Matrix!:)

        Report Abuse
    • Author by tex (January 25, 2008 6:28 pm ET)
         

      Obviously, this guy Tyrrell has NO USE for a great many things.

      * the Clintons.

      * individual rights and liberties.

      * The BILL of Rights.

      * The Constitution of the United States.

      * Due Process.

      * the American system of Justice.

      * truth 

      Claiming CRIME as FACT ... in the absence of ANY charges, indictments, and certainly no convictions ... is perhaps the worst way to slander and/or libel a fellow citizen. It is a horrendous smear and an unconscionable LIE.

      This "man" has no use for America, for TRUTH, or for honor of any sort.

      He is the worst sort of scum, and deserves only to be ignored.  

      Report Abuse
      • Author by atheist (January 25, 2008 7:06 pm ET)
           
        Maybe now she should sue.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tex (January 25, 2008 11:04 pm ET)
             

          Suing Tyrrell would be what he WANTS.

          A lawsuit would go on forever, monopolizing time, distracting from all else, and would expose the suer to scrutiny  (called "discovery", or in this case, the world's biggest fishing expedition).

          If/when Hillary WON, she could then be awarded everything Tyrrell is worth ... which is about NOTHING.

          Suing this cretin would have all downside, waste of time, money, and violation of privacy ... and the payoff would be non-existent. Tyrrell KNOWS this, which makes him the biggest coward alive. He knows he is free to lie, smear, slander, and libel ... and there will be NO consequence.

          Luckily, as it STANDS, his comments are of no consequence. So, HE LOSES. 

          Report Abuse
        • Author by philib (January 26, 2008 9:39 am ET)
             

          atheist;  She can't sue. The report clearly says she lied. Or, does "factually false" mean something other than lie?

          tex;  Since when does an indictment/charges/conviction need to happen for someone to be a liar?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by atheist (January 26, 2008 3:29 pm ET)
               

            She can sue.  Tyrell says that she lied under oath and she obstructed justice.  But the report says exactly the opposite: "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 [General Accounting Office], the Congress, and this investigation."

            Report Abuse
    • Author by foghornleghorn (January 25, 2008 6:41 pm ET)
         
      Boy, imagine the lies that will be spewed by Tyrrell's ilk if Hillary actually wins the nomination.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (January 25, 2008 9:19 pm ET)
         

      I hope to retire before then so I'll have some worry to spare.

      In a perverse way, I want to see them stretch and bend the narative to their vision in stronger and more obvious ways. When any child can turn from the news and say,"Look Mommy he jumped the Shark!"

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eddy3957 reregistered (January 26, 2008 12:24 am ET)
         
      I think it’s important to consider the implications of the fact that the vilification of the Clintons was not personal. They were vilified (unjustly) because they were not in the GOP gang. They were vilified of course because they kept the GOP out of power, but also because they served as a very visible example to all others as to what the GOP is willing to do to even a sitting President.  In other words, the Clintons weren’t the lone target. All non-GOP leadership was being warned by this public (and ongoing) character assassination. There seems to be a tendency among many Democrats to lose sight of the fact that this is an attack on their party, not just the Clintons. The GOP couldn’t just badmouth the party generally; they needed real people to lie about. It just so happened it was the Clintons. Next it will be whoever else dares to defeat them.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by atheist (January 26, 2008 3:31 pm ET)
           
        What will they do with Obama if he wins the Dem nomination ?  Will the whip up a frenzy about Rezko, drug use, or some new "scandal" ?
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.