CNN’s Lemon and Toobin Prefer Bullying Klayman Over Discussing Judge’s Opinion on NSA Overreach; AP Piles On
Earlier today, Matt Hadro at NewsBusters refuted a ridiculous assertion Tuesday evening by CNN’s Don Lemon who, in reaction to guest Larry Klayman’s criticism, insisted that he is not “a big supporter of Obama” or an “ultra leftist.” Horse manure, Don.
Lemon and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin also acted like immature children in Klayman’s presence. They were clearly mortified that — ugh — Larry Klayman had to be the guy who brought suit against the National Security Administration arguing against the constitutionality of its metadata collection efforts. Apparently even worse for Lemon and Toobin, Klayman won a tentative legal victory when a judge ruled that NSA’s “bulk collection of millions of Americans’ telephone records is likely unconstitutional.” Politico’s Tal Kopan recounted Klayman’s CNN appearance early this morning at the Politico:
Larry Klayman in huge CNN smackdown
Conservative legal activist Larry Klayman got into an argument on CNN with host Don Lemon and legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin when he was brought on to discuss his victory this week in a lawsuit challenging NSA surveillance, resulting in Lemon cutting him off the screen and Klayman comparing Lemon to disgraced former MSNBC host Martin Bashir.
… When Klayman was brought into the conversation, he came out firing.
“I think it is important to note that you’re a big supporter of Obama,” Klayman said to Lemon. “That you have favored him in every respect. You have to try to do a hit piece to diminish a very important decision.”
… I’ve watched you for many years. You’re an ultra-leftist and you’re a big supporter of Obama,” Klayman said. “Let’s talk about the NSA, let’s not talk about Larry Klayman. This victory is for the American people.
It wasn’t for me. And you, as somebody from the left … should appreciate that you don’t have a police state in this country that’s going to be able to intimidate Americans to chill their free speech rights.”
Lemon again protested the characterization, saying that only he knows his political affiliation, over interruptions from Klayman, prompting the host to threaten to cut Klayman’s mic. He then brought on Toobin, CNN’s legal analyst, who slammed Klayman as a “lunatic.”
“This case is based on Larry Klayman’s tin-foil hat paranoia about the NSA being after him. He had some fantasy that the NSA was after him. This case is not about Larry Klayman, it’s about the metadata program that affects everybody, but the idea that Larry Klayman is the representative is simply outrageous,” Toobin said. “He is a professional litigant and lunatic who should not be a representative of the very important issues of this case.”
… “It’s not about me, Jeffrey, and the fact that you want to try to do a hit on me shows me that you’re not a serious person and, frankly, should not be doing legal commentary for CNN,” Klayman said. “I think you should read the complaint rather than shooting your mouth off. … This is a disgrace.”
“Oh, my gosh. Are you OK?” Lemon asked Klayman. The pair began to argue, and Lemon asked his producers to remove Klayman from the screen.
What a classless pair of ingrates.
Lemon, Toobin, and others on the left should be thanking Klayman. Instead, they can’t stand the idea that he successfully achieved something important with which they fundamentally agree.
The Associated Press’s Jennifer Kerr also got into the act today, and in the process inflicted a falsehood on her readers:
ATTORNEY IN NSA CASE NO STRANGER TO HEADLINES
Conservative lawyer Larry Klayman might not be an all-around household name, but it’s a good bet he has sued someone who is.
Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Dick Cheney. Osama bin Laden. Fidel Castro. And, the target of Klayman’s most recent legal tangle: President Barack Obama. Klayman is one of the plaintiffs who won an initial round this week in a lawsuit challenging the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of millions of Americans’ telephone records.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon on Monday granted Klayman’s request for an injunction blocking the collection of phone data for Klayman and co-plaintiff Charles Strange. The judge stayed the action pending an expected government appeal, but the ruling in his favor in federal court puts Klayman back in the headlines with his legal activism.
… In 1994, he founded the group Judicial Watch.
With Klayman at the helm, the primary focus was President Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary. He filed dozens of lawsuits against the Clintons and the Clinton administration. In one, he represented Gennifer Flowers, who claimed to have had an affair with Bill Clinton, in a defamation lawsuit against Mrs. Clinton. Klayman also sued for access to thousands of lost Clinton administration emails.
Jennifer Kerr needs a history lesson.
Gennifer Flowers did not merely “claim” to have had an affair with Clinton, she did have an affair with Clinton. In January 1998, Clinton himself admitted it, and CNN reported it:
Sources: Clinton Admits Sexual Affair With Flowers
President Bill Clinton in sworn testimony has acknowledged he had a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers during his tenure as Arkansas governor, something he flatly denied in the 1992 presidential campaign, sources have told CNN.
Sources familiar with Clinton’s deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case say Clinton denied Flowers’ claim of a long-running, 12-year affair. But the sources say he acknowledged they did have a sexual relationship.
The revelation is important to the Jones legal team as it tries to prove a pattern of sexual misconduct by the president, and its contention that he punished women who rebuffed his sexual advances and rewarded those who welcomed them. Flowers received a state job during the time period in question.
Instead of ranting irrationally against Klayman, the left should be asking why one of their own legal darlings hasn’t gone after the NSA as aggressively and as successfully as he has. Perhaps it’s because they would prefer to whine ineffectually instead of actually doing something which might discredit their beloved president.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.