06-18-2018 11:55:00 AM -0700
06-17-2018 08:12:25 AM -0700
06-15-2018 09:37:33 AM -0700
06-14-2018 04:17:55 PM -0700
06-12-2018 02:13:25 PM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Partners in Crime: Media Matters and DOJ

It is an email from Soros-Winged Monkey Matt Gertz at Media Matters to Press Harpy Tracy Schmaler.  Gertz is officially called a “deputy research director,” which really means his job is to watch Fox News obsessively and use Google to write defamatory stories about conservatives, all while being paid less than the “research director.”

Gertz’s email forwards his attack on Pavlich to Schmaler.  He wanted to make sure Schmaler at central command saw his good work. (Does that make Schmaler the Wicked Witch?  Alas, I mix my pop culture references with mythological ones.)

Gertz sends this email a mere “1 minute” after his piece posted.  A good monkey promptly alerts Master.

Notice also Gertz’s subject header – ICYMI.  That’s lazy for “in case you missed it.”  Given that the post was a mere 60 seconds old, it is hard to know how Schmaler could have done anything but missed it.

The email appears awfully familiar, like a piece in a long-running exchange of In Case You Missed It back and forths.  Yet a single document was responsive to our request.


Are we to believe that Schmaler never replied to her most trusted field operative?  (Sorry Ryan Reilly, and Charlie Savage.  Gertz has it hands down.)  Is it really plausible that Gertz and Schmaler never once exchanged another email given the number of similar dishonest hit pieces Gertz has done on critics of Eric Holder?

We all know the answer.

Of course Gertz and Schmaler may be so close that she is using a personal email account that escapes our FOIA.  Or, DOJ is simply lying when it says a single document is responsive.  These days, it’s hard to know which is more likely.