[UPDATE #3 April 3. The total has reached 9 articles now.]
[UPDATE #2 April 2. Chuck’s anti-Michelle Fields article count is now at eight.]
[UPDATED April 1. Chuck has added a seventh hit piece. See below. Not an April’s Fool joke.]
Now designated by Rachel Maddow as “the World’s Creepiest Blogger in Exile,” Chuck C. Johnson has decided to live up to his new nickname by putting Michelle Fields in his crosshairs.
Fields, of course, is the former Breitbart reporter who accused Corey Lewandowski, campaign manager for Donald Trump (R-Blowhard), of grabbing her hard enough to leave bruises on her forearm. Fields was attempting to ask the Mighty Donald a question when Lewandowski cut her off by pulling her away.
Fields followed up by filing charges against the Trump aide, who reported to the Jupiter, FL, police department for arraignment a couple of days ago.
Both Fields’ accusations and Lewandowski’s arrest have created a veritable shitstorm of invective on the Internet, and Fields has been a particular target of Trump partisans, in particular “Dim” Jim Hoft (the Gateway Pundit, aka Stupidest Man on the Internet) and Chuck C. Johnson of GotNewsDotCom (which is not us!).
Yesterday, Johnson published two posts on his blog, targeting Fields and for no logical reason, her mother.
Yes, her mother. Don’t you know, every Award Winning Journalist™ goes after a subject’s mother in the pursuit of a story. As soon as we can find another example, we’ll let you know.
Fields was interviewed by Brian Lamb in 2011 on CSPAN, and Johnson posted two clips from that interview with transcriptions included. The first clip deals with Fields’ remarks about biased journalism, and the second about her reactions as a newcomer to Washington, DC.
We feel compelled to make two observations.
Even if Fields believes biased reporting is no big deal, Johnson is the last person on Earth to be criticizing someone for bias in journalism. This is a guy who assumes all sexual assault victims are liars, all black men shot by police are guilty (of something), all whites and Asians are inherently smarter than everyone else, and all Muslims are dangerous terrorists. He says he doesn’t trust gays, because they are more prone to do drugs and have psychological problems. And he has freely admitted that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Alberta) is the best candidate for president ever, but since Cruz is probably not going to get the nomination, Donald Trump is the best candidate for president now.
So, yeah, no bias there At. All.
Secondly, in a weak attempt to smear Fields’ English abilities, Johnson — perhaps deliberately — transcribes Fields using the word “bias” incorrectly as an adjective, as in “bias reporting.” Given that Fields is a native speaker of English and a graduate of Pepperdine University AND has appeared on national TV as a commentator, one could assume her command of English is pretty good. And indeed, after we carefully listened to the CSPAN clip, we found that Fields does use “bias” and “biased” correctly, but her pronunciation of “biased” has a very soft final /d/ or /t/, so someone with a predilection to find fault with people he doesn’t like could construe that as the word “bias.”
As for the second clip, Johnson’s purpose in using it is more obscure, since he offers no commentary or context. Those of us with lower IQs must not be able to fathom his strategy here.
Fields tells Lamb that she was dismayed to find DC was full of “power hungry liars,” whose only interest in meeting people is to benefit from that acquaintance in some way.
Well, yeah. No argument there, so why mention it? Maybe that’s her bias. More like wisdom, in our book, but we’re trying to be un-biased here.
Now, on to Fields’ mother. Johnson apparently doesn’t like this lady because (1) she’s an immigrant from Honduras, (2) she helps undocumented and documented aliens settle in the USA and (3) she’s not a supporter of Donald Trump, who has characterized all Mexicans as rapists and criminals, and has suggested Muslims be barred from entry to the USA.
How dare she not support Donald Trump!
It’s this last point which Johnson uses in a vain attempt to “connect the dots” Glenn Beck-style to suggest that Fields has deliberately fabricated or organized a “get Trump through Lewandowski” maneuver, solely because her mother is anti-Trump.
His story is slugged “FRAUD,” and accuses Xiomara Ayes-Fields of defrauding taxpayers and immigrants. Then he goes on to suggest that the elder woman is anti-Trump, because if Trump were elected, her organization would lose taxpayer funding and she’d be out of a job, so Fields has a conflict of interest in covering Trump.
If so, you’re doing better than us.
Here’s Johnson’s reasoning, in his own words.
Note the totally unbiased remark in the last paragraph. Later in the story, he makes a remark (“Ay carumba! (sic) Like mama, like daughter?”) about her good looks.
He just can’t help himself.
In yet another post, Johnson repeats his earlier complaints that Fields “accuse[d] me of a federal crime” and again calls her a liar. He’s also threatened to sue her over this incident, but given his track record in courts of law, Fields has really nothing to worry about.
As best as we can understand it, Fields sent him an add request on LinkedIn. Rather than take the logical step of clicking “CONFIRM” on the webpage, Johnson called her directly. It seems Fields did not know Johnson had her number, and given his habit of doxxing people and publishing their personal information on his blog, she freaked out. Then, she tweeted that Johnson had “hacked” her computer and obtained her personal information. Johnson then responded in his usual calm, mature manner, by demanding she retract the statement and when she refused, he contacted her bosses to have them demand she retract the accusation. Eventually, she did.
But, Johnson says, Fields continues to claim he hacked her computer. Here’s the relevant section of his post.
Besides these three posts, he has published three other posts asserting Fields’ bruises were faked, that she is a drama queen and “attention seeker,” that she is a fraud, that she was an unreliable source in his attempt to expose Allen West for sexually harassing women staffers, and that she, her boyfriend and their mutual friend at the Washington Post have colluded in making the Lewandowski “Grabgate” accusation a political stunt to damage Trump.
[UPDATE April 1] Since we posted this analysis, Johnson has posted yet another attack on Fields, this time questioning whether she was in fact assaulted by a New York City police officer during Occupy Wall Street. Johnson claims Fields was “manipulating the media” by saying the officer knocked her down.
He has now posted a total of seven articles about Fields.]
[UPDATE #2 April 2: Make that eight. The latest is headlined “#GrabGate: Damning, Lingering Questions The Media Won’t Ask Michelle Fields Or Her Boyfriend.” It’s a big conspiracy, folks. Chuck’s got the explanation, even if he can’t spell that well.]
[UPDATE #3 April 3: He’s now up to nine. The latest lengthy screed alleges Fields’ boyfriend used family connections to suppress a video showing Secret Service agents trying to move Fields away from Trump, and that the boyfriend, Jamie Weinstein, is using family connections to prosecute the case (for a misdemeanor charges, BTW) and keep the story in the media spotlight. Johnson claims he has two law enforcement sources feeding him intel on this earth-shattering case.]
Before Grabgate, Fields was one of Johnson’s darlings, as he used her as a primary, named source in his stories about West. He has also described her as “hot.”
Now, she’s on his shitlist, because she accused a white, conservative male campaign aide for Johnson’s second-favorite candidate of manhandling her. And despite the evidence — bruises on her arm, an eyewitness account, and video footage of the incident — Johnson insists that Fields is making the whole thing up, and that he is 100% correct.
Survey says, that’s biased reporting.