I will bet anyone $100 that this turns out to be nothing. No, I am not joking. If you’re reading this and you want to take me up, hit me up in the comments and we’ll work something out. Fuck sports gambling; banking on Breitbart’s credibility is the kind of sucker bet from which you can really rake it in. This wouldn’t be the first or — if I’m recalling correctly; I could’ve swore I read about a second incident but I can’t find the article(s) — even the second time Breitbart crashed and burned trying to play gotcha with the visitor logs. What part of the incompatibility between secretive conspiracy and public disclosure do they not get? Yeah let’s check our secret sleeper agent in via the official, publicly-disclosed gateway that we already know Breitbart is watching. Somehow in these peoples’ minds Obama is simultaneously the world’s most nefarious gangster and the ultimate bumbling Keystone Kop type. I get Breitbart’$ motive$ but the people who buy into his hype…? Huh…?
In May 2009, the Obama/Holder Justice Department dropped charges in a voter intimidation case against Malik Shabazz, a leader of the New Black Panther Party, despite having already won a summary judgment against him, and his New Black Panther Party colleagues King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson who were video-taped outside polling place in Philadelphia intimidating voters as they arrived on election day, 2008. In July 2009, when Congress began looking into the matter, someone named Malik Shabazz visited the private residence at the White House.
When news of the visit was released under the auspices of transparency, the White House denied that the Malik Shabazz on the visitor’s log was the same Malik Shabazz involved in the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. According to Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, the records contained “a few “false positives” – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else.” He specifically cited Malik Shabazz as an example of one of these “false positives”.
At the time, the media did not challenge the White House on the veracity of this claim. The White House’s position was, basically: “We’re being transparent, here are all the visitor logs, and this guy is not the guy you think he is, TRUST US.”
Hilariously enough, I’m not even the first person to think of this angle on Breitbart. That distinction actually belongs to the man sniveling propagandist toady himself:
Recently, Andrew Breitbart Twittered a $1,000 bet challenging Media Matters and senior fellow Eric Boehlert for proof that Bertha E. Lewis — whose name recently appeared on a White House guest list — was not ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis. Breitbart’s challenge followed his begrudging semi-correction acknowledging that a White House official reportedly told Politico’s Ben Smith that it was, in fact, a different Bertha Lewis.
So he goes on twitter having already admitted his story is bullshit and makes this challenge. Does he think bloggers don’t read Politico? Is he compensating for something? Attempting to prove that he can still create his own reality? I don’t get it. … edit: Wait, maybe I do get it. Maybe Breitbart’s so shitty at research that he literally has no idea where to start and he’s willing to pay $1000 so he can kinda reverse-engineer it see how it’s done, thus giving him at least some idea of how to go about backing himself up the next time he tries to pull this shit.
And maybe he’ll take up my bet on this one. Wouldn’t that be grand.