Fraudulent Rant by Judge Jeanine
Deception and outright lies. Creation Date Sunday, 12 March 2017. Hits 601
If you're not familiar with Justice with Judge Jeanine, it is a show on the FOX News Network starring Jeanine Pirro. She is known for her over-the-top rants where she serves up gobs of fresh red meat for her largely hard right wing audience. While it's not unusual for her to be a little fast and loose with the facts, she has been known to occasionally return from the break with a correction from her producers. Last night, however, there was no such correction to an outright lie she told on the show, and the matter being discussed should have (at the very least) contained a disclaimer from the host. I would cut her some slack, but as a former prosecutor and judge, she should be well aware of what proper protocol should have been here.
The matter being discussed (see video) was the alleged firing of federal prosecutor Preet Bharara. Long story short, he was asked for his resignation by the Trump Administration. He claims he refused to resign because he had been assured he could stay on. He alleges that the Trump Administration responded by firing him. The full extent of the dirty laundry (not really relevant to our case against Judge Jeanine) can be read by you dirty launderers. The rest of you, skip to the substance below the quote.
On Saturday morning, when the administration had still not received Bharara’s resignation, Boente attempted to call the U.S. attorney to find out why, but the two men did not immediately connect, according to people familiar with the discussions.
When they finally did speak shortly before 2:30 p.m., Boente informed Bharara that the order to submit his resignation indeed applied to him because he was a presidentially appointed U.S. attorney, according to a Justice Department official with knowledge of the conversation.
Bharara asked Boente if he was firing him and Boente replied that he was asking him to submit his resignation, the official said.
Minutes later, Bharara announced on Twitter that he was out. “I did not resign,” Bharara said. “Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life.”
Bharara sent an email to his staff, asserting again that Boente had removed him from his job.
On her show, Judge Jeanine gave her opinion, which she is perfectly entitled to do. After all she is now a judge in the court of public opinion. Were she in a court of law, she might have to recuse herself. Why? Check this out.
The United States attorney’s office is looking into the way Fox News handled payments related to sexual harassment cases to determine whether the company misled investors, according to the lawyer for a woman who is suing the network.
At a hearing in New York State Supreme Court on Wednesday, the lawyer, Judd Burstein, who is representing the former Fox anchor Andrea Tantaros, said that another one of his clients had received a grand jury subpoena related to Fox News. He did not identify that client.
Mr. Burstein said in a text message that he believed federal investigators were looking at whether Fox News structured sexual harassment settlement claims by paying them out in salaries, “so as not to have to report them.”
He added that the prosecutors had identified themselves as being from a securities fraud division of the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan.
So the prosecutor she spends the first five minutes degrading just so happens to reportedly be investigating the network that she works for. Interesting, isn't it? One would think that would be worthy of a "full disclosure" disclaimer. "In the interest of full disclosure, the man I'm celebrating the firing of and mocking for refusing to tender his resignation also happened to be working on a criminal investigation against my employer at the time of his firing." Again, if she were still a Judge there is little doubt that she would be forced to recuse herself from this case if it came up in her court. It got worse.
Her next guess was Coco Soodek, a woman she identified as her "favorite liberal". She came on, and Judge Jeanine spent the next five minutes asking her questions and screaming over top of her answers. Riveting television, let me tell you. 2 minutes in the closed caption typist either resigned the post or went into an epileptic seizure, depending on how you interpreted the copy rolling across the screen. I know, I know. It's automated, but you get the idea. In the back and forth that is audible, the following exchange occurred (see video below).
Coco: "He's also investigating FOX News for securities violations."
Jeanine: "Where do you get this crap from Coco? Do you make this stuff up?'
So here you have a former judge turned talking head denying roundly reported information, sourced through multiple credible outlets, and the subject matter of the information greatly calls into question her objectivity in this matter. To be fair, not that anyone ever accused Judge Jeanine of being objective, but this conflict of interests extends far beyond her political affiliations.
This was very disappointing to me. I am well aware that Judge Jeanine is a hard right winger, but she has shown the occasional signs of fairness. Most specifically, I remember when she rebuked James Comey for publicizing the investigation into Hillary 2 weeks before the election. Perhaps we will get some type of admission of her error in this matter next week. It is possible that she was unaware of the reported investigation into her employer, although I think it to be more likely that she was instructed not to speak of such a thing and to deny any mentions of the matter. Either way, the irony is rich here. President Trump, who settled his fraud case over Trump University following the election applies the "fake news" moniker tp nearly every network other than FOX News, who is currently being investigated for fraud. Why is that? Perhaps it's because of their willingness to obscure any factual evidence that might impugn his behavior.