Patterico's Pontifications


Open Thread

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:59 am

Tell me what is interesting, ’cause I’m not seeing it.

Robin Abcarian retweeted a sort of response from one of the old trolls here. I’ll handle that tonight or over the weekend.


L.A. Times Profile on Breitbart: Shocking

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 1:18 pm

Shocking, that is, because it seems mostly fair.

Breitbart, who has emerged as a star of the “tea party” movement, loves telling his apostate’s tale in the italicized, frequently profane manner that is his trademark. Three epiphanies stand out:

1. The Black Dorm Moment. In 1986, Breitbart was a freshman at Tulane University when his friend Larry Solov, a sophomore at Stanford, happened to mention his school’s African-American-themed residence hall.

“He just matter-of-factly said there was a black dorm and I was like, ‘What the friggin’ hell? Are you kidding me?'” said Breitbart, who is now business partners with Solov, a former corporate litigator. “And then, when I found out that it was not segregation in the sense of white people doing it, I was like, ‘What are you talking about? Why aren’t we working toward the colorblind ideal?'”

2. The Clarence Thomas Moment. In 1991, he was riveted by Supreme Court hearings in which the future associate justice was grilled by hostile Democrats.

“I remember the mainstream media telling me, ‘Bad man! Really bad man! Sexual harassment bad man! Worst-bad-man-in-the-history-of-the-world bad man!” he told a Philadelphia tea party rally in July. “By the end of the week, I said, ‘What did this man do? This man is an American hero!’ … It was a cavalcade of Caucasians asking this man about his very private video rentals!”

3. The Kurt Cobain Moment, around 1994. “In essence, the media was saying, ‘Hey, see that guy, that’s your generation’s spokesman,'” said Breitbart, not a fan of grunge music’s suicidal prince. “I was like, ‘This guy seems like a world class [screw-up].’ And I just started to have the awkwardly pedestrian revelation that my parents were right.”

Does the piece seek out quotes from a tool like Eric Boehlert, allowing him to smear Breitbart as dishonest without pointing out Boehlert’s penchant for dishonesty? Of course.

Does there seem to be a touch of elitist sneering in the piece? Sure. What did you expect?

But it’s really just a touch.

I spoke to Breitbart about the piece today, and he had little but praise for the reporter and her article. “Robin Abcarian did as fair a job as humanly possible,” he told me. “I hope she doesn’t lose her job over it.”


Participant in Past Smear of James O’Keefe to Do Profile of Breitbart

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 7:13 am

Everyone remember Robin Abcarian? She is the L.A. Times writer whose quotes from James O’Keefe were misrepresented by anti-Breitbart L.A. Times columnist James Rainey. When I queried her about it, she evaded my clear questions. When I called her on her evasions, she accused of a “prosecutorial attitude” and clammed up.

I think she would be the perfect person to do a profile of Andrew Breitbart for the L.A. Times, don’t you?

A little birdie tells me such a profile is in the works.

Funny how editors have decided that now is the right time for a profile. Since it will give them an opportunity to smear Breitbart over the Shirley Sherrod story once again.

Not that the paper is anything less than scrupulously fair when it comes to Breitbart. Oh, by the way, did you know that Shirley Sherrod has been “gracious” in the aftermath of her firing? It’s true! I read it in the L.A. Times! In a tearjerker about how locals in Albany, Georgia think she is the victim of racism, we actually see this actual line: “But for locals here, they still have the gracious example of Shirley Sherrod.”

Not mentioned: Sherrod’s ever-so-gracious statement that Breitbart “I think he’d like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he’s like to see all black people end up again.”


I wonder if this is the sort of evenhanded journalism that will be at work in the Breitbart profile.

Andrew, I have one piece of advice for you: record your interview. Unless you want to see pieces of the interview bubble up in distorted fashion in a future Rainey column.

I’m not kidding. It may sound like I am, but I’m not.


L.A. Times Columnist Fabricates Quote, Slandering Anti-ACORN Activist

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 6:34 pm

I knew he’d done it. All I had to do was prove it. Now I can.

Remember James Rainey? He’s the hapless L.A. Times columnist who told his readers that an L.A. ACORN worker had refused to help Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe with an underage prostitution ring. Trouble is, Rainey never contacted Giles or O’Keefe to verify the story. And when we learned that the ACORN worker had been eager to help Giles and O’Keefe, Rainey got enough egg on his face to make omelettes for a platoon of haughty Frenchmen.

Stung to the quick, Rainey wrote an ass-covering column that minimized his error, and said the following about O’Keefe:

So what sort of creature does this make O’Keefe? I don’t disagree with his observation in a previous interview with The Times that he follows the mold of filmmaker Michael Moore, using confrontation to get at his version of the truth.

O’Keefe adamantly denied this quote to me, calling it a “complete fabrication.” He told me that it was possible that he had mentioned Michael Moore in an interview with an L.A. Times reporter, But O’Keefe strongly denied telling anyone that he “follow[ed] the mold” of Moore, or that he “us[ed] confrontation to get at his version of the truth.” O’Keefe told me that he believed this alleged quote bordered on defamation, as Moore uses deceptive editing techniques to push his agenda, while O’Keefe does not.

I tracked down the original quote — and it appears James Rainey put a few words in James O’Keefe’s mouth. Here is what O’Keefe actually said, according to reporter Robin Abcarian:

I am in NY and trying to do these videos full time. A lot of them are undercover. Veritas Visuals, I can show you some links, did some investigation for, a parody up on YouTube. I want to be the conservative version of Michael Moore and Jon Stewart and Jackass and Trigger Happy TV. Combine those elements to promote the conservative agenda thru those means.

Rainey’s version unfairly rewrites the actual quote. O’Keefe never actually said that he “follows the mold” of Michael Moore to “us[e] confrontation to get at his version of the truth.” Rainey made it sound like O’Keefe admitted seeking something less than the full truth. But O’Keefe told me that he seeks the full truth and resents Rainey’s false implication that he admitted otherwise.

I asked O’Keefe why he mentioned Michael Moore and the others. He explained:

Michael Moore’s documentary films do a good job of interlacing music and b-roll in between interviews to tell a vivid story. Jon Stewart’s correspondents ask facetious or outrageous questions of interviewees. Jackass uses the shock factor, and Trigger Happy TV’s short videos are viral and entertaining.

My investigative videos do not “follow the mold” of Michael Moore’s distortions any more than they “follow the mold” of Jackass’s throwing oneself down stairs in a shopping cart. I meant to admire some of the qualities — cinematography and shock value, respectively — of each.

Rainey’s quote is not a fair paraphrase of O’Keefe’s words. It’s not what O’Keefe said, and it’s not what he meant. It’s a fabrication, pure and simple.

I have been a recent victim of a dishonest person who tried to put words in my mouth. It’s infuriating and wrong. When it happens to others, I will fight on their behalf.

James Rainey put words in James O’Keefe’s mouth. He owes James O’Keefe a correction.


Following Up on the L.A. Times’s Double Standards on ACORN Reporting

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 12:43 pm

I have sent the following e-mail to L.A. Times reporter Robin Abcarian today:

Ms. Abcarian,

Last month I wrote you to ask if you would release your notes of your conversation with James O’Keefe for your article entitled, “Anti-abortion movement gets a new media twist?” published on April 26th, 2009. As you no doubt remember, James Rainey recently wrote a column citing your interview, in which Rainey made this statement:

So what sort of creature does this make O’Keefe? I don’t disagree with his observation in a previous interview with The Times that he follows the mold of filmmaker Michael Moore, using confrontation to get at his version of the truth.

Mr. O’Keefe absolutely denies that Mr. Rainey accurately set forth the context of this quote. He says that he never claimed that he followed the mold of Moore, using confrontation to “get at his version of the truth.”

When I asked you about this last month, you told me that Mr. O’Keefe could contact you if he felt that he had been misquoted. Mr. O’Keefe tells me that on December 1, he did indeed ask to see your notes — and that you promised to send him the quote the following day, December 2. Mr. O’Keefe tells me that you did not pass along the quote as you claimed you would. On December 7, Mr. O’Keefe tells me, he again asked you for your notes, to verify what he said about Michael Moore. To my knowledge, he has still not received the notes, or even your e-mailed statement regarding what the notes say.

This is an issue of whether The Times will comply with the same standards that Mr. Rainey claims are applicable to Mr. O’Keefe. Mr. Rainey’s column claimed that, because ACORN claimed that O’Keefe had taken their employees’ quotes out of context, O’Keefe needed to release all of his underlying source material to comply with journalistic principles. O’Keefe has released the full audio of his Los Angeles ACORN visit. Now O’Keefe claims that Mr. Rainey has taken his quotes out of context. By Mr. Rainey’s standards, the L.A. Times should release the underlying source material that relates to the quote Mr. Rainey claims O’Keefe gave you.

Sometime in the next 3-4 days I plan to write a year-end review of the Los Angeles Times. In the past, my year-end reviews have received links from numerous high-traffic blogs and are read by tens of thousands of readers. Rainey’s treatment of the ACORN scandal will likely play a prominent role in my upcoming piece.

As it stands, your paper appears to be refusing through inaction to substantiate the quote that Mr. O’Keefe denies having made. Can you tell me whether you plan to release your notes? All you would need to do is scan them in and send me the image. This way, you could comply with the standards that your media critic has deemed applicable to Mr. O’Keefe: namely, releasing source material when an interviewee claims that he has been misquoted or quoted out of context.

I look forward to your response.

Yours truly,

Patrick Frey

The background on this is here.

I’ll let you know what I hear back.


Rainey: O’Keefe Made That Statement . . . It Just Never Got Published. So You’ll Have to Trust Us on This One.; Update: Reporter Backs Rainey But Says She’s Not Sure If She Can Release Her Notes

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 11:07 am

James Rainey is now claiming that his quote from James O’Keefe — the one that there appears to be no record of — was never published, but was nevertheless made to an L.A. Times reporter. I posted about this yesterday in an update to the James Rainey post, but I think it deserves a new post with further elaboration.

As you will recall, Rainey’s column made this assertion:

So what sort of creature does this make O’Keefe? I don’t disagree with his observation in a previous interview with The Times that he follows the mold of filmmaker Michael Moore, using confrontation to get at his version of the truth.

O’Keefe told me this was a “complete fabrication.” Before publishing my post, I wrote Rainey asking for the source of the quote. He has not responded. But in a Twitter message sent to O’Keefe, Rainey has claimed that O’Keefe made the statement to L.A. Times reporter Robin Abcarian:

I’m sure you recall telling that to robin abcarian in your interview w her. She has a record of it.

Now, before we proceed, let’s just recall Rainey’s pronouncements about Giles and O’Keefe’s video sting at the Los Angeles office — the one that so badly embarrassed Rainey, who had naively swallowed the denials of the very woman featured on the video. Rainey defended himself by suggesting that, unless the full unedited video is made public, we just can’t know what transpired:

Who knows what we might find — either damaging or benefiting ACORN’s image — if we could see the unedited video of these encounters? The raw material could be posted on YouTube for all to see.

In e-mails to O’Keefe, Rainey has pressed the issue of releasing the full source documentation:

I don’t know what the full, unedited video would show, but I do know that it would help give a more thorough account of what happened. It’s unfortunate if you don’t intend to produce an unedited version.

Rainey repeated the theme in e-mails to Andrew Breitbart:

f you claim some fear of unfair treatment, why not release the full, unedited video more broadly–perhaps via YouTube–so that anyone who takes an interest in the matter can. Greater transparency would be a plus.

Keep in mind that commitment to full transparency and release of all source documentation.

Getting back to Rainey’s claim that O’Keefe compared himself to Michael Moore in a conversation with Robin Abcarian, I note that Abcarian’s story has no trace of it — so Rainey must be talking about something she didn’t publish. Since Rainey is demanding O’Keefe’s unedited video, I think we need to see Abcarian’s unedited notes. Yesterday, I first sent Rainey a Twitter message requesting that. No response. I then sent the following e-mail to Abcarian:

Ms. Abcarian,

I see James Rainey is claiming you as the source of the comment James O’Keefe allegedly made comparing himself to Michael Moore. I note that the quote did not appear in your article, so Rainey must be referring to rough notes of your interview.

Can you verify Rainey’s claim, and would you be willing to release your unedited notes of the conversation — as Rainey has demanded O’Keefe release unedited video of his ACORN visits?

Yours truly,

Patrick Frey

So far, no response. Also, I have just written Rainey with this request:

Mr. Rainey,

Since I know you are a fan of transparency, and of the concept of releasing all source documentation underlying a piece of journalism, I am writing to request that you release all of your notes of your conversations with Lavelle Stewart.

Also, I am writing to request a correction of your claim that James O’Keefe compared himself to Michael Moore. I can find no public record of that. If you have some private record of it — or if you claim to know someone who has a private record of it — then I am requesting the public disclosure of the full documentation of that as well. Greater transparency would be a plus, as I’m sure you would agree.

Patrick Frey

Next stop, the Reader’s Representative.

If they think I’m going to let this simply drop, they don’t know me. And if they try to get by with a mere assertion that O’Keefe made the statement — when they’re demanding full unedited video from Breitbart and Giles and O’Keefe — then they’re utter hypocrites.

I’ll keep you fully informed of any responses I get.

P.S. While I support the concept of making the full unedited video public, Rainey is dreaming if he thinks it would provide any context that would justify this:

It’s plenty clear that she is offering help to the would-be operators of a child prostitution ring. In other words, there is proof that Lavelle Stewart offered to help Giles and O’Keefe, thus making James Rainey look like a fool. So far, there is absolutely no proof that O’Keefe ever compared himself to Michael Moore — just an implication in a Twitter message penned by someone whose track record for fairness is checkered, to say the least.

P.P.S. I’m not yet done with Rainey’s latest column. It has other elements of dishonesty — so many they won’t all fit in one post.

UPDATE: Abcarian writes to say that Rainey is correct — but that she is not sure if she can release her notes. I just replied:

When can you give me a definitive answer as to whether you can publicly release your notes of the conversation? Mr. Rainey seems to think that when two sides dispute whether a statement was made, and in what context, the best way to resolve the issue is to release the source documentation. That would seem to apply here, no?

By the way, I wonder how it is that Rainey is looking at Abcarian’s notes on O’Keefe — yet he’s unable to contact O’Keefe in the same manner that she did (contact him through Facebook). Rainey seems more intent on investigating O’Keefe than on getting his side, doesn’t he?


James Rainey Digs Himself an Even Deeper Hole

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 11:57 am

The first rule of holes is: stop digging. Today, James Rainey, the egg still fresh on his face, is digging furiously, with a column titled Guerrilla stings of ACORN don’t meet standards of journalism.

Where to start? How about with the part Rainey apparently made up:

So what sort of creature does this make O’Keefe? I don’t disagree with his observation in a previous interview with The Times that he follows the mold of filmmaker Michael Moore, using confrontation to get at his version of the truth.

In an e-mail, O’Keefe told me that Rainey’s statement is a “complete fabrication” that “borders on defamation as Moore uses apparent fancy cutting and pasting to make subjects look bad.” O’Keefe says Rainey’s statement “warrants a correction.”

And indeed, a search of the L.A. Times‘s archives reveals exactly one piece that uses the terms “Michael Moore” and “O’Keefe.” That would be Rainey’s column from today:

Rainey Lie Documented

I have written Rainey to ask for a link to the source of this alleged quote, but as far as I can tell, the source is Rainey’s nether hind region. If he documents otherwise, I will let you know.

In the same column where he has seemingly made up a quote from O’Keefe, Rainey insults O’Keefe, haughtily proclaiming of Giles’s and O’Keefe’s stings: “sorry folks, please don’t call this journalism.” Rainey then whitewashes the nature of Lavelle Stewart’s statements of her willingness to aid and abet Giles’s and O’Keefe’s purported underage prostitution ring. Here it’s worth quoting Rainey at length. Note how he begins by portraying himself as the victim:

Alinsky recommended, among other things, relentless and persistent attacks on an enemy, giving no quarter, with the “conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”

I’ve managed to get caught up in such a drumbeat myself in recent days by suggesting in that September column that the video stings couldn’t be fully understood without more context.

Poor baby. No, you embarrassed yourself by uncritically reporting an ACORN worker’s assertions without checking with Breitbart, Giles, or O’Keefe.

I provoked particular wrath by writing about the videographers’ visit to another ACORN office in L.A., quoting Lavelle Stewart, a fair housing coordinator there who told me she had not offered any direct assistance to the “prostitute.”

Stewart said back then that she tried to redirect the young woman — who described being abused by her pimp — to a neighboring agency that helps the victims of violence.

The latest video, taken during an August visit to the ACORN office on South Grand Avenue, shows Stewart guiding Giles toward a door down the hall from ACORN, labeled Program for Torture Victims, an agency that focuses on aiding the victims of state-sponsored terror but that maintains a referral list for other abuse victims.

But that’s not all the video shows. It also shows an apparently untroubled Stewart listening to the undercover duo’s unsavory and inappropriate schemes. At one point, the ACORN worker suggests that Giles might seek a business arrangement with porn magnate Larry Flynt. At another, responding to O’Keefe’s query, Stewart seems to puzzle over how he might hide the source of his “girlfriend’s” prostitution income.

“Seems to puzzle over”? Mr. Rainey, it goes much further than that, as you well know. As O’Keefe said to me: “her willingness to do independent research to help us get our underage prostitution business started was not mentioned in Jim’s column.”

Watch the video. Giles and O’Keefe tell Stewart that they are trafficking in 14- and 15-year-old girls as prostitutes, and that O’Keefe might want to use the profits to find a political campaign — but he doesn’t want to have a paper trail. Stewart specifically offers to do “research” for the couple on that issue: “That’s the research that I would have to do, to find out how we could do that, without it being so in the open. There are ways, people do it all the time.” This active offer to help goes beyond Rainey’s watered-down portrayal — and contradicts her assertion to Rainey that she offered no assistance.

Rainey continues:

When I called Stewart to ask why she would offer such suggestions, she said that the duo kept persisting and that she had groped for a way to satisfy them enough to get them to leave.

Viewers of the video will doubtless reach varying conclusions about Stewart’s credibility and the dynamics in the office that day. But, clearly, the new video helped reinvigorate the campaign of embarrassment.

Ah, but Mr. Rainey. You asked Lavelle Stewart in September if Giles and O’Keefe had declared that they were running an underage prostitution ring — and if she had offered to help them. She told you she had not — but in fact, she had. And you would have learned that if you had simply contacted Giles, O’Keefe, or Breitbart. Speaking of which:

I regret that I didn’t get through in September when I tried to obtain O’Keefe’s response to Stewart’s comments. He said he didn’t receive the e-mail I sent via the website that posts his videos.

This is laughable, and Rainey’s claim that he tried to contact O’Keefe is suspect. Nobody at can find any evidence of the alleged attempted contact. Rainey didn’t say in his column that he tried to contact O’Keefe, which is what journalists usually do when they try to contact someone. And when he did a hatchet job on Jill Stewart, Rainey didn’t try to contact her. These facts cast doubt on Rainey’s claim to have contacted O’Keefe.

But even if we were to accept at face value his claim to have tried, his method of attempting to contact O’Keefe was pathetic. Rainey is on Twitter (@LATimesRainey) and so is O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII). You want to know how hard it is to find O’Keefe on Twitter? Put in “James O’Keefe” into the search box and he is the top result. And yes, O’Keefe was on Twitter back in mid-September, when Rainey wrote his column. O’Keefe also forwarded me an e-mail from L.A. Times writer Robin Abcarian back in March 2009. She reached him on Facebook!

Amazing, the ways there are to contact people . . . when you really want to.

Either Rainey is lying, he is incompetent, or he didn’t really want to get O’Keefe’s side.

Rainey owes us a link to O’Keefe’s comparison of himself to Michael Moore — or he owes O’Keefe a correction. He owes his readers a column that doesn’t whine and whitewash the facts.

And Big Media owes the public an investigation of ACORN. But if Rainey’s column sets the standards for “journalism” in Big Media, then don’t hold your breath.

UPDATE: This is rich. Rainey is apparently claiming that O’Keefe made the statement to an L.A. Times reporter — it just wasn’t published. Here is his Twitter message to O’Keefe sent moments ago:

I’m sure you recall telling that to robin abcarian in your interview w her. She has a record of it.

Well, Abcarian’s story has no trace of it — so Rainey must be talking about something she didn’t publish. Since Rainey is demanding O’Keefe’s unedited video, I think we need to see Abcarian’s unedited notes. I have sent Rainey a Twitter message requesting that, and will be contacting Abcarian as well.

UPDATE x2: More on Rainey’s defense in this post.


The LAT’s Inconsistent Treatment of Stories Highlighting the Candidacy of HRC

Filed under: General — WLS @ 4:30 pm

Posted by WLS: 

A couple weeks ago Patterico took the Dog Trainer to task for its pratically hagiographic article on Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and her near-flawless performance as a candidate in this election cycle, while he noted that the author and editors buried all the critical passages about her to a portion of the story that ran after the jump to an inside page. 

This story today does not appear on the Front Page, and in the online table of contents it is listed under “Opinion.”  But it is written by Robin Abcarian, a Times Staff Writer.  How does that end up on an “opinion” page?

This article deals with the particularly newsworthy subject of Hillary’s problems in attracting the support of women much like herself — upper middle class, professional women who are “politically active Democrats, liberals, and many unabashed feminsts” according to the author. 

This article contains some shockingly harsh criticism of Hillary from well-known figures who have decided to back other candidates:

 In an essay in the November issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Caitlin Flanagan wrote that she was put off by Clinton’s “sanctimoniousness.” She wondered why “so many of the most liberal and educated women are ambivalent about Hillary?” Flanagan’s answer: By sticking with a husband who has mistreated vulnerable women — for the sake of her marriage, her child and her ambition — she has made herself complicit in his unsavory behavior, and diminished the very best parts of herself.

On the Huffington Post blog, Nora Ephron described “Hillary resisters” (and she is one) as women who disapprove of her tendency to triangulate, deplore her position on the Iraq war and “don’t trust her as far as you can spit.”

In the spring, University of Michigan communications studies professor Susan J. Douglas wrote an essay for the liberal journal In These Times called “Why Women Hate Hillary.” And in an interview with LA Weekly last May, Jane Fonda called Clinton “a ventriloquist for the patriarchy with a skirt and a vagina.”

My first reaction upon reading it online was to give the LAT some credit for running the article, and seeking out the harshly negative quotes. 

But when I looked at the online depiction of today’s Front Page, I didn’t see the story there, even though there is a Campaign 08 story about Romney’s speech. 

Romney’s speech was more akin to the “campaign event of the day” and not a lenghty piece that took some time to report like the HRC story.  

Can someone verify where in the LAT print edition this story appeared?  Was it on the OpEd pages of the Metro section?

 Update:  After refreshing the story a couple times and looking around the LAT site for a page number reference — which I still haven’t found — the article now appears in the “National Politics” section. 



Ted Cruz to DOJ: The American People Deserve Better

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:48 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Senator Ted Cruz does not take things lying down. Most recently, we have seen him here , here, and here bluntly and forthrightly speaking his mind. Some might even call it rocking the boat. So, it should be no surprise that last week when the DOJ denied his request that a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate an abuse of power by the IRS and their targeting of conservative groups, he came out swinging,

It is the height of hypocrisy for the Obama Administration to claim that the investigator leading the investigation into the IRS’s illegal program has no conflict of interest. The investigator is a partisan Democrat who has donated over six thousand dollars to President Obama and Democrat causes. Just as nobody would trust John Mitchell to investigate Richard Nixon, nobody should trust a partisan Obama donor to investigate the IRS’s political targeting of President Obama’s enemies. Sadly, “in the discretion of the Attorney General,” Eric Holder has chosen to reject the bipartisan tradition of the Department of Justice of putting rule of law above political allegiance.

Both Nixon Administration Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Clinton Administration Attorney General Janet Reno appointed special prosecutors whose integrity was beyond reproach; Eric Holder should do likewise. To date, nine months after a damning Inspector General report, nobody has been indicted, many of the victims have not even been interviewed, and Lois Lerner has twice pleaded the Fifth. And yet the Attorney General refuses to allow a genuine–and impartial–investigation.

The integrity of the Department of Justice deserves better. The American people deserve better.

Also, last week in a penned Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Republican congressman from Ohio, Jim Jordan, seconded the request for a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS. In a nice turn, he used Democratic Senator Elijah Cummings’ own words to fortify his request,

When Congress is thwarted in our attempts to get answers—as is clearly the case given Ms. Lerner’s willingness to speak with the Justice Department but not to the public’s elected representatives—we have an obligation to hold accountable those hiding the facts.

Additionally, it is necessary to appoint a special prosecutor. Mr. Holder called the IRS matter “outrageous and unacceptable” and ordered a Justice Department investigation to be conducted in coordination with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. No one can have confidence in this investigation, started by a politically appointed attorney general and led by a campaign contributor to his boss.

As Elijah Cummings, my Democratic colleague on the Oversight Committee, said on May 22, 2013—the day of the committee’s first IRS hearing—getting the truth and restoring trust must be paramount. “This is more important than one election,” he explained. “The revelations that have come forward so far provides us with a moment pregnant for transformation; not transformation for a moment, but for generations to come and generations yet unborn.”

I hope Mr. Cummings and fellow members of his party will join me in acknowledging the time has come for the appointment of an independent and unbiased special prosecutor.

Most certainly, Jordan is not expecting a different response from the one Cruz received, yet it is heartening to see another elected official not let this go.

More boat rockers, please.



Susan Rice: I Have No Regrets Over Benghazi Statements

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:19 am

Of course not:

National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday that she has no regrets about comments she made in 2012 about the Benghazi attacks that killed two U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens.

Rice, who was then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said during numerous talk-show interviews after the incidents that an inflammatory anti-Muslim video appeared to have sparked the violence.

Speaking on “Meet the Press,” Rice acknowledged her statements turned out “not to be 100 percent correct,” but she said the mistake was not intentional and that the Obama administration did not try to mislead the American people.

She said that her Benghazi comments had not been a planned attempt to mislead, but a “spontaneous reaction” to a video of Mitt Romney criticizing the president. She closed by saying that if you like your doctor, you really can keep him — as people will soon see, now that Obama is ending the “era of austerity” that has dogged his presidency. (This entire paragraph is made up, but it could be real and nobody would blink.)

Everybody knows that she lied, and is lying about whether she lied. I think everyone knows the proof, but if you have forgotten, I laid it out at this link.

If you want to see video of David Gregory laying into Rice and dismantling her denial with a point-by-point rebuttal, crushing her arguments with a simple recitation of undeniable facts, you may view that video here.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2616 secs.