www.newsbusters.org
On PBS, Jonathan Capehart Gives Thanks for Kamala, Who 'Exemplified Black Excellence'
On the PBS NewsHour on Friday, Washington Post and MSNBC opinionator Jonathan Capehart was liberal with his gratitude when asked what he was thankful for. Liberal, as in wow, he loves Kamala Harris, who he said “exemplified black excellence” as vice president and presidential candidate.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: What I'm thankful for in general are Black women. They have stood for this democracy. They stood fast for this democracy in this last election. And so I am thankful for them. But, in particular, I'm thankful for two specific Black women. One is my mom, who turned 83 a couple weeks ago.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Happy birthday.
CAPEHART: And so the longer I get to spend time with her, the more grateful I am for her.
And then the other person I'm grateful for is Vice President Harris, who, in the vice presidency and in her 107-day presidential campaign, exemplified black excellence. And for those of us in the black community and those around the country who love us, seeing her on the campaign trail was something to truly be thankful for.
BRANGHAM: Lovely.
David Brooks chose to be non-political in his gratitude. Brangham began the segment by mourning the end of the Jack Smith probes (as PBS did in its Monday political roundtable). At this late date, Brooks suddenly thinks it would be weaponization to continue (as if it wasn’t before).
DAVID BROOKS: I think, in general, obviously, no person is above the law. And in my view, if a sitting president has committed a murder, extortion, some horrible crime like that, then the precedent that we don't prosecute sitting presidents, that should be overridden.
In this particular case, some of the trials, especially in New York and Georgia, looked a little political. Donald Trump ran saying they're attacking me with lawfare. Kamala Harris talked a lot about the trial, so it was right there in the center of the election.
And 75 million Americans decided it wasn't disqualifying. And, to my view — and I understand there's a danger in putting him sort of above the law, but to me the greater danger is that we use trials as political weapons in the years ahead. So I think, on balance, Jack Smith did the right thing.
Brangham pointed out that Smith didn’t have much of a choice, considering Justice Department norms. So Brooks repeated: “when the American voters have spoken, I think respect for democracy and for the precedent that we don't use trials as political footballs — and once we started voting that precedent, I think we're very close to the point where we started using trials as political footballs. And that would be terrible for politics and for our judicial system.”
Naturally, Capehart disagreed. Nobody weaponized anything!
CAPEHART: I don't see the January 6 trial or the classified documents cases, trials as political weapons. They were not political weapons.
Our system was attacked, literally attacked, and there needed to be accountability when it comes to January 6. There needed to be accountability for a former president who took national security secrets, in contravention of the law, and stored them in various places, as you noted in the opening of the question. So I don't begrudge Jack Smith or Attorney General Merrick Garland for proceeding with the cases.
But then, Capehart also comically stated during the Republican convention that Trump wasn’t vilified by the Left. ("Define vilified," he said.) He also insisted Joe Biden was doing just fine in the polls three days before Biden withdrew from the race.
News Feed (Home)
Popular Posts 
Events 
Blog 
Market 
Forum 
Headline News
VidWatch
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
