Newsbusters's own Vinny Fiore yesterday relayed how the New York Times took some hits at New York Republican Senate hopeful Jeannine Pirro, conveniently failing to remind readers of incumbent Senator Hillary Clinton's ethically-tainted, disbarred husband, while raising Albert Pirro's 11-month prison term for tax fraud. Today the Washington Post followed suit in a piece by staff writer Michael Powell.
But Pirro, 54, comes with her own issues, not least her husband -- Albert Pirro -- who is a convicted felon, having served 11 months in prison for hiding $1 million in taxable income. He was accused of claiming dozens of luxury items, from his Ferrari and her Mercedes-Benz to the salaries of employees who care for their pet pigs, as business expenses.
Albert Pirro lost his law license but remains an influential lobbyist. More recently, New York media reports said a capo in the Gambino crime family was taped by FBI agents saying that Pirro had leaked information to the mob about an investigation by the district attorney. Pirro has denied the allegations, calling them "triple hearsay." He did acknowledge some years ago -- after being confronted with DNA evidence -- that he had fathered a child out of wedlock.
Jeanine Pirro has suffered no backlash from voters, though, having been reelected easily since the allegations became public.
But if Pirro has not suffered politically among New York voters by association with an ethically-tainted, disbarred-attorney husband, why does Powell mention this in the article as an issue when Clinton likewise had not suffered adversely in the 2000 election, nor in recent tracking poll numbers, despite her association with an ethically-tainted, disbarred-attorney husband, not to mention the former First Lady's oft-alleged but never conclusively proved roles in Travelgate and Memogate during the Clinton administration?
Clinton boosterism by the media? Nah, can't be.
