Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Republican Jeanine Pirro gets two segments on The O'Reilly Factor to campaign and do damage control

Reported by Chrish - September 29, 2006 -

On The O'Reilly Factor tonight 9/28/06 Jeanine Pirro, in a race with Democrat Andrew Cuomo for the position of New York State Attorney General, was allotted two segments totalling almost ten minutes of (inter)national airtime to explain her personal situation, to define herself and state her positions, and to criticize her opponent.

Apparently Ms. Pirro has some marital problems but remains with her children's father because he is a great dad and her teenaged son needs him in his life. But when Pirro approached her friend former NYC police commissioner Bernard Kerik to discuss a private investigation of her husband's suspected infideleities, she did not know that Kerik was being surveilled by federal authorities, and her conversation with him was recorded.

Now Pirro is being investigated herself for soliciting Kerik to bug her family's boat and catch her husband cheating on her. She maintains that planting a bug on her own private property would be legal and the investigation is a “political witch hunt and smear campaign."

O'Reilly said that her husband has caused her a lot of pain over the past 11 years and she must have known "running against a powerful guy like Andrew Cuomo and theDemocratic machine in New York, which obviously wants the AG job" that she and her husband were going to be in the spotlight.

Pirro launched into a well-rehearsed verbal resume and personal commercial (stump stump), claiming she has the necessary credentials and her opponent doesn't so she's not surprised that "other" issues are being brought up.

O'Reilly outlined the circumstances leading to the current "mess" (above) and Pirro agrees it's a mess but says the bottom line is that it's a personal marital issue and has no business in the US Attorney's Office. She maintained that all she did was say she wanted to do things that she never wound up doing, and even if she had, they weren't improper in any event. The only crime committed is the release of sealed federal wiretaps.

Pirro said she is ready to go to court but wants an impartial prosecutor, not Elliot Jacobson, who previously prosecuted her husband in 2000. (Mr. Pirro, a very wealthy real-estate attorney and lobbyist kept on retainer by Donald Trump, was convicted then of 66 counts of tax fraud and served prison time. From Wikipedia, not the O'Reilly Factor.) Pirro has written to US AG Alberto Gonzales to ask for a special prosecutor to take over the investigation, but Jacobson's boss, Bush appointee US Attorney Michael Garcia, insists that there is no partisanship in the case. O'Reilly proclaimed, however, that it's "dirty tricks", no question about it.

O'Reilly introduced "a Hillary Clinton question": why should voters trust her judgment when she remains married to a man who has fathered a child with another woman (during their marriage), been convicted of tax evasion, and a long list of other misbehaviors, regardless of her record of public service? She said she has fought hard to keep her marriage together because her children love their father. Looking forward she wants to continue to do a great job, (etc. etc., stump stump), and said all of us have marital woes but she believes in family and has fought for NY families (etc. etc., stump stump).

In the second segment Pirro emphasized that she had contacted US AG Gonzales and asked that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her, and to fast track it because the election is so close. She asserted again that the only crime committed is the leaking of a sealed federal wiretap, and wants someone who is objective and does not have an agenda to review the case against her.

O'Reilly asked her if she believes that Jacobson is deliberately smearing her to affect the outcome of the election, and she basically conceded she has no evidence to support that. But during the prosecution by him of her husband, there were similar leaks. This is affecting the election, (Rudy Giuliani has cancelled a fundraiser, per the NYTimes) and as we've seen before - allegations brought forward before an election go away right after the election.

O'Reilly said that since she made the call to Kerik from her home in Westchester County, why can't they have jurisdiction and she (her office) can investigate it herself? When she reminded him that she resigned that office in January, he said "Don't you have any friends there?" There it is, Mr. T-Warrior, curse the judicial activists, suggesting on (inter)national cable that she do an end run around the federal prosecutors and get a crony to handle it. To her credit, she said even if she could she wouldn't do that.

O'Reilly then made a little speech of his own, stating unequivocally that this is dirty - and this isn't just New York, it's the United States of America - and it was obviously leaked to destroy her career. Pirro meant to respond but he went on to the final question: has the press treated her fairly?

She skirted the issue and said they'll do what they have to to get the story, but she understands politics, the "rough and tumble 'bloodsport'" of it. But she expects to be treated fairly and be able to present herself as she is, (etc. etc., stump stump, and a dig at her opponent).

O'Reilly thanked her and said he hopes her kids are okay.

So, we've got "the Democratic machine" and dirty tricks, destroying careers, witch hunts, and more. Yet there is NO evidence that ANY Democrat had anything to do with the investigation or the revelation of it. In fact, the Republican US Attorney overseeing the case has said that there is no political bias.

O'Reilly stated that the Democratic machine obviously wants the NY AG job, but obviously the right-wingers at FOX (headquartered in NYC) wants it too - why else give this candidate such a prominent platform and opportunity to defend herself in the court of public opinion AND make digs at her opponent?

In the NYTimes article, Ms. Pirro said, “Let me reiterate my disappointment with the United States attorney’s office for allowing an unethical overzealous prosecutor with a partisan political agenda using taxpayers’ money and public resources to pursue a baseless investigation into a marital situation and seek to affect the outcome of an election.” Does the name Ken Starr ring a bell? The investigation of Ms. Pirro is because she was seeking to wiretap her husband, perhaps illegally - that remains to be seen. In the meantime the sympathy and outrage on her behalf is stunningly hypocritical, even for FOX. Maybe O'Reilly is sensitive to the sex and wiretapping overtones.