Michelle Malkin jumped headlong into damage control mode. And by that, I mean she told her mouth-agape following to essentially ignore this until the verdict ( her verdict? ) was in.
This is neither a time to joke nor a time to recklessly accuse Democrats/liberals of setting this up — nor a time to whine about media coverage double standards. Deal with what’s on the table
She's now rather skeptical of O'Keefe's "truth!" statements as he left jail. My question is this - who posted his bond? Andrew Breitbart, perhaps ?
Well, he claims to not have known about this:
We have no knowledge about or connection to any alleged acts and events involving James O’Keefe at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office. We only just learned about the alleged incident this afternoon. We have no information other than what has been reported publicly by the press. Accordingly, we simply are not in a position to make any further comment.
Sounds a lot like someone trying to protect one of their assets, doesn't it? This becomes more relevant as proper context is added to Breitbart's hamfisted "no comment" during an interview with Hugh Hewitt:
HH: And are you free to tell me how much you pay him?
AB: I’ll…perhaps at another date, but he’s paid a fair salary.
HH: Is he…so he is an employee?
AB: I’m not sure that’s technically the thing, but yes, he’s paid for his life rights. And he’s, you know, he’s still…we reserve the right to say yes or no to any of the stories that he puts up on our site as we do to any other contributor who comes to the site.
At this point, it appears that Breitbart has about as much to lose if O'Keefe takes the full brunt of the federal charges. That being, since he has put so much stock into the ACORN footage, it's likely that he is going to do anything within his power to protect James O'Keefe as he can while it is clear that others within the conservative movement are playing the "we don't know this guy" schtick.
No comments:
Post a Comment