Videos show Capehart totally exuberant over his great find...he's nearly jumping for joy.

[madfloridian]

This is exactly why it is important for Bernie's supporters to call out such things and push for a correction. He is showing a total lack of neutrality, which of course Chris Matthews and his thrilled leg gave up years ago.

Capehart sounds like a little child seeing a lighted Christmas tree on Christmas morning. His Twitter feed is even more upsetting. @capehartj

Jonathan Capehart has still not posted a mea culpa.

ALSO here's more Capehart exuberance with Andrea Mitchell. He's like a child with a new toy.

[valerief]

1. He's a total sleazeball. Any correction from M$NBCComcast as well? nt

[madfloridian]

69. Nothing.

Not a thing.

[mariawr]

87. Capehart is a hack and should henceforth be regarded as such. nt

[valerief]

88. Yes. I say he s/b rechristened Hack Capehart. Sounds right! nt

[bvar22]

93. Capehart is worse than a "hack".

He is is an "operative" in a sleaze machine.

[AgingAmerican]

89. FOX news level crap he did

Hillary's camp is shameless

[femmedem]

2. "trying to say that he's been in the trenches, fighting for us, fighting for civil rights"

Although in his column he said that Sanders' civil rights activism was not in question, just his identity in this photo, that was clearly not the case in this clip.

[DirkGently]

90. ^THIS is the core of Capehart's dishonesty here.

He spins his disingenuous bullshit with the same airy certainty that no one will catch on as Ted Cruz does.

The whole premise was a massive self-contradicting sleight-of-hand in the first place. Sanders was at the event. There are photos of Sanders at the event. Sanders was at other events. Capehart says there is no doubt of that, and then turns around and says it's somehow misleading because just that one photo tried to

"imply that he was in the trenches fighting for the rights of African Americans when rival Hillary Clinton was a Republican-supporting “Goldwater Girl.”

But Sanders WAS in the trenches fighting when Clinton was a Goldwater Girl. Or at least the president of the Wellesley College Republicans. However much it matters, it is the truth. So it was really the truth of THAT Capehart was trying to undermine so smugly and gleefully.

It never mattered whether the particular photo was Sanders or not. There is nothing there to discuss in the first place. The fact that Capehart was factually wrong and won't even admit that in a straightforward way just further confirms that he's just carrying water.

Watch for his fascinating attempts at Jew baiting as well. He started down the road of "Sanders doesn't discuss his Jewish heritage enough" with Chris Matthews before Chris -- his own sleaze-o-meter clearly blaring -- shut him down.

[cali]

3. And we started the revolt against his sleazy "reporting" right here at DU

[madfloridian]

4. Yes, we did.

[m-lekktor]

5. and they are already pulling the, "why do you attack a black, gay man" shit.

as expected. no tactic is too SLEAZY from the Hillary people.

[cali]

7. Oh they started that almost immediately.

[senz]

14. I like MLK's dictum: People should be judged by the content of their character.

Jonathan Capehart has shown that he will lie and slander in order to impress a loved one.

Mr. Capehart is young. Let's hope he develops better standards of professional behavior.

[JimDandy]

39. 48 is well past the age to be given a pass for unprofessional standards. n/t

[SusanCalvin]

50. Anyone working as a journalist is past the age to be given a pass. nt

[senz]

53. 48? I had no idea; he looks (and acts) so young.

Too bad. On the upside, he could probably afford a decent therapist now.

[MrMickeysMom]

28. I'm sure they'd be even more insulted to point out...

and complain, "why do you attack a black, gay man who's keeping house with a Clinton staffer?" even WORSE!

[pa28]

6. Wow, who's lying now.

When you are an insider you can mislead and be wrong as much as you want as long as you continue playing by the insiders rules. Then you move on like it never happened.

[Laughing Mirror]

8. He grabbed his board and rode the wild wave

and got caught in the undertow. I wonder who will come to his rescue, or will they let him drown.

[madfloridian]

18. He won't even feel consequences from his employers...because it's Bernie he ridicules.

And that's a shame.

[Laughing Mirror]

24. It's himself and his employers that he's disgraced

His ridicule failed.

But you may be right about the way he and they see it. Perhaps they will offer him a promotion.

[olddots]

9. Is he trying to be a new charactor on Scandal ?

[madfloridian]

10. He has childlike excitement, not acting like a "journalist" at all.

Oh, goody, look what I found about bad Bernie.

I copied him when I tweeted this, I fully expect an angry response. He does a lot of that.

[senz]

17. I noticed those traits in him a few years ago

when he participated in discussions on MSNBC. It's like he hasn't grasped the concept of professionalism.

Maybe this is what will do it. Life finds ways of teaching us what we need to know.

[paleotn]

41. He's not a journalist, in my mind....

He's a hack. A political hatchet man. And an unabashed liar. Many of us are old enough to remember actual journalists. I don't think they exist anymore.

[Carolina]

61. K&R

So true. We could rewrite that old Peter, Paul & Mary song from the 1960s: where have all the journalists gone... long time passing

[paleotn]

78. Amen to that...

but now I've got that song stuck in my head.

[Iggy Knorr]

70. He cited "journalism" a few times in his ridiculous tweets this weekend

He's no journalist, he's an opinion writer / political hack, who thinks he's a journalist.

[Broward]

11. The confluence of negative charges against Bernie here do seem to be coordinated.

[madfloridian]

13. Yes.

I think so.

[senz]

25. It's been that way for a while.

Major Hill supporters all come out with the same attack lines, creating new "issues" as they go along. At first I thought it was just DU but eventually noticed that the themes would soon appear all over the media.

Definitely not a coincidence.

Years ago, Wonkette (a blogger) did an extensive, well-documented piece on the use of daily talking points on Fox News. Roger Ailes would disseminate them the night before and then they'd be repeated in every program throughout the day, same phrases, even. I doubt there's anything quite that organized here, but the effect is the same.

[madfloridian]

27. Brock's numerous media start a talking point, major media picks it up at once.

[senz]

32. Yes, and it may be wider than that.

How are DU's most visible Hill supporters so often at the forefront of these talking point explosions? Somebody's cluing them in.

Also, we don't know if the meme development starts with Brock. Hillary has a ton of money; she could easily afford a little "think tank" to steer the national discussion, with Brock et. al. carrying out the dissemination.

[madfloridian]

40. Good point..latest memes show up quickly.

[Kittycat]

51. Well, HRC is trying to beef up her Social Media talking points campaign n/y

[WillyT]

12. K & R !!!

[historylovr]

15. Kick and Rec

It's one thing to post a lie and double, no, triple down on it. It's quite another to make an ass of yourself on TV by making fun of a sitting US Senator.

#RetractCapehart

[madfloridian]

16. He should be embarrassed over his obvious glory in attacking Bernie and supporters.

[historylovr]

29. He should be, but it doesn't seem like he has it in him.

That requires character.

[Fawke Em]

19. He shouldn't have even been on this "beat."

His husband works for Hillary, so Jonathan has a clear conflict of interest.

That the WaPo let him continue to cover the Democratic campaign speaks to how lax their standards are.

[madfloridian]

22. And Chris and Rachel are getting fairly obvious as well.

Chris being worse of course.

[senz]

26. I hate what they've done to Rachel.

[MissDeeds]

35. If Rachel had the integrity I thought she had

they couldn't do anything to her that she didn't want done.

[madfloridian]

38. Well, she's getting pretty obvious in her leanings.

I guess Comcast demands it?

[MissDeeds]

42. I wouldn't do it

I left a tenured college teaching position within walking distance of my home over ethical concerns. I refused to be part of a system that was deceitful, unconscionable and borderline corrupt. My only regret was not doing it sooner, but that's just me.

Everyone makes their own choices for their own reasons.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

86. Kudos. n/t

[senz]

47. Money, fame, power, ego strokes & ass kisses. Seductive stuff, just ask Hillary.

And you're right; some can handle these heady temptations, some can't, but how they handle it exposes who they really are.

The ones who manage to hold on to their integrity often wind up as outliers, honored and admired by some, castigated or ignored by many -- until they achieve a degree of martyrdom like Mandella, Ghandi, Jesus, Socrates, etc.

[MissDeeds]

49. Excellent points

[madfloridian]

52. Good point.

He can't handle it.

[Carolina]

62. They can't do what she doesn't allow

Some people resign in protest. Or they become cowed by the money from TPTB.

I can't watch Rachel any more

[madfloridian]

81. I can't either.

I tried a few times. She's different or something.

[JimDandy]

44. By early January, I was certain that Rachel was in the tank for Clinton.

Her interviews of Sanders and Clinton in mid-January show a clearly undeniable bias that she couldn't keep out of her reporting.

[madfloridian]

56. I've always respected her intelligence and knowledge and research.

Now I have just quit turning on MSNBC, I just watch a video online now and then.

[sulphurdunn]

30. Or how clear their intentions are.

[Aerows]

31. Pointing out people who are married to

Hillary campaign workers is not in vogue these days.

[AtomicKitten]

20. If you'll pardon the expression, he's happier than a pig in shit.

Why hasn't he been fired? That is the ONLY acceptable conclusion for that level of skulduggery.

[madfloridian]

21. His joy in attacking Bernie is so obvious...

that you can use any expression you want.

[AtomicKitten]

23. :)

[Helen Borg]

33. Yup, he should be fired.

[CharlotteVale]

34. He's an unethical creep. I'll never read his column again.

[MissDeeds]

36. I'm finished with MSNBC

I could get more truth and professionalism from a grocery store tabloid.

[JDPriestly]

37. The hands in the photo. That's Bernie. That's how he handles his hands all the time.

It is unique to him.

Sally from the University of Chicago has some explaining to do.

The pictures of Rappaport do not look like that picture of Bernie Sanders.

Sally Cook's page in an alumni blog for 1965 graduates.

https://alumniweekend.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/50th%20Reunion%20PreConnect%20'65%20-%20Website%20v1.pdf

Search for Cook.

Excellent Huffington Post article on this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-zombeck/those-photographs-of-bern_b_9227236.html

A full retraction and apology is the very least Jonathan Capehart can do on this. The very least.

And all TV commentators who broadcast this story should broadcast Jonathan Capehart's full retraction with just as much fanfare and in no less time than they broadcast the sensational lie that Jonathan Capehart spread.

This is DIRTY POLITICS at its worst.

And it is why Bernie Sanders tries to avoid such political aspersions unless he is absolutely sure they are true.

Note that when Bernie made the comment about Kissinger he explained that he was quoting from Hillary's own statement in her book. He did not restate what some ill-informed third party said. Bernie got the information from Hillary herself. And that is as far as Bernie goes with negative campaigning. He only quotes Hillary herself, and to her face, might I add.

Jonathan Capehart -- we are waiting for a retraction and an apology from you.

[paleotn]

43. Why is it....

...that all the slime merchants are lining up behind Hillary? It's kind of telling. I don't know..maybe that's all she's got.

[rocktivity]

45. Pro-Clinton Columnist In Bed With Clinton Staffer — Literally

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511230861:

Capehart...has spent the past five years in a long-term relationship with Nicholas Schmit IV, (who) has served in various capacities for the Clinton family and the US State Department under Clinton since 2004...

rocktivity

[Bluenorthwest]

46. Capehart's outlandishness in the media makes Paddy Chayefsky's worst visions seem tame.

nt

[GreatGazoo]

48. Saw this on FaceBook yesterday....

[Jenny_92808]

65. It is a proven lie

Respect lost

[Spitfire of ATJ]

54. What is it about Hillary that causes people to throw away their reputation with such glee?

[madfloridian]

63. .......

Good question.

[m-lekktor]

72. I was thinking that after the John Lewis issue. nt

[madfloridian]

55. Capehart has made it all about his own feelings and reputation.

His twitter feed is appalling.

[madfloridian]

57. He's childlike in his excitement.

That's not how a journalist should act.

[AlbertCat]

58. Capehart totally exuberant

He's turned the scandal into himself, now that it's completely off of Sanders.

How dumb is that????

[Skwmom]

59. Maybe you should add to your post how it was a proven lie.

[madfloridian]

60. I just assumed. Maybe I should never assume.

[FloriTexan]

64. Kick!

[madfloridian]

66. Thanks, things drop fast here.

[jillan]

67. Huge kick. Capehart needs to resign.

[Ino]

68. He denies that his partner works for Hillary

He just can't stop lying.
https://twitter.com/CapehartJ/status/699018997182943232

http://www.menstrait.com/article/pro-clinton-columnist-in-bed-with-clinton-staffer-literally/

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. He is getting it with full barrells even at the WAPO

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/02/13/bernie-sanders-and-the-clash-of-memory/

[madfloridian]

73. lol I LOVE this one from about 5 pm today. Beautifully said.

Hazel Motes
4:53 PM EST
Two lotus flowers have bloomed from Capehart's ongoing manure spreading: Bernie's civil rights work is now known in detail to millions more, and documentarian Danny Lyon's wonderful photography has acquired probably its biggest audience ever as well. Thanks, Jonathan! Sorry about the rest. It's gotta be a kind of hell. Apologize & retract though, and it'll get better. Just imagine the relief. Without a retraction, it will be your permanent albatross.
LikeReplyShare
7

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. That is one of my favorites too

at this point he has also been called at the WAPO, for blocking people... as unprofessional.

[DirkGently]

91. Perfect. All of the establishment surrogates are failing

pretty badly, in fact. A number of otherwise well-respected figures have humiliated themselves trying to shill for Hillary Clinton.

Not helping her. Not helping them.

At some point people may start questioning these toxic talking points they're being handed. They have a tendency to blow up in people's faces.

[Matariki]

75. His behavior is very funny, and I mean childish, for a journalist

blocking folks from viewing his twitter page. Who does that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. I admit, I have come close with two people, same who are blocked at the paper

but we go "back a long time" and they are original spelonkers, Wait, in one case the guy is a stalker going back to the 1990s.

[Matariki]

77. Yeah, but by the looks of it Capehart is blocking whole swaths of people

people who haven't even posted *on* his twitter page.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Yes, he is

[Bonobo]

80. I find these type of self-appointed faux-journalists who appear on Fox News and CNN

to be lowly pieces of weasel shit.

All he needs is a flag lapel pin.

[highprincipleswork]

82. So now that the University of Chicago has DETERMINED that it is Bernie Sanders?

[Rilgin]

83. Of Course

Danny Lyons showed them the proof and they returned to the caption they had since the formation of the archive which labeled the picture as a picture of Sanders.

The change to Rappaport was probably thought by the archivist making the change as no big deal. A few people who claimed to know Rappaport said it was him. Since it was basically not important it probably is pretty convincing. to have people call and just tell you a picture is misidentified and it is not a big deal. And it was no big deal originally.

It was no big deal until Capehart used the photograph as the factual basis for an attack on the integrity and honesty of Sanders and his campaign. He based it on the Time Article and these four people who just questioned the identification. Capehart turned their questions into certainty. He did not claim that there were questions about the picture, he claimed outright it was NOT Sanders and said that Sander's claims about this period were inflated. His quote is that Sanders was only there in spirit.

He did not count on the fact that Danny Lyons, the photographer, was famous and had absolute proof that it was, in fact, Sanders.
Lyons contacted the U of Chicago and of course changed the caption back because it was obviously Sanders.

Capehart has doubled down on his claim by asserting an equivalent validity between photographs, forensic proof and a 50 year old memory of a wife who was married to someone for 5 years 50 years ago and looks at a side view of a picture and thinks its her husband because of the bend of the neck (I kid you not, that is the basis of the identification).

Capehart's conduct is reprehensible. The U. of Chicago's conduct seems fine. They believed the four people coming forward because it was not a big deal. They probably should have contacted the Photographer but I can see that they might think it no big deal. They corrected it when it became apparent that it was a bigger deal and there was proof that it was Sanders.

[senseandsensibility]

84. But I am sure that all the fine journalists

like Rachel and (lol) tweety will correct the record, right? Also, capehart will not be featured on air after this debacle?

[Rilgin]

85. Unfortunately you are probably right.

I did call the Washington Post to register a complaint. I am hoping they get a ton of calls.

[Zorra]

92. It's sad to see the constant flow of lies and dirty tricks coming

from the campaign of a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Third Way is a deadly cancer in the Democratic party.

[Blue_Tires]

94. Why is Capeheart expected to be "neutral"

when somebody like Greenwald isn't?

[madfloridian]

97. Capehart is supposed to be honest. I don't care who he supports.

[Blue_Tires]

98. So is Greenwald, for that matter

I'm just asking why certain "journalists" get a pass...

[madfloridian]

99. Greenwald is honest to a fault. He's a truth seeker.

I believe some journalists will say anything to support a candidate and never back down when proven wrong.

[Blue_Tires]

101. I can't tell if you're taking the piss or if you're really being serious

Because I've posted tons of evidence to the contrary that Greenwald "seeks truth"... He only seeks his kind of truth while suppressing everything else...

[Dem2]

95. Threads like this are hilarious

Talk about looking for a controversy - and of course finding it. I lose faith every day.

[madfloridian]

96. Threads like this show up people who are losing their reputation to support a certain candidate.

[rocktivity]

100. Capeheart is the one who did the looking.

He didn't even bother to try get confirmation directly from Bernie (Journalism 101), and now that it's come out that he's personally involved with a member of the Hillary camp, things have slid into the realm of buffoonery.


rocktivity