Quite a bit, actually…
1. Res Ipsa Loquitur #1 The Democratic National Committee has barred Fox News from hosting its Presidential primary debates. I guess the Democrats don’t want any tough questions interfering with their efforts to rig the nomination this time around.
If there was ever better proof that the Democratic Party considers the mainstream media their captive allies, I don’t know what it would be. In 2016, Republicans subjected their candidates to outright hostile questioning from CBS and CNBC journalists, and Fox treated Donald Trump as roughly as a candidate can be treated in the Republican debates. I watched all the pre-nomination debates: Fox’s Neil Cavuto was among the very fairest of all panelists, and as Fox News has correctly said in its protest about the Democratic slur, Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, the proposed Fox News debate questioners, are at least as objective and professional as any Left-media journalists.
DNC Chair Tom Perez’s excuse for this blackball move is self-evidently dishonest: “Recent reporting in the New Yorker on the inappropriate relationship between President Trump, his administration and Fox News has led me to conclude that the network is not in a position to host a fair and neutral debate for our candidates. Therefore, Fox News will not serve as a media partner for the 2020 Democratic primary debates.” Oh, the New Yorker says so! That settles it then!
The GOP didn’t pull out of the Vice-Presidential debates in 2008 even though the NPR’s debate moderator, Gwen Ifill, had her pro-Obama book sitting at her publisher waiting for he candidate to win. CBS wasn’t barred from hosting debates, event though David Rhodes, then president of CBS News, is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser. Meanwhile, Ben Sherwood, president of ABC News, is the brother of Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, an Obama special assistant. Claire Shipman, a national correspondent for ABC’s “Good Morning America,” was married to Jay Carney when he was President Obama’s press secretary. These were real, hard, conflicts of interest. The bias of the Fox News journalists is apparently based on the fact that they may run into Trump pal Sean Hannity in the lunch room.
The Democratic Party is prepared to do everything in its power to make sure the American public does not get properly informed regarding the character, skills and beliefs of its 2020 Presidential candidate, and is confident that every network but Fox can be depended upon to assist them in achieving that goal.
2. Almost certainly untrustworthy study of the week, but great for confirmation bias purposes: According to an article in “The Atlantic,” a survey conducted by the polling firm PredictWise that assembled a county-by-county index of American political intolerance based on poll results determined that ” the most politically intolerant Americans… tend to be whiter, more highly educated, older, more urban, and more partisan themselves.”
That would explain the posts by my Facebook friends…
3. I know this will shock you, but Newt Gingrich doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and Michael Cohen is still lying. It was revealed yesterday that Michael Cohen’s lawyer floated the possibility to the White House of Cohen getting a Presidential pardon. Yet in his testimony under oath to Congress last week, Cohen stated flatly that he had never sought nor would never accept such a pardon—and his lawyer, Clinton fixer Lanny Davis, was sitting directly behind him What’s up with THAT? Well, Cohen lied to Congress, here, there, and probably everywhere, that’s what. It’s right on the video. So why, then, didn’t Lanny do something about it?
Fox News this morning asked Newt Gingrich, who isn’t a lawyer and based on his past, knows as much about ethics as he does about the dewpoint of feldspar, that question, and Newt explained to Fox’s audiences that David was prevented from doing anything because of attorney-client privilege….and, of course, Bill Hemmer, the Fox News host, nodded as if this was gospel. Not only wasn’t it gospel, it’s WRONG.
The situation of a D.C. lawyer’s client—David is a D.C. lawyer— testifying under oath and lying is covered by DC RPC Rule 3.9:
Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 3.9—Advocate in Nonadjudicative Proceedings: A lawyer representing a client before a legislative or administrative body in a nonadjudicative proceeding shall disclose that the appearance is in a representative capacity and shall conform to the provisions of Rules 3.3, 3.4(a) through (c), and 3.5.
Rule 3.3 says:
(d) A lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that a fraud has been perpetrated upon the tribunal shall promptly take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure to the tribunal to the extent disclosure is permitted by Rule 1.6(d).
Since Cohen’s lie did not threaten to cause financial harm to anyone (that’s the threshold for disclosure to the tribunal under 3.9), Davis’s remedial measures could not include telling the committee that Cohen was a liar (but then, they knew that, as do we all), but he still was obligated to demand that Cohen correct his statement, and if he refused, withdraw from the representation. A D.C. lawyer cannot do nothing when he knows a client he represents is misleading Congress under oath. Davis should know that, both because a D.C. lawyer is charged with knowing his jurisdiction’s rules, and especially because he has represented liars many times before, notably the Clintons.
I haven’t seen any news that Lanny has resigned, have you?
4. Ah, but there is so, so much important information the public needs to know and has a right to know! But over at CNN’s Headline News, there was no mention that Cohen had committed perjury while his lawyer sat smiling behind him. No, HLN decided that it was far more important to spend a full ten minutes out of the news hour this morning talking about Alex Trabek’s revelation that he has Stage 4 pancreatic cancer. He’s a game show host. I like Alex, and he seems like a great guy, but the health problems of the host of Jeopardy! come under the category of trivia, not national news.
5. Res Ipsa Loquitur #2 Reading this New York Times story should be enough, but I’ll elaborate briefly. It shows a political party completely devoid of integrity and unwilling to alienate any part of its constituency in order to take a necessary stand.
Freshman Somali-American Rep. Omar (D-Minn) is demonstrably anti-Semitic, not just a foe of U.S. policy regarding Israel. She made anti-Jewish comments before being elected, and has accused American Jews of having competing national loyalties as well as accusing them of controlling U.S. policy with their wealth. Both echo ages-old slurs against Jews that have been used to justify oppression and violence. She will not stop this either. She is unapologetically bigoted.
Alarmed, Democratic House leadership composed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism, though it did not name Omar. So many rationalizations and protests were raised by Omar’s defenders, enablers, and fellow travelers, however, that the vote on the resolution was postponed while it was retooled into a general statement that its not nice to be a bigot. The Times article missed arguably the worst of the defenses and excuses offered to protect Omar: Rep. James Clyburn’s disgusting Well, if you went through what she did, you’d be an Anti-Semite too! argument. The veteran black Democrat complained that that many of the media reports have omitted mentioning that Omar, who was born in Somalia, had to flee her country to escape violence and spent four years in a Kenyan refugee camp before coming to the United States.” “There are people who tell me, ‘Well, my parents are Holocaust survivors.’ ‘My parents did this,’ Cliburn said. “It’s more personal with her … I’ve talked to her, and I can tell you she is living through a lot of pain.”
Got it, Congressman. If you’re in enough pain, you can be openly bigoted.
The Times does document Democrats resorting to whataboutism (Why no resolution condemning Trump?), “it’s not the worst thing,” the race card, the gender card, and the Muslim card to force Pelosi and the Democratic leadership to avoid directly condemning the metastasizing anti-Semitism in its ranks. Others resorted to logical fallacies like The Straw Man: “What would be the appropriate level of punishment — a public flogging?” Representative Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, asked.
The Democratic Party is so choked with competing tribal priorities and is groveling to so many groups demanding special treatment that it can’t even manage to condemn the vilest form of hate and discrimination human civilization has ever seen.