Chris Matthews’ Sex Harassment Payout Means He Should Face Some Hardball Questions of His Own

Why is it people who can’t (or won’t) control themselves are so bent on controlling the rest of us?

“After weekend reports that NBC paid money to a female staffer in 1999 who accused MSNBC’s Chris Matthews of sexual harassment, the network kept mum for a second day about whether there were other women who had accused the longtime host of inappropriate behavior,” Fox News recounted Monday.

The Daily Caller broke the story on Saturday, reporting “Two sources familiar with the situation [said] that Matthews paid $40,000…”

In a way it’s satisfying to watch “the left” eat its own through a #MeToo madness phenomenon that’s long on allegation and short on substantiation, but nonetheless destructive enough to topple the mighty from high places. That doesn’t always work out for “the right,” as the defeat of Roy Moore and the resignation of Alex Kozinski both handed victories to “progressives” we will feel over the years in as-yet untold ways. But there’s an important distinction we should keep in mind: NBC and Matthews (like Congress with John Conyers and Alcee Hastings) paid out.

In Matthews’ case, there’s a special irony because he’s always presented himself as such a “progressive” champion.  We’re talking about a “true believer” whose takeaway from a Bill Clinton speech was:

 ‘That is the voice of God.”

It also lends itself to predictable jokes after listening to an Obama speech prompted him to share:

“I felt this thrill going up my leg.”

His off-mike commentary, where he was caught ogling Melania Trump, merely adds credence to a predilection for inappropriate workplace behavior.

Then again, appropriate workplace behavior, if you’re going to present yourself as a “journalist” (as opposed to an apparatchik) requires balance and sticking to facts, as opposed to naked advocacy.  Such as his unabashed braying for citizen disarmament…

And his lack of journalistic integrity came through loud and clear when Matthews  tag-teamed with Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center to try and gang up on  Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes back in 2009:

What comes through loud and clear is if you’re telling the truth and know what you’re talking about, there’s nothing “progressives” can throw at you that you can’t fling back in their faces. And despite his resorting to Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule to disparage the concept of refusing to obey unlawful orders, here’s a hardball question Matthews should answer:

Are there any orders that female subordinates at MSNBC would be justified in refusing to obey?

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Chris Matthews’ Sex Harassment Payout Means He Should Face Some Hardball Questions of His Own appeared first on Oath Keepers.