Quack Like a Duck?: Megyn Kelly and Howard Kurtz Laugh at Melissa Harris Perry’s Holder Interview

So, during a recent interview on her MSNBC show,  Melissa Harris Perry asked outgoing Attorney General to “quack like a duck.”

Did you hear about this? I’m guessing no, unless you happened to catch Megyn Kelly and Howard Kurtz laughing about it on Fox.

And you really have to see it to believe it.

Toward the end of the interview, the obsequious Perry told Holder, “you know we call you ‘The Duck’ in our land…You have a placid and even way of presenting, but you are just working for justice underneath.” 

She asked plaintively, “would you quack for us?”

“That was the most cringe inducing thing I’ve seen since Glosell Green was in the bathtub with Fruitloops before interviewing the president!!!” Kurtz laughed as he unshielded his eyes. “I thought she was going to get down on one knee and proclaim her undying love for Eric Holder!”

Megyn then did a perfect impersonation of Melissa Harris Perry saying; “Would you quack for us..” eliciting guffaws from Kurtz. “I’ve never seen anything like that. What was she doing?!”

“How humiliating for her, “Kelly added. “Does she know how much she humiliated herself?”

On a more serious note.

The DOJ continues to be horribly corrupt and ridiculous under Holder.

The Daily Caller: House Oversight Subcommittee DESTROYS DOJ Attorney:

An angry House Oversight Subcommittee blasted Attorney General Eric Holder’s representative Wednesday for coming terribly unprepared to testify at the committee hearing.

The angry attorney then proceeded to take his rage out on a Daily Caller News Foundation reporter, but more on that later.

The recipient of the tongue lashing? Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco. During questioning from House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Blanco admitted that he had not even read the Inspector General report that was a key part of the subcommittee’s meeting.

Six years in, members of this Regime don’t even pretend to give a shit. They are dug in, and will do whatever the hell they please. These oversight hearings are a pesky inconvenience they don’t even bother to prepare for.

 

Report: Tom Brokaw Wants Brian Williams Fired

This corroborates yesterday’s report from Variety that there have been voices within NBC who have told Williams to stop telling the chopper whopper.

According to the  NY Post Tom Brokaw “is out for blood.”

NBC’s most revered journalist is furious that Brian Williams is still in the anchor chair after he sheepishly admitted he hadn’t traveled on a helicopter hit by enemy fire.

“Brokaw wants Williams’ head on a platter,” an NBC source said. “He is making a lot of noise at NBC that a lesser journalist or producer would have been immediately fired or suspended for a false report.”

Brokaw, 74, was still the “Nightly News” anchor when Williams came back from his Iraq expedition — and an insider said he knew the story Williams later spouted was bunk.

“Tom Brokaw and [former NBC News President] Steve Capus knew this was a false story for a long time and have been extremely uncomfortable with it,” the source said.

NBC News execs had counseled him to stop telling the tale.

Even though NBC News execs are thus far standing by Williams – who in December signed his newest $10 million-per-year, five-year contract – this is looking increasingly bad for him.

Now there are reports that he made up some aspects of his Katrina coverage – including his contention that he caught dysentery by drinking flood water, and saw a body float by his hotel in the French Quarter.

Again, via the New York Post:

However, the The New Orleans Advocate noted that the French Quarter was not flooded and quoted a local health expert who did not recall anyone getting such a stomach ailment.

Williams recalled his bout with the bug in an interview with Tom Brokaw last year, when he said: “I accidentally ingested some of the floodwater. I became very sick with dysentery.”

The Advocate said a public health official never heard of people getting things like dysentery after the storm.

I consulted Wikipedia, and found this:

On September 6, E. coli was detected in the water supply. According to the CDC, five people died from bacterial infections caused by the toxic waters. The deaths appear to have been caused by Vibrio vulnificus bacteria, of the Cholera family.[90]

So that dysentery story does not seem far fetched to me. It could have happened.

Williams said also during an interview in 2006 that he saw dead bodies float past his window in the French Quarter.

“When you look out of your hotel window in the French Quarter and watch a man float by face down, when you see bodies that you last saw in Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and swore to yourself that you would never see in your country,” Williams said in 2006.

This was approximately one year after Katrina that he spoke of seeing a body floating by his hotel window.

Numerous sources say the French Quarter dodged the massive flooding that was experienced in other areas. Williams may have heard the story of floating bodies from Mayor Ray Nagin, who told CNN during the flooding:

“There are dead bodies floating in some of the water,” Nagin said. “The rescuers would basically push them aside as they were trying to save individuals.”

Nagin said that as of late Tuesday “a significant amount of water” is flowing into the bowl-shaped city and sections of the city now dry could be under 9 or 10 feet of water within hours.

80% of the city was flooded. CNN reported that the water was 20 feet deep in some places, and linked to video (no longer there) of “knee-deep and rising water in the French Quarter.”

You need at least 18 inches of water for a body to float …

Via The Hayride, here’s a pic of Williams standing in the French Quarter in his “waders” which seems like overkill given the amount of water he was standing in. There may have been some low dips in the road that filled up with a foot of water.

na_bw_TV_KATRINA_COVERAGE_t440

But he saw bodies floating in that?

The problem for Williams and NBC  is – after the chopper-whopper – everything the anchor has said in the past and will say in the future will be forever scrutinized. The man has a huge credibility problem.

Hat tip: Weasel Zippers for both of those stories.

More:

Oh wow….

Via Sooper Mexican: ANOTHER Brian Williams Katrina Fabrication in 2 Videos: Says He SAW a Suicide He Later Says He Only HEARD About:

 

 

Report: NBC Warned Brian Williams To Stop Telling Chopper Whopper

By now, you’ve surely heard about the Brian Williams’ “Chopper Whopper” story which has been dominating the news for the past 24 hours.

I think I may be the only blogger who hasn’t written about it, yet.

NBC Anchor Brian Williams has been telling people his helicopter was shot down in Iraq for several years and now he’s recanting, saying he “misremembered” the event.

Here is his original Dateline report from 2003 – which is apparently the accurate version. Some of the soldiers who were there, claim they didn’t see Williams during the “two harrowing nights” he claims he and his crew were stranded during the sand storm – but that doesn’t mean they weren’t there.

Somewhere along the line, his story morphed into something altogether else.

CNN has a timeline of how the story has changed over the years.

Stars and Stripes reporter Travis Tritten  broke the story after being contacted by annoyed soldiers who were there and know the truth.

NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams admitted Wednesday he was not aboard a helicopter hit and forced down by RPG fire during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a false claim that has been repeated by the network for years.

Williams repeated the claim Friday during NBC’s coverage of a public tribute at a New York Rangers hockey game for a retired soldier that had provided ground security for the grounded helicopters, a game to which Williams accompanied him. In an interview with Stars and Stripes, he said he had misremembered the events and was sorry.

Ace tried to explain Williams’ confusion:

Let me help you out here, Brian. You conflated one aircraft — one you were in — with another aircraft — one you were not in — not due to a “mistake” but due to an age-old reportorial practice called lying to advance an agenda.

The agenda here was dressing up a soft, delicate little boy into a the sort of iron-stubbled man who looks like he belongs on a battlefield.

So you lied. You claimed you were on one of the helicopters that took fire; no human being could ever confuse “Me” or “Not Me.”

Steven Wright makes just that joke — “The other day I was — wait, no, that was someone else.”

See, Brian, it’s funny because we know that confusion about “Me” versus “Not Me” is not possible, except in the insane.

So you lied, and over the years you’ve lied and lied again

Via Variety – it gets even worse for Williams.

“I would not have chosen to make this mistake,” Williams said in the interview with the military newspaper.  “I don’t know what screwed up in my mind that caused me to conflate one aircraft with another.” He also posted an apology on his Facebook page and offered similar sentiments during Wednesday night’s broadcast of “Nightly News.” The Iraqi incident took place before Williams took over the “Nightly News” anchor desk from Tom Brokaw in 2004.

What makes Williams’ admission worse, according to one person familiar with the situation, is that he had been counseled in the past by senior NBC News executives to stop telling the story in public. The advice, this person said, was not heeded.  One person familiar with current NBC News operations disputed that information.

Williams’ version of the story has never been allowed in NBC News programs, according to three people familiar with the unit. Indeed, in a March, 2003, episode of “Dateline,” Williams described the helicopter trip accurately. “On the ground, we learned the Chinook ahead of us was almost blown out of the sky,” he said while narrating a report.

Even sympathetic reporters admit that this story has done major damage to Williams’ credibility and his one minute, totally inadequate apology last night did little to repair the damage. Will Brian Williams still have a job at NBC after this weekend?

“Controversialized” Sharyl Attkisson Not Going Away Quietly (Video)

Screen-Shot-2015-01-06-at-6.08.54-AM

In an interview with John Sexton at Breitbart.com, former CBS reporter and Emmy Award winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson said she’s not going to go away quietly and let the Regime do to other Americans, what they did to her..

She announced on Monday she is suing the Department of Justice and the U.S. Postal service for allegedly hacking into her computers.

Sexton asked her about the lawsuit – of which there is more than one part – an administrative claim against the DOJ and the U.S. Postal Service and a separate lawsuit for a violation of her constitutional rights.

“What would be the remedy?” Sexton asked.

Attkisson: There are criminal implications to some of the allegations, but my attorney explained to me it would be up to the Department of Justice to bring criminal charges against itself. We don’t think that’s going to happen. So the only remedy we have is probably the civil aspect, which would be financial, monetary damages. And if there’s no monetary damages listed in the lawsuit, that would be because they don’t require it up front as they did for the administrative claim. Just from our viewpoint, and I’ve discussed this with at length with my attorney, our goal is public awareness, getting some answers, getting at the truth and making it a little harder for this to happen to somebody else in the future.

I put in bold the saddest, and most tragic part of this whole thing. Our Department of Justice is so gut-wrenchingly criminally corrupt – it can and will commit criminal acts against fellow Americans, and as long as the media refuses to hold them accountable, their crimes will go uninvestigated and largely unnotied.  The Obama administration can engage in as much criminal activity as they want and the media will let them. The MSM as a whole (a few individual reporters excepted) has done an amazing job “looking the other way” for the past six years and they have no problem throwing one of their own under the bus  to protect President Boyfriend’s agenda to fundamentally transform America. In the unlikely chance a Republican is elected in 2016, they’ll start (over)doing their jobs again.

I think back to the Bush administration when then Attorney General John Ashcroft was savaged by the media because the Justice Department decided to hide the statue of a naked Lady Justice behind curtains during speeches and other events. The official reason was that  the curtains were meant to improve the Great Hall’s backdrop for televised events, but critics viciously derided Ashcroft for being an unsophisticated prude. The ridicule that poor man endured. StatueGate was the big DOJ controversy of the day.

In 2005, Bush’s second Attorney General Alberto Gonzales thought he’d make friends with the media by removing the curtains, making the naked statue visible during public events, again. A lot of good that did him.

When Gonzales fired eight DOJ attorneys in 2006, Democrats had a massive hissy fit and an out-of-control media firestorm ensued.  Mind you – Clinton canned 93 attorneys within the first week or two of his inauguration in 1993. But because this was a Republican administration, the nontroversy stayed in the news until Gonzales was hounded out of office.

The Democrat media complex knows how to get results when they want to.

Incidentally, the Obama DOJ went back to the practice of covering up Lady Justice in January of 2014, but hardly anyone noticed. Moreover, in Holder, we have an attorney general who refuses to fire bad prosecutors even those “whose intentional or reckless prosecutorial misconduct has been confirmed in court.”  (Why is he still there?)

Holder lets militant black power groups like the New Black Panthers run wild throughout the land threatening white people, lies to Congress about smuggling weapons to drug cartels, works with the IRS to target conservative groups, spies on journalists’ telephone calls,  hacks at least one investigative journalists’ computers and spies on her with Skype. And the media’s reaction to all this is to roll their eyes and look at their watch. OMG. Whatever!

An effort to “controversialize” Attkisson’s allegations about the breach of her computers has been underway for some time.

I also just think the whole dynamic I find very strange, to keep all of the skepticism on anything I or my experts say and none of it on those, whoever they may be, who actually did the intrusion. There’s no outrage about the intrusion. You don’t see these same reporters saying, how could this happen in America? Instead, they say: how dare you say these things happened to you.It’s the craziest dynamic really.

Well it’s not like the the DOJ covered up a nude statue with a curtain, or anything. Oh wait – that’s right – they did do that..

Attkisson had this to say about her attorney:

 I know my attorney spoke to one reporter and the reporter asked well, how are you getting paid? And he said I’m doing this on a contingency. Then the reporter said, you must think then that you’re going to win. And he said, I would do this regardless because this is such an important case. And then the reporter asked what’s your political affiliation? And he said, I’m a Democrat and I voted for Bill Clinton and I voted for Obama and I’m going to vote for Hillary but this is way more important than all of those things. And he said, based on the evidence he’d seen, this is the worst abuse that the government has done to a citizen in the 30 years he’s been practicing law. And he said he would take the case if he wasn’t paid at all to do it.

BN: Obviously, he’s seen all the documents.

Attkisson: Yeah. He’s the one that’s gathering everything… It’s going directly from the forensic experts to him and then to me.

BN: And he clearly believes this happened.

Attkisson: There’s no doubt in his mind. It may be an uphill battle but he said, and I agree with him, what we’re trying to do is just not go away quietly and let this happen to other people without it being challenged and answered to some degree.

Via Newsmax, Attkisson discussed her lawsuit against the Obama Administration over her computer hacking.

SEE ALSO,

Powerline’s interview of Ms. Attkisson.

and Powerline’s review of her book, Stonewalled: 

Disparagement of sources and reporters advancing the story via friendly bloggers and reporters. (Attkisson calls this technique “controversialization.”) Attkisson has been a prime subject of the technique of controversialization. She is speaking from personal experience recounted in the book. Attkisson singles out Media Matters as the prime mover of administration spin into the mainstream media. As Attkisson demonstrates, however, MM’s power derives from the complicity and cooperation of MM’s media allies, i.e., the Obama administration’s media allies.

• And then we have this (page 278): “Perhaps the greatest PR coup of all is that the administration’s expert spinners successfully lead the media by the nose down the path of concluding there’s no true controversy unless there’s a paper trail that lays blame directly on the president’s desk. Time and again, with each scandal and each damaging fact, Democrats and the White House read from the script that says ‘there’s no evidence President Obama knew’ or ‘there’s no evidence of direct White House involvement.’ Anything short of a signed confession from the president is deemed a phony Republican scandal, and those who dare to ask questions are crazies, partisans, or conspiracy theorists.”

• One more quote (also from page 278): “Under President Obama, the press dutifully regurgitates the line ‘no evidence of White House involvement,’ ignoring the fact that if any proof exists, it would be difficult to come by under an administration that fails to properly respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, routinely withholds documents from Congress, and claims executive privilege to keep documents secret.”

Fact-Checking the WaPo Fact-Checker

Last week, WaPo “factchecker”  Michelle Ye Hee Lee  examined Obama’s comments on the deaths of Mike Brown and Eric Garner, “with a focus on his statements from August, immediately after Brown’s death.”

The purpose was to factcheck former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s statement, “We’ve had four months of propaganda, starting with the president, that everybody should hate the police.”

Lee awarded Giuliani with 4 Pinnochios because “it turns out that none of Obama’s statements speak any ill of police officers or condone violence among those reacting to the deaths,” as if the president of the United States would say something openly hostile about the police, and openly encourage violence against them. What was she expecting to find? Obama saying, “Yo! it’s open season on the pigs”, or something?

No. Obama is much subtler than that.

Obama specializes in making butt-covering statements that he can point to when the SHTF.  For instance: the  “no acts of terror…” line at the end of the Rose garden speech regarding Benghazi on 9/12/2012. Yeah, he and his minions focused like a laser beam on the YouTube video for three weeks, but when the YouTube video narrative fell apart, he was able to go back to that throw-away line and say that he was calling it a terrorist attack (not a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Mohammed YouTube video) from the very beginning.

Hence, we get the responsible sounding (and freaking obvious) statements like the one he made on August 14 following the initial looting and violence in the wake of the Michael Brown shooting, “there is never an excuse for violence against police, or for those who would use this tragedy as a cover for vandalism or looting.”

And in the same breath: “There’s also no excuse for police to use excessive force against peaceful protests, or to throw protesters in jail for lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights.  And here, in the United States of America, police should not be bullying or arresting journalists who are just trying to do their jobs and report to the American people on what they see on the ground.  Put simply, we all need to hold ourselves to a high standard, particularly those of us in positions of authority.”

Hello Ms Lee? Police should not “use excessive force”, “should not be bullying” etc? That sounds like anti-police rhetoric coming from the Commander-in-Chief to me. Shouldn’t he have just told people to calm the hell down, respect the law and wait for justice to take its course so the police don’t have to look like they’re using “excessive force” as they try to control unruly crowds that are rioting or on the verge of rioting?

Rather than encourage people to stay home and trust in the justice system,  he gave credence to the fact-challenged hysteria that followed the Michael Brown shooting.

When the Ferguson Grand Jury rendered their decision, he said that the protesters’ uninformed rage was “understandable.” It wasn’t. The facts of the case never supported their false anti-cop narrative. Our nation’s first black president had an opportunity to defend the police and the rule of law, and he didn’t. The best he could muster were obvious statements like “there’s never an excuse for violence.”

As Lee actually noted in her 4 Pinnochio indictment of Giuliani, Obama had some “pointed criticisms” about the police during a December interview on BET, but declared, ‘it’s a stretch to characterize that as “propaganda” for everyone to “hate the police':

“The vast majority of law enforcement officers are doing a really tough job, and most of them are doing it well and are trying to do the right thing. (Of course he has to say that.)

Here comes the “pointed” part.

But a combination of bad training, in some cases; a combination in some cases of departments that really are not trying to root out biases, or tolerate sloppy police work; a combination in some cases of folks just not knowing any better, and in a lot of cases, subconscious fear of folks who look different — all of this contributes to a national problem that’s going to require a national solution.”

Ugh. Did the president really have to make those insulting and baseless assertions? When the nation’s first black president says that “in a lot of cases” police have a “subconscious fear of folks who look different,” does that encourage blacks to trust the police or discourage them from trusting the police?

How was that not anti-police  propaganda? 

propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Obama and Holder knew the facts early on. They knew about the surveillance video of the strong arm robbery (and suppressed it for as long as they could), they knew that eyewitnesses and forensic evidence refuted the hands up/don’t shoot narrative. Even so –  when he met with racial agitator Al Sharpton in the White House the day after the midterm elections, he said, “stay on course.”

That is what Giuliani had in mind when he said,  “He has had Al Sharpton to the White House 80-85 times. Often when he’s talking about police issues he has Al Sharpton sitting right next to him.. ..If you would like to have a poster boy for hating the police, it’s Al Sharpton. You make Al Sharpton a close advisor, you are going to turn the police in America against you.”

So Lee was back at it, today, with another factcheck – — on Giuliani’s assertion that Sharpton has been to the White House 80-85 times and is a “close advisor” to the president.

ORLY, we’ll see about that! harrumphed the WaPo Factchecker:

Giuliani said he took the high end of figures reported in Fox News, which ranged from 60 to 85 visits. The outlets reporting Sharpton’s visits used the White House visitors’ logs, so we looked at those figures. At first glance, there are 82 visits logged for Al Sharpton, Alfred Sharpton or Alfred C. Sharpton – all variations of Sharpton’s name.

After explaining that the the WH visitor database is “not a comprehensive list of all White House visits, and there are potentially thousands of visitors missing from it” Lee arrived at an exact number of 72 meetings anyway.

Of Sharpton’s 72 meetings:

  • One-on-one meetings: 5 (7 percent)
  • Meetings with staff members or senior advisers, with more than one guest: 20 (27 percent)
  • Events with more than 90 people: 16 (22 percent)
  • Miscellaneous meetings or events, ranging from 3 to 700 guests: 31 (43 percent)

Then she labored hard to debunk the idea that Sharpton (Obama’s Go-To Man on Race) is a “close advisor” to the president.

I suspect that Sharpton has become a political liability since the days White House officials were telling Politico “there’s a trust factor with The Rev from the Oval Office on down. He gets it, and he’s got credibility in the community that nobody else has got. There’s really no one else out there who does what he does.”

Now the lapdogs are striving hard to disassociate Sharpton from Obama.

Lee compared Sharpton’s visits to the White House to other Obama cronies who have visited the White House.

Giuliani connected Sharpton’s dozens of visits to the White House to what he described as Sharpton’s role as a “close adviser.” So we looked at the visitor log records of David Axelrod, an actual former White House senior adviser. Since Axelrod left the White House in January 2011, he had 28 official visits – and half of them were one-on-one meetings.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO who advises on labor policies, visited the White House 104 times since mid-2009, and 19 of the visits were one-on-one meetings. One-fifth of Trumka’s visits were meetings or events with 100 or more people. Matthew T. McGuire, former Citadel vice president and business liaison for the Commerce Department, visited the White House at least 250 times since 2011. Fifty of those visits were one-on-one meetings, and only 6 percent of his visits were meetings or events with 100+ people. Sharpton’s visits, in comparison, had far more ceremonial events and large-group gatherings.

***

We asked Sharpton if he had any meetings with the president after the deaths of Brown or Garner, or the assassination-style killings of two New York Police Department officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos. The only conversation he had with the president about Ferguson was at a public round table with other civil rights leaders, Sharpton said.

Lee gave Guiliani one Pinnochio for his assertions about Sharpton.

… to cite this number (80-85 WH visits) to show that Sharpton is a “close adviser” is an exaggeration — which earns Giuliani One Pinocchio.

Anyway, back to the Politico:

Eventually, Sharpton—often in consultation with Jarrett and Patrick Gaspard, the New York political operative who would go on to run the White House political office — carved out a unique role, defending Obama’s actions to black critics.

***

And the White House, as the crisis following Brown’s death seemed to flare out of control, worked extensively behind the scenes to maximize The Rev’s doing what he does, using him as both a source of information and a go-between.
Is it really an exaggeration to say that Al Sharpton is a close advisor to Obama on race relations? I don’t think so.
Linked by Maetenloch at Ace of Spades, thanks!

Video: The Worst of MSNBC 2014

Via those incorrigible rascals at Washington Free Beacon who actually seem to enjoy keeping an eye on the basket-cases at PMSNBC (so we don’t have to.)

Megyn Kelly told Jimmy Kimmel the other night that at the White House Christmas Party, there were a couple of other Fox News reporters (Brett Baier and Ed Henry) at the event, but the place was swarming with MSNBCers.

KIMMEL: Is there a separate section for Fox News where there’s no food and dirty forks or something like that?

KELLY: You mean there was something other than outside in the rain, others were, they were inside the building?

KIMMEL: Do you ever feel any kind of discomfort when you go into a situation like that?

KELLY: No, but it was funny because last night, we went in and I mean the White House looked beautiful. It was spectacular. And I was looking for some Fox News colleagues because this is for broadcast news. And I saw a couple, I saw Bret Baier, I saw Ed Henry, our Chief White House Correspondent. And then, boy, oh, boy did I see a lot of MSNBC anchors. I mean you couldn’t take two steps without hitting one.

KIMMEL: Oh really?

KELLY: I think they got a few more invitations than we got.

It only makes sense that the far-left, unpopular, activist network, would be the personal favorite of the far-left, unpopular, activist president.

Speaking of the “activist president…”

SEE ALSO:

Hot Air: White House aides: Obama feels liberated and ready to be the president he always wanted to be

“This certainly has been our most productive year since the Republicans took over,” the Obama aide said, calling it, in the context of what happens in any presidency, “an excellent year.”

His “excellent year” involved every Democratic incumbent in the country running away from him and his low-40s approval rating, only to see them wiped out anyway in a mammoth nationwide anti-Obama backlash. You could understand him feeling liberated if Democrats had run on his policies and outperformed expectations; he would have pointed to that, not unjustifiably, as a mandate. Instead, “liberation” to Obama meant postponing virtually every major initiative until after voters were safely out of the way. He saved net neutrality for the week after the election; he saved executive amnesty for two weeks after; and who knows how soon the Cuba deal could have been struck if Obama wanted it done before November 4th. What he feels liberated from, in other words, is democratic accountability, which is not the sort of thing you want to hear from a guy who’s already blazed new unconstitutional trails in executive lawmaking. If this is what he’s doing in the first flush of “liberation,” what’s he going to be doing in the homestretch of his presidency in 2016, especially if Hillary has a safe-ish lead against her Republican challenger? You trust a man who’s reflected wistfully to his inner circle that it’d be easier to be president of China, don’t you? Especially with a sympathetic media cheering on his dubious, just-try-to-stop-me “winning streak.”

GAWD help us.

Media Obsesses Over Chelsea Clinton’s Baby News – Ignores IRS/DOJ Email Bombshell

After word broke last Thursday night that Chelsea Clinton is an expectant mother, media outlets reacted with predictable over-enthusiasm for America’s new “royal” child.

Via Big Government, the video below features how media figures from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN reacted to the news:

Does anyone remember this much coverage when GW Bush’s daughter, Jenna became an expectant mother?

Now, I am as happy for the expectant couple as anyone, but the story really only warrants a brief mention in the news, and obviously well wishes – not extensive coverage at the expense of more important stories.

Newsbusters reported that ABC has fixated over the news, devoting 12 minutes and 47 seconds of coverage of the story but ignored news of the latest delay of the Keystone XL pipeline by the Obama administration which has been heavily criticized by Republicans and vulnerable Red State Democrats.

On Friday morning, ABC reporter Bianna Golodryga hyped, “Move over, Prince George, though. This morning, Americans have their own royal, or, rather, presidential baby, to look forward to.” On Sunday, This Week avoided Keystone, yet the ABC program opened with an announcer hyping, “Chelsea Clinton’s surprise announcement. Has a Clinton dynasty begun?” Host Martha Raddatz brought the baby up to her panel and fawned, “Very important question, what do you think Hillary Clinton should be called as a grandma?”

***

ABC’s Nightline, which hasn’t mentioned a serious topic like ObamaCare in 159 days, devoted two minutes and 24 seconds to the Clinton baby on Thursday night.

NBC has mostly ignored Keystone. However, its subsidiary, CNBC, at least mentioned that Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer pledged $100 million to Democratic candidates on the condition that the pipeline not be approved.

Meanwhile, the major news networks (other than Fox and to a tiny extent CNN) also ignored the latest development in the IRS scandal:  the revelation that the former IRS chief contacted the Justice Department about criminal investigations of tax-exempt groups.

Katie Pavlich of Townhall, emails obtained by  Judicial Watch through a FOIA request, show  that former IRS official Lois Lerner “was in contact with the Department of Justice in May 2013 about whether tax exempt groups could be criminally prosecuted for “lying” about political activity.”

Newsbusters reported on the lack of interest in this bombshell story:

CNN only gave two news briefs — 43 seconds in total — to the story, however, ignoring it during all the other news hours.

None of the broadcast networks reported the news on Wednesday night or Thursday morning. Earlier this week, the networks ignored another big development in the scandal, the RNC suing the IRS for “illegal stonewalling” of their requests for documents related to the scandal.

The latest omissions are only the latest in a string of developments in the scandal missed by the networks.

Also, President Obama was not asked about the story at his Thursday afternoon press conference.

Over at the Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty has a message for the MSM: Enough Puff Pieces About Chelsea Clinton Already.

He notes that Clinton is a minor celebrity “whose adult life consists mostly of stepping through doors opened by her parents’ power and meandering through the highest levels of high society without actually doing much.”

Dear friends on the Left: You can’t bemoan the death of opportunity in America, and rail against the richest one percent, and then devour puff pieces on how exceptionally talented and wonderful the offspring of our super-wealthy political leaders are, earning plaudits just by showing up with their famous last names. Paul Krugman declared that Horatio Alger was dead back in 2003. The self-made success story may not be dead, but she’s impeded by every powerful institution that sets up sweet, high-paying, low-responsibility gigs for the special children of the gilded class.

What’s really astounding is how our friends on the Left can turn their elite-status-and-wealth-resentment on and off as if it was attached to a light switch. You may recall Jim Hightower at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, sneering that George H.W. Bush was “born on third base [who] thought he had hit a triple.” (The quote is frequently attributed to Ann Richards.) Yeah, that 55-combat-mission naval aviator who got shot down over the Pacific and who lost his four-year-old daughter to leukemia sure lived a life of ease and comfort.

Because of this insidious double standard, the nation is stuck with a president and attorney general whose serial scandals and corruptions would have led to them being impeached already if they had an R after their names. Her role in the Benghazi scandal should preclude Hillary Clinton from even thinking about running for president. But then – she knows the MSM has her back.

As we are forced to deal with such blatant bias on a daily basis,  couldn’t they at least spare us these nauseating puff pieces on our Democrat “royalty?”