Hillary Clinton Ally: She’s No Brian Williams (Exclusive)

Hillary Clinton Brian Williams Iraq Statements
Getty Images

There’s an emerging consensus among some political gabbers that Brian Williams’ long-running misrepresentations about his time in Iraq does serious damage to a major national figure.

The twist: The figure being skewered is not the embattled NBC anchorman but Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Why would misstatements by Williams — that a helicopter he rode in a dozen years ago in Iraq came under enemy fire — damage the once and likely future presidential candidate?

Because the former secretary of state and frontrunner-in-waiting for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination had her own Williams-esque flight of war-zone “misspeak.”

Clinton’s error came in the thick of her 2008 run for the presidency, when she claimed in a speech that she and her party once ducked sniper fire on an airport tarmac in Bosnia. It wasn’t true.

The NBC anchor’s career-threatening failure on the Iraq story now has commentators, particularly on the political right, saying Clinton should be in just as much trouble.

At least one seasoned hand in Clintonworld theorizes, though, that Hillary’s 2008 campaign trail plotz will not ultimately be as damaging as Williams’ meltdown. Here’s why: Williams has told the tale of the attack on a U.S. military helicopter many times over the years since he embedded with the Army during the 2003 Iraqi invasion. His problem is that he has expanded and embellished the alleged brush with danger many times.

According to reporting led by the military journal Stars & Stripes, aviators on the scene at the time said the copter carrying Williams was an hour behind another Chinook forced to land, after being hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.

In multiple retellings over the years, though, the NBC anchor has gone from saying he was “on the ground” when he learned about the RPG threat to suggesting the copter immediately in front of his took the hit to saying his own chopper was battered by both the RPG and AK-47 fire.

Williams told Stars & Stripes he “misremembered” the incident and that he doesn’t “know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.” An on-air apology Wednesday night has done little to quell the furor.

Flashing back a couple of campaign seasons, NBC News was among the outlets that hit hardest when Hillary Clinton got her own war story wrong. Though Williams was on the periphery of that reporting, his network reported Clinton’s flub and how it took her a week to correct it.

When first learning of Williams’ own veracity problem this week, one former Clinton aide said he was “chagrined,” thinking, “This will bring back something from that campaign, and those parallels will be drawn as if what she did was exactly like what Brian Williams did.”

Clinton had said during a March 2008 speech that, while visiting Bosnia in 1996 as first lady, she remembered “landing under sniper fire.” A greeting ceremony had to be cancelled, she said, as her party “ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Videotape instead showed Clinton, her daughter Chelsea and their entourage simply striding across a tarmac with smiles and greeting a retinue of well-wishers.

The Clinton hand, who spoke on condition of anonymity, argued that Clinton’s failure was less egregious than Williams’ for several reasons. It came during a campaign that was a dozen years after her Bosnia visit, while the anchorman’s suggestions that he was close to the rocket attack commenced just two years later.

In addition, the Clintonista noted, the presidential candidate only briefly “dug in her heels” on her account, correcting herself within the week. Clinton at one point blamed the exhaustion of the campaign trail for getting it wrong. She soon joked to Jay Leno about her “lapse,” telling the latenight host that she almost didn’t make it to his show because she was “pinned down by sniper fire.”

Williams, in unfortunate contrast, continued to misreport his episode in the Iraqi desert for more than a decade, the onetime Clinton aide said. “He fabricated it and then he kept repeating it,” the aide said. “That’s a lot different.”

Commentators at the time of the Clinton episode were a lot less forgiving. Then-New York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote that Clinton’s Bosnian “fairy tale” exposed her dishonesty, particularly her insistence that she had only “misspoken.”

The Clinton loyalist said, however, that the collateral damage she is suffering today might actually have an unexpected benefit.

“The issue was going to come back eventually, one way or another,” he said. “This means the story won’t have a lot of impact during the campaign, because all the attention to it will be burned up over the next few days.”

“When it comes up later,” he concluded,  “she will be able to say, ‘We have already been through all of that.’ “

A Clinton spokesman was not immediately available for comment.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 38

Leave a Reply

38 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. ムダ毛の量が多くて悩む人は、即体質改善を行いましょう。大豆にたくさん含まれているイソフラボンは女性ホルモンに近くなっていますので、ムダ毛が薄くなっていく効果があります。納豆や豆腐、豆乳を積極的にとって、体毛の生えにくい体質を目指してがんばりましょう。

  2. EdwardC says:

    Now Ben Carson is being skewered for claiming he was offered a scholarship to West Point but declined. Ms. Clinton is spared. Far easier to imagine Dr. Carson being offered a free education at USMA and thinking it meant “scholarship” than Ms Clinton claiming she was fired upon when not near any battle.

  3. j says:

    A lie is a lie whether it was told once or thousands of times. If your spouse cheats on you once or many times is it still adultery?

  4. Susieque says:

    It doesn’t matter if “you have been through all that”! A liar is a liar and once proved that she is she does not deserve to be elected as President! Why would we want someone as President who we already know lies?! How could you possibly trust what that person is saying?! Besides, it isn’t her only whopper of a lie! Hilary said that Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11 and ducked into a doorway when the planes hit, which saved her! Chelsea was 4 miles away at a friend’s apartment and not at the World Trade Center. Hilary just has a need to be in the spotlight. Wonder what else she has lied about?!

  5. baby buda says:

    Hillary is a fawking liar like Obama and Bill are: she’s not even from New York yet even today she’ll say how she’s such a big Yankee’s fan while being a radical feminist liberal Democrat from all-girl Wellesley College in Massachusetts.

  6. Benny Vines says:

    Hillary Clinton’s lie was worse because she told the lie as a candidate for President of the United States in the midst of a campaign seeking votes from the American people. Brian Williams didn’t tell his essentially same lie while campaigning for any public office, much less the highest public office of the land.

    While Williams did expand and embellish his lie over the years, that was no doubt due to the fact that he was able to continue to get away with it unchallenged. Hillary Clinton’s lie was challenged and exposed immediately, eliminating the possibility of her repeating the lie or the opportunity to expand or embellish the lie throughout the rest of her campaign and the ensuing years. Maybe she would have and maybe she wouldn’t, but we’ll never know for sure because she was caught in the lie so early.

    For the “Clinton hand” to claim that Hillary’s lie was less egregious simply because her lie was caught and exposed much quicker than Williams’ lie is, to say the least, weak, even if both lies were told under similar circumstances.
    The fact that Hillary told her lie while campaigning for votes makes her lie more egregious, and more fortunate for us, not Hillary, that it was exposed so quickly rather than years later in the case of Brian Williams’ lie.

  7. Stop Williams saga; we need Hillary Clinton for POTUS; we don’t want to compare her Bosnia story to Williams’s. Come on. We need to focus on the future, and not on the present.

  8. Tim Outman says:

    First it was Nancy Snyderman breaking a Ebola Quarantine, now it is Brian Williams fabricating war stories.

    NBC will need to do some soul-searching in order for the viewing public to regain any confidence in their reporting product.

    NBC must hold a higher standards for their journalists than currently exists. Reporters need to know that there is a zero tolerance for the public behavior by Nancy Snyderman and Brian Williams.

    These two highly paid personalities need to find another profession. Perhaps politics. At least this is an arena people understand that they fabricate harrowing stories, as Hillary Clinton did in 1996. As noted, NBC and MSNBC hammered away at Clinton repeatedly over several weeks for her dishonesty and carelessness.

    Ironically, it now looks like Hillary will lead the Democrats as their Presidential candidate in 2016.

    Please don’t take this as evidence that journalistic standards on integrity should also be lowered.

    The money Nancy and Brian have made should allow them to be comfortable for years to come.

    As someone who has valued NBC for many years, I welcome their retirement.

    As for Hillary, most Democrats feel that she is old news, while the GOP are licking their chops to take her on.

    Hopefully, Hillary will see the way to gracefully retire soon. Perhaps she will be able to live comfortably, too, having faced poverty or as she said “broke” when she and Bill left the White House.

  9. They are both LIARS not to be trusted!

  10. smokedsalmoned says:

    NBC needs to fire Brian Williams.

    • Ladislav Din says:

      They should. And American voters should once again reject Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, for doing exactly the same thing that Brian did, when she claimed in 2008 several times that as first lady she had to run for cover because of sniper fire in Bosnia.

      In both instances the issue is trust.

    • dean says:

      Smoked, it must be painful to tear yourself away from Fox News to write all this.
      Unless . . . you are being paid . . . ? And if so, by who?

      • Wayne says:

        I just love how f’n crazy the left gets over FN – the most successful – let me repeat that – successful cable news channel ever! On any given time slot, day or night, add up all the viewers to your CNN, HLN, and MSNBC and they will not come close to the number of viewers watching Fox News. Doesn’t that just drive your crazy??????? Ha Ha Ha!!!

  11. smokedsalmoned says:

    Hillary: Smart power means empathizing with your enemies
    It’s difficult to know where to start with this nonsense from a recent speech given by Hillary Clinton, in which the presumed Democratic front-runner finally defines what she sees as “smart power,” and what she claims is a 21st-century approach to diplomacy. In large part, the former Secretary of State says it means psychoanalyzing enemies to understand them better, which … is exactly what nations have been doing for centuries, if not millenia. That’s why, for instance, our nations turned out experts in Sovietology like Condoleezza Rice, so that they could rise to positions of policymaking importance and apply their insights into the internal culture of our enemies for our best strategic advantage.
    Hillary goes one step farther by claiming that we must empathize with our enemies in order to “define the problems”:
    “”””””
    This is what we call smart power. Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change — change the prospects for peace.
    ”””””””
    Empathize? It was empathy that produced the notorious “reset button” Hillary presented to Sergei Lavrov, and the Russian point of view with which she and the Obama administration empathized was that everything was George Bush’s fault. The flat-footed response to Russian aggression ever since shows exactly why analysis and empathy are two very different things, and why one’s necessary and the other results in naive and feckless policies. The Obama administration utterly failed to define the problems that were already clear by the time Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 because it was too busy trying to woo Vladimir Putin rather than put policies in place that would discourage him from adventurism.
    Besides, with which enemies are we called to empathize now? Iran? Well, the mullahs are still murdering gays and lesbians, oppressing their people, rigging elections, calling for the extermination of Israel, and building a nuclear weapon with which to accomplish it. Also, they are sponsoring terrorist networks like Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad while helping fuel the war in Iraq with its backing of Nouri al-Maliki’s purges prior to his ejection as Prime Minister. It’ll be mighty difficult to find points of empathy with the government that still refers to the US as The Great Satan, but Hillary sure tried — and John Kerry is still trying, too.
    John Hinderaker found another laughable point in the supposed deep thoughts of the former Secretary of State:
    “”””””
    Of the hundreds of peace treaties signed since the early 1990s, between or within nations, she said fewer than 10 percent had any female negotiators and fewer than 3 percent had women as signatories.
    “Is it any wonder that many of these agreements fail between [sic] a few years?” Clinton asked.
    “”””””
    It’s enough to give non sequiturs a bad name! But beyond the easy ridicule, there is a serious point: liberalism of the Clinton variety is utterly out of ammo. Hillary has no ideas of any intellectual or strategic significance. All she can do is utter platitudes and pander to 1970s-style feminism. And for this she gets $300,000 a pop?
    It’s an especially rich zinger coming from a Secretary of State who cannot point to any major agreement or treaty signed during her watch. What about that “reset button,” Mrs. Clinton? How well did that work out after “a few years”?
    Smart power, indeed.
    posted at 3:21 pm on December 4, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

  12. smokedsalmoned says:

    Hillary Clinton called Syria’s leader Assad a Reformer back in March 2011. How Could She Be So Wrong. I wonder if she still thinks so since he has killed over 100,000 people in Syria.
    Source – althouse.blogspot. com/2011/03/hillary-clinton-distinguishes-assad.html
    Please tell me what Hillary has did right as Sec Of State?

  13. smokedsalmoned says:

    1998 CIA Plan To Get Bin Ladin Was Hobbled By Clinton Authorizing Kidnap Not Death. Result Plan Aborted. CIA reported that Osama could not be kidnapped and requested the order to kill him since they had him in their sights…..Clinton waffled on ordering Osama killed so he escaped. Per the 9/11 Committee Report

  14. smokedsalmoned says:

    Hillary Rodam Clinton – Secretary Of State – Shouts “What Diffference, At This Point, Does It Make” In Reference To The Cause Of The Benghazi Attack And The Video Tape Lies.
    (Sen. Ron Johnson, a tea party backed Wisconsin Republican serving his first term, persistently questioned Clinton about what he called Rice’s “purposely misleading” the American people.
    “We were misled that there were supposedly protests and something sprang out of that, an assault sprang out of that and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact,” Johnson said, adding that “the American people could have known that within days.”
    Shouting and gesturing with her arms in frustration, Clinton shot back: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided they’d go kill some Americans?”

    Her fists shaking, she continued: What difference, at this point, does it make? _

    REASONS THIS DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE ARE AS FOLLOWS:
    1) The Presdident, UN Amabassador Rice, and You, lied for 9 days the the US, The World and The VictIms as to what caused the attack? You lost credibility and ended up looking like bufoons to the world and political scumbags out to protect a Presidential re-election bid.
    2) In denial of the facts on the ground you may have hampered journalistic and governmental investigations into the real cause of the attack, a resurgent Al Queda. Of course that did not fit into your political agenda / narrative in re-election season, but in fact you may have actually helped thsese terrorists to move on and escape.
    3) You had a man arrested in California for this, when he had nothing to do with it and there are numersous questions of wrongful imprisonment, free speech etc. that are extremely troubling Constitutionally.
    4) You purposefully duped the American People, lessening their faith and trust in the Democratic process and our government at all levels.

    WHEN THE HELL WILL THE MEDIA GO AFTER HILLARY AND OBAMA ON WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT AND DO SOME INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM TO FIGURE OUT WHO KNEW WHAT WHEN.

    • HML says:

      If only these stale automatons would glance at the lives lost and embassies attacked during their hallowed President-Mr. Bongo’s run, or say, Bush 41 or 43’s run. All are tragedies, however their should be some kind of moratorium on the word Benghazi by now after all the times it’s been parroted blindly by cons. If only they’d rail at the needless thousands who died in Iraq with the same fervor.

  15. smokedsalmoned says:

    Commodity Futures Modernization Act
    BILL CLINTONS ROLE IN THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN
    By JUSTIN FOX
    .
    STEPHEN JAFFE / AFP / GETTY
    .
    If you had to pick a single government move that did more than any other to muck things up, it was probably this bill, signed into law by lame-duck President Bill Clinton in December 2000. It effectively banned regulators from sticking their noses into over-the-counter derivatives like credit default swaps. There’s no guarantee that regulators would have sniffed out the dangers in time. But banning them from even looking sent a pretty clear anything-goes message to OTC derivatives markets.

  16. smokedsalmoned says:

    Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy part 1
    In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment had generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months. In 1994, after Hillary Rodham Clinton had become First Lady of the United States, the trading became the subject of considerable controversy regarding the likelihood of such a spectacular rate of return, possible conflict of interest, and allegations of disguised bribery allegations that Clinton strongly denied. There were no official investigations of the trading and Clinton was never charged with any wrongdoing.
    Various publications sought to analyze the likelihood of Rodham’s successful results. The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, “This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks.”[12] USA Today concluded in April 1994 after a four-week study that “Hillary Rodham Clinton had some special treatment while winning a small fortune in commodities.” According to The Washington Post’s May 1994 analysis, “while Clinton’s account was wildly successful to an outsider, it was small compared to what others were making in the cattle futures market in the 1978-79 period.” However, the Post’s comparison was of absolute profits, not necessarily percentage rate of return. In a Fall 1994 paper for the Journal of Economics and Finance, economists from the University of North Florida and Auburn University investigated the odds of gaining a hundred-fold return in the cattle futures market during the period in question. Using a model that was stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt, they concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion.
    Financial writer Edward Chancellor noted in 1999 that Clinton made her money by betting “on the short side at a time when cattle prices doubled.” Bloomberg News columnist Caroline Baum and hedge fund manager Victor Niederhoffer published a detailed 1995 analysis in National Review that found typical patterns and behaviors in commodities trading not met and that concluded her explanations for her results were highly implausible. Possibilities were raised that broker actions such as front running of trades, or a long straddle with the winning positions thereof assigned to a favored client, had taken place.
    In a 1998 article, Marshall Magazine, a publication of the Marshall School of Business, sought to frame the trading, the nature of the results, and possible explanations for them:
    These results are quite remarkable. Two-thirds of her trades showed a profit by the end of the day she made them and 80 percent were ultimately profitable. Many of her trades took place at or near the best prices of the day.
    Only four explanations can account for these remarkable results. Blair may have been an exceptionally good trader. Hillary Clinton may have been exceptionally lucky. Blair may have been front-running other orders. Or Blair may have arranged to have a broker fraudulently assign trades to benefit Clinton’s account.
    Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy part 2
    Merc and Melamed investigations
    Chicago Mercantile Exchange records indicated that $40,000 of her profits came from larger trades initiated by James Blair. According to exchange records, “Red” Bone, the commodities broker that facilitated the trades on behalf of Refco, reportedly because Blair was a good client, allowed Rodham to maintain her positions even though she did not have enough money in her account to cover her activity. For example, she was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time. Bone denied any wrongdoing in conjunction with Rodham’s trading and said he did not recall ever dealing with Rodham personally.
    As it happened, during the period of Rodham’s trading, Refco was under investigation by the Mercantile Exchange for systematic violations of its margin trading rules and reporting requirements regarding cattle trading. In December 1979, the exchange issued a three-year suspension to Bone and a $250,000 fine of Refco (at the time, the largest such penalty imposed by the exchange).
    The trading practices in Refco’s Springdale, Arkansas, office, which Bone was the manager of, came under investigation following the October 1979 collapse of cattle prices, which caused traders with that office to lose close to $20 million. A number of the traders, including Blair, sued Refco and its chair, Thomas Dittmer, as well as Bone, on grounds of having manipulated prices and thus precipitating the collapse. Blair and Refco reach and out-of-court settlement. In a case that went to trial, an Arkansas jury found in favor of some of the traders and against Refco and Dittmer, but that verdict was latter overturned by a federal appellate court. Court documents detailed some of the alleged trading practices at Refco, including block trading, end-of-day allocation, backdating of trades, and waived margin calls. Two brokers at Springdale, Bill McCurdy and Steven Johns, testifying about another trader’s case, said they participated in a cover-up of block trading on a day in June 1979 that happens to coincide with the opening of what would become Rodham’s single most profitable trade.
    After the Rodham trading matter became public, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Mercantile Exchange, was brought in by request of the White House to review the trading records. On April 11, 1994, he said that the whole matter was “a tempest in a teapot” and that while her brokers had not required her to provide typical margin cushions, she had not knowingly benefitted. On May 26, 1994, after the new records concerning the larger Blair trades came to light, he said “I have no reason to change my original assessment. Mrs. Clinton violated no rules in the course of her transactions.” But as to the question of whether she had been allocated profits from larger block trades, he said of the new accounting, “It doesn’t suggest that there was allocation, and it doesn’t prove there wasn’t,” an assessment of uncertainty shared by Merton Miller, a Nobel Prize-winning economist at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business.
    Source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

    Basically Hillary escaped without legal ramification but when you walk through the mess it seems clear her arguments as to innocence are just a load of cattle manure.

  17. smokedsalmoned says:

    Hillary And Those FBI Files
    Remember when over 900 secret FBI personnel files, including dossiers of prominent Republicans were found at the White House. Remember that it was Hillary’s staff members who collected that data? Remember that it was Hillary who lied and said she couldn’t find them and then presto 900 files are found behind a filing cabinet!
    .
    Don’t forget the past or it will repeat.

  18. smokedsalmoned says:

    Roll the footage of hillary telling kids in a school that her parents named her after edmund hillary who climbed mount everest…….only problem was he had not climbed mount everest until several years after she was born and named.

  19. PETER says:

    Joyce Tyler, you are being ridiculous. When a person, reporting news or a U.S. government official reporting to that person’s U.S. citizens, you do not lie, your tell the truth. That’s why you are in those high positions, to be totally honest. If not you lose your integrity as Hillary, Obama, and Brain Williams have done. And good riddance to all of them.

  20. Joyce Tyler says:

    Who has not exaggerated certain events of one’s life at one time or another to make oneself a more interesting conversationalist? It’s human nature. Does that mean that one is a compulsive liar and never to be trusted? Of course not. Was anyone harmed in the telling of Clinton’s or Williams’s story? Nope. So how about we just move along to the next “important” news story?

  21. Hank says:

    how did Hilary just mispeak? How can she blame it on exhaustion? Being pinned down by enemy sniper fire isn’t something you forget. She’s a liar, and this is just once instance in which she got caught. It should definitely be used against her because it goes to the core of her character – which is DISHONEST. She and Bill both. Remember when he pointed at us through the TV screen and said, “I did not have sex with that woman.”? Um, excuse me? They are dishonest to their very bones.

  22. PETER says:

    I’m a registered liberal Democrat here in Hollywood, CA but will never vote for Hillary nor a Democrat after these years with the arrogant, stupid Obama and Biden in office. Obama is offensive and an disgrace to legal U.S. citizens and our military.

  23. Michael Anthony says:

    A comment below got it right. Anytime Variety has an article on Dems, Libs, Gays, etc, the FOX contingent comes out in force. You know for s fact, NONE of them would read such a lib pub as Variety.

    I do gotta laugh at their assertion a lie is a lie and both are no good. Let’s say we accept that. Then who will be the GOP candidate for Prez? ALL have been caught in lies and mistruths, those running and those who want to. ALL of them. So, who will u vote for? Based on your comments below, none are good enough. Or, us it different on the right wing??

  24. EK says:

    Consensus among some is not a consensus; it is a sampling. Exclusive?

  25. Michael Anthony says:

    And I suppose you have a big dossier on how Obama isn’t a US citizen?? I thought your Vaughan group were all in Nursing Homes by now!

  26. B. M. says:

    Both Clinton and Williams base their narrative around “Hollywood” type of the truth. It is polished truth tailored to their agendas. I am not sure that will be the right approach for the candidate in dealing with National security matters and the foreign relations.

  27. Donna says:

    A lie is a lie whether it was told 50 years ago or now! Lies on an international or lesser level and Coming from public figures doesn’t discount them now or 50 years in the future. Their credibility is over!

  28. Derek S. says:

    Typical Libtard spin: it’s okay to lie, so long as nobody dies!

  29. Gearoid Ó Cúin says:

    Could we all please start using the tag “Exclusive” for things that actually are exclusive. All of this is on the public record. There’s nothing exclusive about it. Even your “anonymous source” brought nothing new.

  30. Jacques Strappe says:

    Oh dear, I thought I was logging on the Variety but instead landed on FOX News. This seems like a bit of a desperate reach for even FOX and friends like teletubby Rush, etc.

    • Ranjit says:

      Well, you can not deny the facts ! There seem to be a similarity with Hillary Clinton and Brian Williams ! By the way, I would love to know Brian Wiliams reporting of Katrina and see how was much was fiction and how was much truth ! Typical mainstream media !

  31. Apparently, even Brian Williams is no Brian Williams.

More TV News from Variety

Loading