While anchors and analysts on MSNBC had nothing but praise for anyone involved in the impeachment effort against Donald Trump, these same liberals have had nothing but contempt and ridicule for the people who sought to defend the Republican occupant of the White House.
That was particularly evident on Tuesday’s edition of Morning Joe, when co-host Joe Scarborough sought to demean Trump defender Ken Starr -- who claimed that we’re in an “age of impeachment" -- by stating that the former Bill Clinton prosecutor had included several sexual terms in his own report two decades ago.
According to an article posted by Ken Meyer, a writer and editor for the Mediaite.com, Starr had stated that “the current political climate too easily goes to the extreme” and has resulted in frivolous impeachment attacks. Of course, Scarborough took advantage of the situation by snarking that the current accusation from the former independent counsel was “rich” since “he got explicit about it” in his document.
Despite audible protests from fellow co-host Mika Brzezinski, Scarborough stated that he hoped viewers’ “kids are still asleep” and if not, “you can cover their ears right now.”
He then stated:
This is a man who put in the impeachment report allegations of “oral, anal contact.” That’s what Ken Starr did. That’s what a Supreme Court justice did. That’s what they put in their impeachment report.
In addition, “Ken Starr is lecturing America about taking impeachment too lightly? … It is preposterous, especially on the legal merits, saying that there is no way that a President can be impeached because of abuse of power when he called that ‘the capstone of his impeachment argument against Bill Clinton.’”
Of course, Scarborough failed to see his own lack of self-awareness while slamming Starr for including such “explicit terms” as “oral, anal contact.” But even if that’s true, how else should Starr have described the sexual encounters between Clinton and intern Monica Lewinsky?
Nevertheless, at that point of the segment, guest Benjamin Wittes offered “an amusing anecdote” about watching Starr’s testimony:
I was sitting with a colleague yesterday, ... and she turned to me and said: “Does Ken Starr know he’s Ken Starr?” I think that kind of, you know, captured the whole thing, that there was so little self-awareness in this sort of pious presentation of the dangers of hyperactive impeachment.
Wittes then noted that people “kind of watched it saying: ‘Do you know who you are in this conversation? Do you know, have any understanding of the role you played?'”
Of course, liberal announcers like Scarborough are too busy pointing out other people’s faults to take the time to explore their own biases.
