Los Angeles Times Continues to Ignore Clinton Connection to Pellicano
It never ceases to amaze how the Los Angeles Times can run stories like this one about Anthony Pellicano’s ties to law enforcement figures, while consistently failing to mention his ties to a man who was once the top law enforcement figure in the nation: Bill Clinton.
If Pellicano were tied to a former Republican president, whose spouse was a leading contender for the next Republican presidential nomination, do you think we’d be hearing about this?
I think so too.
Not to worry. I’m sure the LAT folks check your blog and will quickly correct their omission. Just an oversight, that’s all. Yep, I’m sure it’ll be in there tomorrow. Positively.
Jal (a90377) — 2/11/2006 @ 1:32 pmIt isn’t a mystery at all why the LAT fails to properly inform the paper’s buyers. Hillary has Hoover’s FBI files, and think what you will, that’s a pretty big deal.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/11/2006 @ 2:20 pmWhat is meant by “documented contacts” with Bill Clinton?
[Too lazy to click a link? — Patterico]
Sen. Napoli (6d773a) — 2/11/2006 @ 3:30 pmAlso, what became of Steve Cooley’s indictment of Pellicano on charges of conspiracy and making threats re: Anita Busch, the LAT reporter?
[No idea. I thought I read a recent story saying charges were pending, but I could be wrong about that. — P]
Sen. Napoli (14a166) — 2/11/2006 @ 3:55 pmWell considering how much the LA Times had invested in the dope from Hope, is it any wonder the Clinton~Pellicano connection is ignored?
russ (2d4887) — 2/11/2006 @ 4:56 pmAll your links tell us is Pellicano labored to discredit Clinton’s Sexgate accusers. Mary Matalin claims to have paperwork showing Hillary hired Pellicano, still undisclosed. Is that what you think the LAT should revisit every time his prosecution surfaces?
A “documented contact” is not the same as putatively strong hints of “some connections.”
[There’s more to the links than a claim by Mary Matalin. — Patterico]
Sen. Napoli (aaa144) — 2/11/2006 @ 5:21 pmFits with my newly coined term for the demoncratic party and their supporters. I call the the “Society for Subversion”
Specter (466680) — 2/11/2006 @ 5:24 pmThe former MSM has put so much of their reputation on the Klinton’s that any expose of their crimes comes back on the former MSM. They think the average American is too stupid (and evidently they’re 45% correct) to know that the Klinton’s have been criminals since before they graduated from the Ark. governor’s mansion, so they have to keep up the coverup. I guess they would be guilty by association. Why do people still spend money on the NYT and LAT? Even the simple minded know 95% of what they print is inaccurate or total lies. I saw today that Time Mag. has slipped into the gutter again, guess the Koran wouldn’t flush so they went looking for a photoshop pic that would. Are they still in print, I thought people figured out years ago that a super market tabloid was more accurate than Time, Newsweek and several other weekly/monthly rags, and that isn’t saying much for either.
scrapiron (9f37aa) — 2/11/2006 @ 10:04 pmWhat if they printed, “Abramoff had documented contacts with Bush” based on identical, ersatz evidence?
Sen. Napoli (1c66cc) — 2/12/2006 @ 1:35 am[…] I’ve read enough Patterico to know that this type of story is in-line with the LA Times coverage of the entire war on terrorism. […]
Pundit Review » Blog Archive » LA Times Keeps Up Anti-Military Campaign: This time going after Michael Yon (698efa) — 2/12/2006 @ 5:31 amAlthough Jal’s comment might not come true, given your past documentation of the Times’ not so rapid printing of corrections, surely Michael Hiltzik or Anistra will have something in Mr Hiltzik’s Golden State blog.
And when they do, I’m certain that our esteemed host will give them proper credit for it.
Dana (71415b) — 2/12/2006 @ 7:01 am