Vanity Fair finds no “proof” of Clinton affairs -- but spreads rumors anyway

After acknowledging that there is no “proof of post-presidential sexual indiscretions” by former President Bill Clinton, Vanity Fair's Todd S. Purdum repeatedly used anonymous sources to suggest that “tabloid speculation and Internet intimations” about supposed “indiscretions” are true.

Five paragraphs into a nearly 10,000-word article about former President Bill Clinton, Vanity Fair writer Todd S. Purdum stipulated that there is no “proof of post-presidential sexual indiscretions on Clinton's part” -- but that did not stop Purdum from devoting a sizable portion of the article to relaying what he himself described as “a steady stream of tabloid speculation and Internet intimations that the Big Dog might be up to his old tricks.”

In parroting the “tabloid speculation and Internet intimations” that by his own admission exist entirely without proof, Purdum repeatedly used anonymous sources to suggest there is truth to the rumors. But not one of Purdum's sources, named or otherwise, actually professes to have even secondhand knowledge of “indiscretions on Clinton's part.”

Purdum quoted, among others, “one former aide to Clinton,” "[a]nother former aide," a “longtime Clinton-watcher,” “one senior aide,” “one former longtime aide,” a “former Clinton aide,” “one of [Maggie] Williams's former colleagues and friends,” and “one former aide.” In all, the article featured quotes or paraphrases of nearly two dozen anonymous sources. Yet even these anonymous sources professed no knowledge of “indiscretions” by Clinton.

Elsewhere, Purdum did not bother to attribute even to anonymous sources his assertions that Clinton associates have concerns about his rumored indiscretions. “Over the last few years,” Purdum wrote, “aides have winced at repeated tabloid reports about Clinton's episodic friendship and occasional dinners out with Belinda Stronach, a twice-divorced billionaire auto-parts heiress and member of the Canadian Parliament 20 years his junior.” How did Purdum know “aides have winced”? Purdum did not tell the reader. Nor, for that matter, did Purdum tell the reader that the “dinner[] out with Stronach” that garnered attention from tabloids (and The New York Times) was a dinner attended by about a dozen people -- far from the intimate dinners for two Purdum implied.

Purdum's fact-free exploration of rumors about Clinton's supposed “indiscretions” concluded with an alleged “intervention” planned by a former Clinton staffer -- an episode Vanity Fair hyped in the headline of a press release touting the article. But the “intervention” allegation is perhaps the most thinly sourced anecdote in the entire article. Purdum wrote:

[F]our former Clinton aides told me that, about 18 months ago, one of the president's former assistants, who still advises him on political matters, had heard so many complaints about such reports from Clinton supporters around the country that he felt compelled to try to conduct what one of these aides called an “intervention,” because, the aide believed, “Clinton was apparently seeing a lot of women on the road.” The would-be intercessor was rebuffed by people around Clinton before ever getting an audience with the former president, and another aide told me that the effort was not well received by either Bill or Hillary Clinton and that some Hillarylanders, in particular, were in denial about the continuing political risks that Bill's behavior might pose.

So: Unnamed former Clinton aides told Purdum that an unnamed former assistant wanted to stage an “intervention” because -- according to the other aides -- the aide “believed” that Clinton was “apparently seeing” women on the road.

That's it. That's the explosive revelation Vanity Fair is touting in a press release. Unnamed aides saying that another unnamed aide believed -- based not on firsthand knowledge, but on “complaints” from “Clinton supporters” about “tabloid reports” -- that Clinton was “apparently seeing” (not “sleeping with,” just “seeing”) women.

Purdum's article came to a fitting conclusion, making a point about Clinton by citing the book Primary Colors, a fictional account of the fictional presidential campaign of a fictional Southern governor, whose anonymous author publicly lied about whether he had written the book.