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?

Video: Watch Shep Smith Humiliate NY Times Reporter On The Air

I love this because it’s not often you get to see an elite, pretentious snob like this NY Times reporter get a comeuppance on live TV.

Via the Daily Caller: 

“Steve, what can you tell us about this warning from the authorities there of a possible second Western attack to come?” he asked the Times’ London bureau chief Steve Erlanger.

“Well,” he responded, “we need to be careful in the moments after…”

“Yeah, you don’t have to tell me that,” Smith said dryly.

“Well….that’s…I hope true,” Erlanger said haughtily.

Shep took the “we need to be careful” admonition as an insult, which you’ll understand when you hear Erlanger’s tone. The guy makes his disdain for “Faux News” abundantly clear.

After he finished his report, Smith returned to the comment:

“I’m very curious about– you said we need to be careful. On what matter did you think we were not careful, based on what you just said and we just reported, Mr. Erlanger?”

“I mean, frankly, I have not—I have not been listening very carefully,” Erlanger stammered.

“So you said that based on what?” Smith persisted.

“Look, you asked me to come and talk to you,” Erlanger retorted, “I’m telling you what I think I know.”

 “What you told me was that you thought we needed to be careful, and what I can report to you, sir, is that we’re being very careful,” Smith concluded, dropping the interview entirely.
Watch and enjoy, it’s not often you see this:

The New York Times Stealth Edits Charlie Hebdo Piece, Deleting Muslim Proselytizing

Jim Treacher at the DC Trawler caught the New York Times egregiously altering their piece about the Charlie Hebdo attack, entitled, “Survivors Retrace a Scene of Horror at Charlie Hebdo.”

Here’s the original version of the paragraph before it was stealth edited.

Sigolène Vinson, a freelancer who had decided to come in that morning to take part in the meeting, thought she would be killed when one of the men approached her.

Instead, she told French news media, the man said, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself,” she recalled.

It was later changed to this:

Sigolène Vinson, a freelance journalist who had come in that morning to take part in the meeting, said that when the shooting started, she thought she would be killed.

Ms. Vinson said in an interview that she dropped to the floor and crawled down the hall to hide behind a partition, but one of the gunmen spotted her and grabbed her by the arm, pointing his gun at her head. Instead of pulling the trigger, though, he told her she would not be killed because she was a woman.

“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.”

In the new version, the “calm and steady” Jihadist is portrayed in an almost heroic light –  sounding almost chivalrous – not to mention righteous. Gone are the exhortations to convert to Islam and cover herself. Why would the NYTs do this?

It’s no secret that the New York Times is the House Organ of the Obama Regime, so it stands to reason that the original copy did not fit the WH’s desired narrative. And what narrative is that? Well, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, gave us a hint, Wednesday when he told reporters that the administration is going to “redouble” their efforts to explain what the “true tenets” of the Religion of Peace actually are.

“There are some individuals that are using a peaceful religion and grossly distorting it, and trying to use its tenets to inspire people around the globe to carry out acts of violence. And we have enjoyed significant success in enlisting leaders in the Muslim community, like I said, both in the United States and around the world to condemn that kind of messaging, to condemn those efforts to radicalize individuals, and to be clear about what the tenets of Islam actually are.  And we’re going to redouble those efforts in the days and weeks ahead.

Reminding people about actual tenets of Islam like women being required to cover themselves, and forced conversion, as proselytized by the Jihadists, does not help in their efforts.

They think the problem is one of “messaging” which can be combated with their own messaging.  Simply telling the people the truth, is not even considered.

But the Times’ stealth edit is even worse than that – because not only did they remove the truth, they replaced it with a lie.

In the Radio France Internationale (translated) version of the interview with Sigolène Vinson,  there’s nothing about a calm and steady Jihadist sounding almost Jesus-like with “Be Not Afraid.”

she_said_it

Absent also is the  exhortation to “think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.” Where did the NYTs even get that?

A better translation via the Daily Mirror:

Ms Vinson told Radio France Internationale that one of the killers aimed his gun at her but decided against taking her life.

She said the man told her: “I’m not killing you because you are a woman and we don’t kill women but you have to convert to Islam, read the Qu’ran and wear a veil.”

She added that as the man left, he shouted “Allahu akbar, allahu akbar.”

The altered NYTs version is WAY OFF.

They even left out the “Allah Akbar” and replaced it with, “We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women! We don’t shoot women!”

Pathetic.

SEE ALSO: 

Breitbart National Security: OBAMA WH STILL IN DENIAL AS REST OF WORLD WAKES UP TO ISLAMIST THREAT

“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!