Video: Pamela Geller interview cut short when she discussed CAIR

I know this may be a day or so late but we had technical difficulties with the blog yesterday and thought this too important not to post (there is also a new development anyway).

People in the media business know the downsides and pitfalls of recorded interviews. They can be edited to distort or alter context or, in some cases, relevant material omitted altogether, which is what happened with an interview between CNN's Erin Burnett and Pamela Geller.

First of all, evidence of CNN running interference for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is not new. They were caught red-handed in 2011 collaborating with CAIR according to a man who was the target of a CNN smear levied by Anderson Cooper and Drew Griffin, a proven liar.

On the September 20th, the cable propaganda network aired an interview between Burnett and Geller that had been pre-recorded. The subject of the interview was a judge's ruling to allow Geller's anti-Jihad ads to be posted in the New York City subways. The full-length interview was somewhere between 12 - 14 minutes. However, CNN only aired the first nine minutes of the interview. One might be inclined to say it was for the sake of time and that a programming decision was made to allow for the airing of other content.

That might seem legitimate to some but it was indeed interesting that the interview that aired was cut off at precisely the time when Geller referred to CAIR and the group's involvement in the Holy Land Foundation trial - CAIR's biggest soft spot. The other red flag is the degree to which Burnett is willing to take the opposing view. There is a clear line between playing devil's advocate and being in the tank. Burnett crossed it in this interview.

Geller posted a YouTube on 9/21 that included the entire interview. After the point when CNN cut off what aired live, you only hear the audio, which was recorded by a separate source.

Via Atlas Shrugs:



Later on the 21st, as Geller points out, CNN did post the entire interview.

Think Progress: 'Huma Abedin is not part of a Muslim Brotherhood plot'

The George Soros-funded Think Progress has seen fit to refute a charge made by David Horowitz during the latter's appearance on Fox News channel. While talking to Megyn Kelly about the controversy surrounding the anti-Muhammad film, Horowitz referred to Huma Abedin as a 'Muslim Brotherhood operative'. Kelly actually seemed quite adamant that the subject not be discussed.

In light of Fox's virtual embargo on the topic - unless they're covering pro-Abedin stances - Kelly's insistence that a State Department official's irrefutable connections to the Muslim Brotherhood not be brought up is more than just a little curious.

Perhaps more telling is Think Progress going out of its way to say that Huma Abedin is not part of a Muslim Brotherhood plot. Doing so actually hurts their cause and, again, adds to the already disturbing profile of her defenders.

When was the last time you saw Think Progress critical of the Muslim Brotherhood?

DOJ Inspector General Report on Fast and Furious: Holder Incompetent but Innocent of wrongdoing

After reading the Executive Summary of the Inspector General's Report on Operation Fast and Furious, I'm struck by one thing. The biggest indictment of Attorney General Eric Holder may just be that he still has a job as Attorney General after these findings, not because the conclusions call for his removal but because Holder shouldn't be able to look himself in the mirror before going to work. Any real leader would literally step aside in utter disgrace or, at best, fall on the sword for his subordinates. If Holder does neither, he shouldn't have the trust of any subordinates.

Yes, Holder was found innocent of wrongdoing but the degree to which others close to him were found culpable makes him look like anything other than a leader.

As it was during the hearings and investigation, a huge stickling point for Holder is that now infamous February 4, 2011 letter in which the DOJ assured Senator Chuck Grassley that no gun-walking was taking place. DOJ didn't rescind that letter until December of 2011. It's clear, apparently even to IG Horowitz, that while the letter itself should not have been written, there is no way it should have taken ten months to rescind it.

From the Executive Summary via AZ Central:

The OIG concluded, as did the Department, that its February 4, 2011, response letter to Senator Grassley contained inaccuracies, particularly its assertion that ATF "makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico."

However, the OIG also found that, by March or April 2011, senior Department officials knew or should have known that ATF had not made "every effort to interdict weapons that [had] been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico," either in Operation Fast and Furious or other firearms trafficking investigations and therefore the February 4 letter contained inaccuracies.

Ok, so the IG says "senior Department officials" should have known the February 4th letter was bogus within one to two months of it being signed (not ten months afterward). Once you're talking about "senior Department officials", you're talking about Holder's inner circle. We're left to conclude that members of Holder's inner circle are culpable when it comes to not identifying the February 4th letter for what it was.

As such, shouldn't Holder by culpable as well? In fact, he should step aside before those identified by IG Horowitz do; it would be the most honorable thing to do.

Then again, the only thing Holder and honor have in common is that they both start with the letter "h".

As for the IG's analysis of how the February 4th letter got written...

The OIG found that a poorly executed information gathering and drafting process, as well as questionable judgments by Department officials, contributed to the Department's inclusion of inaccurate information in its February 4 response letter to Senator Grassley.

In preparing this letter, Department officials relied on information provided by senior component officials that was not accurate, primarily from U.S. Attorney Burke, ATF Acting Director Melson, and ATF Deputy Director Hoover. These officials failed to exercise appropriate oversight of the investigation, and to some extent were themselves receiving incorrect or incomplete information from their subordinates about it.

Once again, Holder's direct subordinates are guilty of "questionable judgments" and relying on information that was "not accurate". Horowitz then says theses "officials (Holder's immediate subordinates) failed to exercise appropriate oversight".

This next excerpt indicates a lack of leadership on the part of Holder, not by name, but based on what his immediate subordinates (plural) viewed as a correct course of action:

The OIG further concluded that the Department officials who had a role in drafting the February 4 letter should have done more to inform themselves about the allegations in Sen. Grassley's letter and should not have relied solely on the assurances of senior officials at ATF and the U.S. Attorney's Office that the allegations were false.

Again, Holder's direct subordinates are fingered by Horowitz as being incompetent. Yet, Holder was whistling in blissful and ignorant solitude somewhere while his underlings - whom he hired - were making all of these bone-headed decisions?!

Perhaps most damning was an admission by Horowitz that the DOJ should have corrected the assertions in its February 4, 2011 letter in its May 2, 2011 letter in response to Grassley:

The OIG further concluded that, by the date of its May 2 response letter, senior Department officials responsible for drafting the letter also knew or should have known that ATF had not made "every effort to interdict weapons purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico," either in Operation Fast and Furious or other firearms trafficking investigations, and that the Department's February 4 letter contained inaccuracies and could no longer be defended in its entirety.

Rep. Darrell Issa's team has been very quick in sending out emails in response to this report. Here is an excerpt from a mass email I received from Frederick R. Hill, Director of Communications for the Oversight Committee:

IG Report’s Findings on why Attorney General Holder was not aware of Crucial Information about Operation Fast and Furious and Other Gunwalking (p. 453):

“We concluded that the Attorney General’s Deputy Chief of Staff, the Acting Deputy Attorney General, and the leadership of the Criminal Division failed to alert the Attorney General to significant information about or flaws in those investigations.”

Shouldn't Attorney General Holder be held accountable for the incompetence of multiple direct reports?

If Holder remains on as Attorney General, it will actually (and paradoxically) be the biggest indictment of him, based on the incompetence of the people who he is directly responsible for.