Apparently not satisfied with Chuck Todd comparing Trump defense team attorney Ken Starr to a “bank robber” on Monday, MSNBC anchor and chief legal correspondent Ari Melber turned it up to eleven on Tuesday as he compared Starr to murderous drug lord El Chapo. His panel of left-wing pundits laughed with glee at the outrageous pronouncement.
Early in the discussion, Melber blasted Starr’s presentation during the Senate impeachment trial as “farcical” and accused the former independent counsel of “hypocrisy,” given Starr’s role in advocating the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson ranted: “I mean, there is not a human being on this planet, indeed not a sentient being in the universe, less qualified to decry the age of impeachment than the man who created it, Ken Starr.”
Melber then laughably claimed: “When I criticize Ken Starr’s performance, which I thought was uniquely embarrassing legally, and I don’t say that to be mean. I say that as assessing who he is, which is known, and then his ability to reckon with that, which is zero, combined with his hypocrisy and the shallowness of the actual legal arguments he made.”
It was at that point that the anchor decided to compare Starr to the notorious crime boss:
So there’s a rich debate over whether we are too punitive in our dealings with drug law in America and punishing drug offenses. There’s a debate about that. But if you say, “Well, my new nominee to run the DEA is El Chapo" [Laughter], you are actually hurting the legitimate part of that debate. And so I submit to you, the same question to our panel, and I think it’s worth taking a moment here the day after to just – the same question the panel and American viewers might be reckoning with, which is how did they come about the idea of, “Yeah, let’s put El Chapo in charge of the DEA and that way we can have a discussion about drug reform.”
Journalist Shawna Thomas was somewhat taken aback by the nasty smear: “Well, I am not going to compare Ken Starr to El Chapo.” Melber proudly owned the statement: “I did.” Thomas replied: “You did, that’s fine.” The entire panel then burst into laughter.
The unadulterated hatred that the liberal media have toward Starr is palpable – they simply can’t stand that he actually held a Democratic president accountable for his actions.
Here is a transcript of the January 28 exchange:
10:12 AM ET
(...)
ARI MELBER: I don’t see how Ken Starr’s presence making the arguments that self-own, that play himself, that he has no credibility to make, which does make the whole process, at least of his section, somewhat farcical, combined with his complete resistance to even mention or explain his hypocrisy – which at least Alan Dershowitz tried to say something about that – struck me as not persuasive and may have actually hurt them among some. Even among – we talk so much about the Republicans, it may have hurt them among some Democratic senators who aren’t sure they want to convict.
EUGENE ROBINSON [WASHINGTON POST]: Yeah, it may have. I mean, there is not a human being on this planet, indeed not a sentient being in the universe, less qualified to decry the age of impeachment than the man who created it, Ken Starr. It’s just – so that goes without saying, but can’t be said often enough. It was, on that level, insane. Now, I guess the strategy or tactic or idea might have been, “Well, if even Ken Starr says this impeachment is wrong, it must be wrong.” I mean, that’s the only way I can think that they might have thought.
MELBER: I guess, maybe. But my question for you is this. When I criticize Ken Starr’s performance, which I thought was uniquely embarrassing legally, and I don’t say that to be mean. I say that as assessing who he is, which is known, and then his ability to reckon with that, which is zero, combined with his hypocrisy and the shallowness of the actual legal arguments he made. That doesn't mean there are no valid arguments left.
So there’s a rich debate over whether we are too punitive in our dealings with drug law in America and punishing drug offenses. There’s a debate about that. But if you say, “Well, my new nominee to run the DEA is El Chapo [Laughter], you are actually hurting the legitimate part of that debate. And so I submit to you, the same question to our panel, and I think it’s worth taking a moment here the day after to just – the same question the panel and American viewers might be reckoning with, which is how did they come about the idea of, “Yeah, let’s put El Chapo in charge of the DEA and that way we can have a discussion about drug reform.”
SHAWNA THOMAS [QUIBI, NEWS EXECUTIVE]: Well, I am not going to compare Ken Starr to El Chapo.
MELBER: I did.
THOMAS: You did, that’s fine. [Laughter]
(...)
