I think David Brock's entire schtick with Hillary is about child porn. Let's collect what we know about him, shall we?
Born in 1962, David Brock is an openly gay author, a former conservative turned leftist, and the founder of Media Matters For America, which monitors the media for evidence of “conservative misinformation.”
Interesting. I wonder why.
Soon after the publication of The Real Anita Hill, Brock accepted a $550,000 advance from a conservative publisher (Free Press) to write an investigative biography of Hillary Clinton that was expected to expose the First Lady in the same sensational and salacious way his first book had discredited Anita Hill. An initial press run of 200,000 copies was announced for this projected bestseller.
Now, see the next:
But Brock failed to produce the book he had promised. When The Seduction of Hillary Rodham was released in October 1996, it was a pedestrian account of a well-intentioned liberal, misunderstood by the “mainstream media” and “seduced by the talented boy from the Arkansas backwoods.” Brock portrayed Mrs. Clinton in surprisingly sympathetic light: “Hillary had the ill-fortune to take power at a moment in history when much of the public had turned against the panacea of big government,” he explained. The author also took extraordinary pains to defend Mrs. Clinton against a host of charges. Of her suspicious success in commodities trading and her subsequent evasiveness on that subject, for instance, Brock contended that the criticisms were merely “lawyerly nit-picking.” Besides, he reasoned, “it might simply be said that politicians shade the truth all the time.”
I think he dug a little too deep into Hillary, and since she's well connected as fuck (her husband was the POTUS then), they dug up a little about Brock. Maybe… I don't know. Child porn. Pedophilia.
Yet Brock’s effusive apologetics convinced virtually no one. Even The New York Times, hardly a citadel of anti-Clinton sentiment, scolded Brock for straining to absolve Mrs. Clinton from her involvement in the Whitewater scandal. As word of the book’s tepid contents spread, its sales plummeted.
In the June 1997 issue of Esquire magazine, Brock wrote “Confessions of a Right-Wing Hit Man,” in which he claimed that conservatives were now punishing him for his independence of thought in refusing to vilify Hillary Clinton.
Brock followed up his Esquire article with a March 1998 public letter of apology to Bill Clinton, in which he repudiated his (Brock's) own past reporting on the former president’s private life. Brock also condemned the Arkansas state troopers who had been the sources for his 1994 “Troopergate” story on Clinton’s extra-marital affairs, now claiming that they had acted out of “greedy” and “slimy” motives—though he stopped short of calling their allegations untrue. He similarly denounced Clinton’s Arkansas critics as “segregationists” who “hated Clinton for his progressive record on race.”
Notwithstanding Brock’s apology to the former president, the relevant facts of his reporting on “Troopergate” were corroborated by subsequent reports in the Los Angeles Times, But in no way did this faze Brock, who said: “Most journalists never admit they were wrong. The Los Angeles Times made many of the mistakes that I did.”
In March 2002, Brock publicly embraced Hillary Clinton’s suggestion that her husband had been the target of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” alleging, without basis in fact, that her husband had carried on an adulterous affair with Monica Lewinsky. Asked by television host Matt Lauer whether he himself (Brock) had been part of the conspiracy alleged by Clinton, Brock replied, “I was, and I was stunned when she said it because I said, finally somebody gets it…”
Gee, I wonder what secrets David Brock's ex-boyfriend has on him that had him pay 850,000 and a house.