Special to Pundit Pap -- The following is a line-by-line answer to right wingnut Bill O'Reilly's latest piece of mindlessness foisted upon the public under the guise of respectable journalism (Judith's comments in red & parentheses).

How the Clintons Do It (Do what?)
By Bill O' Reilly
CNS Commentary
February 06, 2001

Do you care about the gifts the Clintons received while inhabiting the White House? I don't. (I care.)

If people want to give the first couple stuff, that's fine with me (Yes, it's fine with you because you make your living off the backs of the Clintons -- they are your shill, and without them you would still be planting tomatoes back on the farm). But if they then turn around and do the old "quid pro quo routine" and allow those gifts to influence public policy, that's when I start caring. (Can you prove it? Huh? Either prove it -- or shut up.)

The Clintons have always been bold in their dubious dealings because they fully understand the short attention span of the American public and the reticence of the elite media to investigate the powerful -- especially the powerful with whom they ideologically agree. (You don't know what the Clintons think, do, or anything else -- other than what you read in the newspapers. So where do you get off making these sort of proclamations about what they think, do or say? You have no idea about what the Clintons do, think or say, and you don't have an inside track -- so that makes you an irresponsible journalist or a liar.  Take your pick!)

Therefore Mrs. Clinton gladly accepted an $8 million dollar book advance, even though she knew full well that Senate bylaws require ethics reviews of such business transactions. However, she took the cash a few weeks before being sworn in. So, technically, she did not break any Senate rules. (So what's your point? She did nothing wrong, and you would have done the same thing and you know it! The difference between you and Hillary is that she has something to write about besides degrading someone else in order to make a living; you on the other hand are a Rupert Murdoch hired hand who prefers to manipulate and sensationalize gossip and innuendo to line YOUR pockets. You're a two bit punk with no ethics or training; therefore you have no business being in a position to influence public thinking about anything other than what you know best: tomato farming.)

What about ethics, you ask? Well you can keep asking until the earth melts, but you'll never get an answer from Hillary. And if you ask in public, you'll immediately be labeled a "Clinton hater." (Stop stealing my style, O'Reilly -- it doesn't look good on you! Asking rhetorical questions of my readers is MY style, not yours! YOUR style is to pretend to have ALL the answers!)

Everybody knows there is something fishy about the Marc Rich pardon President Clinton signed at 4 a.m. on his last day in office. Rich, a fugitive living in Switzerland, spread plenty of cash around to various charities and political people. It has been well documented that his ex-wife was a big Clinton donor. (Who is "everybody" Bill?  You don't speak for anybody other than yourself! By the way -- have you ever heard of due process, Little Hitler?)

Yet Clinton will not explain himself, saying only that the pardon was legal. He also will not explain why he wants to rent an office in Manhattan that would cost the taxpayer about $700,000 a year. Of course, once there's an outcry over something the Clintons do -- they reverse strategy. They are now returning the gifts they took during their last year in office, and Clinton's "library fund" will pay part of his office rent. (Clinton doesn't HAVE to explain himself, particularly to a Murdoch sycophant and pretend journalist punk like you!)

This "library fund" is another very questionable enterprise. The former president spent a considerable amount of time during his last year in office running around the country raising money for his presidential library, which is to be built in Little Rock, Ark. Dollar Bill has raised far more money than he needs to build the library, so now he can pay some rent in Manhattan with the "surplus." Bill Clinton loves that word "surplus." It has been very, very good to him. (There you go again, Bill -- pretending to know something "from the inside" when in fact you're nothing but an "outsider" -- which is where you'll always be!)

The point here is that the Clintons are ethically challenged, but you already knew that (Oh, really?   You don't know what I know -- and stop speaking for me or anyone else). The larger question is why they remain so popular. The answer lies in their acceptance by the elite media. Recently, The New York Times editorialized about Hillary: "We applaud her decision to forgo the gifts. We accept it as sincere. It gives her a chance to start in a new direction that will encourage voters to feel that she will put public service ahead of personal gain." (You're either an anal retentive or a control freak -- one or the other -- but where do you get off telling another business enterprise what to write about? Are you paying their bills? you Are paying for the paper and the ink? Huh? Can't hear ya, O'Reilly!)

Now, why would the Times editorial board feel that Mrs. Clinton would put public service ahead of personal gain? Is there anything on the record in the past eight years to demonstrate that? (There you go again -- redefining the issue. Problem is, that's not what the editorial board said, and you know it! That makes you a liar, Bill!)

Here's the sad record. The independent counsel said Mrs. Clinton misled the Justice Department during her testimony on Whitewater and the Travelgate affair. You may remember the missing Whitewater billing records were found in the White House residence with her fingerprints on them but she denied knowing how they got there. (I'm not sure why you have chosen to place these two separate issues in the same paragraph and attempted to "simplify" them, but you have omitted plenty, and I suppose it's because you're just too damn lazy to write a decent, well- researched, and thoughtful piece.  Guess you were too busy cranking out something -- anything -- to make money!)

Mrs. Clinton still has not explained how she made nearly $100,000 in the commodities market and, indeed, one of the last-minute pardons her husband doled out was for a convict represented by a lawyer who also represents the man who made Mrs. Clinton the 100 grand. Ah, serendipity. (Ah, how juvenile and sophomoric, Bill -- you sound more like a high school yearbook editor than a journalist! Jeez -- go back to school, grow up, and then maybe you can play with the adults!)

Hillary also snookered the system by using taxpayer money to campaign for a New York Senate seat. As first lady she cited security reasons and flew around the state on government aircraft. But when the bills rolled in she only reimbursed the taxpayer for a commercial fare. She gained huge monetary and logistical advantages by using Air Force jets. (Mrs. Clinton did not snooker anyone -- and you know it. You are a sleazy, opportunistic wanna-be looking for an entrée to society -- but Mrs. Clinton isn't going to let you in Bill, no matter how much attention you try to grab!)

Mrs. Clinton's many trips overseas also cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. The expense was staggering -- so much so that when I called the General Accounting Office for an exact accounting of the junkets, employees there actually laughed. There is no accurate expense report on Hillary's trips because the money came from many different government agencies, and there is no central oversight. Once again, Mrs. Clinton and her various entourages lived large at the expense of the taxpayer. (Bill, if you couldn't find the real figures, how do you know it was tens of millions of dollars? This is simply another instance of your lies and "factual" manipulations .  You're a real case for a psychiatrist, O'Reilly -- get help soon!)

So why would The New York Times accept Mrs. Clinton's decision to give back some gifts as an expression of "sincerity"? The answer is because Hillary and the Times' editorial people think alike on abortion, taxes and a variety of other subjects. (So what? They can think alike if they want to -- after all, they have that right under our Constitution -- or do you want to legislate thinking? You're looking and sounding more like Stalin every day, Bill!)

Ideology trumps honesty. That is the new reality in the new century: "Think like me, and I'll let you be." Has a nice ring to it, right? Might even be a fine replacement for the words that adorn the top of The New York Times: "All the News That's Fit to Print." (Whose ideology? Thanks for giving thinking readers one last example of your "outside looking in" crap that you're trying to peddle as sincere journalism.  You're just another bottom feeder, Bill.  Tell me -- how does the view from the bottom look and taste?)