Tuesday's episode of Nicolle Wallace's MSNBC show offered a triple-header of obtuse liberal hypocrisy. First up, Yamiche Alcindor—apparently devoid of the slightest shred of self-awareness—said:
"Fox News, while it's sort of supposed to be a cable news channel, what it really was, I mean, and continues to be, is sort of this fringe wing of the GOP."
Need we remind Alcindor that she is among the most egregiously biased liberal commentators in the media universe?If Fox News is a fringe wing of the GOP, how would Alcindor, a PBS host and MSNBC contributor, describe herself and the networks that sign her paychecks?
This, from a person who a year ago honored Martin Luther King as a model, as someone who wanted radical change." And someone who demanded the White House back Rep. Maxine Waters after she made comments threatening jurors.
Indeed, Alcindor and her ilk are no "fringe" element of the Democrat party. They are a central part of it, key players in the party's drive to obtain and retain power for an increasingly radical base.
Next up in the obtuse-liberal-hypocrisy hit parade: Alcindor's observation came during a discussion of the news that Adam Schiff has confirmed that the January 6th committee has requested Sean Hannity's "voluntary cooperation" to be interviewed regarding his communications with the White House touching upon January 6th.
Wallace asked New York Times reporter Katie Benner what she thought the prospects were that Hannity would cooperate with the committee.
Benner replied that, other than fearing that Trump might retaliate in ways that would hurt Hannity at Fox and with his viewers: "there is no reason for him not to testify."
Surely Katie can't be serious! Imagine it's 2023, and Republicans have the House majority. They create a special committee to look into some aspect of Democrat wrongdoing, and invite, say, Benner, Wallace, and Alcindor to "voluntarily cooperate" by sharing their communications with the Biden White House.
Now imagine the outraged cries from those three, and from the liberal media at large, about the "threat to democracy" that such request represented. And we'd surely be treated to an endless parade of allegedly nonpartisan "expert" professors pontificating about the First Amendment, the independence of the press, etc.
In a final bit of clueless irony, Wallace said of Sean Hannity:
"I don't know the right word, but he was once for the Bush-Cheney worldview. He was once one of the closest cable hosts to the Bush White House. I know that because I was his communications director. He [pauses] adapts, and he now sort of sees the world very differently. The way Donald Trump does."
With her claim not to know "the right word," and her pause before describing Hannity as someone who "adapts" his views, Wallace was implicitly accusing Hannity of flip-flopping political opportunism. But if Hannity has moved with the Republican mainstream from Bush to Trump, what about shape-shifting Wallace?
As she herself mentioned, Wallace had once been W's communications director. She subsequently transmogrified into one of the MSM's most vitriolic, down-the-line liberals. She might have thought about that before casting aspersions on Hannity.
Here's the transcript.
Deadline White House
4:09 pm ET
NICOLLE WALLACE: Congressman Adam Schiff has confirmed some reporting from Axios that the January 6th select committee has invited one Sean Hannity to voluntarily visit with the committee, chat with them, about what he may or may not know.
As you all know, his, I believe his text messages were among the many that Liz Cheney read from, that data dump that they received from Mark Meadows before he defied the subpoena, was held in criminal contempt of Congress. He did turn over text messages he'd received from Fox News anchors, Trump family members.
One of the Fox News anchors was Sean Hannity, and Congressman Adam Schiff confirming that the committee would like for Sean Hannity to voluntarily meet with them.
Yamiche, the people close to the president that they are interested in, that they have engaged, is really, really getting closer and closer to Donald Trump.
YAMICHE ALCINDOR: That's definitely true. You can see that this is a committee that is ramping up its work, that's really trying to close in on that inner, inner circle of President Trump, former President Trump, and to really understand, sort of, who was talking to him, and who he really respected enough to sort of weigh their opinion.
And Sean Hannity, for anyone who has covered former President Trump, everyone knows that he is someone who is in the president's orbit. They were speaking regularly. The president really took his, his sort of advice to heart.
It's also in some ways is a reminder that Fox News, while it's sort of supposed to be a cable-news channel, what is really was, I mean, and continues to be, is sort of this fringe wing of the GOP, and really the hosts on there, especially the late-night opinion hosts on there, they have in some ways turned out to be even more powerful than the elected officials that were trying to listen, that were trying to talk to former President Trump.
WALLACE: And Sean Hannity is not Steve Bannon. I mean, Steve Bannon's whole political identity starts and stops with Donald Trump. There was nothing before. There will be nothing after. Sean Hannity is, I don't know the right word, but he was once for the Bush-Cheney worldview. He was once one of the closest cable hosts to the Bush White House. I know that because I was his communications director. He once saw the world that way.
He [pause] adapts, and he now sort of sees the world very differently. The way Donald Trump does. But he's not Tucker Carlson. He's not Laura Ingraham. He has not made his bed in Trumplandia.
And I wonder what you think the prospects are that he comes and— he's done nothing wrong, he doesn't think Donald Trump did anything wrong—he comes and talks to this committee?
KATIE BENNER: You know, should somebody like Hannity decide not to come speak before the committee, I think it really says a lot about the perceived power of Donald Trump. And the idea that Donald Trump could retaliate in some way. That it could hurt Hannity's standing at Fox. It could hurt his standing with viewers, or could hurt his standing with his colleagues. Otherwise to your point, there is no reason for him not to testify.