Lies of Omission: New York Times Columnist Trashes Clinton Accuser Paula Jones

OCTOBER 09: Paula Jones sits before the town hall debate at Washington University on October 9, 2016 in St Louis, Missouri. This is the second of three presidential debates scheduled prior to the November 8th election. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Scott Olson/Getty

Because it will no longer produce any political downside for Democrats, on Monday, New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg penned a cynical, self-serving, 25 years-too-late column, saying that she now believes Juanita Broaddrick’s claim that former-President Bill Clinton raped her. Using lies of omission, in that same column, Goldberg also trashed Clinton accuser Paula Jones.

‘[T]here are reasons to be at least unsure about Paula Jones’s claim that Clinton exposed himself to her and demanded oral sex,” Goldberg writes, adding that Jones was  “championed by people engaged in what Ann Coulter once proudly called ‘a small, intricately knit right-wing conspiracy’ to bring down the president. She described ‘distinguishing characteristics’ of Clinton’s penis that turned out to be inaccurate. Her sister insisted to Sidney Blumenthal … she was lying.”

There is just one vitally important fact — and I do mean FACT — missing from Goldberg’s smear: the fact that Clinton settled the sexual harassment suit Jones brought against him for a whopping $850,000, and did so in 1998 while still a sitting president.

While Clinton refused to apologize or admit any wrongdoing, according to the Los Angeles Times, that $850,000 figure was more than the $700,000 Jones originally sought.

Why would Goldberg withhold that information from her readers, why such a glaring lie of omission?

The asking of the question answers the question.

Team Clinton and his shameless media minions claimed that the settlement was only about ridding the then-president of a nuisance. Others believe that if Clinton were truly innocent, he would have sought vindication through a jury verdict.

Mean Girl Goldberg can snip and snap away at Jones all she wants, but Paula Jones put herself out there, opened up her whole life to the legal discovery process, to public ridicule, and heroically did so in order to have her day in court, her justice — and she not only got it, she got it from the most powerful man in the world.

In a just world, instead of portraying a baby-murdering loser, Sandra Bullock would be starring in Paula Jones v. William Jefferson Clinton, the inspirational true story of a woman who overcame insurmountable odds to persist and prevail against a sitting president … and his lackey media.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.