Saturday, February 20, 1999 -- New York -- Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal ran an interview with "Jane Doe No. 5," Juanita Broaddrick, on their editorial page. She is now claiming that Clinton "raped" her over twenty years ago. The Journal also made a great deal about NBC's refusal to air an interview that Lisa Myers had with Broaddrick a few weeks ago. 

This mornning, The Washington Post ran a front-page article recycling Broaddrick's claims. 

But there are a few things you should know about the Journal story itself -- and some niggling facts concerning the history of this troubling story that they left out, for reasons which shouldn't be terribly difficult to understand. 

First, the story did not even pass muster with the Journal's news department. It ran on their hard-right-controlled editorial page, run by conservative activists John Fund and Robert Bartley. 

Second, the interviewer, Dorothy Rabinowitz, does nothing to challenge Broaddrick on her version of the story -- in fact, she adopts a near-syrupy sympathetic tone in her article. Last evening's edition of Salon pointed out a telling irony concerning the article: Rabinowitz made a name for herself as a journalist by debunking phony stories of sexual abuse. 

Third, during the period that the incident took place, Broaddrick was Juanita Hickey -- married to Gary Hickey, in the midst of an affair with husband-to-be David Broaddrick, and rumored to have been involved with Clinton simultaneously.

Fourth, Broaddrick is unable to give a specific date and time for the alleged incident; moreover, the hotel at which the alleged incident took place is no longer in business. 

Fifth, Broaddrick has been unable to produce witnesses to corroborate the tale outside of a few people to whom she has told her story. 

Sixth, Broaddrick submitted an affidavit under oath in the Paula Jones lawsuit stating that no such incident involving Clinton occurred. She seems to have suddenly changed her story under questioning by officers of Kenneth W. Starr's Office of Independent Counsel. 

Seventh, there are admittedly uncorroborated reports circulating that Broaddrick's nursing home is in a heap of financial trouble. 

Eighth and most importantly, an NBC source has told American Politics Journal that "this is a work in progress. We are doing what journalists do, looking into every aspect of her story." Additionally, this source has stated unequivocally that a report circulated late last night by a well-known internet gossip columnist claiming that NBC News chief Andy Lack is in trouble with the big cheeses at the network was "simply inaccurate, totally ridiculous" -- and the derisive tone in this source's voice did not go unnoticed.  When asked by American Politics Journal about rumors that NBC has in fact uncovered information which undermines Ms. Broaddrick's claim, two individuals at NBC's Washington news room refused comment.

Ninth, witness the odd, some would say serendipitous, timing of this story: it might well have broken during the impeachment trial had NBC News grand poobah Lack not insisted that the story meet the proper journalistic standards.

Otherwise, the story would have aired within weeks of reports that alleged campaign cash manipulator, purported perjurer and House majority whip Tom DeLay and his Republican allies on the House Judiciary Committee started dragging members of the House into a high-security room in which the Committee's hearsay evidence concerning "Jane Doe No. 5" was being stored. DeLay and the Managers even encouraged Senators to take a look at the uncorroborated charges. 

Also worth noting (as we did yesterday in Last Ditch Efforts) is the fact that within just over a week of Clinton's exoneration by the Senate, a bevy of women with an ax to grind started bubbling up in the media: Linda Tripp, Dolly Browning, even Paula Jones. 

On top of all this, NBC is suddenly and aggressively being pressured by conservative organizations and news and media corporations, including but not limited to Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, to air the interview. Talking heads on Fox and even conservative politicians have been sighted wearing "Free Lisa Myers" buttons. Don't be fooled by claims of "free expression" -- this is coercion, pure and simple, and hats off to NBC for their refusal to lower the journalistic standards bar.

So there you have the rest of the story -- part of which found its way into the media only after the zealots who would do anything to take down the President managed once again to pull an end-run around good journalism and get yet another rumor into the press by any means neccesary. In their zeal to get Clinton, his hard-right enemies have once again launched a quest which threatens heavy collateral damage to the institution and prestige of the Presidency -- as if they have not done damage enough. 

Yesterday, President Clinton said that the Constitution had been "re-ratified."

We cannot agree -- as long as he is in the Oval Office, his most shrill opponents will work to take down the Constitution and the very rule of law they so hypocritically invoke, by whatever means they see fit -- including media manipulation.

-- David J. Gonzo 

 Saturday, February 20, 1999 -- New York -- GOTCHA! 

Flashback: The House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings. 

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) is asking a visibly uncomfortable Kenneth W. Starr about leaks to the press alleged to have come from his office. Starr is bobbing and weaving, using carefully selective language. 

Frank gets to the meat of the issue, pointing out that Starr claimed he was unable to completely answer one of Frank's questions concerning leaks because "I [Starr] am operating under a sealed proceeding." 

Frank: "Sealed at your request -- correct?" 

Starr: "No, Mr. Frank. It is sealed by the chief judge based upon her determination of..." 

Frank interjects in mid-answer with another question. 

Late yesterday, the Associated Press reported that Rep. Frank has asked Attorney General Janet Reno to investigate whether Independent Counsel Ken Starr lied under oath during that testimony, following U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson's having unsealed the afore mentioned court documents, filed prior to Starr's Judiciary Committee testimony. Note the wording of the following request from Starr's office: 

"The Office of the Independent Counsel urges the court to keep the order under seal until the conclusion of the investigation by the special master and findings by this court." 

Gee, Kenny -- looks like you weren't entirely honest in your testimony -- unless, of course, you want to explain what the meaning of the word "no" is. 

'Nuff said. 

-- David J. Gonzo