Today’s quote comes to us from writer/commentator Mollie Hemingway, while a guest on Laura Ingraham’s show last night. It concerns the spying Attorney General Barr (100% correctly) alluded to in his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee earlier this week.
After being asked by Ms. Ingraham about the extremely negative reaction to Barr’s testimony by media which have spent the last two years assuring us there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, Ms. Hemingway said this:
“It is interesting if you watch Attorney General Barr, he is so calm, so sober, so evenhanded. He is not saying anything extreme, just stating the facts as they are known, and contrary to what we just heard, there is no dispute about whether there was spying or not. That is a common way to describe what happened. They use multiple human informants. There were wiretaps and other electronic surveillance, there were national security letters. If it were about anything other than the Trump campaign, we would all acknowledge that is spying. That is a good word to use to sum up what was going on there.
“The media can’t use that word because they were complicit in this operation in two ways. One, they perpetuated the Russia collusion hoax. They accepted these leaks. They were not critical about them at all. They claimed they had all these bombshells. On one side, they gave into the hoax. On the other hand, they never covered what was troubling about the actions by these federal agents, not just the FBI, but other agencies, to go against domestic political opponents.”
Mollie Hemingway wins Quote Of The Day honors for her spot-on analysis of what is taking place – especially the part about media never covering part that is now coming out. Now that Attorney General Barr has made it clear that will finally be investigated, it will make them look like the integrity-challenged partisan hacks they have been all along.
I’ll finish – a little immodesty here – with this segment of a blog I wrote on this same point last month:
Mainstream media have spent over two years covering this scandal up, even as the evidence grew and grew. And now they are in too deep, because giving it the full treatment it deserves also exposes their journalistic misconduct over this period. So, in protectionist, circle-the-wagons mode, they compound that misconduct by continuing to do so.
At some point, events may force them to finally come clean, to report the full monty of what has been uncovered.
What will they say then? How will they explain themselves?
I wouldn’t want to be the one trying.
Notice the similarity?