This morning, I was surprised to receive a note from the Washington Post on my prior criticism of the Post’s Philip Bump as previously spreading “false stories” and refusing to accept the facts after they were established by the media. The Post has declared that Bump’s original claims on Lafayette Park, the Hunter Biden laptop, and Russian collusion were true and they stand by them. In light of the unprompted review by the Post, I wanted to lay out what the Post is now embracing as true. Continue reading “Washington Post Stands by Philip Bump’s Claims on Lafayette Park, the Hunter Biden Laptop, and Other Controversial Claims”
Category: Media
Below is my column in The Messenger on the expanding evidence in the Biden corruption scandal and the need for Congress to take commensurate action to investigate the matter. After this column ran, Fox’s Brian Kilmeade conducted an interview with Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin. What was striking about the interview is not just the contradiction with other accounts (like insisting that he was investigating Burisma and the investigation was expanding when he was fired), but that he claimed that Kilmeade was the first to seek to interview him. This is just Shokin’s account and many question his veracity. However, it is astonishing that this is the first interview that I have seen of one of the key figures in this scandal. It highlights the need to still fully investigate a scandal that the media has largely avoided in prior years. However, the greatest case for an impeachment inquiry was made by Attorney General Merrick Garland himself.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Why the House Has No Alternative to an Impeachment Inquiry into President Biden”
We have discussed the rise of advocacy journalism where objectivity and neutrality are discarded in favor of social justice. Despite public trust (and profits) crashing in the media, faculty members are plowing ahead with the new model of journalism to the peril of their profession. The latest such example is found in the “Solidarity Journalism Initiative” at the University of Texas at Austin. Continue reading ““Leave Neutrality Behind”: University of Texas at Austin Initiative Embraces Advocacy Journalism” 
Below is my column in The Messenger on the celebrations after the fourth indictment of former president Donald Trump — and the dismissal of any concerns over the implications of these prosecutions for free speech. Some Democrats are warning that they need to avoid the public displays of joy. The danger is that Democrats just might conga their way into another 2016 backlash against the establishment.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Washington’s ‘Whoo-Hoo’ Moment: Trump Indictment Coverage Borders on the Indecent”
Being a legal analyst in this rage-filled age often invites criticism, particularly if you challenge widely held narratives. I rarely respond to such stories, which falls into the category of complaining about the weather in Washington. Unfortunately, even stories that I view as manifestly distorted, tend to be replicated on hostile sites. In that vein, I thought that I would respond to a misleading story at Mediaite, which suggested that I recently changed my view of Donald Trump’s call to Georgia. (The site was founded by ABC Legal Analyst Dan Abrams). The article by Alex Griffin compares my comments this week with a tweet that I sent out on January 2, 2021. The suggestion is that my view of the call evolved after Trump was indicted. The original story omitted the fact that I stated the current position the next day when the transcript became available and that the tweet was based on an erroneous article in the Washington Post. I have maintained the same position since the release of the transcript. Continue reading “No, I Did Not Just Change My View of the Georgia Call”
Below is my column in the Daily Beast on the second federal indictment of former president Donald Trump. I remain deeply concerned over the implications of free speech from this prosecution. Indeed, the general dismissal of these concerns by legal experts shows how our current rage politics can blind us to dangers even to our own fundamental rights.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Yielding to Temptation: Jack Smith’s Indictment Seeks to Bag Donald Trump at any Cost”
President Joe Biden has been a regular recipient of “Pinocchios” by the Washington Post for his false statements on subjects ranging from election laws to abortion protections to deficit reduction. Biden is undeterred and regularly repeats false stories from his life that have ranged from an invented arrest with Nelson Mandela to a zombie-like train conductor. Undeterred, this week he continued with the false claim about the “Joey, Baby” conductor. Now, the President has a fresh set of “Four Pinocchios,” but the false claim is far more serious than inventing a conductor or rewriting the history of the Second Amendment. The Post is admitting that Biden has been lying about how his son Hunter never made money from China. It is the latest indication that the protective media wall surrounding Biden is beginning to crumble under the weight of new evidence in the corruption scandal. Continue reading ““Four Pinocchios”: The Washington Post Admits Biden Lied About Hunter Not Accepting Money from China”
I suppose this represents progress in Washington. On “CNN News Central,” co-host John Berman actually asked a Democratic House member about the allegations against President Joe Biden. The response from Rep. Madeleine Dean (D., Pa.) captured the increasingly incomprehensible position of members as the evidence of corruption has mounted and implicated the President. Dean admitted that there are legitimate questions that should be answered but stressed that she does not have any herself. In other words, the public has a right to know, but I will not help them find out. Continue reading “Rep. Dean: There are Questions That Need to be Asked on the Biden Scandal But “I Don’t Have Any””
We have often discussed the embrace of censorship by the left and many Democratic politicians, including President Joe Biden. However, the most distressing aspect of this trend has been the support of many in the media. That erosion of support for free speech was on display this week in a tweet from a New York Times’ reporter. Sheryl Gay Stolberg said that this week’s effort by Democrats to censor Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “raised thorny questions” about whether misinformation is protected speech. The statement shows a breathtaking lack of understanding of the First Amendment as well as a lack of fealty for free speech values. There are no “thorny questions” over the censorship of this speech, because misinformation is unquestionably protected under the First Amendment.
When IRS supervisory special agent Greg Shapley and agent Joe Ziegler, testified this week, most honest observers were impressed by how they stuck to the details and the facts of their investigation. Even in friendly questioning, they refused to make judgments about motivations or conclusions. They were two of the most credible witnesses that I have seen on the hill. They were also the prototypical whistleblowers, civil servants who tried to raise concerns over special treatment and political interference internally and only came to Congress after all such efforts failed. They were then both allegedly retaliated against by the Biden Administration. Yet, in its coverage, NBC referred to the men as “so called whistleblowers.” That was not the disparaging description given other such witnesses, including figures in the Trump impeachment. They were just “whistleblowers” or “respected public servants.”
As a long-standing free speech advocate, the last few years have been alarming and, frankly, depressing. The censorship efforts of the government are, unfortunately, not new. However, what is new is the support of the media and the Democratic Party in such censorship. That was on display on various channels after the recent opinion finding that the Biden Administration had violated the First Amendment in “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” However, the New York Times immediately warned that the outbreak of free speech could “curtail efforts to combat disinformation.” Yet, no one expressed more simply and chillingly than CNN Chief White House Correspondent Phil Mattingly who stated that it “makes sense” for tech companies to go along with government censorship demands. Continue reading “CNN Host: We Should Yield to Government Censorship Demands”
Below is my column on Fox.com on the most recent WhatsApp message from Hunter Biden to foreign contacts. It is an insight into the shady world of influence peddling and the Biden family.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Beltway Goats: Why Hunter is Right “The Bidens are the Best” When It Comes to Influence Peddling”
Below is my column in Fox.com on yesterday’s hearing with Special Counsel John Durham and the personal attacks that he faced from the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee. Without challenging a single fact in the report as untrue, members heaped personal attacks on one of the most respected prosecutors at the Justice Department. Durham’s testimony was detached, detailed, and unbiased. He was everything that the members were not. However, one moment stood out more than the rest . . .
Here is the column: Continue reading ““You Will End Up on the Bottom of a Pyre”: Democrats Attack Special Counsel John Durham “
Below is my column in the Hill on how the Hunter Biden plea deal is one of the most surgical and skillful examples of a “controlled demolition” in the history of political scandals. While the public has raised rightful concerns over a two-tiered system of justice, you have to admire the skill of the political and media elite in dropping this scandal without collateral damage to themselves.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Hunter Biden ‘Controlled Demolition’ is Complete”
A Harvard/Harris poll is bad news for Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Justice Department. The poll shows that 55% of Americans believe Trump’s indictment is politically motivated and 56% believe that it constitutes election interference. The poll captures the level of distrust for the Justice Department and further demonstrates what I described yesterday as the failure of Merrick Garland at the midpoint of his tenure as Attorney General.