CNN anchor Jake Tapper recently retweeted a line, from frequent Trump critic George Conway, that called President Trump “100% insane. Conway is the husband of White House senior aide Kellyanne Conway.

However, Tapper deleted the tweet when he took heat from fellow journalists on the over the top message. But a conservative analyst caught a screenshot of the tweet and shared it with the public. Tapper was then forced to respond to the controversy, “I RTed Conway, a conservative attorney and Trump critic, because he wrote that no one in the administration has the courage to stand up to the president which seems newsworthy given how many people in the administration he knows. RTs do not nec. = agreement.”

Close

Tapper says “no one” has the guts to stand up to Trump, eh Conway? Including your own wife? Trouble in paradise?

Notice Tapper’s cowardly backtracking in the response. The awkward shame of being caught in the act. Not to mention the complete lack of any kind of journalistic integrity, objectivity, or logic to his argument. Sure, retweeting that a person is “100% insane” is completely down the middle and does not mean “agreement.” Yeah, uh huh. Sure.

Liberal, but fair-minded, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley said Tapper’s sad pathetic argument “further undermines the media by reaffirming for many that the media is campaigning against Trump rather than covering him.”

As he was during the impeachment hearings, Turley is correct.

The mainstream media has now, as they see the president heading for reelection and the public supporting his work on the virus, become an open arm of the Democratic National Committee.

They must figure, why not? Their unbiased press maiden act is long gone and they are regarded by any fair analyst left or right as a media slattern trolling the street of sources, ready to be suborned by any passerby with a leftist view and an anti-Trump obsession.

Their entire programming lineup should be regarded as a direct donation to the Democrat Party and registered as such with the Federal Election Commission. Should that inhibit them from saying whatever they want to say at any time? No. But it would give the public a real view of their true mission.