Unethical Quote Of The Month: Karine Jean-Pierre

This is great huminahumina even for the President’s paid liar. Asked directly about growing evidence that President Biden and his family benefited financially from black sheep son Hunter’s influence peddling, Jean-Pierre blathered,

“So, look, uh, you know, um, there’s — there’s some — a little bit of, uh, interesting, uh, you know, kind of, on-brand, uh, thinking here, because, um, you know, congressional Republicans, uh, ran, uh, saying that they were going to fight inflation. Uh, they said they were gonna make that a priority. They were very clear about that these past, uh, several months, and instead, what they’re doing is they’re focusing, uh — you know, they’re focusing — they’re making their top, top priority — they get the majority, and their top priority is actually not focusing on the American families but focusing on the President’s family.”

Wow. It was such an obvious deflection that she might as well have begun by saying, “I’m now going to avoid this issue completely because I don’t have a good response for it.” It’s also an ineffective deflection. This is condign justice, and self-inflicted by Biden: the U.S. President who most desperately needed a competent, articulate, quick-thinking press secretary is burdened by the most inarticulate, dull-witted individual in the position ever. She was hired because she would be “historic”—first black, foreign-born lesbian, or something—but those features are completely irrelevant to the job. “Most flagrantly incompetent White House mouthpiece” is a genuine historic accomplishment, especially when one considers some of Karine’s predecessors like Sean Spicer and Joe Lockhart. I have a fertile imagination, but I cant conceive of how any press secretary could be worse than Karine. There are more articulate and persuasive mimes.

It’s wonderful, don’t you think, that the President can’t possibly fire her?Jean-Pierre’s sad effort pushed aside what was originally going to be the title to this post: “My Elephant Analogy is Netter Than Prof. Turley’s Elephant Analogy!” The increasingly red-pilled professor headlined an excellent post about how the mainstream media continued to pretend evidence of Biden complicity in his son’s schemes this way: “What Elephant? AP Denies that There is Any Evidence That Joe Biden Discussed Hunter’s Business Dealings.” As regular readers here know, “What Elephant?” is the Mark of Jumbo, the Ethics Alarms category reserved for desperate denials of what anyone can see is true. Turley’s elephant metaphor comes from Harry Houdini’s most famous non-escape artist trick, making an elephant disappear, and was triggered by the Associated Press statement, “Joe Biden has said he’s never spoken to his son about his foreign business, and nothing the Republicans have put forth suggests otherwise.”

But neither the AP nor all the other Democratic Party accomplices in Big Tech, social media and the mainstream media have ever been able to make the “elephant” disappear. (Houdini’s elephant was never there in the first place, you know.) The blogging professor points this out:

At the outset, the media only had to suspend any disbelief that the president could fly to China as Vice President with his son on Air Force 2 without discussing his planned business dealings on the trip.

Of course, the emails on the laptop quickly refuted this claim. However, the media buried the laptop story before the election or pushed the false claim that it was fake Russian disinformation.

President Biden’s denials continued even after an audiotape surfaced showing President Biden leaving a message for Hunter specifically discussing coverage of those dealings. The call is specifically referring to these dealings:

“Hey pal, it’s Dad. It’s 8:15 on Wednesday night. If you get a chance just give me a call. Nothing urgent. I just wanted to talk to you. I thought the article released online, it’s going to be printed tomorrow in the Times, was good. I think you’re clear. And anyway if you get a chance give me a call, I love you.”

But who are you going to believe, the media or your own ears?

You just described a Jumbo, professor, not “a Houdini.” In fact, it’s a Jumbo in a Jumbo, as so many Borg-like Democrats still insist there is no mainstream media bias.

32 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Month: Karine Jean-Pierre

  1. “ ‘I’m now going to avoid this issue completely because I don’t have a good response for it.’ ”

    Or as the inimitable Delbert McClinton would say: If You Can’t Lie No Better Than That, You Might As Well Tell The Truth

  2. I have two thoughts on this response:

    1) “huminahumina” would have been more articulate; and
    2) She really could have done better if she had studied Trump’s method of speaking extemporaneously.


    • Repetitious unfacile lying and deflecting has its own unique tarnish.
      She isn’t cute anymore and wearing a mop on her head does not help.

      • I will respectfully ask you what I asked Arthur in Maine: why the dig at looks? It’s well established that she is a liar. Why the need to include her appearance? It adds nothing to your argument except to highlight your need to go after woman for the way she looks.

        This happens often on this blog by the male commentators. As someone who reads way more often than I post, please don’t do this. I appreciate all of the contributions here and I learn so much. Commenting on a woman’s appearance as if it has something to do with her character immediately puts a post on the discount shelf; in my view.

        Don’t discount yourself. Your input is important.

        Thanks for reading.

        • Yup. AIM knows better.Thanks…volunteer moderation is always appreciated.
          Question: what’s your position on fashion criticism? Looking presentable and professional, and dressing in good taste is part of the obligation of prominence, influence and leadership. I see a lot of mockery of Jill Biden, who, it must be said, wears some of the most hideous outfits a First Lady ever has appeared in. Melania Trump was criticized, it seems, no matter what she wore, and she looks good in Hefty Bag with head and limb holes. I assume some of the conservative media’s criticism of Jill is tit-for-tat; on the other hand: Really?

        • Alicia,
          It appears your defensiveness has you missing the point of my comment.
          She is a well-paid unqualified lying Lefty and quite frankly in my world virtually everything for them is fair game. Her cuteness is one reason she got the job and she is making a bold statement with her hair style. She obviously likes it. Not only do I not like it but it is ugly and makes her look immature, ratty, and certainly less serious in her position. Someone should alert her to this keen perspective, but who wants to lose their job after being labeled a sexist racist for pointing out the obvious.

          The last six years of disgusting and highly destructive dem behavior has admittedly skewed my ethics so when it comes to a blog comment; I will say things only reserved for certain proglibots, female, male, or anything in between.

          I do genuinely appreciate that you took the time to share your perspective and reaction to my comment, and you did it so nicely. Thank you.

          • Perhaps, but I’m not so sure. I’m a curly headed woman; Shirley Temple curly. The struggle is real. Am I’m not dealing with black hair.

            Men have the advantage of few choices: a $15 haircut, a moderately priced suit, and matching socks. But those choices never seem to be used again a man when commenting on his behavior.

            • And further, I keep my hair pixie short in order to keep my curls under control and look professional. Do you know what I get in response? “There’s nothing to grab.” Yup. No winning.

              • From the 11/16 Fetterman post:

                Jack said: “No doubt about it, Fetterman is hideous”

                “That face has lived in my nightmares ever since I first saw it in the fifth grade” referencing Thaddeus Stevens.

                “Tommy Lee Jones played Stevens in ‘Lincoln,’ the only time in his career that Jones was too good looking for a role.”

                “His looks, alarming as they are” referencing Fetterman.

                All good stuff AND FUN to read. Perhaps I am special that way.

                Isn’t there a profound difference between criticizing a prominent individual’s looks, dress, speech, etc. on a blogsite and doing so in a professional capacity while writing for an official news publication?

                • Was I criticizing his looks? I was just stating facts in a context in which these appearance issues are relevant: that is, whether the individuals are attractive or not. There’s nothing unethical about stating facts: Rush Limbaugh was fat. Elie Mystal has ridiculous hair that makes it harder to take him seriously. Robert Reich is shockingly short. But writing, “That shrimp Robert Reich argues…”—Now that’s an ad hominem attack, and a cheap shot. Reich’s height is irrelevant to what he does or says. Saying out loud in a forum what cannot be denied isn’t criticism, because it’s not an opinion or an attack. Fetterman knows he’s hideous; if not, he really is brain damaged.

              • Grab? Why would anyone even talk about grabbing? You never “grab” any woman’s hair unless you are saving her from drowning. I’m partial to women with long hair, partially because all these classical crossover singers I’m a fan of wear it long (in many cases super long), but a few of them clued me in to all the maintenance that goes with long hair, so I don’t blame a woman if she doesn’t want to be bothered with all that. You do you, Alicia.

      • I didn’t find her performance at all remarkable. It was simply standard issue talking point misdirection. Get asked a question about corruption, respond with the “We’re working for America’s working families!” An absolutely textbook Dem non-response. Dog bites man stuff.

  3. You get the government you elect. This country knew damn well what it was getting, but elected him anyway, as well as everything that goes with him. Better than mean tweets, endless accusations of -phobia, and being beaten over the head with January 6, right? This country also knew damn well the choices it made leading up to this election, and far too many made the choice to put up candidates who were out of their minds against those who were simply out of touch.

    This site was of the opinion at one point that it would be better to elect Hillary than Trump, because (oversimplifying) the damage Hillary could do would not be as bad. This last time out a lot of folks, having seen Trump in action, decided it was better to elect Biden than to give Trump four more years. So here we are, and here we may well be again next term if the GOP can’t unite. More people would rather have a clueless president with messed up priorities than one perceived as crazy, no matter what he delivers. So, we get these appointees, and we’re stuck with them. But did I mention there are no more mean tweets? BTW, Trump is back on Twitter. Jack Dorsey can eat shit.

  4. It is beyond incompetence that she isn’t better prepared for questions like this. How is it possible that the White House press operation isn’t anticipating questions about major news stories and preparing better answers in advance? What is that ridiculous fucking binder of hers for, if it doesn’t contain professionally-penned stock answers to obvious, easily anticipated questions?

    Yes, pre-written answers would be just as useless and unedifying, but at least the representative of the President would sound less like a blathering idiot.

    It’s getting harder and harder to blame all of this stuff on incompetence and stupidity. There must be dozens, if not hundreds, of people who work for the White House press office. Not one of them thought that someone might ask about this topic and jotted down a semi-coherent evasion? They just sent her out there to babble like a four-year-old caught drawing on the wall with a crayon? As a one-time occurrence, maybe that’s ineptitude. But this happens almost every week.

    It’s almost as if the people who are running the show are rubbing our noses in it. “Yeah, we know you can tell she’s an idiot. We don’t care, and you can’t do anything about it. Fuck you, peons!” It really is starting to feel like the frustration and infuriating nature of the whole exercise is the point, like it’s intended to be demoralizing and destabilizing. If it is, it’s working.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.