As noted in this blog, Vance McAllister, a Republican congressperson, was caught on video canoodling with one of his female aides. (Given the circumstances of his actions, I called for him to resign.)
And as also noted in this blog, the House Oversight Committee is deciding whether lois “liar” lerner – who oversaw the tax exempt division of the IRS when groups with names suggesting they were opposed to President Obama\’s agenda and seeking tax exempt status, were systematically put in limbo for years – will be cited for contempt (I have emphatically supported that citation – though I am no longer sure I want it — more about this further on).
The reason I mention these two people is that, according to Scott Whitlock\’s latest blog at newsbusters.org,
-ABC News has mentioned the McAllister indiscretion, with McAllister identified as a Republican, four times in the past two days.
-But lerner? Other than a single report, one month ago, which centered more on a dispute between committee chairperson Darrell Issa and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings, she has not been mentioned at all – including her Democrat affiliation – since May of last year. Even though there have been a number of hearings on the IRS scandal, and she has invoked the fifth amendment – the one that says you can\’t be forced to incriminate yourself – not a thing about her. Evidently this is far less important than McAllister doing some huggy-bear with one of his aides.
-And leland yee, the California State Senator – an outspoken advocate of gun control who has been arrested and charged with taking money to facilitate the movement of arms to jihadists? ABC gave this story a total of 9 seconds two weeks ago, and nothing since – without mentioning that yee is a Democrat.
Media bias? Naaaahhhh
Regarding lerner\’s possible contempt citation, I watched a panel discussion on Fox last night in which two of its members, Charles Krauthammer being one of them, suggested that she be offered full immunity in return for her testimony.
Their point was that this hearing is primarily to get at possible IRS corruption, not to nail lerner in particular (no matter how guilty she is). If lerner is given such immunity and testifies fully and honestly, that corruption, if it exists, will be uncovered. If it is shown that she is testifying incompletely or dishonestly, she can be tossed in jail.
That makes a lot of sense to me.
