First, a rock solid statement all famous people in America are targets. If you have money, power, or fame you need protection from those that would accuse and exploit you. There is a full fledge extortion industry in this country that attacks the wealthy and corporations through the legal system. All journalists know that. We know. We can find people to say negative things about any public person.
We know we can make any story come out a certain way. And the politicians who are business person is involved it's a lark. Enter Donald Trump and Bill Clinton both men have been severely hammered in the American press as you know. For example, a front-page article in the "New York Times" over the weekend heavily implied Mr. Trump mistreats women. But almost immediately one of the women quoted in the article disputed what the people said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LANE: Spun it where it appeared negative. I did not have a negative experience with Donald Trump. And I don't appreciate them making it look like that I was saying that it was a negative experience because it was not. He never made me feel like I was being demeaned in any way. He never offended me in any way. He was very gracious.
MICHAEL BARBARO, NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER: We really stand by our story. We believe we quoted her fairly and accurately and the story really speaks for itself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: But the story does not speak for itself. American voters have no idea what Donald Trump did or did not do. Reporters define that so, saying the story speaks for itself is misleading in the extreme. The public is reliant on a third party, a reporter to inform them honestly. Sometimes that happens, many times it does not. Talking Points does not know how Mr. Trump treats women in general. What we do know is that he is a flamboyant entertainer, a provocateur who lives lavishly, voters will have to make up their own minds about Mr. Trump's private behavior. And that will not be an easy thing to do.
The same thing is true with President Clinton. Also the subject of a provocative article last week. On Clinton Foundation money, going to a for-profit energy company, owned in part by friends of the Clintons. One footnote the "New York Times" did not see fit to print that story even though they have covered questionable Clinton Foundations situations in the past. Anyway, the latest expose is loaded innuendo about Bill Clinton's friendship with a neighbor in Chappaqua, New York. Again, Talking Points has no idea about that what.
What we know for a fact is that Clinton Foundation money flowed to a private company, which is now failing for the benefit of people who have helped the Clintons in the past. That in itself is a major story. The innuendo is meaningless. American voters are going to be subjected to an incredible amount of speculative garbage over the next six months. The American press is not fair. It is heavily ideological. And will spin all kinds of things to try to get their candidate elected. It should not be this way. But it is. And that's “The Memo”.