THE PRESS CORPS [HEART] ACCUSERS: An act of astounding misconduct!


Part 3—What Chris Matthews did: As a matter of theory, journalists aren’t supposed to fall in love with accusers.

Sometimes, accusers’ claims are false, whether by design or by error. For that reason, journalists should approach their claims with appropriate caution.

When that isn’t done, the results can be quite bad. Case in point:

Back in the late 1990s, the mainstream press corps fell in love with a string of high-profile accusers. Their accusations were assumed to be true, even when they were false.

One such accuser was Kathleen Willey. In March 1998, she burst into prominence, claiming that President Clinton had groped her right in the Oval.

(The unwelcome advance was said to have occurred in 1993.)

Willey was rushed onto 60 Minutes. Following her dramatic appearance, stampeding journalists fought to see who could vouch for her honesty more, an embarrassing spectacle we will review tomorrow.

As it turned out, Willey wasn’t an especially reliable witness. In his final report on the endless probe of President Clinton, independent counsel Robert Ray said he had “agreed not to prosecute her for false statements” she had made in the course of the investigation.

As of 2007, Willey was strongly suggesting, in a book, that Clinton had been involved in the 1993 suicide death of her husband. She also claimed that Clinton’s agents had broken into her home and stolen the book’s manuscript.

In 2002, Willey even landed her own talk radio show, though it lasted less than a month. For a new overview by Media Matters, just click here.

Whatever! In May 1999, Willey made a thrilling guest appearance on Hardball. She arrived with a new accusation, involving the death of her pet cat and implied threats against her children.

Part of Willey’s new accusation, bruited in private, would turn out to be false. But before it was known to be false, it almost got a journalist killed, thanks to the astonishing conduct of Chris Matthews, who was conducting a love affair with the stories of the woman known as “Irish.”

Yesterday, we reviewed the results of this false accusation, which could have gotten the journalist killed. Today, consider the astonishing way the accusation was brought forward by a cable demon in love with a raft of accusers.

On May 11, 1999, Willey appeared on Hardball for the full hour. An excited cable host opened his program in a state of agitation:

“Kathleen Willey speaks for the first time in more than a year, for the next hour here on Hardball.”

The next night, Matthews would feature a phone call from Gennifer Flowers commenting on Willey’s greatness. On this evening, he engaged in one of the most appalling acts of anti-journalism of the whole “cable news” era.

Eventually, Willey voiced her new accusation concerning the mysterious death or disappearance of her 13-year-old cat. Shadowy agents of Clinton had done it, she said or suggested.

This is the way she could tell:
MATTHEWS (5/11/99): Talk about the thing that I really would love to hear you talk about, which is the, the attempt to cover this up, as you say. Tell about what happened when you went jogging in 1998, right before you were about to testify in the [Paula] Jones case.


WILLEY: I had—the previous month, had had surgery, neck surgery for a herniated disk, and I was in a collar and I was having a terrible time sleeping. And I got up very, very early one morning and—

MATTHEWS: Pre-dawn?

WILLEY: Yes. And I, I went out. And I live in a, what I thought was a very safe neighborhood. I went out for a walk. I had my three dogs with me, and I saw a man coming towards me.


WILLEY: And I saw this man coming towards me, and I just thought he was another neighbor. I had not met all my neighbors because I hadn't been there long. And he was coming towards me, and he called my, out my name, and he said, “Kathleen.” And I stopped and I said, “Yes?” And he said, “Did you ever find your cat?” And I said, “No.”

And I thought he was a neighbor. I'd asked a couple of neighbors to keep an eye out for this family pet, a 13-year-old cat. I'd never told anybody his name. I just described him to these neighbors, and I thought that maybe word had gotten around in the neighborhood that there's a cat missing. Just, here's who you call, if he—


WILLEY: And so he asked me, “Did you ever find your cat?” And I said, “No, I didn't.” And I said, I said, “Not—no, I haven't, and we really miss him.” And then he said, “Did you ever get those tires fixed on your car?” And I said, “No.”

And that's when the hairs started standing up on the back of my neck.

According to Willey, the mysterious man cited the name of her missing cat. He asked if she had ever gotten her tires fixed. (Allegedly, they had been slashed.) He even inquired about her children, using their names.

“It was a very insidious thing, and it was meant to scare me,” Willey said. “We're going to come back and talk about that,” Matthews heroically vowed.

Did such an encounter actually happen? We have no way of knowing; everything is possible! That said:

Shortly after this alleged incident, Willey testified in the Paula Jones case and swore than no one had tried to influence her testimony. It must also be said that Willey has sometimes told colorful stories which turned out to be untrue.

(Example: During the probe of Clinton, she told the FBI that she had become pregnant at one point and had an abortion, later admitting that these claims had been untrue.)

Willey’s claim of an encounter isn’t in question here. At question is the identity of the man who supposedly approached her.

When Matthews came back, he encouraged his guest to name the shadowy figure who had approached her and scared her. When Willey refused to supply the name, Matthews did so himself!

Four nights later, a man with a history of mental illness showed up at the accused person’s home brandishing a gun. Making the story even worse, the accusation against this person turned out to be false.

As became clear, Matthews had named a person who could prove that he didn’t threaten Willey that morning. By his astonishing conduct, Matthews could have gotten him killed.

Below, you see the astonishing way in which Matthews aired this false accusation. As “journalism,” the conduct shown here is well beyond crazy—and it almost got someone killed.

During the course of this program, Matthews falsely accused journalist Cody Shearer as the man who threatened Willey. Below, you see Matthews’ first attempt to get him falsely accused:
MATTHEWS: When this man came up to you at dawn that morning, in Richmond five years after this incident, who was that guy? I'm gonna ask you again, because I think you know who it was.

WILLEY: I do know. I think I know.

MATTHEWS: Why don't you tell me who it was? This is an important part of the story here, why would you want to come out and, on this program tonight, on live television and not tell us who you think that person was? Do—

Let me ask you a more careful way. Were you ever led to believe who it might be, and who led you to believe it and what did they lead you to believe?

WILLEY: I was shown a picture and—

MATTHEWS: And who was in the picture?

WILLEY: I can't tell you. I'm not trying to be coy—

MATTHEWS: Would I recognize the picture?


MATTHEWS: Is it someone in the president’s family, friends? Is it somebody related to Strobe Talbott? Is it a Shearer?

WILLEY: I can't say.

MATTHEWS: It's not?

WILLEY: I've been asked not to discuss—

MATTHEWS: You've been asked not to admit that?

WILLEY: Yes. By the Office of Independent Counsel, because they are investigating this.

“Is it a Shearer?” Matthews had now stated part of the accused person’s name, even as Willey refused to.

In that passage, Matthews was told that the OIC was still investigating the matter. He heard Willey say that she thought she know who the alleged person was.

Except to someone who’s badly deranged, the qualifying phrase, “I think I know,” should serve as a serious warning. That said, Matthews has been deranged for years, a problem he’s happy to put on display.

Matthews had stated part of the name. Unsatisfied, he returned to his unholy task at a later point in the program:
MATTHEWS: Let's go back to the jogger, one of the most colorful and frightening aspects of this story. You were confronted as you were out walking. You couldn't sleep, your neck was hurting, you—this guy came upon you who never met before...Tell me about that—what he said, finish up that whole story.

WILLEY: Well, he mentioned my children by name. He asked how they were and, at the, at this point, I started asking him who he was and what he wanted.


WILLEY: And he just looked me right in the eye and he said, “You're just not getting the message, are you?” And I turned around and, and ran. I had no business running, and probably ran about 100 yards, I was so frightened, and I turned around and he was gone.

MATTHEWS: Who showed you the picture of the person you think might have been him?

WILLEY: Jackie Judd.



MATTHEWS: And did you identify it positively?


MATTHEWS: So it's Cody Shearer.

WILLEY: I can't tell you.

MATTHEWS: OK. But you identified it. Let's talk about a couple of other things just to tie up the loose ends here.
As it turned out, Cody Shearer had been in California at the time of the alleged threatening incident—and he had the proof. But so what? Matthews had blurted his name on the air even as Willey refused to.

(Presumably, Willey had told Matthews the name off the air. When she wouldn’t say the name on the record, Matthews said it for her.)

As a result of this astounding misconduct, Rush Limbaugh began pimping Shearer’s name the next day. That Sunday, a man with a history of mental illness appeared at Shearer’s home, brandishing a gun.

In the normal flow of events, false accusations don’t get accused people killed. In this instance, Matthews’ astounding behavior easily could have done so.

That said, the most remarkable part of this incident is the sheer illogic of Matthews’ commentary and the recklessness of his behavior. Though this is one of Matthews’ most appalling “journalistic” episodes, he behaves in similar ways every night of the week.

He has done so for many years. He has been doing so in the past few weeks. Reckless, unfounded assertion is what Chris Matthews does.

Rachel Maddow tells the world that Matthews is her “beloved colleague.”

It’s dangerous when pseudo-journalists entertain us rubes with reckless, unfounded accusations. It’s extremely ugly behavior. It makes us all very dumb.

That said, casual, reckless accusation has been the stock in trade at The One True Channel ever since the Fort Lee debacle gave them a way to swell their ratings and please their liberal viewers.

On cable, casual, unfounded accusation is the stuff of partisan entertainment programming. It swells the hearts of true believers. TV stars’ bank accounts grow.

In the next few days, we’ll recall more of the press corps’ conduct when they fell in love with accusers during the Clinton-Gore years.

As a matter of theory, journalists aren’t supposed to fall in love with accusers. But that’s what happened in the late 1990s, and that’s what’s been happening now.

This is very bad behavior. It makes us very dumb.

Tomorrow: After her 60 Minutes appearance, who could praise Willey the most?


  1. Would somebody read this screed for me and offer the Cliff Notes version?

    I went through the whole Willey vs. Clinton thing 15 years ago and unlike Bob, I do not want to return to those glorious days of yesteryear again.

    1. Yes. And amazingly, despite Matthews' vast, unspeakable power, the whole country went through the Willey thing 15 years ago, and gave Bill Clinton higher approval ratings than Saint Ronnie --- they peaked at 70% *during impeachment* ---- and are likely to elect Mrs. Clinton to the White House.

      Perhaps Al would've been President had he more effectively deployed a very popular POTUS during the War on Gore.

      At any rate, the public cares a whole lot less about Matthews, Dowd, et al than Bob does.

      Yes: Cliff's Notes please!

    2. Cliff Notes Version:

      Part 1 -- The now vile but formerly gallant Steve Kornacki accused a cop of being a childhood friend of Chris Christie's. That led Somerby to recall:

      Part 2 -- Chris Matthews said mean and untrue things 15 years ago about Cody Shearer, which set Hank Buchanan off. Which led to:

      Part 3 -- Chris Matthews said mean and untrue things 15 years ago about Cody Shearer which set Hank Buchanan off.

      Waiting for Part 4, in which Chris Matthews said mean and untrue things 15 years ago about Cody Shearer, which set Hank Buchanan off.

    3. Part 1, 2 & 3: Journalists should not knowingly give a podium to accusers who may have ulterior motives in spreading false stories. They have an obligation to verify the facts when presenting an accuser to the public.

      Abandoning any pretense at journalism, Matthews furthered the agenda of this particular accuser by stating in public a name she was unwilling to speak. In that sense he colluded with her in pinning a crime on an entirely innocent person.

      Hank Buchanan is irrelevant to this story except to show that such accusations can have serious consequences not least for Buchanan.

      You trolls can joke about how this is no big deal, happened way in the past, and so on. Matthews is still doing this. We tolerate it.

      The troll reaction to this post illustrates very clearly how little trolls care about anyone else.

    4. So if Parts 1, 2 & 3 can be summarized in a paragraph, why has it taken Bob 15 years and several thousand words to say the same thing over and over again?

      I guess that means you are much better at organizing Somerby's thoughts into a succinct, coherent paragraph than he is.

    5. When you have to reach back 15 years to prove "Matthews is still doing this," you aren't really making your point.

      Or at least, in any rational way that would convince anyone who wasn't already convinced.

    6. Anon@1:07, if simply saying something economically is not enough to convince someone. The rest is evidence, support, example, analogy, reasoning, and so on. Its purpose is to convince those who may not already agree with the stated premise. But you know this.

    7. Another thing important to convincing those who may not already agree with the stated premise would be not boring them to tears first.

      You ever listen an old goat whom you weren't related to and didn't love enough to excuse tell the same war stories over and over again? Meet Bob Somerby.

    8. Who is forcing you to be here?

      I am not related to Somerby and I don't know him well enough to love him, but I find his posts very interesting. I like seeing what he cares about nearly as much as reading what he has to say about a topic. I do not always agree -- for example I didn't like his posts about Malala and MLK (and said so at the time). But it interests me that he thinks about them the way he does.

      Repetition is not necessarily boring or bad. People do reread favorite novels, replay favorite songs, rewatch movies, hang out with the same friends and go to the same places. Why wouldn't that be boring too? Or maybe it is to you? Have you considered that this might be your problem?

    9. Exactly. If you don't like what Somerby writes, yet you still read him everyday, you're pretty much a crazy person. There's just no reason to behave that way.

    10. A tiny paycheck would do it.

  2. Replies
    1. How Malala of you.

    2. For a moment I saw "Confused's" humanity.

  3. So now we have Jackie Judd and Rush Limbaugh involved as possible accomplices in this accusation of an almost killing.

    I look forward to the next episode. How did Judd come across the name Shearer, his photo, and connect him to the mysterious cat disappearance/tire slashing. What did Rush make of it and say about it? Which programs, if any, do we know the poor Buchanan man favored and drew inspiration from? Finally, why didn't Willey get those tires fixed?

    I can believe that Rachel would praise this man. I can't understand why the Reagan and O"Neill families let him profit from the memory of their sainted gifts to American leadership.

    Anyone else notice how many Irish are involved?

    1. Troll garbage. Go away

    2. Tis hardly troll garbage. You see, the picture of Shearer was leaked to Jackie Judd by Ken Starr's office. Other journalists were trying to beat Matthews to the story as he was trying to beat Judd. Somerby covered that back when it happened. He barely mentions Rush, who spelled out the name letter for letter and harped on it who knows how many times. It took four to five days after Matthews one broadcast for Mr. Buchanan to go to Shearer's house.

      None of this excuses Matthews, who did apologize once contacted by Shearer. But it does help readers assess whether Matthews alone "almost got someody killed."

    3. Did he say Matthews alone? Doesn't mentioning Limbaugh imply different?

    4. Did he say Matthews alone? Are you really that stupid. Six times in two posts he says Matthews almost got someone killed, when nobody was injured.
      Several times in three posts he plays him for the deaths of "tens of thousands." All under the theme of "the press loves accusers?

      Our intellectual culture isn't collapsing. But a large amount of dednsity is being revealed.

      BTW, it was not until the third post that Limbaugh got the scantiest mention you hang your nonsensical comment upon. Somerby would fry a writer he disagreed with for a disappearing act like that.

  4. "In the next few days, we’ll recall more of the press corps’ conduct when they fell in love with accusers during the Clinton-Gore years."

    Have hardly heard about this. Eager to read more.

    1. Did you know Al and Tipper were the inspiration for the very gripping "How He Got There"?

    2. Yes, you're both super informed and wise and you've read all about it already.

      And everybody, everywhere knows everything about it. Even those born in 1996 and are only now starting to pay attention to cable news.

      If you think he's wrong about something, fine. But if your only response is "I already know this" then this post is not meant for you. Move on.

    3. Yes indeed. Instead of preaching to the choir who can never hear the same sermon often enough, Bob is informing the entire world who will never learn the Gospel According to Somerby otherwise.

    4. Who knows how many different people read this blog or what their opinions are?

    5. There are Web sites that track such things. You can find out if you want, but you won't like the answer.

    6. Please direct me to such a site. All I could find using Google was software to be used on one's own website.

  5. Which accusers are they in love with now?

    1. Not too sure. Bob doesn't say. But I think it involves people who don't believe there was a real "traffic study" going on in Fort Lee.

      Somehow Kathleen Willey is involved in all this.

    2. Somerby has done nothing but say this. The current accusers, via MSNBC, are Wisniewski, Sokolich (reluctant at first but more vigorous now), Kornacki (switching roles from investigative print journalist to on-air hos), Zimmer, and the various Democrats who have been pushing the investigation into Christie's affairs. This is a partisan attack on Christie ahead of his probable run for the presidential nomination in 2016. The accusers are the people being interviewed on MSNBC who are claiming that Christie, Wildstein and Kelly conducted a revenge-motivated reprisal by closing the lanes in Ft Lee. They are also claiming that Christie has used Sandy funds for political purposes, has bullied Democrats into endorsing him, and so on.

      Willey is an example of journalistic malfeasance used to illustrate what was wrong in Matthews performance a few nights ago when he similarly didn't care about the facts he was presenting. The point of Willey is that Matthews has not changed and is still behaving badly. We may be less likely to recognize that now because he is doing it for causes we support instead of against the liberal president, as he did when he gave a platform and put words into Willey's mouth.

      But you know all this. You are paid trolls working for MSNBC to try to distract attention away from Matthews and Maddow's actions by attacking Somerby.

    3. No only are we paid trolls but we have you cat.

    4. Nice to see that MSNBC is hiring people with disabilities.

    5. You cat dead. Almost. Thousands Iraqi's too. Our bad. MSNBC Troll Patrol.

    6. Yes, you bad. You cat bad too.

  6. Given the number of troll postings immediately following this post, I suspect the trolls are indeed being funded by MSNBC.

    1. Don't forget to remove your tinfoil hat before retiring for the evening. I don't know what you can do to silence the voices emanating from your dental work, though.

    2. People getting paid for doing a job of work does seem like a grand conspiracy these days, don't it?

      I can see a troll sticking up for Maddow out of fondness for her cute person, but who would do the same for Matthews? Has to be money changing hands.

  7. No matter how indefensible Matthews' actions were (or are the trolls going to attempt a defense of Matthews?) -- the Much Worse Thing is that Somerby mentions it again.

    1. I see. If somebody thinks it's rather weird for a blogger to stay stuck in 1999 and relive the glorious days when his blog actually stood for something, that must carry with it an obligation to defend Matthews.

      Well once again.

      1. Chris Matthews is an idiot.

      2. So is Bob Somerby.

      They are not mutually exclusive.

    2. Trolls here know they cannot defend Matthews, but the best defense is a good offense, so they are once again going after Somerby.

      Matthews is an idiot, but worse than that, he is self-serving and has been doing bad things for money. That goes beyond the simple label "idiot" to bad person in my book. Somerby is far from an idiot. Pretending to misunderstand what Somerby says, then calling him an idiot on the basis of that pretense is just trolling, pure and simple.

      We would all be idiots if we were taken in by this crap. The trolls become slightly more tolerable if I remind myself that their volume is a measure of how much Somerby is getting under someone's skin. Hopefully it is Maddow and Matthews who are sending trolls here. That would suggest someone at MSNBC is monitoring feedback about their show, and thus maybe capable of cleaning up their act. The other altenrative is that the trolls are isolated sociopaths, narcissists, Machivellian bad actors, or other poor souls compelled to inflict themselves on others because it sucks to be them.

    3. Once again, try to wrap your brain around this concept:

      1. Chris Matthews is an idiot.

      2. So is Bob Somerby.

      I am so sorry the concept that both could be true is too deep for you to grasp. But like your hero, could you at least come up with some new schtick?

      To help make it plainer, I am under no obligation to "defend" Chris Matthews for something idiotic he said 15 years ago or last night for that matter.

      And the fact that Matthews says dumb things does not automatically raise anyone else's IQ, Somerby or his sheep.

    4. We get it. You are another troll and there is no point trying to talk to you. Why would anyone spend time at the blog of someone they considered an idiot, especially when that person is busy discussing another idiot? The only conclusion one can draw is that you must be an idiot too.

      I am willing to believe that trolls build their self-esteem by attacking those they consider to be idiots, because people are after all only important when they are tools for achieving one's personal needs, but if you confine yourself to attacking idiots talking about idiots, how can that give you much of a boost? Wouldn't you inflate your ego better by attacking the people on Youtube?

    5. Why do I come here? Because The Daily Howler is the premier Web site for reviewing the history of the late 1990s.

    6. Among other things.

    7. Absolutely. It is also the only place on the Web where you can watch an old man soil himself daily over something he watched on TV the night before.

  8. OMB (Missing in Attribution)

    In Part 1 of this amazing tale BOB told us he could only give us the "best links" he could find, which were to reports from the Washinton Post with nowhere near the detail we find in this recounting. No attribution here at all.

    Oh, perhaps he got them from a source on the right side of the tribal battle back then, but which has fallen so far from grace it does not deserve anything but derision now.


    1. If you really want to know Somerby's sources, why not send him an email and ask? Making up sources and attributing them to Somerby is just an act of imagination.

      Do you imagine that the personal politics of Woodward or Bernstein affected their investigation of Watergate? Woodward is and was a conservative while Bernstein was liberal. They both went after Nixon because he was corrupt and because it was their job to find and report such stories.

      It is difficult to tell the difference between reporting and propaganda. That is why someone like Somerby needs to keep demonstrating how critical thinking works, applied to the journalism of today and of past decades when outcomes were important. The advantage of studying what happened in the past is that we can do so in the light of more complete information because those stories have been fully researched. Today's stories are still evolving. Nevertheless we still have sort the wheat from the chaff. It would be nice if some marker, such as what paper something was printed in, who wrote it and what their politics are could tell us what to believe. It is usually much more complex than that.

      I am assuming that you care about the issue you raised and are not just trolling in order to attack Somerby with specious complaints that never have substance when examined closely.

    2. "If you really want to know Somerby's sources, why not send him an email and ask?"

      Oh, isn't this precious? Yes, let's demand evidence and sources from everyone else. And never from Bob, who actually promsed them.

      Did you actually read those 1999 links to Salon that KZ provided? Bob is damned close to plagiarism.

    3. I suggested that KZ ask the person himself what his sources were, instead of listing a bunch of sources and claiming Somerby used them. When two sources are similar, it could be that one copied from the other. It could also be that both got their info from a third source not listed by KZ. If you had read what I said, you would see that I suggested he ASK BOB. So saying lets demand sources from everyone "And never from Bob, who actually promised them" makes no sense at all.

    4. Again, if Bob promised sources, then didn't bother to list them, then no one is under any obligation to ask. Except of course, a Bob fan.

      KZ merely suggested that Somerby got his material from Salon, and is too ashamed to tell his sheep.

      I'll go one step further. Somerby plagiarized freely from Salon. Click onto the links and read for yourself how freely he cut and pasted, down to which portions of the transcript he cites. Verbatim from Salon.

      Of course, none of Bob's fans would do that for fear of their heads exploding.

      But if Bob were a journalist instead of a blogger, he would be fired on the spot for lifting other people's research and work without attribution.

    5. Whatever happened to simple civility? If someone forgets to do something, what is horrible about reminding him?

      I agree that it would be nice for Bob to cite sources. You are also correct that there is a difference between blogging and publishing. People rarely cite sources during conversation or discussion, hardly ever cite them when writing a diary or letter to a friend, and are rarely expected to document their work outside academia. When the president plagiarized Deval Patrick, for example, it was pointed out that usage during speeches doesn't require footnoting. On the other hand, demanding sources in comments is often an aggressive form of harrassment aimed at challenging people's arguments without bothering to use logic or facts. It is so much trouble to find and include sources for casual statements that such a demand effectively shuts down discussion.

      You tell me whether KZ's complaints further intelligent conversation around here, or whether they are aimed at shutting down Somerby's speech.

    6. KZ was suggesting/implying/insinuating nothing. We only discussed possibilities. We did infer BOB was not being fully forthcoming by suggesting in Part 1 the WaPo links were the best source for the whole story.

      BOB could have linked to himself. Perhaps he didn't because he did not accuse Matthews of near murder covering the story at the time. We don't know. He did whack him pretty hard, however. Not as hard as he pounded Willey and other journalists covering her. In our opinion. You may disagree.


    7. Does a focus on the links enhance our understanding of Bob's post or distract from it?

      Why use phrases like "near murder" instead of saying what Somerby actually said? Murder requires premeditation and intent. No one accused Matthews of that. His irresponsibility caused a mentally ill person to wrongly focus on an innocent journalist and only his being away from home prevented an encounter that could have become violent (given that the person was already threatening uninvolved people and slashing tires). Somerby said all that clearly, so why say Matthews was accused of near murder?

    8. Anon@ 4:27 Perhaps we should have said simply
      after failing to get this first person killed, Matthews worked to trigger death threats against a nuclear physicist. And over the course of two years, he worked hard to send George Bush to the White House. In the end, this heinous conduct led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people worldwide.

      Would that have met your approval?


    9. What's your point? That TDH took excerpts of Hardball from Salon and not directly from Hardball?

    10. Anonymous @4:27P,

      Definitions of illegal homicide differ by jurisdiction. Generally speaking, only first degree murder requires premeditation, only first and second degree murders require intent.

      TDH is suggesting that Matthews acted so recklessly in his commentary that he was complicit in the attempted murder by another. Since there was no incitement or assistance, had the killing taken place, Matthews would have stood accused of wrongful death, a tort not a crime.

      This suggestion, even if taken metaphorically, is absurd.

    11. Deadrat, stop making yourself look like a fool by pretending to hold expertise in areas in which you are totally ignorant.

      Go look up the elements necessary to prove "wrongful death" then come back and apologize for being an idiot.

      You might also delve into the vast array of case history that pretty much holds media figures blameless, no matter how incidiary their words might have been, for the actions of others who hear or read those words unless they are spoken with very specific instructions.

      This is why Glenn Beck walks the streets a free man.

    12. You presume Glenn is free from the private hell of his inner Glenda. Who do you think erased all those chalkboards?