The conservative media's witch hunts against President Obama's nominees and appointees has recently focused on Justice Department lawyers who previously represented terror suspects, as well as judicial nominees Goodwin Liu and Robert Chatigny, and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) nominee Robert Harding. The cases against all of these targets are falling apart.

On March 3, The Washington Times published an editorial misrepresenting Liu's record in order to call him a "radical." Sean Hannity also joined in the dishonest attack on Liu -- a law professor at Berkley and a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Since then, conservatives including Liu's colleague at Berkley, John Yoo, and the Goldwater Institute's Clint Bolick have vouched for Liu. Bolick wrote: "Having reviewed several of his academic writings, I find Prof. Liu to exhibit fresh, independent thinking and intellectual honesty. He clearly possesses the scholarly credentials and experience to serve with distinction on this important court." And according to the Los Angeles Times, Yoo -- the Bush administration lawyer who authored the infamous torture memos -- said of Liu's nomination: "[H]e's not someone a Republican president would pick, but for a Democratic nominee, he's a very good choice." Liu has also reportedly received the support of James Guthrie, education policy studies director at the George W. Bush Institute in Dallas.

So much for the idea that Liu is a radical leftist.

Today, Fox News' Gretchen Carlson claimed that "some are concerned" that Chatigny -- a federal trial judge who Obama has nominated for elevation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit -- "may be biased in favor of sex offenders." Carlson's allegation was based on Chatigny's actions during the appeals of a death penalty case involving convicted serial killer and rapist Michael Ross. Chatigny strongly expressed concern that Ross' lawyer was not sufficiently investigating evidence regarding Ross' mental competency. Later, an ethics complaint was brought against Chatigny. But here's the important thing that Carlson left out: a panel of judges cleared him of charges and declared his actions "reasonable." And this wasn't a whitewash by a bunch of leftists; the panel included Michael Mukasey, who went on to become President Bush's attorney general. According to media reports, several legal experts have also defended Chatigny's actions in the case.

So much for the idea that Chatigny is "biased in favor of sex offenders."

The attack on Harding -- a retired Army general -- is unlikely to fare much better. As we've pointed out, in a March 8 article, WorldNetDaily wrote that Harding has "controversial" views on the need for diversity in the intelligence community. WND claimed that Harding "long has pushed for 'ethnic diversity' as a determining factor in hiring new teams for U.S. military and intelligence agencies." The article quoted November 2003 written testimony Harding gave to a Senate subcommittee stressing the need for diversity hiring in the intelligence community. But Harding's views are neither controversial nor unique. Indeed, President Bush's Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell said during a conference, "It is now our policy across this [intelligence] community that we do not screen out first generation Americans. The very people that we need in this community to speak the languages, understand the cultures, are the ones who have come to America from the distant shores." He later said, "[O]ur focus is to get a more diverse culture," and that "[w]e have got to have more diversity." Other intelligence officials have made similar statements.

So much for the idea that Harding has controversial views on diversity.

Which brings us to the ridiculous attacks on DOJ lawyers who once represented detainees: Fox News, Investor's Business Daily, and Washington Post columnists Bill Kristol and Marc Thiessen have all participated in the attacks. Several of the attackers have suggested that -- in the word of Fox contributor Monica Crowley -- the DOJ lawyers are "terrorist sympathizers." These attacks have not led to any firings, but they have resulted in condemnation from the media and from several prominent conservative lawyers as well as Mukasey. Indeed, even former independent counsel Ken Starr has slammed these attacks and compared the DOJ lawyers to John Adams and Atticus Finch.

When the attacks on the Obama administration officials lead Ken Starr to compare the targets of the attacks to Atticus Finch, it's time for the witch hunters to pack it in and go home.

At least 80 advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred for white people." Here are his March 10 sponsors, in the order they appeared:

• Wholesale Direct Metals (HelpwithGold.com)
• American Petroleum Institute (EnergyTomorrow.org)
• Carbonite
• Lifestyle Lift
• Merit Financial
• Tax Masters
• LifeLock
• Goldline
• 1-800-Pack-Rat
• Answers in Genesis (IAmNotAshamed.org)
• The Jewelry Exchange
• Biotab Nutraceuticals, Inc. (Alteril.com)
• TurboTax
• Zero Technologies (ZeroWater)
• Lear Capital
• Lifestyle Lift
• DIRECTV (Starz)
• IRSTaxAgreements.com
• Rosland Capital
• News Corp. (The Wall Street Journal)
• American Advisors Group
• Quietus (QuietRelief.com)

In a March 10 FoxNews.com article about the White House "fighting back against fishing aficionados who say President Obama is planning to impose regulations that will give their hobby the hook," reporter Joshua Rhett Miller writes that "neither document [from the Interagency Ocean Policy Task] contains language pertaining to a potential ban on recreational fishing, as some reports had previously asserted": 

Obama established the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force in June to address increasing pollution and habitat destruction within the nation's oceans, coastal regions and Great Lakes. Led by Nancy Sutley, the task force released an interim report in September that outlined nine priority objectives of the plan, including the coastal and marine spatial planning.

Three months later, in its interim framework, the task force defined that planning as an "effective process to better manage a range of social, economic, and cultural uses," including commercial and recreational fishing, mining, tourism and traditional hunting, among others.

But neither document contains language pertaining to a potential ban on recreational fishing, as some reports had previously asserted.

Fishing enthusiasts became alarmed when a story posted on ESPNOutdoors.com and widely circulated by bloggers alluded to the potential of a ban on recreational fishing. The Web site has since posted a clarification stating that columnist Robert Montgomery's opinion piece was improperly labeled.

Despite that clarification, recreational fishermen are reeling, fearing their rods are at risk.

While FoxNews.com writes that "some reports" and "bloggers alluded to the potential of a ban on recreational fishing," FoxNews.com doesn't acknowledge that Fox News itself has been spreading the myth.  Since yesterday, Fox Nation, Fox Business Network and the Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck have pushed the bogus claim.  As of 6:27pm E.T. today, Fox Nation is still promoting the absurd story online:

From TurboTax's Twitter account:

(via StopBeck)

UPDATE: Despite the above tweet, an advertisement for TurboTax ran during the March 10 edition of Beck's Fox News show.  

Previously

So who's still advertising on Beck? March 9 edition...

Glenn Beck advertiser offers "survival seeds" as defense against "emerging totalitarianism"

In a press release issued today, the Texas Education Agency criticized Fox & Friends for broadcasting a segment this morning with "highly inaccurate information about the State Board of Education's efforts to adopt the new social studies curriculum standards." 

The following is the agency's press release:

The Fox Network in recent days has repeatedly broadcast highly inaccurate information about the State Board of Education's efforts to adopt the new social studies curriculum standards.
Here are the facts. The direct quotes come from the March 10 broadcast of Fox & Friends.

Fox: "Texas board of education begins hearings today on proposed changes to textbooks..."
The truth: The State Board of Education today is expected to take a preliminary vote on updated social studies curriculum standards. The standards detail what teachers are to teach in each class. New social studies textbooks are not scheduled to be selected until 2011.

Fox: "So one of the proposed changes is to start history class in the year 1877."
The truth: Texas has and always will teach U.S. History from the beginning until present day. U.S. History through Reconstruction is taught in the eighth grade and those standards can be found in the middle school standards, which are called Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Here is a link to the middle school standards: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/MS_TEKS_amended.pdf. U.S. History since 1877 is taught in 11th grade.

Fox: Abraham Lincoln and George Washington have been removed from the textbooks.
The truth: The standards, not textbook, are before the board this week. Lincoln is required to be included in the first and eighth grade history classes, as well as in the U.S. government class. Washington is required to be taught in kindergarten, first grade, fifth grade and eighth grade. Here is a link to a document detailing those historical figures, including Lincoln and Washington, who are required to be taught as part of the standards: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/AlphabetizedList_including.pdf. There is another list of individuals who are suggested for inclusion and it can be found here: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/teks/social/AlphabetizedList_such_as.pdf. Additional modifications are still possible to both lists as the board debates the standards during its March and May meeting.

Fox: Independence Day and Veteran's Day are being deleted from the textbooks.
The truth: Again, the new history textbooks have not been written yet but they will be based on the curriculum standards adopted by the board. The standards currently under consideration cover Independence Day in kindergarten, second and fifth grades. Veteran's Day is included in kindergarten, first, second and fifth grades.

Fox: References to Christmas have been deleted.

The truth: A TEKS review committee briefly recommended removing Christmas from a list that mentioned one major holiday for each of the world's religions. The committee recommended leaving Easter in the document. The State Board immediately rejected this idea and a reference to Christmas was restored in the standards months ago and can be found in sixth grade in standard 19(b).

Fox: Textbooks adopted in Texas will be used classrooms across the country.
The truth: Each state has its own textbook selection process. Publishers may offer other states the Texas edition of a book but they are not required to select it.

Previously:

"[G]ullible" Fox & Friends escape lawsuit for repeating yet another false news story

Following the lead of an ESPNOutdoors.com opinion writer, conservatives have in recent days advanced the outlandish charge that Obama "wants to ban sport fishing."  The ESPNOutdoors.com writer provided no evidence for his claim that a federal strategy "could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing," and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force's interim report on coastal and marine planning has proposed nothing of the sort.

Today, ESPNOutdoors.com Executive Editor Steve Bowman acknowledged that "we made several errors in the editing and presentation of this installment. Though our series has included numerous news stories on the topic, this was not one of those -- it was an opinion piece, and should clearly have been labeled as commentary."  Bowman added that "this particular column was not properly balanced and failed to represent contrary points of view."  From Bowman's piece:

ESPNOutdoors.com inadvertently contributed to a flare-up Tuesday when we posted the latest piece in a series of stories on President Barack Obama's newly created Ocean Policy Task Force, a column written by Robert Montgomery, a conservation writer for BASS since 1985. Regrettably, we made several errors in the editing and presentation of this installment. Though our series has included numerous news stories on the topic, this was not one of those -- it was an opinion piece, and should clearly have been labeled as commentary.

And while our series overall has examined several sides of this topic, this particular column was not properly balanced and failed to represent contrary points of view. We have reached out to people on every side of the issue and reported their points of view -- if they chose to respond -- throughout the series, but failed to do so in this specific column.

This series started in October and has included several updates on how the creation of that task force and its actions could impact recreational anglers. ESPNOutdoors.com should have made it clear to all readers that this was part of a larger series, and -- even though this was Montgomery's opinion, and those of the sources quoted in the column -- we should have taken more care to fairly represent opposing arguments.

We do feel it is our duty to cover issues surrounding outdoor sports to the best of our abilities, and given the nature of this task force and the potential impact on all fisherman, this was an appropriate topic to address for our audience. We take seriously the tenets of journalism that require we take an unbiased approach, and when we make mistakes in the presentation of a story or a column, it is our responsibility to admit them.

Any confusion on that part rests entirely on my shoulders as the executive editor of this site.

We have appended the original column to note that it was in fact a commentary, and we will institute more rigorous editing safeguards in order to prevent such issues in the future.

Previously:

Right-wing media eagerly spread absurd claim that Obama plans to "ban sport fishing"

Rush again pushes Obama fishing-ban conspiracy theory

Bolling and Fox Business run with absurd claim that Obama's going to "prohibit fishing"

National Review's Rich Lowry asserts something "most liberals haven't said and can't admit to the public or to themselves":

They care about health care so much that they are willing to resort to any maneuver to pass it. Many liberals have portrayed it as practically an everyday occurrence that far-reaching, historic social legislation lacking 60 votes in the Senate is passed through the reconciliation process. This is nonsense. Why not say that an end this important justifies almost any means, and Republicans, in the same position, would probably do the same thing? This would have the ring of truth about it. But such a concession would add another political burden to a bill with plenty of them already. Better to pretend that nothing extraordinary is going on. 

Of course, health care reform has already passed the Senate, having got the 60 votes in needed in order to do so.  Reconciliation isn't being used to pass "far-reaching, historic social legislation," it is being used to pass comparably small changes to that legislation.  

You almost have to be impressed by someone who is willing to be so completely misleading in order to criticize criticize other people for (supposedly) not telling the truth.  Almost.

Newsbusters' Scott Whitlock has outdone himself, criticizing MSNBC's David Shuster for a "softball" interview with an 11 year old who is lobbying for health care reform after losing his mother to pulmonary hypertension.

Whitlock is miffed that Shuster "failed to mention that Owens' entire family have been members of the liberal  Washington Community Action Network."  And he thinks he has caught MSNBC in a double-standard:

In contrast, on November 19, 2009, O'Donnell interrogated Jackie Seal, a conservative, Michigan teen who was waiting in line to see Sarah Palin at a book signing. The MSNBC host challenged this particular young person on her political beliefs: "Did you know that Sarah Palin supported the bailout?" O'Donnell berated, "Does that change your view?"

Now, certainly, Owens has lost his mother and no one would grill an 11-year-old who suffered such a tragedy. But, the network's reporters clearly have different standards for different young people.

Whitlock didn't mention that Seals was 17 years old, not 11 -- probably because he knows even Newsbusters readers would laugh at him if he wrote that 11 year olds and 17 year olds should be treated exactly the same.  Just take a look at how absurd that last complaint would look if Whitlock was transparent about the age difference: "But, the network's reporters clearly have different standards for 11 year olds and 17 year olds."  Yeah, that would be a devastating critique.  There's a simple word for Whitlock's failure to reveal Seal's actual age: Dishonest.

Whitlock also didn't mention that the reason why O'Donnell asked Seal whether she knew Palin supported the bailout is that Seal was wearing a T-shirt critical of the bailout, while standing in line to see Sarah Palin.  The question didn't come out of the blue, and it wasn't hostile -- it was straightforward and perfectly legitimate.  Asking someone if additional information causes them to change their view isn't "berating," it's a simple question.  In an accompanying video, Newsbusters claims O'Donnell "sounds angry."  That's a subjective assessment, but one that seems ludicrous to me; I would invite you to watch the video of O'Donnell and decide for yourself.

So, basically, Whitlock is angry that an MSNBC reporter asked a 17 year old a straightforward question, and miffed that a different MSNBC reporter "tosses softballs" to an 11 year old.  But give him some credit: he's realistic enough to know that if he spells that out, he'll get laughed at, so he pretends the 17 year old and the 11 year old are of similar ages.

As in: 

Fox News and the Philadelphia Inquirer have repeatedly allowed former Sen.-turned pundit Rick Santorum to discuss health care without disclosing* that he serves on the board of directors for Universal Health Services, a Fortune 500 health care company headed by Republican and public option opponent Alan B. Miller. 

In April 2007, UHS appointed Santorum to its board of directors.  UHS describes itself as one of the "the nation's largest and most respected healthcare management companies, operating through its subsidiaries, acute care hospitals, behavioral health facilities and ambulatory centers."  In announcing the move, CEO Alan Miller said that Santorum "has a long record of accomplishment and leadership and will provide valuable advice to the board."

Miller is an active donor and participant in GOP causes.  He is listed on the board of directors for the Republican Jewish Coalition, and in the past two years has contributed $2,300 to John McCain's presidential campaign, $1,000 to the McCain-Palin victory fund, and a total of $2,000 to the Republican National Committee. 

Modern Healthcare reported in May 2007 that Miller "donated more than $5,300 to Santorum's campaigns between 1999 and 2006, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.  The Universal Health Services Employees' Good Government Fund donated $1,000 to Santorum's campaign during the 2000 election cycle, according to the center's Web site."  In October 2006, the Philadelphia Daily News reported that Miller hosted "a crab-legs-and-white-wine fundraiser" for Santorum with President George H.W. Bush at Miller's Gladwyne mansion. 

Miller regularly argues against the public option in the media, with appearances on CNN, Fox Business, Hannity (10/22/09) and the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, among others.  Miller recently appeared on the February 3 edition of Fox Business Network's Cavuto, where he was introduced by Neil Cavuto as hoping a "delay in health care will derail health care reform."  Miller remarked that he believed health care reform "is dead," adding, I think we have to thank the voters of Massachusetts. I would like to see some improvements made. I think we have a great system. I would have hated to see it thrown out or a public option, which would become a government program. I was very much opposed to that happening." 

Since January 1, Fox News contributor and "political analyst" Santorum has appeared on Fox News at least 13 times to discuss health care reform**.  On February 9, Santorum called Democratic health care reform "a government takeover of the health care system" which "does not try to improve the current system."  Santorum continued:

SANTORUM: Republicans and most Americans think that the current system is a good system that needs to be repaired and improved upon. That's not the basis of the bill that's before the House and the Senate right now. 

Santorum is also a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, where he regularly writes about health care reform.  Santorum's most recent column called the Senate health care bill "deeply flawed" and advocated starting "anew with a clean slate."  In 2008, Santorum wrote that Obama supports "one-size-fits-all health-care policies that have been a disaster for patients and medical industries in Canada. Good-bye, American capitalism; hello, European-style socialism."  Like Fox News, the Inquirer does not disclose that Santorum works for a major health care company.

* A search of "Santorum AND Universal Health Services OR UHS" in Nexis under transcripts for Fox News in the past 3 years returned no results.  A review of Santorum's 2010 appearances on America's Newsroom, Fox & Friends, and America's News HQ -- which are listed below and not archived in Nexis -- returned no instances of disclosure.   

** On the Record (January 6, January 26, January 29, February 9, February 24, March 3, March 8), Hannity (January 5, January 18), America's Newsroom (February 23, March 8), Fox & Friends (February 27), America's News HQ (February 21).

Previously/Related:

Fox allows Tantaros to attack health care without disclosing ties

Fox News again allows Donatelli to attack health care bill without disclosing his conflict of interest

The Nation: The Media-Lobbying Complex

The topic, once a shining beacon of inspiration for partisan cons, has, thanks to the pimp hoax and recent revelations from N.Y. prosecutors, become just one giant mess that seems to ensnare everyone who tries to prop up the get-ACORN story. Obviously, Andrew Breitbart has suffered the most pratfalls over the last three weeks, but the embarrassments aren't restricted to him.

Recently, conservative blogger Ed Morrissey at Hot Air had to post not one, but two corrections after he published a bogus ACORN gotcha item. Blogger Brad Friedman did the honors of setting the record straight. 

Here's what Morrissey wrote: 

Today, [Wisconsin’s Attorney General J. B.] Van Hollen announced indictments in five cases — including two felony indictments against ACORN for scheming to have registrants vote multiple times in November 2008.

But that was simply false. 

From Brad Blog: 

The "two felony indictments", which Morrissey even links to [PDF] and quotes from in his inaccurate hit piece, are not "against ACORN", but against two workers who defrauded ACORN, even as the pair defrauded the voter registration process.

...

Charging that the "indictments were against ACORN", is as inaccurate as it would be to claim that Walmart has been charged with two counts of burglary after the company had found that two employees had stolen merchandise off its own shelves.

Unlike Breitbart who refuses to be held accountable for the ACORN lies he spreads, Morrissey actually posted a correction. But after the correction proved inaccurate, he had to post another. 

Like I said, maybe it's time right-wing bloggers stop writing about ACORN, for their own good. 

From the Fox Nation, accessed March 10:

John Ward's Daily Caller piece about the Obama White House's "emphasis on words over images" contains an odd little passage: 

There is also a strong preference in the Obama White House for words rather than images as a persuasive tool.

...

This attempt to "elevate the dialogue" is admirable in its intent to improve political discourse. But it will give fuel to critics who say Obama thinks he knows best and can win others over if he can just explain everything to them.

"It will give fuel to critics who say ..." is a nifty way for a reporter to criticize a political figure while pretending he isn't the one leveling the criticism.  But Ward mentioned no such critics, or criticism, so all we have to go on is Ward's description.  Is a president thinking he knows what he should do and that he is capable of convincing others a bad thing now?  We'd rather have one who doesn't have any idea what to do, or who doesn't have confidence that he can convince people he's right? Really?  No, of course not. Nobody actually thinks that.

What Ward really seems to be getting at is the right-wing (and media) meme that Obama is a smug know-it-all who looks down on people who don't agree with him.  But keep in mind that  this passage appears in the midst of an article suggesting Obama should talk less and show more pretty pictures.  Now, as a matter of communications strategy, I suppose there's a valid argument there, though it isn't one that interests me.  But as a matter of smugness ... well, what's more patronizing?  The belief that you can win people over by explaining your position to them -- or the belief that you can win people over by showing them some pretty pictures?

Well, it's not like Michelle Malkin didn't try to warn him. 

On his radio show yesterday, conservative blogger Malkin and Beck got into an extended tiff because Malkin didn't think it made sense for Beck to devote his entire Fox News show to his Eric Massa interview. It's true that Malkin based her case on political considerations. (i.e. Why give a Democrat that kind of attention?) But whatever her rationale, it turned out Malkin was giving Beck really good advice. 

Of course, he ignored it. (Click on the audio here and listen to how Beck became increasingly annoyed when somebody like Malkin dared question his judgment.) Beck knew what he was doing, thank you very much. He'd personally talked to Massa on the phone, and devoting an hour of cable TV time to him was exactly the right thing to do. 

Well, in one sense, Beck was right, because yesterday's colossal flop might just make television history. It might go down as one of the most pointlessly absurd -- and yes, truly unwatchable -- hours in cable news. Last night, the snickering had already reached epic levels. And with the can't-watch-TV performance, Beck most likely took the Massa issue off the table for Republicans, since the whole story now looks more like a comedy than an actual scandal. 

And yes, Beck today is a national laughingstock. But honestly, is anyone surprised? 

In my column this week, I noted this characteristic about today's unhinged, anti-Obama right wing, which Beck so perfectly personifies [emphasis added]: 

Consumed with Obama Derangement Syndrome, 'wingers literally cannot help themselves. Just this weekend, one prominent, albeit unhinged, right-wing site branded Obama as "suicide-bomber-in-chief." They've removed all sensible filters, which means the crazy talk flows 24-7. 

It's that complete lack of common sense that led Beck to think Massa would make for interesting TV for an hour. The odds that a 60-minute interview with a resigning congressman would make for great TV were never above 5 percent. And the odds that it wold be a catastrophic failure always hovered around 20 percent. But narcissist Beck, ignoring broadcasting common sense, plowed ahead anyway. 

Question: Did anyone on Beck's staff try to talk him out of this daffy idea? Recall that recently Beck's senior producer, a longtime Fox News exec, was unceremoniously shown the door. And I know industry chatter was that Beck didn't want the guy around and that Beck doesn't think he needs somebody outside of his very tight clique overseeing his show. 

Well, last night, Beck found out he was wrong. And Beck found out what happens when you program cable news without any commonsense filters. And last night, television viewers saw what happened when narcissism rules and there's no adult supervision on a cable news set. 

Result: Glenn Beck becomes a national laughingstock. 

UPDATED: From the sad-but-true category is the realization that Beck's Hindenburg performance last night will probably do more damage to his reputation, at least among Beltway scribes, than the endless falsehoods and vicious smears he's launched. Why? Because last night, Beck was guilty of the deadliest media sin of all: producing god-awful television. 

In his March 8 Washington Post column, Marc Thiessen made a series of false and misleading attacks in an attempt to defend the witch hunt against Department of Justice lawyers who represented terror suspects in U.S. courts. One other argument Thiessen made also leaps out at me: Thiessen compares the DOJ lawyers who represented detainees to "mob lawyers." Thiessen wrote:

Would most Americans want to know if the Justice Department had hired a bunch of mob lawyers and put them in charge of mob cases? Or a group of drug cartel lawyers and put them in charge of drug cases? Would they want their elected representatives to find out who these lawyers were, which mob bosses and drug lords they had worked for, and what roles they were now playing at the Justice Department? Of course they would -- and rightly so.

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder hired former al-Qaeda lawyers to serve in the Justice Department and resisted providing Congress this basic information. In November, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent Holder a letter requesting that he identify officials who represented terrorists or worked for organizations advocating on their behalf, the cases and projects they worked on before coming to the Justice Department, the cases and projects they've worked on since joining the administration, and a list of officials who have recused themselves because of prior work on behalf of terrorist detainees.

When someone uses the phrase "mob lawyers," what comes to mind? The first image that I thought of was that of Tom Hagen, the attorney (or consigliere) for the Corleone crime family in the Godfather saga. Hagen was intimately involved in the Corleones' crimes. It turns out that so-called "mob lawyers" have been convicted themselves for criminal activities. Of course, there is no evidence that the lawyers Thiessen is targeting have been involved in any criminal activity.

I don't mean to suggest that people accused of being involved in organized crime aren't entitled to an attorney. They are. And lawyers who have representing a person accused in an organized crime case should not be disqualified from joining the Department of Justice and being "put ... in charge of mob cases."

But Thiessen did not refer simply to "lawyers who represent defendants in organized crime cases"; he used the phrase "mob lawyers," with all the suggestion of criminality that that loaded term entails.

It also bears noting that The Washington Post itself has condemned the people involved in the attacks on the DOJ lawyers for acting as if those lawyers "had committed a crime:"

It is an effort to smear the Obama administration and the reputations of Justice Department lawyers who, before joining the administration, acted in the best traditions of this country by volunteering to take on the cases of suspected terrorists. They now find themselves the target of a video demanding that they be identified, as if they had committed a crime or needed to be exposed for subverting national security.

[...]

It is important to remember that no less an authority than the Supreme Court ruled that those held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must be allowed to challenge their detentions in a U.S. court. It is exceedingly difficult to exercise that right meaningfully without the help of a lawyer. It is also worth remembering that the Bush administration wanted to try some Guantanamo detainees in military commissions -- a forum in which a defendant is guaranteed legal representation. Even so, it took courage for attorneys to stand up in the midst of understandable societal rage to protect the rights of those accused of terrorism. Advocates knew that ignorance and fear would too often cloud reason. They knew that this hysteria made their work on these cases all the more important. The video from Keep America Safe proves they were right.

Newsbusters' Scott Whitlock is rapidly emerging as a remarkably unimpressive media critic, even by the bottom-of-the-barrel standards of the Media Research Center.

Yesterday, Whitlock criticized MSNBC's David Shuster for asking whether the NRCC's reference to Charlie Rangel as a "Harlem Democrat" was "racially tinged."  Whitlock cluelessly responded: "How is it inaccurate to refer to the Representative as a 'Harlem Democrat?' Harlem is in his district" -- ignoring the obvious question of whether the NRCC routinely refers to Members of Congress by naming a town or neighborhood in their district, or whether it reserves such treatment for towns and neighborhoods that they think can be used as pejoratives.

Well, it turns out the NRCC doesn't regularly refer to members of Congress that way.  In fact, an NRCC release that referred to Rangel as a "Harlem Democrat" didn't use that construct when discussing another New York City congressman, Michael McMahon, who was labeled a "New York Congressman" rather than a "Staten Island Congressman."

So David Shuster defended himself, and now Scott Whitlock is back, making a fool of himself once again.  Whitlock completely ignores Shuster's point that the NRCC doesn't routinely refer to members of Congress this way -- just pretends it never happened.  That's a pretty good indication that Whitlock secretly knows his argument doesn't hold much water.  Then, hilariously, Whitlock complains that Shuster didn't rebuke his MSNBC colleague for doing "the same thing" the NRCC did:

Shuster, however, was silent on the fact that MSNBC reporter Luke Russert basically did the same thing. Appearing on the March 3 edition of the Ed Show, he commented on Democrats who wanted to strip the controversial Rangel of his chairmanship.

Russert explained that these politicians are in "conservative districts, who really saw problems back home in their rural districts in the mountains being associated with a Harlem Democrat who writes the nation's tax laws who a lot of folks say is not paying their taxes." Does this mean that Luke Russert is using "racially tinged" language? Will Shuster call on his colleague to apologize?

What's hilarious about that?  Well, Russert didn't do "the same thing" the NRCC did.  The NRCC repeatedly drew attention to Rangel's ties to Harlem.  Russert, on the other hand, reported that some members of congress in conservative districts fear "being associated with a Harlem Democrat."  Russert's reporting suggests that, to some people "Harlem" is a pejorative.  Russert's report, in other words, reinforces Shuster's point -- that the NRCC appears to be using "Harlem" because it believes the word has negative connotations, at least to some people.

Stop digging, Whitlock.

At least eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred for white people." Here are his February 5 sponsors, in the order they appeared:

• Lifestyle Lift
• American Petroleum Institute
• Rosland Capital
• Answers in Genesis (IAmNotAshamed.org)
• The Jewelry Exchange
• Foundation for a Better Life
• Lear Capital
• LifeLock
• Stevenson Industries, Inc. (NoMask.com)
• International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
• Turbo Tax
• Biotab Nutraceuticals, Inc. (Alteril.com)
• Survival Seed Bank
• Rosland Capital
• Lifestyle Lift
• 1-800-PetMeds
• IRSTaxAgreements.com
• Goldline
• News Corp. (The Wall Street Journal)
• Quietus (QuietRelief.com)
• American Advisers Group

Reporting that President Obama "is mounting a stinging, sustained broadside against health insurance rate increases," The Washington Post characterized the White House's message in response to reported double-digit health insurance rate increases as a "near-daily demonization of the insurance industry." But once you cut through the loaded words, the Post provided no indication that anything Obama has said in his "demonization" of insurers is incorrect or otherwise problematic:

The White House is mounting a stinging, sustained broadside against health insurance rate increases as President Obama and his aides enter what they hope will be the final stretch of a year-long political war over health-care reform.

Obama and his health secretary staged a two-pronged attack Monday in a stern letter to health insurance chief executives and a speech in which the president castigated insurance companies 22 times. "How much higher do premiums have to rise," he demanded, "before we do something about it?"

[...]

The near-daily demonization of the insurance industry is an attempt by the White House to play to Americans' anxieties about the health-care system -- and about the prospect of changing it.

The Los Angeles Times reported in February that Anthem Blue Cross planned to "dramatically raise rates for customers with individual policies" by as much as 39 percent. A February 11 New York Times article reported that White House officials were looking to illustrate the need for health care reform by pointing to excessive rate increases:

Anthem's rate increases, set to take effect March 1, have galvanized some Democrats in Washington, including President Obama, who say they provide an example of why Congress needs to break its political logjam and pass legislation to overhaul the health care system.

Indeed, the Post article itself noted that the administration's message regarding insurers was in response to double-digit rate increases:

By focusing on escalating insurance rates, especially for the sliver of the market in which people buy health coverage individually, the administration is emphasizing that costs will increase if Congress does not act.

"Part of the motivating factor here is letting members of Congress know there's a price to pay for failure," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Monday in an interview. "And for the public, it's important to remind them that there are premium increases of 40 percent for as far as you can see if nothing is done."

Emanuel's figure referred to a recent move by Anthem Blue Cross of California to raise premiums by 39 percent for people who buy individual policies.

As the White House has launched its last-minute public relations blitz, "there could have been no greater gift" than Anthem's proposed rate increase, said Drew E. Altman, president of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy and research organization. The Obama administration, Altman said, is "trying to connect better with average people" in terms more concrete than the president used earlier in the debate when he spoke about "bending the curve" of escalating health-care costs and curbing future budget deficits.

Left unanswered is how the administration is responsible for demonizing the insurance industry by highlighting the actual actions of the insurance industry.

Newsbusters' Scott Whitlock is really grasping at straws in an attempt to criticize an ABC report for failing to mention that some 9/11 Truthers are liberal.  

Take, for example, the fact that Whitlock's headline undermines his central complaint: "ABC Leaves Ideology Out of Investigation Into 9/11 Truthers: 'They Come From All Over the Political Spectrum.'"  Seems pretty obvious that if ABC noted the Truthers "come from all over the political spectrum," they didn't actually "leave[] ideology out" of their report, doesn't it?

Later in the post, Whitlock wrote "Now, Truthers don't reside only on the left, but why ignore the fact that many do?"  What?  Does Whitlock know what "ignore" means?  If ABC -- by Whitlock's own admission -- acknowledged that Truthers "come from all over the political spectrum," they clearly didn't "ignore" the fact that some are liberals. (Whitlock also acknowledged that the ABC report indicated that "Former Obama environmental czar Van Jones forced out after signing an online petition for 9/11 truth that he later repudiated.")

So, if ABC didn't actually ignore the fact that some Truthers are liberals, what is Whitlock so upset about?  Seems what really bothers him is that ABC didn't mention a 2007 Rasmussen poll of dubious merit:

However, according to a 2007 poll by Rasmussen, 35 percent of Democrats believed that President Bush knew about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in advance. Yet, Bury blandly explained, "They are an eclectic group with widely different agenda, including war protestors, first responders who feel neglected and families of some 9/11 victims."

Bury did highlight one attendee, Sander Hicks, noting, that he "want[s] treason charges brought against members of the Bush administration." However, there is no mention of the Rasmussen poll about Democrats. Now, Truthers don't reside only on the left, but why ignore the fact that many do?

Now, that Rasmussen poll isn't particularly significant, as the question asked was too broad to yield meaningful results -- as even conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg concedes.  But what's really hilarious about Whitlock touting the poll is that it has barely been a month since he used it as an example of poll results that aren't credible.   Here's Whitlock's February 2 post about an MSNBC report:

So, one poll, by a left-wing website (in conjunction with the firm Research 2000), is enough for MSNBC to assert that 58 percent of GOPers subscribe to a bizarre conspiracy? A Rasmussen poll from May of 2007 found that 61 percent of Democrats either believed that George Bush knew about the 9/11 terror attack in advance or aren't sure. Does that mean that "most Democrats" are Truthers?

See what Whitlock did there? He dismissed the validity of "one poll" finding he didn't like -- and, in an effort to demonstrate how crazy it would be to take it seriously, he compared it to the Rasmussen finding about Democrats and 9/11.  

But now, just over a month after comparing a Research 2000 poll to the Rasmussen poll in order to discredit the Research 2000 poll, Whitlock is complaining that ABC didn't mention the Rasmussen poll.

So Scott Whitlock's view of the credibility of the Rasmussen finding is variable, dependent on who he wants to criticize and why.

Yesterday, we highlighted how WorldNetDaily financial columnist Porter Stansberry bragged that he's ready to flee the country at a moment's notice with most of his wealth to a locale "that doesn't have any ties to America." We did some looking into Stansberry's background and found a large sanction against him from the Securities & Exchange Commission.

In 2003, the SEC filed a complaint against Stansberry, his operation (then called Pirate Investor, now called Stansberry & Associates), and the company that owns Stansberry's operation, Agora Inc. The SEC argued that Stansberry's newsletters "contain nothing more than baseless speculation and outright lies," citing an example in which Stansberry promised investors they could double their "investment dollar in a single day" on one stock tip, which he would sell for $1,000. In fact, the stock went down nearly 15 percent on the day Stansberry promised investors they would double their money.

In 2007, the SEC ordered Stansberry and his company to pay $1.5 million in restitution and civil penalties, stating that, according to an August 10, 2007, Baltimore Sun article (retrieved from Nexis), Stansberry's company "acted in reckless disregard for regulations when it published Stansberry's unbelievable claims without a shred of confirmation." The parent company, Agora, was not held liable.

Stansberry appealed the fine and tried to press his case in public. Stansberry's lawyers, David Rivkin Jr. and Bruce Brown, penned a November 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed arguing that the SEC has no jurisdiction in the case because it didn't involve insider trading. The issue is regulation of "disinterested stock analysis," Rivkin and Brown wrote, and "the SEC has no more business penalizing a writer who simply covers the markets than the Food and Drug Administration has in regulating a cookbook publisher because an official questions the nutritional content in a meatloaf recipe."

In September 2009, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Stansberry's SEC sanction, stating that securities fraud is not protected speech and "[p]unishing fraud, whether it be common law fraud or securities fraud, simply does not violate the First Amendment."

Stansberry has popped up on occasion in more mainstream news outlets. Barron's touted him as "highly regarded" and "remarkably prescient" in July 2008; a February 2009 Associated Press article cited Stansberry, as did a separate February 2009 USA Today article.

None of these articles mentioned Stansberry's SEC fine. Unsurprisingly, WorldNetDaily hasn't either. Quite the contrary: When his column began in December 2009, WND claimed it was "introducing readers looking for sound, reality-based investment information to the respected financial research outfit Stansberry & Associates."

How does "sound, reality-based investment information" mesh with a $1.5 million SEC sanction for selling "unbelievable claims without a shred of confirmation" to investors? That's something WND (and Stansberry) should explain.