Ooooh, I would fire Brennan for this if I were in charge of CBS news.
Brennan tried to cross-examine Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on last weekend’s “Face the Nation” about his stance on the 2020 election. “Back in 2021, you were the lawmaker who circulated the legal brief known as the “Texas Amicus Brief [actually Texas v. Pennsylvania] challenging the 2020 election outcome in a number of states,” Brennan stated, “which by CBS editorial standards makes you an election denier.”
“That’s nonsense,”Johnson replied, and when Brennan said: “Can I get you on the record on that?,” he continued, “I’ve always been consistent on the record. Did you read the brief? Did you get a chance to read what we filed with the Supreme Court?”
Her shocking answer, a veritable huminhuminhumina if ever there was one:”Well- I have read extensively some criticisms of that…”
Oh! She read some criticisms of the brief by her biased, propagandist colleagues, so that was sufficient preparation, she believed, to call someone who supported the brief’s arguments an “election denier.” That’s like using a book review to write a book report on a book you never read.
“You read commentary, but not what we submitted to the court,” Johnson said, being kinder than Brennan deserved. The exchange belongs in the “Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias!” Hall of Shame.
The brief was eventually turned away by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds, because Texas had no standing to file it. The brief, which I have read, did not “deny” Joe Biden’s election. It argued that Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin violated the United States Constitution by changing election procedures through non-legislative means, which, in fact, they all had done in response to the pandemic hysteria. The suit sought to temporarily withhold the certified vote count from these four states prior to the Electoral College vote on December 14, 2020. It did not claim that Biden did not win the election. Legal experts who are consistently left-leaning in their “independent judgment” called the brief an attempt to overturn the election, which it was not; legal experts who manage to be more circumspect, like Alan Dershowitz, found it to be creative but almost certainly hopeless because of multiple procedural barriers.
If Brennan was going to use the brief to attack the Speaker, she was obligated to have read it as well to research the law involved. Her bias and incompetence was on display for all to see. It was a firing offense-level performance. No viewer can trust her after that, unless it is to trust her to be partisan hack.
Meanwhile, it is notable that CBS’s definition of “election deniers”, as you can see in the network’s own graphic, can only include Republicans. Hillary Clinton didn’t “deny” that Trump’s election was illegitimate, she just has been saying for seven years that he cheated. Al Gore didn’t “deny” that he lost the 2000 election; he just says to this day that the Supreme Court stole the Presidency from him, and so do millions of Democrats, according to various polls. None of the Democrats in Congress who rejected, or sought to avoid certifying the results of the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections, qualify as “deniers”: neither does Democrat Stacy Abrams, who refused to concede her loss in the Georgia governor’s election in 2018, and has claimed at various times that she won, that the election was rigged, that it was illegal, and that it was unfair. She filed a suit in Georgia similar to the Texas amicus brief, in fact.
But Abrams is not an election “denier,” because she’s a Democrat.
Ethics Alarms 
It is not hypocrisy; it is heirarchy.
This is not surprising to me at all. It’s the job of the media to inform the public; therefore, it is the responsibility of every reporter to familiarize himself or herself with the facts of the matter, not just load up on opinions.
The average American citizen can load up on opinions all day. What we need as a country are facts.
If she cannot be bothered to read what she is asking questions about, she shouldn’t be reporting on this or interviewing anyone about it.
I suspect, though, that this is standard operating procedure for most so-called journalists now. Don’t actually read the brief, the SCOTUS ruling or the pending legislation, but memorize Democratic Party talking points instead.
This is why it is essential that the Republicans have candidates and officials who can articulate what the facts really are and call unprepared interviewers on it.
Once, I thought the flagrant obliviousness of the left to their glaring hypocrisy was a matter of self-awareness, or in their case, a lack thereof.
Then I realized that reasoning was an application of Hanlon’s Razor, which I have long since determined is inapplicable to the Left. This is just one more example of why.
The Left are no longer concerned about hypocrisy except as it applies to their political enemies, and they are completely shameless about it — it’s not self-awareness, but a premeditated strategy.
The fact of Brennan’s odious lack of preparation was that strategy — she doesn’t have to fear being held accountable by anyone that matters to her if she cites the thinnest possible justification for her charge, because Republicans are self-evidently evil and Democrats self-evidently good.
Ah, confirmation bias; a beautiful, effortless license to ignore ethics and demagogue your enemies. They don’t need actual facts, only accusations they believe represent “their truth”.
“Denier” carries more than a hint of religious zealotry, doesn’t it? You’re a heretic if you don’t adhere to the sacred narrative.
I’ve got a 500-gallon tank of their editorial standards buried in my backyard, and connected to a drain field.
Yes, procedure is way more important than the will of the American voters.
The brief sought to temporarily withhold the certified vote count from those states prior to the Electoral College vote…and “cast doubt upon its outcome and the integrity of the American system of elections.”
To assume these congressmen all of sudden cared about voting procedure (ironically only in states where Biden won) and weren’t actually trying to overturn the election is, honestly, an absurd notion.
As a side note, I love how the brief purports to care about election integrity and pretends to reallllly super care about state’s voting procedure (only after the laws were passed of course)…but they don’t care at all about potentially disenfranchising voters after they actually voted.
The time to file a suit about election procedure is before the actually election, not after votes are cast. “Unconstitutional ballots” is a oxymoron.
Funny.
You know that there was no time to file before the election, but even if there were, if there is a question about the legality of the election, it is not “election denial” to do it. I agree that once the votes have been counted, only a weird set of facts like the Florida mess in 2000 should delay the process, and that it is best for all to just accept the results and try to address the chicanery next time around. Nonetheless, the brief’s Hail Mary! was neither sinister nor an attempt to overturn anything. The fact that these issues were not resolved immediately is why distrust of the election process integrity has metastasized.
Whatever this is, it sure isn’t funny.
Let us not forget this.
https://mtracey.medium.com/the-most-predictable-election-fraud-backlash-ever-4187ba31d430
On the other hand, one of the main points of that brief was that there were no laws passed. The executive branch in those states just took it upon themselves to change the procedures without the legislature being involved.
Yes, the best time to file such things is prior to the election. However, my recollection is that in Pennsylvania, suits filed prior to the election were dismissed because there had been no harm done prior to the election. I could be wrong there, but I do recall something along those lines.
Regardless, appearance of impropriety was certainly present — and in a hypercharged atmosphere that can be all that’s needed. To try and gaslight us that mail in voting was somehow more secure than in person — that is just insulting and contrary to all the evidence and experience. For instance, how many European countries allow mail-in voting? Very few, because where done it has led to voter fraud.
Even without such examples, one has only to spend about 15 seconds of thought to realize mail in voting has built in security risks. I don’t know if there was fraud — there is no evidence of fraud, but you have to actually take a peek before you can find any evidence.
As far as disenfranchising voters — if you cannot be bothered to cast a proper, legal ballot I would assert that you have disenfranchised yourself. You have a right to vote, but you also have an obligation to follow the law.