The L.A. Times reports today:

Anthony Pellicano, private investigator to the stars, was charged Friday with conspiracy and making criminal threats for allegedly hiring a man three years ago to intimidate a Los Angeles Times reporter.

The story describes Pellicano’s fame in this way: “The investigation has shaken Hollywood’s entertainment and legal community, where Pellicano had gained some celebrity working for such clients as Elizabeth Taylor and Michael Jackson.”

Pellicano has “gained some celebrity” in another way that is not mentioned in the article. As J. Bowen notes, the article curiously omits any reference to Pellicano’s documented contacts with Bill Clinton.

Pellicano is the guy who claimed in 1992 that the Gennifer Flowers tapes had been selectively edited. And he helped out Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Pellicano found the guy who claimed Monica Lewinsky had said: “I’m going to Washington to get my presidential knee pads.”

And don’t forget that Kathleen Willey said she had been intimidated by a thug who, among other things, left a threatening note on her windshield. As Thomas at the American Thinker once noted: “By bizarre coincidence, a note on the windshield was also the technique used on [former L.A. Times] reporter [Anita] Busch, allegedly to intimidate her into dropping her inquiries into the underworld and Hollywood.” Bizarre indeed.

If a creep like this had a long history of connections with a former Republican president, whose wife was a front-runner for the 2008 Republican nomination — do you think that Republican would have been mentioned in the story?

You be the judge.

In any event, today’s omission does not appear to be an accident. The L.A. Times has a history of overlooking the Pellicano-Clinton connection. Today’s story is merely the latest example.

P.S. I should note that I know absolutely nothing about Pellicano’s case other than what I have read in the newspapers and on the Internet.

UPDATE 6-20-05: In the original version of this post, I used the phrase “numerous documented contacts with Bill Clinton.” A commenter at Oh, That Liberal Media objects to my adjectives “numerous” and “documented” to refer to Pellicano’s contacts with Bill Clinton. After some reflection, I continue to believe that the adjective “documented” is correct, given the information I have provided in the linked material. However, I think he has a point regarding the word “numerous.” There are arguably only two contacts documented in that linked material. The commenter says “two” is not “numerous,” and I think he’s right. That word is arguably misleading. I have edited the post accordingly, to remove the word “numerous.” Thanks to the commenter for the correction.